Apple is making use of LLVM and Clang in their IDE for exactly the kinds of things talked about in the article, replacing custom parsers used for syntax highlighting or expression parsing in the debugger.
Why would someone use SUA, which is only contains very old versions of the software it bundles? There is Cygwin, which is a much much better alternative.
Sometimes, even MinGW is a valid alternative because it generates a native application (though it requires some porting effort, which may be unacceptable in many cases).
This kind of legislation has been in place in Europe for at least 20 years now.
I don't know the specifics of the proposed US law but in Europe:
It has not promoted outsourcing, off-shoring, or anything like that. The law here is very picky on that: if you want to collect data from your customers, you take care of it, you cannot outsource that to some other company to avoid law.
In fact, you cannot sell, loan or transfer personal data to any third party without getting explicit acceptance from the individuals affected
In every company there is a person (physical person) responsible for each data "file" (i. e. a database with personal data). The company is only accountable for money but that guy is accountable for criminal offenses.
Fines are pretty hefty. In my country, from 600 EUR (a very very very dumb issue, like publishing your name + ID card number in a report card) to 600,000 EUR (for some serious trespassing, like selling data to a third party).
As a consequence, companies are careful and even the smallest ones they take some minimum security measures.
It's not the "style", or the "keywords". Learning a new language is easy for developers (i. e. the users of Opa)
I has talking about maintaining that, the work that the people developing Opa itself will need to do: compiler, multiplatform, optimizations, incompatibilities, etc That is a lot of work. IMHO, for no good reason. If they like ML, fine: just take ocaml, F#, Haskell or any other and develop Opa as a library.
Wt is also for writing webapps. My main gripe with Opa (which I have looked into:-) ) is the need to write HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc With Wt, I do not need to care about that. I do not even need to care about the browser supporting AJAX, SVG, or whatever. Wt takes care of everything.
Why is a new programming language required to "make web development transparent"?
Opa automatically generates client-side Javascript and handles communication and session control. The ultimate goal of this project is to allow writing distributed web applications using a single programming language to code application logics, database queries and user interfaces
Wt does exactly the same but in C++. You develop webapps like desktop apps: widgets, ORM, etc. No need to care about Javascript, HTML, etc. Compilers available on all platforms. The result is a single binary which includes an embedded HTTP(S) server.
While I agree with what Opa wants to achieve, inventing a new programming language for that end is unnecessary and, in fact, will become a burden: they will need to maintain both the language and the library. But actually the value lies in the library, which is the one that needs to deal with HTTP, Javascript, AJAX, etc
Now, digital advertising agencies are certainly interested in how many of those 100,000 subscribers are paid and how many came for free with paper. People who received the digital subscription for free are most likely to keep reading on paper (there's a reason why they are paying more for home delivery, after all).
Business-wise, it doesn't really matter whether subscriptions are pure digital subscriptions or paper subscriptions with a digital subscription for free: it's money coming in. With the digital subscriptions strategy they are cutting the bleed of people who gave up on paper and moved to reading the paper on-line for free.
I'm not saying competitors should be be allowed to rent the infrastructure in any case. My point is:
For the, say, 5 years after a monopoly changes to a free market, make it mandatory for the ex-monopoly to rent the infrastructure to competitors at at controlled price.
After that, set a transition term of, say, another 5 years, where the monopoly still has to rent the infrastructure to competitors but to a less-attractive (i.e. more expensive) price. This stimulates competitors to build its own infrastructure instead of just renting the ex-monopoly's at a cheap price.
After that (i. e. 10 years after the beginning of free market), it is no longer mandatory for the ex-monopoly to rent its infrastructure to competitors
What we have been observing in Spain is after more than 15 years of free market, competitors are still using the ex-monopoly infrastructure and calling the European Union to make it mandatory for the ex-monopoly to rent its infrastructure, even what was built after the monopoly ended, at a cheap price. Due to this regulation 99% of competitors are essentially resellers of the ex-monopoly services (they buy "infrastructure rights" at a "wholesale" price - a controlled price). It is so easy to just resell that competitors rarely build their own infrastructure.
If there is no common infrastructure, then how come the state has the power to give the telco's a monopoly over it?
The State did not give the telco a monopoly over an infrastructure. The State gave the telco a monopoly over the telecommunications service, which obviously requires an infrastructure, and the company which was awarded the monopoly had to build the infrastructure from scratch and assume all the costs.
