"astroturf" means fake testimonials, not ads, which are generally called "spam".
So saying "you can get this cheaper elsewhere" is not "astroturfing". A fake post from a "customer" saying "I bought this and it is wonderful" or "it really sucks" would be astroturfing.
Of course this will collect plenty of both spam and astroturf.
In the USA the wording is "serving suggestion". This is always on any picture of food on a box and does mean "you are not going to get something looking this good" as well.
For instance cereal may be shown with milk and strawberries on top, so most users think "serving suggestion" means that you should add milk + strawberries, and smugly think they are smarter than some people who would actually think milk+strawberries are in the box if it were not for the government forcing the retailer to reveal that fact.
But it actually means "an entire shipping container of cereal was searched for perfect pieces and they have glycerin sprayed on them and are artfully glued into a sculpture representing a perfect alignment in a bowl and then a resinous liquid was used to represent milk without actually binding to the cereal. Oh and we added some really nice strawberries also preserved with glycerin. I guess that is a "serving suggestion".
Adjusted the screen size to 640x480, and when I tried to go back to normal 1280x1024 mode, discovered the desktop properties window did not fit the screen. Normally that'd be no big deal except the "OK" button was inaccessible so my laptop is now permanently stuck in 640x480. (Or at least it was until I wiped the c: drive with a fresh XP install.)
This is what you are going to get labelled troll for. Surely you rebooted the machine at least once before you installed XP? In fact a HUGE complaint about linux is the inability to permanetly change your default resolution using a GUI. Mysteriously you managed to solve a big linux problem but you only complain about it?
Also if you hold down Alt and drag the window it will move.
Stores don't do that because it hurts impulse buying. If a customer goes in the store with $20 and a credit card, and sees something desirable for $100, but $95 with cash, they are likely to say "well I will come back when I have the cash" and then forget about the purchase entirely. But if there is no price penalty for the credit card then they will probably use the credit card right away.
There is a secret device in there that is using WiFi (with it's own cancer-causing radio waves, too) to communicate directly to Obama's death panels in the (former) white house. They are still perfecting the reverse control that can kill your kid right on the spot the moment they figure out his health care will be too expensive, so I would really watch out if they insist on updating the device! Fortunately a tin foil hat pressed firmly around the kids head will stop the transmissions, and for extra security you can also get a surgeon to implant tin foil wrapped right around the kid's heart, too.
Seriously, this is obviously a heart-rate monitor like those in treadmills to measure the quality of aerobic exercise.
Only the license on the contributed patches matters. It does not matter what license they release their *own* code on. They are free to change between GPL and BSD and CDDL and proprietary and whatever they want.
Original author was making some implication that they could not use the GPL on their release, and that somehow the GPL would "infect" all contributed patches. This is bogus. Yes they could *accept* GPL patches, but they don't have to! If they distributed using the GPL-incompatible CDDL but thought maybe they want to leave open the possibility of changing to the GPL, they could not accept CDDL patches either! If they wanted to BSD the code, they could not accept code that required a NDA to be signed. Wow, that is amazing! Truth is, there is nothing magical about the GPL, no matter how much the FUDmeisters want to make you think there is.
Actually they could "close the source" even if they released it GPL. It is their source code.
What they want is copyright assignment or some other form of permission to use the code in any way, of anything contributed to them. This means they cannot *accept* GPL code (or a whole lot of other licenses). It has nothing to do with how they release their code.
Yes if you combine your code with something GPL and release it, the result has to be GPL'd.
However, despite what you imply, you can still take *your* code and do anything with it you want, such as distribute it under different licenses. You can even mark it this way as dual-licensed in the GPL version of the code so others can do this directly.
For the copyright, if you combine your code with MIT code that requires a copyright to print, the result will print the copyright. But your original code can be used without printing the copyright. Same thing, the need to print the copyright and the need to be GPL'd are both equally "viral".
You responded to "The idea of small programs that communicate via serialized streams" with "That's because it's not that useful for anything other than text editing and shuffling files around... the whole point of the GUI revolution is that computers can do more than editing text and shuffling files around".
As far as I can tell, you have literally said "a serialized stream cannot be used to support a GUI". This is what I was complaining about.
"GUI" does NOT mean "it is impossible to construct out of small pieces that communicate with each other".
And having used PowerShell and some of the apps written for it, it is pretty obvious that all useful ones immediately serialize the "objects" so that they can be converted and worked with and a single piece is actually reuseable on multiple objects. This is exactly the sort of ignorant design.
I do agree that Unix has a serious problem with insisting that ancient layouts of these streams and files should be preserved. But you are confusing that with the idea that streams are bad in the first place. I disagree quite a lot, data streams are the actual way to go, "objects" are an interpretation of that stream and inverting this idea is bad.
