Who says it has to work with other companies browsers?
I find it funny that some of their pages only work with other companies' browsers. Surf at their Security center, to the "Hotfix and Security Bulletin Service". The elephantine search form, after messing around with product and version selectors, fails to reveal the smallish submit button when viewed with IE, as the dropdown list controls stretch beyond the page margin. With Mozilla, the button is always shown.
Get out there and tell EVERYONE you can at every opportunity that we need to stop supporting the big record companies. Introduce them to indies and older music!
Exactly. There are tons of beautiful music out there that need your love. Go to that small record store, finger through CDs, ask the clerk to play a thing or two you knew nothing about before. You'll never hear that on major radio stations. There are real gems. Look up on the net. Choose a "scene" you like, order some albums. Guess what? You won't need to be force-fed shit anymore.
P.S. Obligatory "now playing": Sigur Ros. Man oh man...
P.P.S. Actually, in some lucky countries, there are whole networks that use to play good music. BBC Radio One is one (no pun intended) example. Their public funding status may or may not be related to this.
In addition, Carmack is, perhaps, singlehandedly responsible for preserving OpenGL as a viable alternative on PC. Remember when Microsoft was aggressively pushing Direct3D and steam was running out of OpenGL drivers for Windows 95, he said "no shit" and put out the 2nd installment of The 3D Game (and, subsequently, the engine) using OpenGL as the sole rendering backend. The manufacturers couldn't stand the pressure and rushed to update drivers.
I agree on samples, but looking into some dark corners of the MFC sources raises my hair. For a vivid example, look at the code for some OLE helpers.
It's hardly a comforting thought to suppose that some patchwork like this still creeps under glossy new frameworks with punctuation characters in names.
Re:supporting free software in this way is good...
on
Adopt a KDE Geek
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Come now, everybody knows that GNOME developers are a bunch of filthy rich corporate servants, starting from age 16. Let the non-profit status of their Foundation not fool you.
LISP has been shown to be one of the best SGML/XML manipulation tools
This reminds me of DSSSL, which I actually use myself (will not even start hacking stylesheets in it though). As, perhaps, is the case with DTD, DSSSL goes the way of the mammoth, giving way to XSLT, an XML-based format. This one has functional nature, too, and it's probably nice to process in Lisp. It doesn't rub along well, therefore, when data processing description 1) has totally different format from data representation, thus cannot be used to process its own kind; 2) is bound to a particular programming language.
I do "think XML is the best thing since sliced bread in textual markup representation", but only because it's the format the industry powers have finally converged upon, and developed common tools for everyone's perusal. All the minor wrinkles and political issues are nothing compared to the power of joining the gamut of applications from data-grinding to human-edited text markup (I've written my bit of works in DocBook XML, and I have to testify it's not bad after all, especially when it comes to validation) all in one, standard, data model and one representation, meaning consistency of processing tools throughout.
It's even more wonder that the format actually feels good for me and the XML tool (the tool might have a few complaints, however). No up-the-arse overtheorised "fundamental" models that look like bewildering crap when put into action. No SGML-like looseness either, that would make for megabyte-sized parsers and breakages that are pain to track down. The "cabal" responsible for XML was apparently set out to put things in balance after previous blunders. And they made it, to me at least.
But then I saw you calling XML concise. And realized the troll you are. Well done, Sir. You got me.
Well, though it's a fashion of trolling to call the other troll, I'll bite. Now, you are entitled to describe a LISP-based markup that covers all the things XML is suited for, and beats XML in any way except being LISP (which, of course, is so great that other reasons simply lose all meaning).
You do realize he was talking about the functional language LISP?!
OMG! How could I ever blaspheme against The Holiest Of All Languages?
A computer language certainly has at least the power of XML or schemams!
A computer language (whatever you mean by this) cannot be everything for anything. Lisp was never meant for structural markup of text-based documents, and rightly so. Read the parent of your post again.
Hopefully most entities can go the way of the dodo.
External entities are useful as a kind of "macros", especially in the markups that tend to be human-edited. You can define a library of entities, assign it a Public and/or System ID, and plug it in throughout your documents. It's very handy to use &YourCompany; to insert your company name with all the proper mark-up, and when the name changes, it needs to be edited in but one place.
Re:Who needs XML when you got PXML?
on
DTD vs. XML Schema
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Better yet, use S-Expressions. There are tons of parsers available.