For instance: at this very moment, I am giving yuberries the monopoly over comment moderation on the site slashsemicolon.org. Great huh? Except slashsemicolon.org does not exist yet. If you want to actually exercise your monopoly, you better start building slashsemicolon.org and bringing people to post comments.
Telecommunications was not a free market at the time (until 20 years ago). In fact, it was not a free market in any country in Europe. I was commenting on your "common infrastructure claim", to what I answered: there was no "common infrastructure". That proves nothing about free market.
There is just no possible way that telcos anywhere, in any civilized state, doesn't have an agreement by law with the state to utilize the common infrastructure. Whenever roads and electric poles are "public", cable and telephone markets are necessarily, not a free market.
There is no such thing as "common telecommunications infrastructure" in Spain. It was all built and paid for by a company called Telefonica (now Movistar), which was 100% private and had monopoly rights.
The State of Spain happened to be one amongst many stockholders in Telefonica, which is the reason many people still believe (wrongly) that the telecommunications infrastructure built by Telefonica belongs to the people. Wrong. It was paid by Telefonica stockholders, which included many Spanish and foreign companies and individuals. In fact the State was a stockholder through several vehicles, some of them purely for-profit, and like all stockholders, the State always received its dividends.
Maybe in other countries the infrastructure was built by the State and rented to the telecommunications monopoly but not in Spain. It was never the case.
In my country, the former monopoly of telcos (Telefónica, now Movistar) still is the only supplier when you need some services in some geographical areas (not by law
Spaniard here.
You are wrong in both accounts: yes, Movistar is the only provider by law (look for "Universar Service Provider" under the Telecommunications Act). Movistar does not want to be the Universal Service Provider, in fact it has been long trying to get Ono to be the USP where Ono has more clients than Movistar (Valencia, for instance).
but the other telcos do have wanted to get the infrastructure
And I want my neighbor's car, but I haven't paid for it therefore I am not entitled to it. With Movistar it's the same case: Movistar (which has always been a private company since it was created) built and paid for the infrastructure, why should competing telcos be entitled to it? In fact, I am astonished 15 years after the end of the monopoly, Movistar is still force by the European Union to rent its infrastructure to other telcos. Free marker is all about competition, and competition means you build your own network infrastructure.
Sometimes when they have lost a contract with us, they have blocked providing the service through the winner to the maximum that the law allowed them (and at least we have some law forcing them to provide the service in a limit time).
Of course, some illuminated people will only repeat Capitalism 101 lessons while covering the ears to avoid realising what they are really saying...
Clearly you have not tried what I said and you have no idea how Debian and Ubuntu repositories work.
It's more or less like this:
Maverick is released
The day after maverick was released, the natty repository was created. It contained an exact copy of maverick
New packages are imported from Debian and added to the Natty repository. These packages show up in the repository as they are added: 5 new packages today, 20 new versions tomorrow, a new kernel in 2 months, etc
By replacing 'maverick' with 'natty' in your sources.list, you get updates daily, not just when natty is finally released (in fact the day natty is released you will not get any new update if you have been updating every day since the maverick release).
Do you want rolling releases in Ubuntu? It's always been there, really
You only need to edit/etc/apt/sources.list and every file in/etc/apt/sources.list.d and replace "maverick" with "natty". Now apt-get update && apt-get full-upgrade.
When Natty is out, repeat only this time replacing "natty" by the natty+1 name.
Same thing works for Debian: replace "stable" or "lenny" with "testing" (or "unstable", if you are brave).
IMHO, Ubuntu should provide a "next" name, like the "testing" and "unstable" release version names in Debian, for people who want rolling releases.
Re:FOR ALL AUTOTOOLS "REPLACEMENTS"
on
Autotools
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What about Windows (Visual Studio) ? No shell. Incompatible makefiles. What is the answer then?
So what's your proposal for multiplatform software development? Oh, and I want to be able to use Incredibuild, the debugger and the profiler with Visual C++ and have line information, breakpoints in the IDE, etc. Same for gcc on Linux: I want my distcc when I'm on a distributed build environment. Same for XCode on Mac. Scons and all the others which compile & link directly are not able to use that because they do not generate.vcproj / Makefiles / whateverprojectfilemyIDEuses
Obligatory link to a good autotools alternative: CMake. And my CMake tutorial, Learning CMake.
