(and for the web illiterates out there: there are no tables in CSSZG, and the only thing that changes between two designs is the stylesheet associated with the page, the HTML file doesn't change anywhere but where it links the aforementioned stylesheets)
How are the web illiterates out there supposed to make head or tail of that sentence?
It sounds like a legitimate question. The first time I can remember it being used post 9/11 was by me, to describe the Patriot Act. Maybe I'm just good at avoiding the popular media, but I hadn't heard that Rumsfeld uses the term a lot.
That's a good analogy, if screwing someone's passed-out wife is one of the fundamental building blocks of some industry, an essential freedom or right, one that only indirectly affects her and is 100% morally acceptable.
I'm not using an argument by counterexample, I'm simply clarifying the analogy. To people who believe those four things, it's a great analogy.
As for the output... well ok. If all he had was program output and no access to the program than Larry is full of shit. But I suspect he probably had a free license and was looking into it.
It sounds like he analyzed network traffic to figure out the protocol.
It'll get you a job that doesn't require anything beyond high school only if there aren't any better applicants, and it'll get you into most major universities, including any state school of course
Some state schools in the U.S. actually are extremely competitive. Not the majority, of course.
Binary drivers aren't a solution no matter how badly he thinks they are. They're of questionable legality considering the nature of the GPL...
IIRC there is no GPL issue with the kernel loading non-GPL'd modules, at least as far as Linus is concerned.
That's true, but it doesn't mean that binary drivers are not of questionable legality. If you are thinking of releasing a binary only driver, it would be prudent to consult your legal counsel to find out if Linus's definition of "derivative work" is the same as the legal definition in your jurisdiction.
Or you could just skip the hassle and release a GPL driver.
The technology behind Video on Demand is useful enough that even if the "on Demand" part isn't exposed to the customer, eventually it will become the backbone of the cable infrastructure. The idea of streaming shows off of a hard drive sitting at the head end and digitally inserting local commercials, etc. is a good one, and interactive commercials ("click here to purchase!" or "here let me run this ActiveX control on your TV") are the wave of the future, for better or for worse.
The value of strictly typed languages is in compile time type checking. It's good to have languages that are not type checked, and it's good to have languages that are.
You appear to be confusing static vs dynamic type checking with strong vs weak type checking.
Static type checking occurs at compile time, whether or not the language is strongly or weakly typed. Dynamic type checking occurs at run time, regardless of whether or not the language is strongly or weakly typed.
Disagreement still exists about what constitutes strong vs weak typing; the extreme definition of strong typing is "type checking that prevents all type errors", while the corresponding definition of weak typing is "type checking that does not prevent all type errors". I call this an extreme definition because it makes strong typing so rare that the term becomes less useful.
I think that the terms strong vs weak typing are best used when comparing two languages, so you'd say e.g. "compared to C, Python has strong typing". This contrasts with static vs dynamic typing, which don't need comparison to be valid: C is statically typed, regardless of what the status of Python is.
It may be beneficial to look at your situation as a challenge to be overcome. Even a crappy degree might give you the extra confidence or experience to do well at a different degree or whatever later in life.
If nothing else, if you get some kind of IT degree or certificate from your current school and then enroll in a CS program at a 4-year university sometime in the future, you'll have several advantages over your fresh-out-of-high-school classmates.
My favorite computer store sells pretty good customizable bundles. Obviously they only let you customize from parts that they carry, but so far, they've carried everything I've needed. They're rated pretty highly on resellerratings.com too.
If you're looking to pay somebody a little extra to build something just how I like it, check them out.
The problem is that people who whined about BK being propietary should have shut their mouth up, but they didn't.
How is this a problem? They don't like the license. Why shouldn't they evangelize their position? From their p.o.v., the problem is that good software is sometimes published under non-free licenses.
The one reason why people whine is because they want to have the advantages of BK, but without using a propietary tool. That's not possible...
It's software. Of course it's possible. It's simply a matter of effort. There's nothing magical about BK that ensures that nothing will ever ever ever surpass it.
Problem is if I as a content/whatever creator have no rights regarding my work why should I distribute it at all? I'm better of getting a job at McDonalds.
Because you enjoy it? (Rhetorical question; the answer is "yes".)
If you don't enjoy it, then don't do it; nobody's forcing to you be creative. Get a job at McDonald's if that's what floats your boat.
AOL could easily afford to store hundreds of gigs per day. If they're sticking it on SATA HDs, they can store 200 GB/day for about $40k/year.
And because they can do it, they of course are doing it?
Don't be silly. The previous poster's point was that they can do it, so protestations that they can't do it are mistaken at best. Whether or not they do do it is not a matter of technical capability. They can if they decide to.
An analogy to programming that really grabbed my attention when I was young and mushy-minded was this: programming is like building something out of LEGO bricks, but you never run out of the pieces that you need.
A visual illustration might be to have a small number of LEGO bricks in a box (but not enough to build much), and then a screen displaying a basic program of some kind that lets you show how easy it is to make new variables or something.
Having the basic program actually do something useful would be good, I think. "Hello world" only goes so far; showing how a computer program can do arithmetic (which elementary school age kids can relate to) might be interesting enough to get their attention.
Choosing a programming language to demonstrate that is accessible to the kids to download and play with at home would be nice too. Insert (Python) programming (Python) language (Python) advocacy (Python) here (Python).
I'd be really interested to know if the people pushing for software patents had any connections with U.S. based corporations... I smell somethin fishy...