How does one specify the character set in some, imagined or real, S-Expression markup? Do these "tons of parsers" support Unicode at least? Where to put processing instructions? Character entities? External entities? "Raw data" sections with markup suppressed? How does one specify the document type identifier? Namespaces? All these things fulfill important tasks for XML to be an universal, yet concise, markup language, and all this can make your dreamt-up S-Expression language as contrived as XML is sometimes perceived to be.
(this_is_the_tag
this is all data
(except_this_is_a_nested_tag with still more data))
Attributes, I presume, are out of our concern? You note that the means for syntactic description of data trees are around for 40 years. Yet there was yearning for something more... handy, or something. Doesn't it give any hint to you?
The STL provides several data structures that are indended to replace C arrays. These include vector, and list, both of which dynamically allocate their size and automatically resize if you overflow thier bounds
pushback may get you this, but one of the biggest sources of errors is an out-of-bounds array indexing. In such a case, the behavior of STL's indexing operator for vectors is not defined. Sure, in some decent implementation, you would get an assertion if you compiled with debug macros. But it gets you only so far.
Spam doesn't select a pathway but spammers do. If you could block relay spam at the open relays it would be dead. You can't, of course - the open relays are controlled by people who don't know the need to block spam.
These people learn quick, after their servers make their way to the open relay blacklists. Just make sure it happens every time when you receive a spam that have been apparently sent through an open relay. Forward the spam to relays@ordb.org with the first line:
Relay: IP_address
, or pop up ORDB and fill in the form.
Linux is more secure because all the "evil" hackers have access to the source and we Russians have sacrificed a lot to become a democratic free market economy.
Sorry, I'm losing your point here... Does our becoming free market (yes, I'm Russian too) contribute to Linux security in any significant way?
We are a European nation [...] the only people being oppressed are the Chechen swine who would rather kill us than make peace.
This is too sore (and too off) a topic, but no good European nation should oppress any group of its citizens on a wholesale, prejudiced basis.
I have no sympathy for them we through a 100 millon dollars a year into the void that is Chechnya and get nothing but death in return. If it wasnt for Russian food they would all starve to death.
Hate speech won't avail. If the government and the Duma resolve to keep Chechnya as part of the federation (we tried the otherwise, but it proved much worse), the people living there shall be entitled to citizen rights (this means criminals shall be punished, too). You don't suggest occupation and genocide, do you? We are waist deep in this shit already.
Actually, FAPSI (AKA FAGCI) is the Russian counterpart of NSA, with little to no foreign intelligence duties (as declared, that is). They are known as having good cryptoanalysts and computer security staff.
As for the dangers of showing off the s3kr1t code running "sensitive" tasks to shady foreign agencies, we all know at which point the mistake has been made, don't we?
Reading comments on the article, I noticed a related discussion on a sneaky install process that adds one of the AOL's domains to the Trusted Sites list in the IE settings, and reportedly modifies the Trusted zone settings as well, all without user consent. I discovered such modifications done on my system too, and I suspect it was either Netscape 6/7 or ICQ. Any evidence on the origin of that "AOL hole installer", to warn the world against?
...you will study subjects that are extremly tedious and are never used in programming, or at least never done manually. Why draw an LR state table by hand when you can just do yacc -v?
Because yacc -v won't teach you a thing. Drawing the table once by hand ensures that you understood the algorithm in every detail. Ever noticed that excersizes like that are pretty sketchy and never reach real-world complexity? These are there for you to understand and to check yourself, not to drown yourself in tedium.
To the previous responses, I add why am I abandoning Emacs in favor of Eclipse:
Because it wasn't created in 70s by a bunch of AI scientists whose notion of useability never came beyond "ability to use the thing over a serial terminal via arcane keyboard manipulations". You may point at the recent Emacsen that grew to implement modern UI concepts with various degree of success, but the core is still there, rearing its ugly head at every other wrong keystroke (recursive minibuffer editing? Huh? Let me out!).
Secondly, because the underlying platform is 1) relatively unpopular; 2) didn't advance anywhere since early 90s, let alone nurturing a coherent development culture around it. Say what you will about Lisp, it doesn't cut it at programming modular IDEs as much as Java does. And it starts to show with Eclipse plugins.
I recall that Lem detested the renowned first movie, as it appeared to him that Tarkovsky has steered too far from the message the book tries to convey, bringing his very own instead.
However, everything in that movie is worlds apart from Hollywood standards. And frankly, the book ending felt simply "D'oh" for me. Tarkovsky had left me astounded.
