I never got too riled about the pentium cpu id thing (I just bought an AMD instead). And really, if you want to dig long enough, there is no company worthy of my money (when you get right down to it, the choice is ALWAYS between the lesser of two evils). It's nice to have choice though, and since AMD has chosen to align themselves with Microsoft, I've chosen not to use their product.
AMD has forgotten who made them what they are today. The consumers that bought their chips weren't the 'normal person' demographic. It was the geeks, and the nerds. It was the Linux users. AMD has turned its back on me and most of you. Intel may produce a slow and overpriced chip, but they have yet to prostitute themselves this blatantly, this obscenely, to Microsoft.
I don't know if I agree with that statement. However, I won't buy an AMD processor now, regardless of how well it performs. The article on The Register claims that there are 30 other companies/people testifying for Microsoft. I want to know who they are, so I can have a single list of blacklisted products.
Jerry: "Thanks, Microsoft Rules, Linux Drools! There's no monopoly, just sore losers!"
Bill: "Attaboy."
I refuse to pity AMD because they're being pressured. I refuse to believe that AMD would cave from pressure. I find it easy to believe that AMD just sold right the fuck out.
You did not answer my question. Portability is not functionality, it's an attribute. Were you to point out something that is possible in C and not in Java, you would have answered my question. As an aside, Java is portable. Why you can't set it up on your FreeBSD box?
The purpose of installing the JDK is to get all of the API's, such as the jdbc stuff (which is easier to program with, and less error prone than using the C db api).
C is the standard, and if some application does not have a C port, I'm not going to use it under any circumstances.
Please explain why. I don't see the logic in this.
As for C being the standard, it didn't used to be, which speaks to your original point. Why mess with success? People were programming in Assembler for quite some time before C came along and some people still are. The reason C came into being was to simplify the lower level details of programming, and let the programmer think on a higher level of abstraction. This is what Java does. C still has its place and Java isn't a replacement, but Java is a better tool for certain jobs. For example, if I wanted to write a servlet that did a complex search on a database (vendor independant, so long as I have their jdbc driver) of a known schema and dump the output to XML for choice of format to display would I choose to use C? No.
Your fighting the tides here. New programming languages will be developed out of need. You may be able to do everything in C, but that doesn't mean you should.
Because if we didn't mess with it, we'd be programming with 8 switches on an Altair. Also, how would Freenet be more useful if it were written in C? You just state this and then go on to your argument that if something works it should under no circumstances be improved upon. Does C have some magical functionality that remains wholly unavailable in Java?
April 1st is April Fool's Day. The ONE day of the year where it's perfectly acceptable to tell your boss that the entire codebase dissapeared along with all of the backups and accounting information.
Human lawyers? Isn't that an oxymoron, like "fresh frozen?"
It is my contention, based on the previous post, that the lawyers are in fact Orcs. A bloodlusted orc weidling a +3 DMCA Club of Crushing with the Mithril Armour of Copyright Protection is combo that has yet to be defeated. Throw in the fact that it will be, in all likelihood an entire (gaggle, flock, pride, horde, what's collective noun for orcs?) batallion of lawyers, and the Bnetd peons don't stand much of a chance.
I think that reusing code is a great idea. Unfortunately you're correct, using other people's code is getting to be a burden. There needs to be some kind of license dependency checking proggie that looks at all the software you incorporate, how you incorporate it, what kind of license you want to release your code under, and tells you whether that's okay or not. Like RPM dependency checking, only not really at all...;)
See, I think you're right. I used the soothing "James Earl Jones" voice in my head, and it seemed like you were being serious. When I use the "John Leguizamo" voice, I saw your point.
Actually, what he said was that he had 15 gigs, 3 of which were ripped from CD's he owned. This doesn't mean that the other 12 gig are illegal, it just means that the source was not his cd player. It could very well be that he owns them on cassette or vinyl or even cd (and just found it easier to download a single rather than rip the whole disk).
I actually agree with is argument (as you understand it... not as he presented it). Fuck the artists if they're in league with the RIAA. They can find another way of doing business and they are just as accountable for the sad state of fair use as the RIAA, MPAA, CIA, NSA, or any other FLA/TLA's. Do I steal? Yes. Am I wrong for doing it? Well, to the only person that truly matters, no, I'm not wrong.;)
Wow... So does that mean that Microsoft products are better than Linux and IBM and that this guy is a moron? Oh wait... You didn't read the article did you... Otherwise you'd know that they're not buying a new mainframe... Bully for your company, but they could put Linux on it, instead of Exchange for a fraction of a fraction of the price... Even WITH licensing...;)
I'm obviously missing a great deal of information. I thought quantum cryptography relied on quantum computing, which as of now, doesn't exist. Anyone care to fill in this (egregious) gap of knowledge?
Thanks for trying to help, but I think that I may have other issues... I'm getting a seg fault preceded by other ugliness...