Of course they do.
If software patents are legalized in Europe, the biggest winners will be large U.S. corporations. Apparently that's what the European Council wants.
Keep in mind that most of the US lives much, much more sparsely than Europeans.
CO2 emissions:
USA 5,410 million tons (20.1 tons per capita)
EU 3,171 million tons (8.5 tons per capita)
Care to justify your statement?
The next two sentences justified the statement:
Keep in mind that most of the US lives much, much more sparsely than Europeans. They are not (for the most part) crowded into dense polluted cities. They are spead out over rural areas with clean air, clean water, and blue skies.
In other words, the parent poster claimed that the U.S. population is more evenly distributed than the European population.
Can you please point to one? Or tell me how they come into being? Or what causes them?
Others have phrased it better than I can:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Slashdot Mirror
How are the web illiterates out there supposed to make head or tail of that sentence?
It sounds like a legitimate question. The first time I can remember it being used post 9/11 was by me, to describe the Patriot Act. Maybe I'm just good at avoiding the popular media, but I hadn't heard that Rumsfeld uses the term a lot.
Maybe the problem is the imprecise definition of what constitutes a "creationist". Self-professed creationists can believe very different things.
I'm not using an argument by counterexample, I'm simply clarifying the analogy. To people who believe those four things, it's a great analogy.
Somebody nearby used it, and he watched the bits fly past his machine?
He does happen to be an expert at that.
It sounds like he analyzed network traffic to figure out the protocol.
It's sad, really, that I heard about this first on SNL. It used to be that I'd hear about news for nerds here first.
Some state schools in the U.S. actually are extremely competitive. Not the majority, of course.
That's true, but it doesn't mean that binary drivers are not of questionable legality. If you are thinking of releasing a binary only driver, it would be prudent to consult your legal counsel to find out if Linus's definition of "derivative work" is the same as the legal definition in your jurisdiction.
Or you could just skip the hassle and release a GPL driver.
That seems reasonable to me. That's the opinion of at least one of the U.S. teams, according to a news report that I read before the competition.
How are those options in any way exclusive?
The technology behind Video on Demand is useful enough that even if the "on Demand" part isn't exposed to the customer, eventually it will become the backbone of the cable infrastructure. The idea of streaming shows off of a hard drive sitting at the head end and digitally inserting local commercials, etc. is a good one, and interactive commercials ("click here to purchase!" or "here let me run this ActiveX control on your TV") are the wave of the future, for better or for worse.
You appear to be confusing static vs dynamic type checking with strong vs weak type checking.
Static type checking occurs at compile time, whether or not the language is strongly or weakly typed. Dynamic type checking occurs at run time, regardless of whether or not the language is strongly or weakly typed.
Disagreement still exists about what constitutes strong vs weak typing; the extreme definition of strong typing is "type checking that prevents all type errors", while the corresponding definition of weak typing is "type checking that does not prevent all type errors". I call this an extreme definition because it makes strong typing so rare that the term becomes less useful.
I think that the terms strong vs weak typing are best used when comparing two languages, so you'd say e.g. "compared to C, Python has strong typing". This contrasts with static vs dynamic typing, which don't need comparison to be valid: C is statically typed, regardless of what the status of Python is.
If nothing else, if you get some kind of IT degree or certificate from your current school and then enroll in a CS program at a 4-year university sometime in the future, you'll have several advantages over your fresh-out-of-high-school classmates.
If you're looking to pay somebody a little extra to build something just how I like it, check them out.
What are people who have the letter "t" in their name supposed to do?
Existence isn't enough: they've got to actually use indent in order for it to be useful.
The problem is that people who whined about BK being propietary should have shut their mouth up, but they didn't.
How is this a problem? They don't like the license. Why shouldn't they evangelize their position? From their p.o.v., the problem is that good software is sometimes published under non-free licenses.
The one reason why people whine is because they want to have the advantages of BK, but without using a propietary tool. That's not possible...
It's software. Of course it's possible. It's simply a matter of effort. There's nothing magical about BK that ensures that nothing will ever ever ever surpass it.
Because you enjoy it? (Rhetorical question; the answer is "yes".)
If you don't enjoy it, then don't do it; nobody's forcing to you be creative. Get a job at McDonald's if that's what floats your boat.
Don't be silly. The previous poster's point was that they can do it, so protestations that they can't do it are mistaken at best. Whether or not they do do it is not a matter of technical capability. They can if they decide to.
A visual illustration might be to have a small number of LEGO bricks in a box (but not enough to build much), and then a screen displaying a basic program of some kind that lets you show how easy it is to make new variables or something.
Having the basic program actually do something useful would be good, I think. "Hello world" only goes so far; showing how a computer program can do arithmetic (which elementary school age kids can relate to) might be interesting enough to get their attention.
Choosing a programming language to demonstrate that is accessible to the kids to download and play with at home would be nice too. Insert (Python) programming (Python) language (Python) advocacy (Python) here (Python).
I hate it when adults spell things out in order to keep us from knowing what they're talking about.
Hate it!
Hate it!
Hate it!
Of course they do.
If software patents are legalized in Europe, the biggest winners will be large U.S. corporations. Apparently that's what the European Council wants.
The next two sentences justified the statement:
In other words, the parent poster claimed that the U.S. population is more evenly distributed than the European population.
Others have phrased it better than I can:
Others certainly may have different views.