I've actually contacted Bloomberg to ask about this, and they're not even open-sourcing anything. They're announcing their intention to form a committee to create open standards based on their tech. This is great because it will help fill gaps that AMQP and others are trying to fill, but I'm not sure it deserves an announcement until, you know, there's actually something to look at.
Software patents have been around for almost 30 years. You say they've destroyed innovation - do you have any evidence? I think computers have advanced pretty far since the 80s.
For the same reason that being able to sue bloggers, but not newspapers, for their sources results in a chilling effect on free speech. I was willing to contribute to the advancement of software as an independent developer-- until I realized that I could not afford a lawyer or patent searches. Even if I could, Google, with its army of lawyers, could not stay out of court. If they get sued, they have patents and money. They can duke it out. If I get sued, that's the end for me.
So the grandparent quote is right-- only those with deep pockets can afford to play this innovation game safely. Anyone else is playing fast and loose with their earnings, waiting for you, the patent lawyer, to come take them, with the force of law and an inscrutable patent system on your side. I will not play that game. I am the innovation you lost.
It is nothing for me to write a report running on for seven pages that is concise and well formed with unique content, for the average student that is like asking for a couple of their finger nails and they subsequently quote dump, plagiarize and "bullshit" their way through it.
I had a history professor that wanted a run-on fact dump for an essay. I was nearly failing his class until I understood that. Teachers' requirements (and by extension, how they teach writing) aren't necessarily consistent.
I think the whole question is a category error. Science and religion need not conflict at all-- you can imagine a world where a god runs physics and we detect him with our telescopes. You can also imagine a religion devoted to science.
The problem is that science conflicts with specific religions-- say, like almost all forms of Judaism and Christianity, which require that there was once a flood covering the entire planet.
I understand there have been historical interpretation of the Earth as the center of the universe, but this was not universally held even within Catholicism even at the time of Galileo--Copernican heliocentrism was a "minority view". And as far as the original sources go, we have such notations as the Earth "hanging on nothing" (re: Job 26:7) which is a notably-accurate description rather arguing against the notion of the Earth being specified as fixed. "An" interpretation does not equate to "the" interpretation for the purposes of demonstrating an overall view has been refuted.
The view of the original authors, who should be able to lay claim to special revelation, was that the Earth was fixed with a dome over it: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf
That Catholics in later centuries, with the advantage of being informed by science, didn't believe this is uninteresting. It is interesting that their view does not match the views of those who supposedly had direct access to the source.
I'm not at all surprised that you are unaware of and hostile to these religious claims you claim were not made. The truth, even if you don't like it, is that they are still being made. Or do you think that a religious idea has to be universal before it can be considered stupid?
Except that if the network isn't connected to the Internet in any way, and you're relying on a third party as your vector, you have no way of getting information back about their systems or altering your attack after delivery. You have one shot to get the attack right.
Removing the Internet vector doesn't eliminate the possibility of attack, but it sure cuts down on chances for success. I'll take that.
What is this stupid phrasing "Steve Austin, anyone?" about? Why do people use it? You can just hear the writer's pleading voice going "Eh? Eh? Aren't I clever?" as if you couldn't catch his meaning unless he elbowed you in the ribs a few more times.
Thiel is hedging his bets, he's got 24 grantees, if he runs the program for four years he would have almost 100 startups. He only has to have one modest success to break even, and if every single company is an abject failure, he hasn't really lost much.
This is exactly how modern movies are funded. No executive can predict the success of a movie. But if the studio invests in enough movies, there's almost a guaranteed return.
Then perhaps you missed the one two verses before that: "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
Perhaps even a little of: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28.
Or: "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." I Thessalonians 4:17.
"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." I John 2:18
"This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none..." I Corinthians 7:29.
"They said to you, 'In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit." Jude 18-19.
I don't think Harold Camping was the first kook by a looong shot.
Oh? Who is the head of atheism? What dietary restrictions do we have? Special days of the week? Buildings we meet in? Perhaps you can name any facts we're conveniently ignoring because we simply want to believe what we believe?
Ain't pretending. There is no leap of faith to assume there is no god. You need suppose nothing else than what you see.
The problem is with assumptions. I assume there is no god. That's a valid assumption-- there's nothing to contradict it. The Christian assumes there is a god. That's an invalid assumption: there is plenty to contradict his definition of "god."
Neither of us can claim absolute certainty-- in that sense, you're right. But only one of us can claim validity.
I'm neither gay or a supporter of rights other than "human" rights for all but we should treat all people with respect regardless of how we feel about their way of life or political views.
Shouldn't you apply your own logic to atheists and "windows fanboys"? You seem to think Mac users are more mature than these groups. Why do they deserve respect, but "windows fanboys" don't in the same post?
