My god! I now get it! And your advice is so appliciable elsewhere in life!
Those people complaining about crime in urban areas? They should just shut up.
It's more like people leaving their doors open, and complaining about people walking through their house all the time. It's trivial to implement basic anti-spam measures, such as whitelisting.
Spammers attempt to send me about 200 pieces of spam a day. About 2 a day get through my filters, and the measures I'm taking are purely static rules.
Stop complaining about spam and learn to do something against it. Don't leave your doors wide open.
Publish your writings (on the internet or otherwise)? Don't want to get sued for slander? Use the five magic words:
Why should that burden be placed on every person who writes anything? Rather, persons reading others's personal writings should compelled to know better. We need Caveat Emptor for readers.
The case isn't always clear cut.
Not all contracts are legally binding.
Furthermore, your rights for Freedom of Speech may trump part or all of an NDA.
apple hasn't tried the gpl. all of the darwin stuff is that isn't apple original is BSD, my very favorite liscence on earth. there is some gpl software included with the distro and tools and whatnot.
While their code is based upon BSD heritage, is anything Apple released under the BSD license?
There are a lot of posters here saying "Darwin uses BSD, not GPL!". If I am not mistaken, this is completely wrong. Darwin is based upon BSD tools, but is not BSD licensed. It's a perfect example of BSD code taken and put under proprietary wraps.
You're confusing the issue. The GNU toolset is not 'GPL technology', and Darwin, while based upon some BSD tools, is not released under the BSD license.
Currently I don't have any connection at home (I'm a shutin who works at an ISP and uses its connection:), but I can say for sure that when I do get a connection at home, it'll be DSL, or another service provided by a company with common carrier status. I just can't stand the notion that cable companies can and do filter IP.
I've been using Pine for about 5 years now, after moving to unix from Eudora on a Windows box, and am still extremely happy with it. I've tried Mutt, but I didn't like the 'feel' of it as much as Pine. While Mutt's bindings are configurable, the functions they provide just didn't match up to how I use Pine.
I have a great deal of muscle-memory using Pine, and I fly using it, which is extremely important to me. I'm able to perform the operations I want to in Pine very quickly. I also use Pine as my newsreader, but I'm not a heavy news guy.
If there was a mailer I'd switch to it might be nmh, but only with a strongly personalized, self-written frontend.
It can die, or it can not depending on how it's used.
Being guaranteed to die or throw an exception is almost a must. The user needs to know immediately if he violated the function's signature. Not dying is just as bad as accessing non-existing hash keys and getting undef instead of an exception being thrown, IMO.
function('foo', an_arg=>'baz', 'bar', anoter=>4); # doesn't work
Doesn't work in Python either, of course. All varargs must come before kwargs.
It works only with a fixed number of unnamed arguments.
With Python the user of the function gets to decide how many arguments are specified by position, and which by naming.
Does it also die if it has an 'extra' key? Also, does it allow you to mix ordered arguments and named arguments at the user's discretion? I'm aware of the common Perl practice for sending in args via a list interpreted as a hash; however, it isn't quite the same or clean as what you can do in Python:
function('foo', 'bar', an_arg='baz', another=4)
Re:Perl was ruled out WHY???
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Here are some key things which make Python much easier to maintain than Perl:
named arguments
exceptions thrown if called with inappropriate number or wrongly named args (I forget the technical term)
strongly typed
real exception model
base calls throw exceptions (e.g., array out of index)
docstrings
And here's a killer:
a much better ability to 'analyze' language constructs (e.g., pydoc)
Lawrence Lessig has some notes on the letter. His argument on why this rule would be bad comes down to
If that is his principle, then it follows that the government can't fund projects that result in proprietary code (since there are some entities (say, the Free Software Foundation) that can't, consistent with their business model, accept that code), or more radically, it means that the government can't fund research that results in patents (since there are some business models that can't pay the price of a patent). The only research the government could support, on this theory, is research that produces work in the public domain.
That is an interesting but radical principle. The government funds all sorts of research that results in patents, and in proprietary code. So the real question for Congressman Smith is this: Does he believe the government can't support proprietary or patented work if he believes it can't support GPLd work? Is he advancing a principle, or just FUD about GPL.
I'm just worried that if this goes through, there will be another push to prohibit the government from contributing to GPL'd software, such as the NSA has done with SE Linux.
Actually, Merriam and Websters thinks that my usage is also correct (definition 2a, which implies a synonym to morals).
But, leaving that as is, kindly proove that MS's behavior is unethical--beyond the obvious, and their predatory business pracitces are only bad if they're as big as they are; were MS a small fry, they could try every strategy that they do and it wouldn't be amoral or unethical.
It is poor form to request 'proof' in a non formal logic setting. I can, however, suggest subjective evidence that persons can decide for themselves with. The lying that went on during the DoJ trial is a pretty good indicator (claim: "It's impossible to remove IE!"). Gates lying during testimony too. I think these instances show immoral behaviour irregardless of the size of the corp.
MS et al really, truly believe that what they're doing is the right thing. Their arguments are not "justifications" for "controling your computer"--they're honestly believed arguments.
MS can only truly believe what they're doing is the right thing if the 'right thing' is making MS more powerful. Furthermore, anyone can get oneself to believe in self-rationalizations of one's unethical behaviour.
With closed source, it's merely a gamble that the package isn't producing correct results. Sure, you can spot-check results. A clever malicious program, however, would only falsify data some of the time, to avoid detection.