Have you even *heard* of JSON, XML, YAML, SVG, HTML, etc? Even WMF?
They are STREAMS of text. Some were even developed by Microsoft!
But you are living under your rock apparently, somehow believing that GUI and stuff typed on a keyboard are different systems that have nothing to do with each other. Go ahead and continue to claim that Unix is "old fashined" because you have proven you don't have any idea what you are talking about, so you can justify it to yourself.
Though twitter is a dweeb and may even be some sort of fake shill trying to make Linux zealots look bad, you also look pretty bad with your knee-jerk "putting a $ next to 'M' is CHILDISH! I Say it is CHILDISH, CHILDISH, CHILDISH!!! WAAAAHHHH!".
I'm SO sorry that a convenient unambiguous abbreviation has the horrible effect of implying that your beloved company has something to do with MONEY. Oh horrors!
But you are the one that needs to grow up. There can be posts here saying Bill Gates is the devil, or saying "Microsucks", and nobody posts anything. But just dare to use "M$" and you shills knee-jerk like you had a brain spasm and post "CHILDISH!" as though repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over will somehow make it true. When in reality if it was childish then the thing to do is *ignore* it, not point out that it is hurting your delicate feelings.
No, what they want is a form of PK encryption on the devices. Even though there is an analog version of the content, you will be unable to convert this to a form that will play back on anybody's device, even your own, because you don't have the encryption key, only the decryption key. Devices that playback unencrypted content will be illegal because "pirates use them".
"home movies" may be playable, but only by keeping the recording device connected to the internet. It will negotiate a one-time key with the playback device on the other end.
Their goal is to make it impossible to create and distribute content without going through them. They will use "piracy" as the excuse to get this.
There were certainly lots of mobile phones in 1998. In fact people were already ridiculing "old" ones that were big and did not fit in a pocket. I remember pretty well (due to buying a car at exactly that time) that I was considered pretty out of it for not having a mobile phone, and that I got one next year (I still have it, it was about 4.5" long single piece (no folding) with a tiny stub antenna screwed into it, which I have been informed and tested as being completely useless, it was just a remnant because people did not believe the phones worked without an antenna).
Everybody had dialup in 1998 if they had a computer at all, and every one of them used 56K modems. And everybody I knew had a computer. Windows 95 already looked "modern" (there was far more graphics changes for Windows 95 than for any later version). Also lots of people had Macintoshes. Linux existed (I had a copy of slackware then). Even a cheap graphics card would run a screen at 1280x1024 with 16-bit color (I believe my machine had a 2-year old graphics card).
That internet diagram you saw probably dated from 1975. The Internet in 1998 was quite impossible to print on a poster sized piece of paper, there were tens of millions of addresses.
Same problem exists for nuclear power. In fact the same problem exists for buring fossil fuels. But I have never heard anybody mention this as any kind of problem, even people rabidly opposed to various things.
Larry Niven (and probably other sf authors) have suggested that a sufficiently advanced civilization would get rid of all their pollution except waste heat, but waste heat would eventually make the planet uninhabitable. The solution was to move the planet away from the sun or even to move it out of orbit entirely into interstellar space. However I feel the problem and the solution of moving the planet are both equally far in the future.
Not really. The authors of the code wanted it released in such a way that it could be incorporated into the kernel source code. This meant it had to be GPL or the kernel maintainers would not add it. It is irrelevant whether or not releasing it some other way would violate the GPL, as the authors never intended to do that.
The real news is that somehow magically Microsoft was not forced to GPL every bit of code that they ever wrote, despite their repeated claims that the GPL is a "virus" that "infects everything it touches". They basically proved that they directly lied about this.
You do know that "A Brief History of TIme" was made into a movie, right? It even included reasonably significant CG back at a time when that was really expensive.
Although certainly the original reason for ++ was so that a very stupid compiler could still produce the optimal code, it also serves some purposes that are important:
(complicated_expression)++ is much easier to read than complicate_expression = complicated_expression+1. In the second case it is often difficult to tell that it is the same variable. The only "modern" way to express this is with references, such as reference a = reference(complicated_expression); a = a+1.
Also postfix ++ returns the previous value, this is often very useful, though confusing. It can be worked around again with a temporary variable.
Slashdot Mirror
New version with better music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SkvM_Q5oQM
"astroturf" means fake testimonials, not ads, which are generally called "spam".
So saying "you can get this cheaper elsewhere" is not "astroturfing". A fake post from a "customer" saying "I bought this and it is wonderful" or "it really sucks" would be astroturfing.
Of course this will collect plenty of both spam and astroturf.
In the USA the wording is "serving suggestion". This is always on any picture of food on a box and does mean "you are not going to get something looking this good" as well.