Wait-- are you honestly saying "let's not actually use free speech and free press because that will stop other countries from giving their citizens these vitally... important rights... that we don't use?"
Except that either the kernel patch or the.bashrc hack (and possibly a better version of that hack) will eventually be the default in your distro's setup. *Either way*, you won't care how it gets to you. It sounds like the.bashrc hack or other, similar tricks have the advantage of (a) working now, with current kernels, and (b) letting the distros decide the heuristics of grouping processes, instead of the kernel.
Remember, 60% longer means 60% more typing when you create the code. Typically, my programs are about 30% I/O which means 60% longer format strings mean a lot more effort in coding.
I have a saying: If you're scared of typing, you shouldn't be a programmer. And how is it easier to have to consult the local printf documentation whenever you want to decipher your coworker's code? In most cases, my format strings merely contain {0}, {1}, {2}, and so on.
Besides, remember how much code is out there in C format strings. By creating a new standard you suddenly are putting all that outside easy conversion.
It's not new. C# had it years ago, and probably other languages before that. And do you really spend a lot of time converting printf statements into Python? That sounds like a royal pain with all of the type differences.
BTW, the old Python '%' format operator already supports positional formatting.
It's still around, for anyone who wants to keep writing inscrutable code to save keystrokes.
I think having a new text formatting library is OK, but it's an epic fail to deprecate something that has been working so well for so long. Why not keep the '%' operator while still having the 'format' string method? Are they so afraid of the Perl "there's more than one way to do it"?...
I expect they're afraid of Python programmers writing code that looks like Perl.
The "shell" argument is meant for security purposes. By setting shell=False one avoids script injection vulnerabilities.
You've completely ignored what I said, or failed to read the documentation. shell=True allows you to run full shell commands, including the piping you want to do. If you want to make it shorter, you can write a function:
def p(a):
subprocess.Popen(a, shell=True)
And then just tell anyone that reads your code that p() obviously stands for process. Or you can use s() for shell.
Or you can just stick to an older version of Python. No one's forcing you to upgrade.
Slashdot Mirror
Weirdly, that seems to be one reason the new pope is unpopular with the evangelical right: the left like him.
Unless companies who want their corporate information to remain secret adopt it first and force some progress.
And it runs Windows?
Good grief, people! Healthcare!
"Glass, call the RT." "This is the RT. Can I help you?" "Can you have a look at this man's breathing? We're not sure what's going on..."
I've actually contacted Bloomberg to ask about this, and they're not even open-sourcing anything. They're announcing their intention to form a committee to create open standards based on their tech. This is great because it will help fill gaps that AMQP and others are trying to fill, but I'm not sure it deserves an announcement until, you know, there's actually something to look at.
And how do I, Random J Hacker, figure out that I'm not infringing an existing patent?
Software patents have been around for almost 30 years. You say they've destroyed innovation - do you have any evidence? I think computers have advanced pretty far since the 80s.
For the same reason that being able to sue bloggers, but not newspapers, for their sources results in a chilling effect on free speech. I was willing to contribute to the advancement of software as an independent developer-- until I realized that I could not afford a lawyer or patent searches. Even if I could, Google, with its army of lawyers, could not stay out of court. If they get sued, they have patents and money. They can duke it out. If I get sued, that's the end for me.
So the grandparent quote is right-- only those with deep pockets can afford to play this innovation game safely. Anyone else is playing fast and loose with their earnings, waiting for you, the patent lawyer, to come take them, with the force of law and an inscrutable patent system on your side. I will not play that game. I am the innovation you lost.
It is nothing for me to write a report running on for seven pages that is concise and well formed with unique content, for the average student that is like asking for a couple of their finger nails and they subsequently quote dump, plagiarize and "bullshit" their way through it.
I had a history professor that wanted a run-on fact dump for an essay. I was nearly failing his class until I understood that. Teachers' requirements (and by extension, how they teach writing) aren't necessarily consistent.
I think the whole question is a category error. Science and religion need not conflict at all-- you can imagine a world where a god runs physics and we detect him with our telescopes. You can also imagine a religion devoted to science.
The problem is that science conflicts with specific religions-- say, like almost all forms of Judaism and Christianity, which require that there was once a flood covering the entire planet.
I understand there have been historical interpretation of the Earth as the center of the universe, but this was not universally held even within Catholicism even at the time of Galileo--Copernican heliocentrism was a "minority view". And as far as the original sources go, we have such notations as the Earth "hanging on nothing" (re: Job 26:7) which is a notably-accurate description rather arguing against the notion of the Earth being specified as fixed. "An" interpretation does not equate to "the" interpretation for the purposes of demonstrating an overall view has been refuted.
The view of the original authors, who should be able to lay claim to special revelation, was that the Earth was fixed with a dome over it: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf
That Catholics in later centuries, with the advantage of being informed by science, didn't believe this is uninteresting. It is interesting that their view does not match the views of those who supposedly had direct access to the source.
