I'm ignorant of how a C/R system would work in real life, so forgive me if my questions are simplistic or ill-formed.
that said, if you have a C/R system set up and I have a C/R system set up, then when I email you for the first time and you send a challenge to me, will my system then send a challenge back to you?
If so, would this cause an infinite regression of challenges or is this loop somehow thwarted by cleverness in the system?
Also, where is the C/R mechanism implemented (user agent, transfer agent, etc)? If it's in the user agent, how can it work if I check my mail from multiple machines? If it's in the transfer agent, how can I, as a user, control it's behavior?
Assuming for the moment that Linux does contian SCO copyrighted code, I was under the impression that it was the distribution of copyrighted materials that consituted copyright infringement, not the posession.
Is there a valid legal argument that makes users vulnerable to litigation on the basis of copyright infringement?
Compromise is not always the best thing. Sometimes it can be disastrous.
Assume you supported a public figure because you believed in his ideals. How would you feel if, after making your support public to those you work with and live with, that public figure "compromised" on one of his ideals? Suddenly, because of your affiliation with that figure, your own ideals become tainted in the public eye.
The right thing to do is always the right thing to do. Once you know what that thing is, compromise is unacceptable.
It's interesting you should say that when, after years of following RMS in the news, it appears to me that, in the long run, RMS is correct more often than his hecklers.
Seriously, who thinks that OSS would be in a stronger position now if the GPL had never been written?
Many people use Python for tasks they used to do in Perl, but I don't see Python replacing Perl. They serve different purposes, for the most part.
Could you please explain how PERL and Python serve different purposes?
I'm curious because I use Python for exactly the kind of stuff that I used to use PERL for. The whole reason I found Python was because I was looking for a substitute for PERL. After having used Python for some time, I've discovered that certain things are easier in Python than PERL, and vice versa, but nothing significant enough that I can think of a project where one would be appropriate for the job but not the other.
OOP is a part of Python the way that OOP is part of C++. It's available if you want to use it, but you're not forced to use it when it's not appropriate.
The reason this is getting attention is because it's the first major security flaw in Windows Server 2003 which was supposed to be impenetrable being the first major OS released after the big security push my Microsoft.
In addition to that juicy bit of info, this flaw is more interesting to talk about than most because of the worm. It's amusing to see such a clever worm thwarted by using the wrong domain name. Seems intentional to me.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything about them using a proprietary format. GNOME is committed to being free and open, so I would find this a little surprising if it were true.
If SCO's loses (read: no settlement), then Linux will emerge from this stronger than if this had never happened.
Linux IP had always been a legal grey area. After this, legal precedent will be set and everyone will point to this case as a reference for future IP questions.
Also, because of this suit, Linux is closer to being a household name than ever before. The public must first be aware of Linux before it can accept it.
Finally, this suit causes the Linux community (and perhaps the larger OSS community) to put aside some of their differences and become less fragmented. This can only be a good thing.
Re:Former perl, python, java geek gone to Ruby
on
Ruby 1.8.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Python doesn't let you subclass built-in types, and it certainly doesn't let you treat integers as objects.
This is no longer true. As of Python 2.2, I'm pretty sure that both of these complaints have been addressed (the first one for sure).
Re:Former perl, python, java geek gone to Ruby
on
Ruby 1.8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Can you please elaborate on what features Ruby has that Python doesn't?
I looked at Ruby a year or so ago and determined that it had the same conceptual structure as Python, but the cryptic syntax of perl. Perhaps my evaulation was too simplistic.
The article says that the new calculator will have hard plastic buttons, possibly like the wonderful buttons the 48GX has.
As to your question about why engineers would buy this new calc when they already have a 48G, well, new engineers who don't already have a 48G or old engineers who have lost or damaged their 48G will probably look to HP for new calculators. Also, engineering students in most credible engineering schools are heavily pushed towards HP calculators.
If there was a calculator program that was as easy to use and had as good an interface as my HP48GX, I would probably still favor the calculator since the physical buttons are easier to use than the stylus.
But that's just me.
If I didn't already have the calculator, I might not pay $100+ just to get physical buttons, but who knows? There are other advantages of dedicated devices.
I've had my 48GX for almost 10 years. It has fallen off desks and out of trees, been crushed at the bottom of a backpack countless times as the backpack was tossed into a corner (pretty close to your hammer behavior), been rained on, and still shows no sign of wear except for the rubber feet which are somewhat worn from use on concrete.
The 48GX meets my needs and until it stops working, I'm not going to replace it with anything. However, if this new calculator is built with the same solid construction and has the same wonderful user experience, then I would have no any problem recommending it to people.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm ignorant of how a C/R system would work in real life, so forgive me
if my questions are simplistic or ill-formed.
that said, if you have a C/R system set up and I have a C/R system set up, then
when I email you for the first time and you send a challenge to me, will
my system then send a challenge back to you?
If so, would this cause an infinite regression of challenges or is this loop
somehow thwarted by cleverness in the system?
Also, where is the C/R mechanism implemented (user agent, transfer agent, etc)?
