Mozilla "ain't all that and a bag of potato chips" (Dr. Evil tone) until it has Java support. This is really crucial. Many companies and applications rely on a browser to deliver Java apps, whether publicly over the internet, or just privately on the intranet. If Mozilla does not support Java, nobody with Java as "critical path" will change to it. Java and Mozilla can certainly compliment each other.
While debugging an Apache build with a coworker I used Google to look for a certain bug. And, as expected the first few hits contained what we needed. Later said coworker referred to this as the "Google trick" I showed her. (??) Don't know what part of it was a trick. It's just a search engine like the rest. Just happens to be very good;)
Java doesn't let you use primitives (int, short, etc) as classes without wrapping them yourself (lots of overhead).
This is incorrect. Java has int, long, float, double, char, byte as primitives. REAL primitives. Not just wrappers. Yes, you can use wrappers but you don't have to. In fact this is actually considered by some a FLAW in the design of Java because Java is not "pure" OO since it has these primitives. But saying Java has no primitives is just incorrect. The primitives are just fundamental types, not native types (Good Thing).
Java doesn't let you drop down to native code and turn off the garbage collector if you need to. Or use pointers if you want to talk to the underlying C-based OS.
Also wrong. Java has JNI for dropping to native code. I believe there are also several garbage collection options for the VM. I believe you can turn it off.
The rest of your points are indeed different from Java, but nothing spectacular or new. Object Pascal (Delphi) has had properties you describe since its inception. In fact, Delphi is a damn good product.
Hey, can't I just, say, set up some shady Fly-By-Night-Software, make some trivial program violating the GPL (ON PURPOSE) then have the FSF sue me. Being amicable to the FSF, I'll hire some dumb clueless lawyer and lose the suit. But I suppose that is illegal:o
* SuperMake, closed derivate of Gnu Make, now released! Get your copy for only 5 bucks! *
Actually XML is very intriguing as an RPC mechanism. First of all, just think of no versioning problems. Upgraded one side? No problem, the old servers or clients will just read out what they need. Also, imagine store and forwarding of RPC requests 8) You could audit log or stash requests in some space, and then serve them out. It provides the best of both worlds of messaging and RPC. Plus it's platform-neutral and human-readable.
Anyone ever look at the work plowed into mIRC for Windows? What a *waste* of time (and apparently, years of someone's life).
Huh? I don't see where you get off saying that someone who has devoted their time to making a cool app for the love of it and given it for "gratis" (if not "liber") is a *waste* of their time. If he enjoyed doing it, good for him. If he wants to give the binaries away good for him. Nobody *owes* anybody source. If you don't like it, don't use it (BitchX is just fine, thank you), and get off his wave. Sheesh. Some people.
Yes, there is a threat in setting an "almost-free" precedent. But that threat is coming from the big boys like Sun and Apple. Not some guy making some app at home.
Yeah, I was just watching PBS the other night and they were talking about meteorites. It's funny how if a danger is out of sight, it's out of mind. "What? Really? An asteroid could wipe us out? No! You're joking!" It's scary to see objects measured in meters taking out sections of the earth measured in cubic miles. I think we need to stop futzing around with all this nuclear war posing and realize that mother nature could very well do some serious damage to us without a second thought.
Open source can be more trusted than closed source.
Formally designed and reviewed software can be more trusted than chaotically assembled software.
These seem orthogonal to me (and to each other! wakka wakka wakka!).
Not really. Remember, most of the internet was built on "formally designed and reviewed" "open source" software. Look at the BSD development cycle, for example. It is much more controlled than say, the release-early-and-often-new-micro-version-every-fi ve-minutes Linux world (although significant kernel changes have to be funneled through Linus anyway, save the flames). Open Source != chaos. I think you will find that a lot of the major open source software that has really built the community and lead us here, was built slowly and steadily with lots of peer review, against a standard, by every day engineers...not some random kids moonlighting on opposite sides of the globe.
So...the question is...who gets the patent, and what for? Can the engineer really claim that he "invented" this engine because he used GA? Should the algorithm itself be patented? Inventing machines. Food for thought.
Somebody else made an excellent post describing this stuff in more detail.
To sum it up, the neuron acts pseudo-digitally. It must first determine if the stimulus is enough to fire. But once it has determined it is, it then fires an analog signal, the power of which is encoded by the firing rate.
Contrast this to a purely digital neuron, who, after recieving a stimulus, will just fire normally, and not really give any analog data as to how powerful the original stimulus was.
So real neurons are sort of passing some more info along, and I assume this allows for all sorts of subtle and nuanced feedback loops, etc., that may not be possible in a completely digital neural net.