Re:Autotools do not need a book
on
Autotools
·
· Score: 1
Have you tried to define CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, CMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH / CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH, etc when configuring the software you are trying to build? I'd say they pretty much fix whatever problems you are running into. BTW, CMake also supports "make install DESTDIR=/whatever"
Slashdot Mirror
The "intelligent, vivacious woman" meaning is not in any dictionary. Not even in the Spanish Language Thesaurus!
From the Dictionary of the Royal Academy:
http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=lumia
lumia.
(De or. inc.).
1. f. p. us. prostituta.
From the Maria Moliner dictionary, the other great reference for Spanish language:
http://www.diclib.com/lumia/show/en/moliner/L/2306/2160/36/37/49938
lumia f. Prostituta.
In Spanish, "Lumia" means "whore"
"Here we are, talking about the Nokia Whore 800 and the Nokia Whore 710, the two newest smartphones by Nokia..."
Nokia Global Marketing fail 101.
Apple is making use of LLVM and Clang in their IDE for exactly the kinds of things talked about in the article, replacing custom parsers used for syntax highlighting or expression parsing in the debugger.
Nokia recently adopted Clang too for Qt Creator:
http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2011/10/19/qt-creator-and-clang/
Why would someone use SUA, which is only contains very old versions of the software it bundles? There is Cygwin, which is a much much better alternative. Sometimes, even MinGW is a valid alternative because it generates a native application (though it requires some porting effort, which may be unacceptable in many cases).
This kind of legislation has been in place in Europe for at least 20 years now.
I don't know the specifics of the proposed US law but in Europe:
It's not the "style", or the "keywords". Learning a new language is easy for developers (i. e. the users of Opa) I has talking about maintaining that, the work that the people developing Opa itself will need to do: compiler, multiplatform, optimizations, incompatibilities, etc That is a lot of work. IMHO, for no good reason. If they like ML, fine: just take ocaml, F#, Haskell or any other and develop Opa as a library.
Wt is also for writing webapps. My main gripe with Opa (which I have looked into :-) ) is the need to write HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc With Wt, I do not need to care about that. I do not even need to care about the browser supporting AJAX, SVG, or whatever. Wt takes care of everything.
Why is a new programming language required to "make web development transparent"?
Opa automatically generates client-side Javascript and handles communication and session control. The ultimate goal of this project is to allow writing distributed web applications using a single programming language to code application logics, database queries and user interfaces
Wt does exactly the same but in C++. You develop webapps like desktop apps: widgets, ORM, etc. No need to care about Javascript, HTML, etc. Compilers available on all platforms. The result is a single binary which includes an embedded HTTP(S) server.
While I agree with what Opa wants to achieve, inventing a new programming language for that end is unnecessary and, in fact, will become a burden: they will need to maintain both the language and the library. But actually the value lies in the library, which is the one that needs to deal with HTTP, Javascript, AJAX, etc
Does this mean a sequel to You've got mail is coming? "You've got mail - The revenge of sweet blondie"?
Then use Apertium, they also provide an API
You read my mind.
Paper subscribers do receive a complimentary all-included digital subscription.
Now, digital advertising agencies are certainly interested in how many of those 100,000 subscribers are paid and how many came for free with paper. People who received the digital subscription for free are most likely to keep reading on paper (there's a reason why they are paying more for home delivery, after all).
Business-wise, it doesn't really matter whether subscriptions are pure digital subscriptions or paper subscriptions with a digital subscription for free: it's money coming in. With the digital subscriptions strategy they are cutting the bleed of people who gave up on paper and moved to reading the paper on-line for free.
Apple vs Nokia ended in "Nokia did not infringe Apple's patents", too. Why is it not mentioned? http://www.osnews.com/story/23987/ITC_Staff_Sides_with_Nokia_in_Apple_Complaint
I'm not saying competitors should be be allowed to rent the infrastructure in any case. My point is:
What we have been observing in Spain is after more than 15 years of free market, competitors are still using the ex-monopoly infrastructure and calling the European Union to make it mandatory for the ex-monopoly to rent its infrastructure, even what was built after the monopoly ended, at a cheap price. Due to this regulation 99% of competitors are essentially resellers of the ex-monopoly services (they buy "infrastructure rights" at a "wholesale" price - a controlled price). It is so easy to just resell that competitors rarely build their own infrastructure.
If there is no common infrastructure, then how come the state has the power to give the telco's a monopoly over it?