NB: Amazingly, that movie is a case when an inability to enforce the copyright proved to be good.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it funny that some of their pages only work with other companies' browsers. Surf at their Security center, to the "Hotfix and Security Bulletin Service". The elephantine search form, after messing around with product and version selectors, fails to reveal the smallish submit button when viewed with IE, as the dropdown list controls stretch beyond the page margin. With Mozilla, the button is always shown.
...in dynamite wharehouse.
It's properly spelled worehouse.
It's more properly acronymized CRACIT, spoken like... umm... Okay, anyone to have another crack at it?
Get out there and tell EVERYONE you can at every opportunity that we need to stop supporting the big record companies. Introduce them to indies and older music!
Exactly. There are tons of beautiful music out there that need your love. Go to that small record store, finger through CDs, ask the clerk to play a thing or two you knew nothing about before. You'll never hear that on major radio stations. There are real gems. Look up on the net. Choose a "scene" you like, order some albums. Guess what? You won't need to be force-fed shit anymore.
P.S. Obligatory "now playing": Sigur Ros. Man oh man...
P.P.S. Actually, in some lucky countries, there are whole networks that use to play good music. BBC Radio One is one (no pun intended) example. Their public funding status may or may not be related to this.
In addition, Carmack is, perhaps, singlehandedly responsible for preserving OpenGL as a viable alternative on PC. Remember when Microsoft was aggressively pushing Direct3D and steam was running out of OpenGL drivers for Windows 95, he said "no shit" and put out the 2nd installment of The 3D Game (and, subsequently, the engine) using OpenGL as the sole rendering backend. The manufacturers couldn't stand the pressure and rushed to update drivers.
I agree on samples, but looking into some dark corners of the MFC sources raises my hair. For a vivid example, look at the code for some OLE helpers.
It's hardly a comforting thought to suppose that some patchwork like this still creeps under glossy new frameworks with punctuation characters in names.
Come now, everybody knows that GNOME developers are a bunch of filthy rich corporate servants, starting from age 16. Let the non-profit status of their Foundation not fool you.
LISP has been shown to be one of the best SGML/XML manipulation tools
This reminds me of DSSSL, which I actually use myself (will not even start hacking stylesheets in it though). As, perhaps, is the case with DTD, DSSSL goes the way of the mammoth, giving way to XSLT, an XML-based format. This one has functional nature, too, and it's probably nice to process in Lisp. It doesn't rub along well, therefore, when data processing description 1) has totally different format from data representation, thus cannot be used to process its own kind; 2) is bound to a particular programming language.
I do "think XML is the best thing since sliced bread in textual markup representation", but only because it's the format the industry powers have finally converged upon, and developed common tools for everyone's perusal. All the minor wrinkles and political issues are nothing compared to the power of joining the gamut of applications from data-grinding to human-edited text markup (I've written my bit of works in DocBook XML, and I have to testify it's not bad after all, especially when it comes to validation) all in one, standard, data model and one representation, meaning consistency of processing tools throughout.
It's even more wonder that the format actually feels good for me and the XML tool (the tool might have a few complaints, however). No up-the-arse overtheorised "fundamental" models that look like bewildering crap when put into action. No SGML-like looseness either, that would make for megabyte-sized parsers and breakages that are pain to track down. The "cabal" responsible for XML was apparently set out to put things in balance after previous blunders. And they made it, to me at least.
But then I saw you calling XML concise. And realized the troll you are. Well done, Sir. You got me.
Well, though it's a fashion of trolling to call the other troll, I'll bite.
Now, you are entitled to describe a LISP-based markup that covers all the things XML is suited for, and beats XML in any way except being LISP (which, of course, is so great that other reasons simply lose all meaning).
You do realize he was talking about the functional language LISP?!
OMG! How could I ever blaspheme against The Holiest Of All Languages?
A computer language certainly has at least the power of XML or schemams!
A computer language (whatever you mean by this) cannot be everything for anything. Lisp was never meant for structural markup of text-based documents, and rightly so. Read the parent of your post again.
Hopefully most entities can go the way of the dodo.
External entities are useful as a kind of "macros", especially in the markups that tend to be human-edited. You can define a library of entities, assign it a Public and/or System ID, and plug it in throughout your documents. It's very handy to use &YourCompany; to insert your company name with all the proper mark-up, and when the name changes, it needs to be edited in but one place.
