A little bit. If it IS true that YOU will be the ultimate decider on who you trust, presumably you could run stuff that was SIGNED by YOURSELF, eh? So 'make install' just signs the code with your root key. That was SOOO HARD!!!
If it IS true that YOU will be the arbiter, of course.
Hey. Since the open source community is bigger than Microsoft, why don't we start a campaign to buy them out. Buy their stock and when we get over 50% vote Torvalds, Raymond, Stallman, etc to the board of directors.
A good solution to the Microsoft anti-trust trial would be to force everyone to call it "Microsoft/Windows", because Windows is only a part of the whole software package that Microsoft wrote.
Ada is actually a pretty darn clean language compared to C++ and Ada95 added a lot of object-oriented (gotta have those buzzwords to survive) features without really making the code uglier.
Then again, it's pretty hard to be uglier than C++.
Plus it has support for tasks (think threads) which have been in the spec since '83. Ahem, as long as the *cough* compiler *cough* works.
Ada uses (a = b) instead of (a==b) (worst idea ever). Assignment is ":=". It has "and then" and "or else" for explicit short circuiting. It uses "begin" and "end" instead of "{" and "}", but the "end" supports an optional additional argument which must be the name of the function or loop (you can label loops). You can call a function like this: blah(a=>1, b=>2, c=>3) where a, b, and c are presumably the names of the arguments in the function's spec. They can be in a different order. But this way, the compiler will check if you have any arguments missing.
It's strongly typed, so it's very helpful at finding bugs at compile time. And Ada has a powerful package system to support data encapsulation. And I love the way Ada's syntax works for generics (templates).
Probably it's bane is the fact that it is case-insensitive. Which is really a shame, but that's probably the reason why it will die.
is that I would rather they never produced music again (OMIGOSH), than take away my computer.
If the RIAA can't make any money in music, maybe they should STOP MAKING MUSIC! AND LEAVE ME ALONE. They should be paying me to store their crap on my hard drive. It's a seller's market in real estate, I hear.
And I enjoy music a lot. But not as much as reading this "great" site from MY own computer.
So much for prior art.
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
Now to get a patent, you'll have to invent something and go back to the beginning of time to claim it. Better send the patent office there first though. What's that? They already live in the past? Oh that's mean.
Under UCITA, a software company can write buggy software and not be responsible. In many ways, this is what the GPL is already. Since no warranty is implied, there is no reason to expect that the developers are liable for anything. This has its place, but it also means that GPL software won't ever be used under fail safe conditions. So what I would recommend is perhaps a new GPL which would add QA as a requirement. In other words, a GPL with warranties. Obviously it wouldn't have to apply to anything, but I think having and supporting such a license would be a good idea. Software released under the new GPL would meet certain requirements. I guess the main problem would be determining what requirements made the program safe. This would be a way to gain respect even if UCITA was everywhere, because there would still be a license that would guarantee quality. P.S. Please correct me if it looks like I don't have a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a pretty old machine. Maybe there's some applications on punch cards or something, but that's beyond my years ;)
Intellectual property is what you keep to yourself.
we should send letters of support to HP and tell them to help rid the US of the DMCA.
Yeah, I bet they wouldn't be able to come up with some horrible law or technology that let them all gain control of our computers.
How do you shop for that special someone who seems to have everything? How about a giant pile of abandoned TV sets?
How can realism r00en vide0 games?
Whoops
A little bit. If it IS true that YOU will be the ultimate decider on who you trust, presumably you could run stuff that was SIGNED by YOURSELF, eh? So 'make install' just signs the code with your root key. That was SOOO HARD!!!
If it IS true that YOU will be the arbiter, of course.
Hey. Since the open source community is bigger than Microsoft, why don't we start a campaign to buy them out. Buy their stock and when we get over 50% vote Torvalds, Raymond, Stallman, etc to the board of directors.
A good solution to the Microsoft anti-trust trial would be to force everyone to call it "Microsoft/Windows", because Windows is only a part of the whole software package that Microsoft wrote.
No wonder those pesky bees are always finding my hidden stash of honey. And we're giving them radio transmitters??!!!
Ada is actually a pretty darn clean language compared to C++ and Ada95 added a lot of object-oriented (gotta have those buzzwords to survive) features without really making the code uglier.
Then again, it's pretty hard to be uglier than C++.
Plus it has support for tasks (think threads) which have been in the spec since '83. Ahem, as long as the *cough* compiler *cough* works.
Ada uses (a = b) instead of (a==b) (worst idea ever). Assignment is ":=". It has "and then" and "or else" for explicit short circuiting.
It uses "begin" and "end" instead of "{" and "}", but the "end" supports an optional additional argument which must be the name of the function or loop (you can label loops). You can call a function like this:
blah(a=>1, b=>2, c=>3) where a, b, and c are presumably the names of the arguments in the function's spec. They can be in a different order. But this way, the compiler will check if you have any arguments missing.
It's strongly typed, so it's very helpful at finding bugs at compile time. And Ada has a powerful package system to support data encapsulation. And I love the way Ada's syntax works for generics (templates).
Probably it's bane is the fact that it is case-insensitive. Which is really a shame, but that's probably the reason why it will die.
is that I would rather they never produced music again (OMIGOSH), than take away my computer.
If the RIAA can't make any money in music, maybe they should STOP MAKING MUSIC! AND LEAVE ME ALONE. They should be paying me to store their crap on my hard drive. It's a seller's market in real estate, I hear.
And I enjoy music a lot. But not as much as reading this "great" site from MY own computer.
Now to get a patent, you'll have to invent something and go back to the beginning of time to claim it. Better send the patent office there first though. What's that? They already live in the past? Oh that's mean.
It isn't? I beg to differ :)
Ain't I shameless?
Under UCITA, a software company can write buggy software and not be responsible. In many ways, this is what the GPL is already. Since no warranty is implied, there is no reason to expect that the developers are liable for anything. This has its place, but it also means that GPL software won't ever be used under fail safe conditions. So what I would recommend is perhaps a new GPL which would add QA as a requirement. In other words, a GPL with warranties. Obviously it wouldn't have to apply to anything, but I think having and supporting such a license would be a good idea. Software released under the new GPL would meet certain requirements. I guess the main problem would be determining what requirements made the program safe. This would be a way to gain respect even if UCITA was everywhere, because there would still be a license that would guarantee quality.
P.S. Please correct me if it looks like I don't have a clue.