You should consider using the Python programming language, as it should be a pretty easy step from VB, and makes much more sense than Perl does. It should be pretty easy to make the OOP change, too, since the VB and Python OOP models are pretty similar.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend going with a closed source IDE or language, as you really won't get a language that is as fast or secure or constantly changing like an Open Source language is. On the plus side, however, Python comes with a rather nice IDE.
Isn't it becoming more and more typical of America in recent years that the first thing we do when we discover something new or unique is milk it for all the cash that it's worth? What more are we doing than plundering someone else's ancient treasure? It's really no better behavior than Imperialist Europe demonstrated in its reign of terror over most of the world from the discovery of the Western Hemisphere to the middle of the 20th century.
Why is it that the first thing that they do upon finding this wonderful relic of the past is take the treasures to, undoubtedly, sell them to the highest bidding museum? This just disgusts me. Thank God that Egyptians have some strict laws about where things discovered in their country can and can't go.
...because there will always be naïeve users on the network. The best you can hope for is educating all of your users and limit where incoming phone calls can come from. As for e-mail social engineering, I really can't think of something that you could do about it, other than simple education.
ready availability of guns is the cause of the USA's high proportion of gun-related deaths.
And what kind of crackpot science study do you draw these conclusions from? The fact of the matter is, the ready availability of violent personalities is the cause of the USA's high proportion of gun-related deaths. Perhaps if mothers didn't have full time jobs and actually spent time explaining to their kids the difference between right and wrong, we wouldn't have this moral problem that our nation is currently facing.
Secondly, gun deaths are, logically, caused by criminals, and the large majority of them have past records. Regardless of whether guns are legal, criminals will always have guns. The only thing that gun laws will end up doing is taking protection out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
I would say that fraud is an awfully strong word. Also, if it becomes a bad enough problem and actually starts causing people to lose significant amounts of money, the market will regulate itself. It is really none of the governments business as to whether people are doing this or not. The way I see it is, this will disappear as soon as it becomes a problem. And right now, it doesn't seem to be a problem.
I think it is here where you might be wrong. Guns should expressly not be controlled. Who would do the controlling, anyway? The government, of course. And why did they provide the 2nd Amendment again? Specifically, to resist tyrannical government. So, really, having the govenment control arms sales is self defeating in respect to our constitutional rights.
The decision is interesting, because several state internet censorship laws have been struck down due to their effects on residents of other states - it's worth reading for anyone interested in internet legal issues.
What's even more interesting is that this is, in some respects, an internet censorship law. I don't believe that the government should have a hand in regulating what passes over the internet, and this is just the beginning, folks. This law sets a precedent.
By passing a law that prevents the sending of some kinds of email, the government is limiting the free speech of both individuals and companies. Whether you agree with SPAM or not, it's a constitutionally protected right of the sender, just like gun ownership.
The only thing that will truely solve the SPAM problem are market forces. When people decide that having to relay spam is costing them more money than it would to fight said abuse of their systems, we will see unsolicted commercial email disappear pretty darn quick. In the meantime, the government just gets in the way and trys to speed a process that really can't be controlled by any one entity.
...is what will become prevalent in the homes of the general public.
Which is exactly what John Dvorak said 2 years ago, and he's still wrong. Just look at things like the i-Opener and related "appliances". They have all failed because there are already cheap PCs out on the market that don't limit you to just e-mail or just games (which, on a larger scale, is why a lot of people use Unix and Linux: flexibility). Why would you buy a single-purpose machine when you can have something much more flexible for the same price or slightly more expensive? Also, people will always go with something familiar, and Windows is very familiar to most of the public.
Finally, a Linux gaming platform!
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 1
This could be the answer to the cry that Linux doesn't have any decent games out for it. With the preponderance of games available for the PS2, you will finally be able to play a wide variety of games using your favorite OS. Also, I wonder how Quake III plays on this? Has anyone tried this, yet?
I would think that companies such as Sony would want to discourage these kinds of uses for their hardware. Afterall, they are selling their hardware at an enormous loss, in order to make up that loss on sale of games and other software. That's how they can make nice hardware so cheap.
How in the world would they gain back their losses if most of the people buying their platform were using Free (as in beer) software? They would be screwed. Which is why this will never happen.
It seems like Michael and the rest of the Slashdot crew just can't get enough of bashing Big Business, to the point where they declare that it is wrong for a business to have control over their own infrastructure, as is the case here.
Honestly, they try to hide behind the shield of "consumer advocacy," but here, it isn't even about the consumer. How many of you pay attention to banner ads anyway? To TV commercials? How are one's rights being taken away when you're chosen ISP only shows you adverts for the companies they choose? The issue here is not that they are taking away your right to learn about other companies, it's about letting them have control over their own network. Wouldn't you be mad if you ran an ISP and a competitor had some kind of say over what kind of content you had to carry?
You are still free to find another ISP in your area, you're just going to have to do some *gasp* research. While phonebooks must be incredibly hard to find, you can always visit your favorite search engine and look for companies there. If you wanted to switch ISPs and go to a smaller, local company, you would probably be doing some research on the subject anyway, to find out where you could get the best price, who supported Linux the best, etc. So it's no major hardship.
I'm just getting really sick of Slashdot editors holding the opinion that no one here has free will and that we're all lemmings who are forced to use MS's OS, MS's browser, and AOL's internet service.