The State did not give the telco a monopoly over an infrastructure. The State gave the telco a monopoly over the telecommunications service, which obviously requires an infrastructure, and the company which was awarded the monopoly had to build the infrastructure from scratch and assume all the costs.
For instance: at this very moment, I am giving yuberries the monopoly over comment moderation on the site slashsemicolon.org. Great huh? Except slashsemicolon.org does not exist yet. If you want to actually exercise your monopoly, you better start building slashsemicolon.org and bringing people to post comments.
Telecommunications was not a free market at the time (until 20 years ago). In fact, it was not a free market in any country in Europe. I was commenting on your "common infrastructure claim", to what I answered: there was no "common infrastructure". That proves nothing about free market.
There is just no possible way that telcos anywhere, in any civilized state, doesn't have an agreement by law with the state to utilize the common infrastructure. Whenever roads and electric poles are "public", cable and telephone markets are necessarily, not a free market.
There is no such thing as "common telecommunications infrastructure" in Spain. It was all built and paid for by a company called Telefonica (now Movistar), which was 100% private and had monopoly rights.
The State of Spain happened to be one amongst many stockholders in Telefonica, which is the reason many people still believe (wrongly) that the telecommunications infrastructure built by Telefonica belongs to the people. Wrong. It was paid by Telefonica stockholders, which included many Spanish and foreign companies and individuals. In fact the State was a stockholder through several vehicles, some of them purely for-profit, and like all stockholders, the State always received its dividends.
Maybe in other countries the infrastructure was built by the State and rented to the telecommunications monopoly but not in Spain. It was never the case.
In my country, the former monopoly of telcos (Telefónica, now Movistar) still is the only supplier when you need some services in some geographical areas (not by law
Spaniard here. You are wrong in both accounts: yes, Movistar is the only provider by law (look for "Universar Service Provider" under the Telecommunications Act). Movistar does not want to be the Universal Service Provider, in fact it has been long trying to get Ono to be the USP where Ono has more clients than Movistar (Valencia, for instance).
but the other telcos do have wanted to get the infrastructure
And I want my neighbor's car, but I haven't paid for it therefore I am not entitled to it. With Movistar it's the same case: Movistar (which has always been a private company since it was created) built and paid for the infrastructure, why should competing telcos be entitled to it? In fact, I am astonished 15 years after the end of the monopoly, Movistar is still force by the European Union to rent its infrastructure to other telcos. Free marker is all about competition, and competition means you build your own network infrastructure.
Sometimes when they have lost a contract with us, they have blocked providing the service through the winner to the maximum that the law allowed them (and at least we have some law forcing them to provide the service in a limit time).
Of course, some illuminated people will only repeat Capitalism 101 lessons while covering the ears to avoid realising what they are really saying...
Sorry, I cannot understand what you mean.
Clearly you have not tried what I said and you have no idea how Debian and Ubuntu repositories work.
It's more or less like this:
By replacing 'maverick' with 'natty' in your sources.list, you get updates daily, not just when natty is finally released (in fact the day natty is released you will not get any new update if you have been updating every day since the maverick release).
Do you want rolling releases in Ubuntu? It's always been there, really
You only need to edit /etc/apt/sources.list and every file in /etc/apt/sources.list.d and replace "maverick" with "natty". Now apt-get update && apt-get full-upgrade.
When Natty is out, repeat only this time replacing "natty" by the natty+1 name.
Same thing works for Debian: replace "stable" or "lenny" with "testing" (or "unstable", if you are brave).
IMHO, Ubuntu should provide a "next" name, like the "testing" and "unstable" release version names in Debian, for people who want rolling releases.
What about Windows (Visual Studio) ? No shell. Incompatible makefiles. What is the answer then?
So what's your proposal for multiplatform software development? Oh, and I want to be able to use Incredibuild, the debugger and the profiler with Visual C++ and have line information, breakpoints in the IDE, etc. Same for gcc on Linux: I want my distcc when I'm on a distributed build environment. Same for XCode on Mac. Scons and all the others which compile & link directly are not able to use that because they do not generate .vcproj / Makefiles / whateverprojectfilemyIDEuses
Obligatory link to a good autotools alternative: CMake. And my CMake tutorial, Learning CMake.
Have you tried to define CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, CMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH / CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH, etc when configuring the software you are trying to build? I'd say they pretty much fix whatever problems you are running into. BTW, CMake also supports "make install DESTDIR=/whatever"
It's not what you are asking for, but it sure will help you: Transana