[andrew@tybalt nethackdir]$./nethack ./nethack: Symbol `__vt_11QPushButton.12QPaintDevice' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking ./nethack: Symbol `__vt_6QFrame' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking ./nethack: Symbol `__vt_11QPushButton' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking ./nethack: Symbol `__vt_6QFrame.12QPaintDevice' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking ./nethack: Symbol `__vt_6QEvent' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking Segmentation fault
I'm an idiot... I have to be... I can't get this damn game to run... I've tried the binaries... seg fault... I've tried building from source... nothing... I want to be mindlessly addicted to a text based game too!!! Anyone else having problems getting this game to run? Well, if you are, here's a thread you can bitch in. Any insight or help would also be appreciated...;)
This has been mentioned before (but I'm too lazy to search for the artcile), but blacklists aren't the answer. As inconvenient as it sounds, whitelists are the way to go. If your e-mail address isn't on the whitelist, your message doesn't get delivered. When a message is received that isn't on the whitelist, an automated message is sent to the sender informing them that they can be added to the whitelist by replying to this e-mail with a provided hash/password. Once they reply to the notification e-mail, they are whitelisted and their original message is delivered. Anyone who wanted to maintain a whitelist could do so, those who didn't want to bother with it could deal with the spam.
That's a cool idea. You could also bounce an e-mail back to people who weren't on your white list, but wanted to contact you legitimately, telling them to send a request (reply) e-mail to the same server. When the server got the request e-mail it would automatically white list the person trying to contact you. You could have the auto-mailer send out a crypto check (or something... ??) that would validate the request to be whitelisted. This would prevent spammers from automating a return.
I disagree. I run linux and I run downloaded binaries with userland permissions not as root. Also, by your logic, since an operating system (unless your name is Linus) was written by someone else, there is no computer on this earth that is usable AND yours.
I remember this. If you didn't have another browser on a disk you were almost hosed. Netscape.com worked fine, so you had to d/l Navigator and then use Navigator to d/l IE5. Is this an example of irony?
I don't think that this is what they are after. It is possible that they will have to open their file i/o api's soon because of the anti-trust case here and in the EU. I truly (naively?) believe that they are moving to a better filesystem because it's a better filesystem, not because they want to break interop between *nix and MS. I'm also an eternal optimist.
Slashdot Mirror
I never got too riled about the pentium cpu id thing (I just bought an AMD instead). And really, if you want to dig long enough, there is no company worthy of my money (when you get right down to it, the choice is ALWAYS between the lesser of two evils). It's nice to have choice though, and since AMD has chosen to align themselves with Microsoft, I've chosen not to use their product.
:)
AMD has forgotten who made them what they are today. The consumers that bought their chips weren't the 'normal person' demographic. It was the geeks, and the nerds. It was the Linux users. AMD has turned its back on me and most of you. Intel may produce a slow and overpriced chip, but they have yet to prostitute themselves this blatantly, this obscenely, to Microsoft.
Your next computer should be a Mac.
I don't know if I agree with that statement. However, I won't buy an AMD processor now, regardless of how well it performs. The article on The Register claims that there are 30 other companies/people testifying for Microsoft. I want to know who they are, so I can have a single list of blacklisted products.
Huh? How about
Bill: "Here's a an assload of money."
Jerry: "Thanks, Microsoft Rules, Linux Drools! There's no monopoly, just sore losers!"
Bill: "Attaboy."
I refuse to pity AMD because they're being pressured. I refuse to believe that AMD would cave from pressure. I find it easy to believe that AMD just sold right the fuck out.
The source can be found right here.
You did not answer my question. Portability is not functionality, it's an attribute. Were you to point out something that is possible in C and not in Java, you would have answered my question. As an aside, Java is portable. Why you can't set it up on your FreeBSD box?
The purpose of installing the JDK is to get all of the API's, such as the jdbc stuff (which is easier to program with, and less error prone than using the C db api).
C is the standard, and if some application does not have a C port, I'm not going to use it under any circumstances.
Please explain why. I don't see the logic in this.
As for C being the standard, it didn't used to be, which speaks to your original point. Why mess with success? People were programming in Assembler for quite some time before C came along and some people still are. The reason C came into being was to simplify the lower level details of programming, and let the programmer think on a higher level of abstraction. This is what Java does. C still has its place and Java isn't a replacement, but Java is a better tool for certain jobs. For example, if I wanted to write a servlet that did a complex search on a database (vendor independant, so long as I have their jdbc driver) of a known schema and dump the output to XML for choice of format to display would I choose to use C? No.
Your fighting the tides here. New programming languages will be developed out of need. You may be able to do everything in C, but that doesn't mean you should.
Why mess with success?
Because if we didn't mess with it, we'd be programming with 8 switches on an Altair. Also, how would Freenet be more useful if it were written in C? You just state this and then go on to your argument that if something works it should under no circumstances be improved upon. Does C have some magical functionality that remains wholly unavailable in Java?
April 1st is April Fool's Day. The ONE day of the year where it's perfectly acceptable to tell your boss that the entire codebase dissapeared along with all of the backups and accounting information.
I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering this. How can I get .null et al domains to display on my web browser?
Thanks.