I used to work for an inventory company which would count stock at stores. At some stores, we would recount everything. At others, we would merely recount mabye 10% of the stock, or maybe do 2 checks per employee. Generally my company would guarantee a certain degree of accuracy, and would refund a certain amount if we exceeded that tolerance; however, there were also monetary benefits for the inventory company to finish within a specified time. We knew, however, what would and would not be checked closely. If we needed to, we knew how to setup our inventory procedure so that we were 'perceived' to be within tolerance and finishing within the allotted time.
The point is that if there is determination to falsify the numbers, a way can be found. And it's much easier to do so with less transparency of the trusted unit.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more like people leaving their doors open, and complaining about people walking through their house all the time. It's trivial to implement basic anti-spam measures, such as whitelisting.
Spammers attempt to send me about 200 pieces of spam a day. About 2 a day get through my filters, and the measures I'm taking are purely static rules.
Stop complaining about spam and learn to do something against it. Don't leave your doors wide open.
Why should that burden be placed on every person who writes anything? Rather, persons reading others's personal writings should compelled to know better. We need Caveat Emptor for readers.
Bullocks
The case isn't always clear cut. Not all contracts are legally binding. Furthermore, your rights for Freedom of Speech may trump part or all of an NDA.
The same point that most technical decisions are based on. Buzzword compliance.
Maybe for the first guy down the line, but not necessarily the second.
While their code is based upon BSD heritage, is anything Apple released under the BSD license?
There are a lot of posters here saying "Darwin uses BSD, not GPL!". If I am not mistaken, this is completely wrong. Darwin is based upon BSD tools, but is not BSD licensed. It's a perfect example of BSD code taken and put under proprietary wraps.
You're confusing the issue. The GNU toolset is not 'GPL technology', and Darwin, while based upon some BSD tools, is not released under the BSD license.
Currently I don't have any connection at home (I'm a shutin who works at an ISP and uses its connection :), but I can say for sure that when I do get a connection at home, it'll be DSL, or another service provided by a company with common carrier status. I just can't stand the notion that cable companies can and do filter IP.
Never underestimate The Power of Stupid People in Large Numbers.
Just because concepts and qualities such as Free Software are subjective doesn't make them irrevelant.
I've been using Pine for about 5 years now, after moving to unix from Eudora on a Windows box, and am still extremely happy with it. I've tried Mutt, but I didn't like the 'feel' of it as much as Pine. While Mutt's bindings are configurable, the functions they provide just didn't match up to how I use Pine.
I have a great deal of muscle-memory using Pine, and I fly using it, which is extremely important to me. I'm able to perform the operations I want to in Pine very quickly. I also use Pine as my newsreader, but I'm not a heavy news guy.
If there was a mailer I'd switch to it might be nmh, but only with a strongly personalized, self-written frontend.
I can see how one could make a living with two of those options, but how in the world could you make money gassing kittens?
Statically-typed languages (e.g., Eiffel) are easier to maintain than dynamically-typed ones (e.g., Perl, Python), for they are self-documenting.
Being guaranteed to die or throw an exception is almost a must. The user needs to know immediately if he violated the function's signature. Not dying is just as bad as accessing non-existing hash keys and getting undef instead of an exception being thrown, IMO.
Doesn't work in Python either, of course. All varargs must come before kwargs.
With Python the user of the function gets to decide how many arguments are specified by position, and which by naming.
ML is actually a great example of strong typing: Strong Typing and Perl (Strong Typing Doesn't Have to Suck)
Does it also die if it has an 'extra' key? Also, does it allow you to mix ordered arguments and named arguments at the user's discretion? I'm aware of the common Perl practice for sending in args via a list interpreted as a hash; however, it isn't quite the same or clean as what you can do in Python:
function('foo', 'bar', an_arg='baz', another=4)
Here are some key things which make Python much easier to maintain than Perl:
And here's a killer:
Lawrence Lessig has some notes on the letter. His argument on why this rule would be bad comes down to
I'm just worried that if this goes through, there will be another push to prohibit the government from contributing to GPL'd software, such as the NSA has done with SE Linux.
Actually, Merriam and Websters thinks that my usage is also correct (definition 2a, which implies a synonym to morals).
It is poor form to request 'proof' in a non formal logic setting. I can, however, suggest subjective evidence that persons can decide for themselves with. The lying that went on during the DoJ trial is a pretty good indicator (claim: "It's impossible to remove IE!"). Gates lying during testimony too. I think these instances show immoral behaviour irregardless of the size of the corp.
MS can only truly believe what they're doing is the right thing if the 'right thing' is making MS more powerful. Furthermore, anyone can get oneself to believe in self-rationalizations of one's unethical behaviour.
Amazon URLs have unique identifiers in them, so your link to Amazon doesn't work. Pretty crappy design, IMO.
With closed source, it's merely a gamble that the package isn't producing correct results. Sure, you can spot-check results. A clever malicious program, however, would only falsify data some of the time, to avoid detection.
I used to work for an inventory company which would count stock at stores. At some stores, we would recount everything. At others, we would merely recount mabye 10% of the stock, or maybe do 2 checks per employee. Generally my company would guarantee a certain degree of accuracy, and would refund a certain amount if we exceeded that tolerance; however, there were also monetary benefits for the inventory company to finish within a specified time. We knew, however, what would and would not be checked closely. If we needed to, we knew how to setup our inventory procedure so that we were 'perceived' to be within tolerance and finishing within the allotted time.
The point is that if there is determination to falsify the numbers, a way can be found. And it's much easier to do so with less transparency of the trusted unit.
I'm surprised that the PDF hasn't turned up on Gnutella, Freenet, or on newsgroups posted anonymously.