There are tons of parsers available.
How does one specify the character set in some, imagined or real, S-Expression markup? Do these "tons of parsers" support Unicode at least? Where to put processing instructions? Character entities? External entities? "Raw data" sections with markup suppressed? How does one specify the document type identifier? Namespaces? All these things fulfill important tasks for XML to be an universal, yet concise, markup language, and all this can make your dreamt-up S-Expression language as contrived as XML is sometimes perceived to be.Attributes, I presume, are out of our concern? You note that the means for syntactic description of data trees are around for 40 years. Yet there was yearning for something more... handy, or something. Doesn't it give any hint to you?
pushback may get you this, but one of the biggest sources of errors is an out-of-bounds array indexing. In such a case, the behavior of STL's indexing operator for vectors is not defined. Sure, in some decent implementation, you would get an assertion if you compiled with debug macros. But it gets you only so far.
You, too, should take a look at TMDA.
Linux is more secure because all the "evil" hackers have access to the source and we Russians have sacrificed a lot to become a democratic free market economy.
Sorry, I'm losing your point here... Does our becoming free market (yes, I'm Russian too) contribute to Linux security in any significant way?
We are a European nation [...] the only people being oppressed are the Chechen swine who would rather kill us than make peace.
This is too sore (and too off) a topic, but no good European nation should oppress any group of its citizens on a wholesale, prejudiced basis.
I have no sympathy for them we through a 100 millon dollars a year into the void that is Chechnya and get nothing but death in return. If it wasnt for Russian food they would all starve to death.
Hate speech won't avail. If the government and the Duma resolve to keep Chechnya as part of the federation (we tried the otherwise, but it proved much worse), the people living there shall be entitled to citizen rights (this means criminals shall be punished, too). You don't suggest occupation and genocide, do you? We are waist deep in this shit already.
Actually, FAPSI (AKA FAGCI) is the Russian counterpart of NSA, with little to no foreign intelligence duties (as declared, that is). They are known as having good cryptoanalysts and computer security staff.
As for the dangers of showing off the s3kr1t code running "sensitive" tasks to shady foreign agencies, we all know at which point the mistake has been made, don't we?
I object -- Slashdot belongs to Pleasure. Probably, even ahead of TheHun.net, though I'm not completely sure.
Reading comments on the article, I noticed a related discussion on a sneaky install process that adds one of the AOL's domains to the Trusted Sites list in the IE settings, and reportedly modifies the Trusted zone settings as well, all without user consent. I discovered such modifications done on my system too, and I suspect it was either Netscape 6/7 or ICQ. Any evidence on the origin of that "AOL hole installer", to warn the world against?
...you will study subjects that are extremly tedious and are never used in programming, or at least never done manually. Why draw an LR state table by hand when you can just do yacc -v?
Because yacc -v won't teach you a thing. Drawing the table once by hand ensures that you understood the algorithm in every detail. Ever noticed that excersizes like that are pretty sketchy and never reach real-world complexity? These are there for you to understand and to check yourself, not to drown yourself in tedium.
To the previous responses, I add why am I abandoning Emacs in favor of Eclipse:
Because it wasn't created in 70s by a bunch of AI scientists whose notion of useability never came beyond "ability to use the thing over a serial terminal via arcane keyboard manipulations". You may point at the recent Emacsen that grew to implement modern UI concepts with various degree of success, but the core is still there, rearing its ugly head at every other wrong keystroke (recursive minibuffer editing? Huh? Let me out!).
Secondly, because the underlying platform is 1) relatively unpopular; 2) didn't advance anywhere since early 90s, let alone nurturing a coherent development culture around it. Say what you will about Lisp, it doesn't cut it at programming modular IDEs as much as Java does. And it starts to show with Eclipse plugins.
At a sidebar, there is a poll that caught my attention. Below is an excerpt.
Which of these technologies is most likely to reinvent the future:I wish I had a button that would say "Nooooo!"
In Java, arrays cannot change size. Though, an adjacent posting hit the nail on the head: leave the obvious optimizations to the optimizer.
I recall that Lem detested the renowned first movie, as it appeared to him that Tarkovsky has steered too far from the message the book tries to convey, bringing his very own instead.
However, everything in that movie is worlds apart from Hollywood standards. And frankly, the book ending felt simply "D'oh" for me. Tarkovsky had left me astounded.
NB: Amazingly, that movie is a case when an inability to enforce the copyright proved to be good.