CAUTION: OT. Humorless mods, please avert your eyes from the horror that is the Offtopic Post.
Try this -- fire up vim, then type
esc
:help 42
See, I knew these guys knew everything!
Andrew
Human lawyers? Isn't that an oxymoron, like "fresh frozen?"
It is my contention, based on the previous post, that the lawyers are in fact Orcs. A bloodlusted orc weidling a +3 DMCA Club of Crushing with the Mithril Armour of Copyright Protection is combo that has yet to be defeated. Throw in the fact that it will be, in all likelihood an entire (gaggle, flock, pride, horde, what's collective noun for orcs?) batallion of lawyers, and the Bnetd peons don't stand much of a chance.
I think that reusing code is a great idea. Unfortunately you're correct, using other people's code is getting to be a burden. There needs to be some kind of license dependency checking proggie that looks at all the software you incorporate, how you incorporate it, what kind of license you want to release your code under, and tells you whether that's okay or not. Like RPM dependency checking, only not really at all... ;)
See, I think you're right. I used the soothing "James Earl Jones" voice in my head, and it seemed like you were being serious. When I use the "John Leguizamo" voice, I saw your point.
Actually, what he said was that he had 15 gigs, 3 of which were ripped from CD's he owned. This doesn't mean that the other 12 gig are illegal, it just means that the source was not his cd player. It could very well be that he owns them on cassette or vinyl or even cd (and just found it easier to download a single rather than rip the whole disk).
;)
I actually agree with is argument (as you understand it... not as he presented it). Fuck the artists if they're in league with the RIAA. They can find another way of doing business and they are just as accountable for the sad state of fair use as the RIAA, MPAA, CIA, NSA, or any other FLA/TLA's. Do I steal? Yes. Am I wrong for doing it? Well, to the only person that truly matters, no, I'm not wrong.
Wow... So does that mean that Microsoft products are better than Linux and IBM and that this guy is a moron? Oh wait... You didn't read the article did you... Otherwise you'd know that they're not buying a new mainframe... Bully for your company, but they could put Linux on it, instead of Exchange for a fraction of a fraction of the price... Even WITH licensing... ;)
I'm obviously missing a great deal of information. I thought quantum cryptography relied on quantum computing, which as of now, doesn't exist. Anyone care to fill in this (egregious) gap of knowledge?
What good is an overly complicated undocumented hard to use API on top of a bloated badly designed implementation of X?
Does this guy sound like a programmer who can't figure out an API?
"I can't figure it out so it must be broken, badly designed, undocumented, overly complicated and bloated!"
Thanks for trying to help, but I think that I may have other issues... I'm getting a seg fault preceded by other ugliness...
./nethack
[andrew@tybalt nethackdir]$
./nethack: Symbol `__vt_11QPushButton.12QPaintDevice' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking
./nethack: Symbol `__vt_6QFrame' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking
./nethack: Symbol `__vt_11QPushButton' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking
./nethack: Symbol `__vt_6QFrame.12QPaintDevice' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking
./nethack: Symbol `__vt_6QEvent' has different size in shared object, consider re-linking
Segmentation fault
I'm an idiot... I have to be... I can't get this damn game to run... I've tried the binaries... seg fault... I've tried building from source... nothing... I want to be mindlessly addicted to a text based game too!!! Anyone else having problems getting this game to run? Well, if you are, here's a thread you can bitch in. Any insight or help would also be appreciated... ;)
This has been mentioned before (but I'm too lazy to search for the artcile), but blacklists aren't the answer. As inconvenient as it sounds, whitelists are the way to go. If your e-mail address isn't on the whitelist, your message doesn't get delivered. When a message is received that isn't on the whitelist, an automated message is sent to the sender informing them that they can be added to the whitelist by replying to this e-mail with a provided hash/password. Once they reply to the notification e-mail, they are whitelisted and their original message is delivered. Anyone who wanted to maintain a whitelist could do so, those who didn't want to bother with it could deal with the spam.
This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thanks alot!
That's a cool idea. You could also bounce an e-mail back to people who weren't on your white list, but wanted to contact you legitimately, telling them to send a request (reply) e-mail to the same server. When the server got the request e-mail it would automatically white list the person trying to contact you. You could have the auto-mailer send out a crypto check (or something... ??) that would validate the request to be whitelisted. This would prevent spammers from automating a return.
I disagree. I run linux and I run downloaded binaries with userland permissions not as root. Also, by your logic, since an operating system (unless your name is Linus) was written by someone else, there is no computer on this earth that is usable AND yours.
I remember this. If you didn't have another browser on a disk you were almost hosed. Netscape.com worked fine, so you had to d/l Navigator and then use Navigator to d/l IE5. Is this an example of irony?
Andrew
I don't think that this is what they are after. It is possible that they will have to open their file i/o api's soon because of the anti-trust case here and in the EU. I truly (naively?) believe that they are moving to a better filesystem because it's a better filesystem, not because they want to break interop between *nix and MS. I'm also an eternal optimist.
I'll give you three guesses as to where I'm not moving to if this gets passed.