And I was just watching the last JavaOne keynote webcast today and was pleasantly surprised when Tim O'Reilly brought up Gnutella and its role as facilitating sharing and communication. In a totally positive light. I'm sure for many in the audience this was the first time a Big Name had talked about Open Source. So I'm glad the FUD didn't get to them first.
I don't say "pound". I say "hash". What the heck does "pound" have to do with it anyway? (yes, it was the symbols for the pound measurement or somesuch, but that is pretty much irrelevant usage).
Wouldn't anonymity be easily afforded by just routing downloads through the list of servers through which the search was performed? Sure, you might take a little hit in download speed, but I would think that would be pretty anonymous and pretty trivial to implement. Each server would be a proxy so you never *really* know where a request is going. The GnutellaNet would just be a large black box with search requests going in and data coming out.
Well, my impression is that if some level of stimulation hits an analog neuron, that neuron can fire others with some fraction of that stimulation. While a "digital" neuron would have to determine whether the signal was "enough" stimulation and if so, stimulate the others, otherwise don't stimulate them at all.
Because since the code is open, as a coder, you are given entirely free reign to do what you want to do, how you want to do it, and are "empowered" to actually discover and remedy bugs.
Because you are not at the mercy of a large, faceless, corporation which dictates the APIs and specifications to you, forces you to use certain tools, locks you in, and makes you pay through the nose.
Because Linux, Unix, and open source *wants* and *needs* you. Microsoft couldn't care less. There are beanie weenies falling all over themselves to become l33t VB c0ders.
I rambled a bit there but the point I'm trying to make is that we may be a bit f*cked up at the moment, but I believe we'd do better fixing what we've got than trying to switch over to a socialist/facist/whatever system.
It's not an all-or-nothing deal though. We already have socialist aspects integrated...like socialized health care and education and some socialized, or at least heaviliy regulated and hand-picked, industry. We don't have to "switch over". We *can* fix what we've got by introducing some common sense reform...instead of having knee-jerk reactions that imaginary "socialism" and "communism" will turn our country into some fascist tyrannical police state. It's all so tired and stupid.
Would the words "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" rule out the net in the first place? A stream of electrons isn't exactly "tangible". And the data isn't tied to any particular storage medium (I can store an MP3 by etching it in a rock if I want...will they then outlaw copying of rocks?).
You may pursue happiness as long as it doesn't not impinge on the same pursuit of any other person. Now, of course this is very vague. But IMHO, at the point you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or threaten to assasinate the president, etc., you are infringing upon the rights of other people to otherwise feel safe. You may actually be causing harm. You are disturbing the peace. Sure, this is all very vague, but there can be obvious exceptions, like the above. Intimidating somebody with physical harm, e.g., I'd say is not "free speech".
It makes me cringe when I see a new "Learn C++ in 24 hours" title on the bookshelf, because I know those texts will screw people up.
It scares me how much stuff might actually be running out there written by people that actually thought they could "Learn C++ in 24 hours". *SHUDDER* "Learning" C++ is a labor of *years*.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know, OJI (Open Java Interconnect) has been broken for some time. Is this not true? Are there any docs on how to enable Java support?
Mozilla "ain't all that and a bag of potato chips" (Dr. Evil tone) until it has Java support. This is really crucial. Many companies and applications rely on a browser to deliver Java apps, whether publicly over the internet, or just privately on the intranet. If Mozilla does not support Java, nobody with Java as "critical path" will change to it. Java and Mozilla can certainly compliment each other.
Eeeeeeeeeeexcellent... (in Monty Burns tone)
;)
While debugging an Apache build with a coworker I used Google to look for a certain bug. And, as expected the first few hits contained what we needed. Later said coworker referred to this as the "Google trick" I showed her. (??) Don't know what part of it was a trick. It's just a search engine like the rest. Just happens to be very good
This is incorrect. Java has int, long, float, double, char, byte as primitives. REAL primitives. Not just wrappers. Yes, you can use wrappers but you don't have to. In fact this is actually considered by some a FLAW in the design of Java because Java is not "pure" OO since it has these primitives. But saying Java has no primitives is just incorrect. The primitives are just fundamental types, not native types (Good Thing).
Also wrong. Java has JNI for dropping to native code. I believe there are also several garbage collection options for the VM. I believe you can turn it off.
The rest of your points are indeed different from Java, but nothing spectacular or new. Object Pascal (Delphi) has had properties you describe since its inception. In fact, Delphi is a damn good product.
Hey, can't I just, say, set up some shady Fly-By-Night-Software, make some trivial program violating the GPL (ON PURPOSE) then have the FSF sue me. Being amicable to the FSF, I'll hire some dumb clueless lawyer and lose the suit. But I suppose that is illegal :o
* SuperMake, closed derivate of Gnu Make, now released! Get your copy for only 5 bucks! *
The development branch is 2 major releases ahead of the stable? What's up with that?