I mean, if you are going to figure out ways to mess around with the frequency at which a flourescent light flickers, wouldn't someone find a more evil use for this other than transmitting data?
For example (this isn't nearly as far fetched as it sounds): What if, in their ever increasing drive to get people in department stores to buy stuff, they figured out a way to use the flickering as a means of transmitting a subliminal message to shoppers? I can just see it now, they could time the flickering to the waves produced by a voice saying to buy a certain product, a kind of subliminal "Attention Kmart shoppers..." sort of deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I wouldn't recommend going with a closed source IDE or language, as you really won't get a language that is as fast or secure or constantly changing like an Open Source language is. On the plus side, however, Python comes with a rather nice IDE.
However, as Ralph Nader supporters were fond of saying: "The lesser of two evils is still evil."
Why is it that the first thing that they do upon finding this wonderful relic of the past is take the treasures to, undoubtedly, sell them to the highest bidding museum? This just disgusts me. Thank God that Egyptians have some strict laws about where things discovered in their country can and can't go.
...because there will always be naïeve users on the network. The best you can hope for is educating all of your users and limit where incoming phone calls can come from. As for e-mail social engineering, I really can't think of something that you could do about it, other than simple education.
And what kind of crackpot science study do you draw these conclusions from? The fact of the matter is, the ready availability of violent personalities is the cause of the USA's high proportion of gun-related deaths. Perhaps if mothers didn't have full time jobs and actually spent time explaining to their kids the difference between right and wrong, we wouldn't have this moral problem that our nation is currently facing.
Secondly, gun deaths are, logically, caused by criminals, and the large majority of them have past records. Regardless of whether guns are legal, criminals will always have guns. The only thing that gun laws will end up doing is taking protection out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
I would say that fraud is an awfully strong word. Also, if it becomes a bad enough problem and actually starts causing people to lose significant amounts of money, the market will regulate itself. It is really none of the governments business as to whether people are doing this or not. The way I see it is, this will disappear as soon as it becomes a problem. And right now, it doesn't seem to be a problem.
I think it is here where you might be wrong. Guns should expressly not be controlled. Who would do the controlling, anyway? The government, of course. And why did they provide the 2nd Amendment again? Specifically, to resist tyrannical government. So, really, having the govenment control arms sales is self defeating in respect to our constitutional rights.
What's even more interesting is that this is, in some respects, an internet censorship law. I don't believe that the government should have a hand in regulating what passes over the internet, and this is just the beginning, folks. This law sets a precedent.
By passing a law that prevents the sending of some kinds of email, the government is limiting the free speech of both individuals and companies. Whether you agree with SPAM or not, it's a constitutionally protected right of the sender, just like gun ownership.
The only thing that will truely solve the SPAM problem are market forces. When people decide that having to relay spam is costing them more money than it would to fight said abuse of their systems, we will see unsolicted commercial email disappear pretty darn quick. In the meantime, the government just gets in the way and trys to speed a process that really can't be controlled by any one entity.
Which is exactly what John Dvorak said 2 years ago, and he's still wrong. Just look at things like the i-Opener and related "appliances". They have all failed because there are already cheap PCs out on the market that don't limit you to just e-mail or just games (which, on a larger scale, is why a lot of people use Unix and Linux: flexibility). Why would you buy a single-purpose machine when you can have something much more flexible for the same price or slightly more expensive? Also, people will always go with something familiar, and Windows is very familiar to most of the public.
This could be the answer to the cry that Linux doesn't have any decent games out for it. With the preponderance of games available for the PS2, you will finally be able to play a wide variety of games using your favorite OS. Also, I wonder how Quake III plays on this? Has anyone tried this, yet?
How in the world would they gain back their losses if most of the people buying their platform were using Free (as in beer) software? They would be screwed. Which is why this will never happen.
Ha! He probably drew that conclusion from observation of Richard Stallman, ESR, and other "leaders" of the Free Software movement.
Honestly, they try to hide behind the shield of "consumer advocacy," but here, it isn't even about the consumer. How many of you pay attention to banner ads anyway? To TV commercials? How are one's rights being taken away when you're chosen ISP only shows you adverts for the companies they choose? The issue here is not that they are taking away your right to learn about other companies, it's about letting them have control over their own network. Wouldn't you be mad if you ran an ISP and a competitor had some kind of say over what kind of content you had to carry?
You are still free to find another ISP in your area, you're just going to have to do some *gasp* research. While phonebooks must be incredibly hard to find, you can always visit your favorite search engine and look for companies there. If you wanted to switch ISPs and go to a smaller, local company, you would probably be doing some research on the subject anyway, to find out where you could get the best price, who supported Linux the best, etc. So it's no major hardship.
I'm just getting really sick of Slashdot editors holding the opinion that no one here has free will and that we're all lemmings who are forced to use MS's OS, MS's browser, and AOL's internet service.
For example (this isn't nearly as far fetched as it sounds): What if, in their ever increasing drive to get people in department stores to buy stuff, they figured out a way to use the flickering as a means of transmitting a subliminal message to shoppers? I can just see it now, they could time the flickering to the waves produced by a voice saying to buy a certain product, a kind of subliminal "Attention Kmart shoppers..." sort of deal.