For instance cereal may be shown with milk and strawberries on top, so most users think "serving suggestion" means that you should add milk + strawberries, and smugly think they are smarter than some people who would actually think milk+strawberries are in the box if it were not for the government forcing the retailer to reveal that fact.
But it actually means "an entire shipping container of cereal was searched for perfect pieces and they have glycerin sprayed on them and are artfully glued into a sculpture representing a perfect alignment in a bowl and then a resinous liquid was used to represent milk without actually binding to the cereal. Oh and we added some really nice strawberries also preserved with glycerin. I guess that is a "serving suggestion".
Adjusted the screen size to 640x480, and when I tried to go back to normal 1280x1024 mode, discovered the desktop properties window did not fit the screen. Normally that'd be no big deal except the "OK" button was inaccessible so my laptop is now permanently stuck in 640x480. (Or at least it was until I wiped the c: drive with a fresh XP install.)
This is what you are going to get labelled troll for. Surely you rebooted the machine at least once before you installed XP? In fact a HUGE complaint about linux is the inability to permanetly change your default resolution using a GUI. Mysteriously you managed to solve a big linux problem but you only complain about it?
Also if you hold down Alt and drag the window it will move.
In any case, if they include GPL software (Linux), they will likely be including a copy of the license with the device.
Not likely, there is no requirement that they do anything other than indicate the source is available. The source must include the license.
Stores don't do that because it hurts impulse buying. If a customer goes in the store with $20 and a credit card, and sees something desirable for $100, but $95 with cash, they are likely to say "well I will come back when I have the cash" and then forget about the purchase entirely. But if there is no price penalty for the credit card then they will probably use the credit card right away.
There is a secret device in there that is using WiFi (with it's own cancer-causing radio waves, too) to communicate directly to Obama's death panels in the (former) white house. They are still perfecting the reverse control that can kill your kid right on the spot the moment they figure out his health care will be too expensive, so I would really watch out if they insist on updating the device! Fortunately a tin foil hat pressed firmly around the kids head will stop the transmissions, and for extra security you can also get a surgeon to implant tin foil wrapped right around the kid's heart, too.
Seriously, this is obviously a heart-rate monitor like those in treadmills to measure the quality of aerobic exercise.
I think we are saying the same thing.
Only the license on the contributed patches matters. It does not matter what license they release their *own* code on. They are free to change between GPL and BSD and CDDL and proprietary and whatever they want.
Original author was making some implication that they could not use the GPL on their release, and that somehow the GPL would "infect" all contributed patches. This is bogus. Yes they could *accept* GPL patches, but they don't have to! If they distributed using the GPL-incompatible CDDL but thought maybe they want to leave open the possibility of changing to the GPL, they could not accept CDDL patches either! If they wanted to BSD the code, they could not accept code that required a NDA to be signed. Wow, that is amazing! Truth is, there is nothing magical about the GPL, no matter how much the FUDmeisters want to make you think there is.
Actually they could "close the source" even if they released it GPL. It is their source code.
What they want is copyright assignment or some other form of permission to use the code in any way, of anything contributed to them. This means they cannot *accept* GPL code (or a whole lot of other licenses). It has nothing to do with how they release their code.
Not really any different.
Yes if you combine your code with something GPL and release it, the result has to be GPL'd.
However, despite what you imply, you can still take *your* code and do anything with it you want, such as distribute it under different licenses. You can even mark it this way as dual-licensed in the GPL version of the code so others can do this directly.
For the copyright, if you combine your code with MIT code that requires a copyright to print, the result will print the copyright. But your original code can be used without printing the copyright. Same thing, the need to print the copyright and the need to be GPL'd are both equally "viral".
You responded to "The idea of small programs that communicate via serialized streams" with "That's because it's not that useful for anything other than text editing and shuffling files around ... the whole point of the GUI revolution is that computers can do more than editing text and shuffling files around".
As far as I can tell, you have literally said "a serialized stream cannot be used to support a GUI". This is what I was complaining about.
Yep, you are as ignorant as I thought.
"GUI" does NOT mean "it is impossible to construct out of small pieces that communicate with each other".
And having used PowerShell and some of the apps written for it, it is pretty obvious that all useful ones immediately serialize the "objects" so that they can be converted and worked with and a single piece is actually reuseable on multiple objects. This is exactly the sort of ignorant design.
I do agree that Unix has a serious problem with insisting that ancient layouts of these streams and files should be preserved. But you are confusing that with the idea that streams are bad in the first place. I disagree quite a lot, data streams are the actual way to go, "objects" are an interpretation of that stream and inverting this idea is bad.
Have you even *heard* of JSON, XML, YAML, SVG, HTML, etc? Even WMF?