If it's in the user agent, how can it work if I check my mail from multiple
machines? If it's in the transfer agent, how can I, as a user, control it's
behavior?
I've never heard RMS and Linus characterized so clearly.
Assuming for the moment that Linux does contian SCO copyrighted code,
I was under the impression that it was the distribution of copyrighted
materials that consituted copyright infringement, not the posession.
Is there a valid legal argument that makes users vulnerable to litigation
on the basis of copyright infringement?
You forgot Knoppix and Progeny.
If people want commercial applications, then let some other group build
a Debian based distrobution that includes the software they think people
want.
What is so hard to understand?
Of all the days not to have mod points...
Compromise is not always the best thing. Sometimes it can be disastrous.
Assume you supported a public figure because you believed in his ideals. How
would you feel if, after making your support public to those you work with
and live with, that public figure "compromised" on one of his ideals? Suddenly,
because of your affiliation with that figure, your own ideals become tainted
in the public eye.
The right thing to do is always the right thing to do. Once you know what
that thing is, compromise is unacceptable.
It's interesting you should say that when, after years of following RMS in
the news, it appears to me that, in the long run, RMS is correct more often than
his hecklers.
Seriously, who thinks that OSS would be in a stronger position now if the GPL
had never been written?
In my experience, the tipping point is somewhere between 10 and 50 depending
if they're stand-alone workstations or identical lab machines.
my kingdom for a mod point...
Many people use Python for tasks they used to do in Perl, but I don't see Python replacing Perl. They serve different purposes, for the most part.
Could you please explain how PERL and Python serve different purposes?
I'm curious because I use Python for exactly the kind of stuff that I used
to use PERL for. The whole reason I found Python was because I was looking
for a substitute for PERL. After having used Python for some time, I've
discovered that certain things are easier in Python than PERL, and vice
versa, but nothing significant enough that I can think of a project where
one would be appropriate for the job but not the other.
OOP is a part of Python the way that OOP is part of C++.
It's available if you want to use it, but you're not forced to
use it when it's not appropriate.
The reason this is getting attention is because it's the first major
security flaw in Windows Server 2003 which was supposed to be
impenetrable being the first major OS released after the big security
push my Microsoft.
In addition to that juicy bit of info, this flaw is more interesting
to talk about than most because of the worm. It's amusing to see such
a clever worm thwarted by using the wrong domain name. Seems intentional
to me.
According to dictionary.com, proprietary implies exclusive control.
This suggests that RMS isn't misusing the word at all.
Perhaps you'd care to explain further?
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything about them using a
proprietary format. GNOME is committed to being free and open,
so I would find this a little surprising if it were true.
Mod parent up.
This is exactly the issue that most people miss when comparing the OSS
business model to the proprietary.
It is better to take a consistent stand before everyone than to
be a hypocrite and only address the shortcomings of our antagonists.
Once ideals are compromised, you can never regain the high ground.
If SCO's loses (read: no settlement), then Linux will emerge from this
stronger than if this had never happened.
Linux IP had always been a legal grey area. After this, legal precedent will
be set and everyone will point to this case as a reference for future IP
questions.
Also, because of this suit, Linux is closer to being a household name than
ever before. The public must first be aware of Linux before it can accept it.
Finally, this suit causes the Linux community (and perhaps the larger OSS
community) to put aside some of their differences and become less fragmented.
This can only be a good thing.
Python doesn't let you subclass built-in types, and it certainly doesn't let you treat integers as objects.
This is no longer true. As of Python 2.2, I'm pretty sure that both of these
complaints have been addressed (the first one for sure).
Can you please elaborate on what features Ruby has that Python doesn't?
I looked at Ruby a year or so ago and determined that it had the same
conceptual structure as Python, but the cryptic syntax of perl. Perhaps
my evaulation was too simplistic.
Somebody mod parent up. There is merit to this idea.
The picture shows both an 'enter' and an 'eval' key. Not terribly useful keys
if the calculator doesn't speak RPN.
The article says that the new calculator will have hard plastic buttons,
possibly like the wonderful buttons the 48GX has.
As to your question about why engineers would buy this new calc when they
already have a 48G, well, new engineers who don't already have a 48G or
old engineers who have lost or damaged their 48G will probably look to HP
for new calculators. Also, engineering students in most credible engineering
schools are heavily pushed towards HP calculators.
If there was a calculator program that was as easy to use
and had as good an interface as my HP48GX, I would probably
still favor the calculator since the physical buttons are
easier to use than the stylus.
But that's just me.
If I didn't already have the calculator, I might not pay $100+
just to get physical buttons, but who knows? There are other
advantages of dedicated devices.
I've had my 48GX for almost 10 years. It has fallen off desks and out of trees,
been crushed at the bottom of a backpack countless times as the backpack was
tossed into a corner (pretty close to your hammer behavior), been rained on, and
still shows no sign of wear except for the rubber feet which are somewhat worn
from use on concrete.
The 48GX meets my needs and until it stops working, I'm not going to replace
it with anything. However, if this new calculator is built with the same solid
construction and has the same wonderful user experience, then I would have no
any problem recommending it to people.