I'm not at all surprised that you are unaware of and hostile to these religious claims you claim were not made. The truth, even if you don't like it, is that they are still being made. Or do you think that a religious idea has to be universal before it can be considered stupid?
Except that if the network isn't connected to the Internet in any way, and you're relying on a third party as your vector, you have no way of getting information back about their systems or altering your attack after delivery. You have one shot to get the attack right.
Removing the Internet vector doesn't eliminate the possibility of attack, but it sure cuts down on chances for success. I'll take that.
What is this stupid phrasing "Steve Austin, anyone?" about? Why do people use it? You can just hear the writer's pleading voice going "Eh? Eh? Aren't I clever?" as if you couldn't catch his meaning unless he elbowed you in the ribs a few more times.
Quite likely, in a region subject to permafrost.
Episode 5 was directed by Irvin Kershner. George didn't direct Episode 6. So yes, you can lay the success of EP5 directly at Kershner's feet.
Thiel is hedging his bets, he's got 24 grantees, if he runs the program for four years he would have almost 100 startups. He only has to have one modest success to break even, and if every single company is an abject failure, he hasn't really lost much.
This is exactly how modern movies are funded. No executive can predict the success of a movie. But if the studio invests in enough movies, there's almost a guaranteed return.
Then perhaps you missed the one two verses before that: "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
Perhaps even a little of: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28.
Or: "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." I Thessalonians 4:17.
"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." I John 2:18
"This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none..." I Corinthians 7:29.
"They said to you, 'In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit." Jude 18-19.
I don't think Harold Camping was the first kook by a looong shot.
Oh? Who is the head of atheism? What dietary restrictions do we have? Special days of the week? Buildings we meet in? Perhaps you can name any facts we're conveniently ignoring because we simply want to believe what we believe?
Ain't pretending. There is no leap of faith to assume there is no god. You need suppose nothing else than what you see.
The problem is with assumptions. I assume there is no god. That's a valid assumption-- there's nothing to contradict it. The Christian assumes there is a god. That's an invalid assumption: there is plenty to contradict his definition of "god."
Neither of us can claim absolute certainty-- in that sense, you're right. But only one of us can claim validity.
I'm neither gay or a supporter of rights other than "human" rights for all but we should treat all people with respect regardless of how we feel about their way of life or political views.
Shouldn't you apply your own logic to atheists and "windows fanboys"? You seem to think Mac users are more mature than these groups. Why do they deserve respect, but "windows fanboys" don't in the same post?
How about Slashdot, which is still going despite showing the same fortune cookie at the bottom for a week now?
Wait-- are you honestly saying "let's not actually use free speech and free press because that will stop other countries from giving their citizens these vitally... important rights... that we don't use?"
Yeah, yeah. Sorry about that. I red the summary this time.
Bet their faces are red about this one.
Except that either the kernel patch or the .bashrc hack (and possibly a better version of that hack) will eventually be the default in your distro's setup. *Either way*, you won't care how it gets to you. It sounds like the .bashrc hack or other, similar tricks have the advantage of (a) working now, with current kernels, and (b) letting the distros decide the heuristics of grouping processes, instead of the kernel.
Remember, 60% longer means 60% more typing when you create the code. Typically, my programs are about 30% I/O which means 60% longer format strings mean a lot more effort in coding.
I have a saying: If you're scared of typing, you shouldn't be a programmer. And how is it easier to have to consult the local printf documentation whenever you want to decipher your coworker's code? In most cases, my format strings merely contain {0}, {1}, {2}, and so on.
Besides, remember how much code is out there in C format strings. By creating a new standard you suddenly are putting all that outside easy conversion.
It's not new. C# had it years ago, and probably other languages before that. And do you really spend a lot of time converting printf statements into Python? That sounds like a royal pain with all of the type differences.
BTW, the old Python '%' format operator already supports positional formatting.
It's still around, for anyone who wants to keep writing inscrutable code to save keystrokes.
I think having a new text formatting library is OK, but it's an epic fail to deprecate something that has been working so well for so long. Why not keep the '%' operator while still having the 'format' string method? Are they so afraid of the Perl "there's more than one way to do it"?...
I expect they're afraid of Python programmers writing code that looks like Perl.
The "shell" argument is meant for security purposes. By setting shell=False one avoids script injection vulnerabilities.
You've completely ignored what I said, or failed to read the documentation. shell=True allows you to run full shell commands, including the piping you want to do. If you want to make it shorter, you can write a function:
def p(a):
subprocess.Popen(a, shell=True)
And then just tell anyone that reads your code that p() obviously stands for process. Or you can use s() for shell.
Or you can just stick to an older version of Python. No one's forcing you to upgrade.