They are STREAMS of text. Some were even developed by Microsoft!
But you are living under your rock apparently, somehow believing that GUI and stuff typed on a keyboard are different systems that have nothing to do with each other. Go ahead and continue to claim that Unix is "old fashined" because you have proven you don't have any idea what you are talking about, so you can justify it to yourself.
Though twitter is a dweeb and may even be some sort of fake shill trying to make Linux zealots look bad, you also look pretty bad with your knee-jerk "putting a $ next to 'M' is CHILDISH! I Say it is CHILDISH, CHILDISH, CHILDISH!!! WAAAAHHHH!".
I'm SO sorry that a convenient unambiguous abbreviation has the horrible effect of implying that your beloved company has something to do with MONEY. Oh horrors!
But you are the one that needs to grow up. There can be posts here saying Bill Gates is the devil, or saying "Microsucks", and nobody posts anything. But just dare to use "M$" and you shills knee-jerk like you had a brain spasm and post "CHILDISH!" as though repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over will somehow make it true. When in reality if it was childish then the thing to do is *ignore* it, not point out that it is hurting your delicate feelings.
No, what they want is a form of PK encryption on the devices. Even though there is an analog version of the content, you will be unable to convert this to a form that will play back on anybody's device, even your own, because you don't have the encryption key, only the decryption key. Devices that playback unencrypted content will be illegal because "pirates use them".
"home movies" may be playable, but only by keeping the recording device connected to the internet. It will negotiate a one-time key with the playback device on the other end.
Their goal is to make it impossible to create and distribute content without going through them. They will use "piracy" as the excuse to get this.
Take a look at cairo
There were certainly lots of mobile phones in 1998. In fact people were already ridiculing "old" ones that were big and did not fit in a pocket. I remember pretty well (due to buying a car at exactly that time) that I was considered pretty out of it for not having a mobile phone, and that I got one next year (I still have it, it was about 4.5" long single piece (no folding) with a tiny stub antenna screwed into it, which I have been informed and tested as being completely useless, it was just a remnant because people did not believe the phones worked without an antenna).
Everybody had dialup in 1998 if they had a computer at all, and every one of them used 56K modems. And everybody I knew had a computer. Windows 95 already looked "modern" (there was far more graphics changes for Windows 95 than for any later version). Also lots of people had Macintoshes. Linux existed (I had a copy of slackware then). Even a cheap graphics card would run a screen at 1280x1024 with 16-bit color (I believe my machine had a 2-year old graphics card).
That internet diagram you saw probably dated from 1975. The Internet in 1998 was quite impossible to print on a poster sized piece of paper, there were tens of millions of addresses.
Note that this only happens twice a year, not every day.
Extremely, exceedingly minor.
Same problem exists for nuclear power. In fact the same problem exists for buring fossil fuels. But I have never heard anybody mention this as any kind of problem, even people rabidly opposed to various things.
Larry Niven (and probably other sf authors) have suggested that a sufficiently advanced civilization would get rid of all their pollution except waste heat, but waste heat would eventually make the planet uninhabitable. The solution was to move the planet away from the sun or even to move it out of orbit entirely into interstellar space. However I feel the problem and the solution of moving the planet are both equally far in the future.
Not really. The authors of the code wanted it released in such a way that it could be incorporated into the kernel source code. This meant it had to be GPL or the kernel maintainers would not add it. It is irrelevant whether or not releasing it some other way would violate the GPL, as the authors never intended to do that.
The real news is that somehow magically Microsoft was not forced to GPL every bit of code that they ever wrote, despite their repeated claims that the GPL is a "virus" that "infects everything it touches". They basically proved that they directly lied about this.
Making somebody "not poor" means that they remove some government handout to that person, thus making them worse off.
Making somebody "not a criminal" means they don't put them in jail, thus making them better off.
Is this really such a difficult thing to understand?
You do know that "A Brief History of TIme" was made into a movie, right? It even included reasonably significant CG back at a time when that was really expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time_(film)
Yes += is probably acceptable substitute.
I usually assume that somebody arguing against "++" is also arguing against all such in-place operators such as += as well.
what do you mean by "complicated expressions" in this context? Can you give me an example?
map.lookup[index(word)].counter
Although certainly the original reason for ++ was so that a very stupid compiler could still produce the optimal code, it also serves some purposes that are important:
(complicated_expression)++ is much easier to read than complicate_expression = complicated_expression+1. In the second case it is often difficult to tell that it is the same variable. The only "modern" way to express this is with references, such as reference a = reference(complicated_expression); a = a+1.
Also postfix ++ returns the previous value, this is often very useful, though confusing. It can be worked around again with a temporary variable.