Actually XML is very intriguing as an RPC mechanism. First of all, just think of no versioning problems. Upgraded one side? No problem, the old servers or clients will just read out what they need. Also, imagine store and forwarding of RPC requests 8) You could audit log or stash requests in some space, and then serve them out. It provides the best of both worlds of messaging and RPC. Plus it's platform-neutral and human-readable.
This smells of Application Service Provider. Hey, don't PURCHASE office...just PAY us each time you use it over the net.
Huh? I don't see where you get off saying that someone who has devoted their time to making a cool app for the love of it and given it for "gratis" (if not "liber") is a *waste* of their time. If he enjoyed doing it, good for him. If he wants to give the binaries away good for him. Nobody *owes* anybody source. If you don't like it, don't use it (BitchX is just fine, thank you), and get off his wave. Sheesh. Some people.
Yes, there is a threat in setting an "almost-free" precedent. But that threat is coming from the big boys like Sun and Apple. Not some guy making some app at home.
Yeah, I was just watching PBS the other night and they were talking about meteorites. It's funny how if a danger is out of sight, it's out of mind. "What? Really? An asteroid could wipe us out? No! You're joking!" It's scary to see objects measured in meters taking out sections of the earth measured in cubic miles. I think we need to stop futzing around with all this nuclear war posing and realize that mother nature could very well do some serious damage to us without a second thought.
Not really. Remember, most of the internet was built on "formally designed and reviewed" "open source" software. Look at the BSD development cycle, for example. It is much more controlled than say, the release-early-and-often-new-micro-version-every-f
So...the question is...who gets the patent, and what for? Can the engineer really claim that he "invented" this engine because he used GA? Should the algorithm itself be patented? Inventing machines. Food for thought.
Wow, you've described a great DDoS! 8)
Somebody else made an excellent post describing this stuff in more detail.
To sum it up, the neuron acts pseudo-digitally. It must first determine if the stimulus is enough to fire. But once it has determined it is, it then fires an analog signal, the power of which is encoded by the firing rate.
Contrast this to a purely digital neuron, who, after recieving a stimulus, will just fire normally, and not really give any analog data as to how powerful the original stimulus was.
So real neurons are sort of passing some more info along, and I assume this allows for all sorts of subtle and nuanced feedback loops, etc., that may not be possible in a completely digital neural net.
And I was just watching the last JavaOne keynote webcast today and was pleasantly surprised when Tim O'Reilly brought up Gnutella and its role as facilitating sharing and communication. In a totally positive light. I'm sure for many in the audience this was the first time a Big Name had talked about Open Source. So I'm glad the FUD didn't get to them first.
I am not a crook
I did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson
I did not have sexual relations with that woman
This is not a response to Java
I don't say "pound". I say "hash". What the heck does "pound" have to do with it anyway? (yes, it was the symbols for the pound measurement or somesuch, but that is pretty much irrelevant usage).
Wouldn't anonymity be easily afforded by just routing downloads through the list of servers through which the search was performed? Sure, you might take a little hit in download speed, but I would think that would be pretty anonymous and pretty trivial to implement. Each server would be a proxy so you never *really* know where a request is going. The GnutellaNet would just be a large black box with search requests going in and data coming out.
Well, my impression is that if some level of stimulation hits an analog neuron, that neuron can fire others with some fraction of that stimulation. While a "digital" neuron would have to determine whether the signal was "enough" stimulation and if so, stimulate the others, otherwise don't stimulate them at all.
Why?
Because since the code is open, as a coder, you are given entirely free reign to do what you want to do, how you want to do it, and are "empowered" to actually discover and remedy bugs.
Because you are not at the mercy of a large, faceless, corporation which dictates the APIs and specifications to you, forces you to use certain tools, locks you in, and makes you pay through the nose.
Because Linux, Unix, and open source *wants* and *needs* you. Microsoft couldn't care less. There are beanie weenies falling all over themselves to become l33t VB c0ders.
Because it is the Right Thing.
It's not an all-or-nothing deal though. We already have socialist aspects integrated...like socialized health care and education and some socialized, or at least heaviliy regulated and hand-picked, industry. We don't have to "switch over". We *can* fix what we've got by introducing some common sense reform...instead of having knee-jerk reactions that imaginary "socialism" and "communism" will turn our country into some fascist tyrannical police state. It's all so tired and stupid.
Would the words "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" rule out the net in the first place? A stream of electrons isn't exactly "tangible". And the data isn't tied to any particular storage medium (I can store an MP3 by etching it in a rock if I want...will they then outlaw copying of rocks?).
This is my take:
You may pursue happiness as long as it doesn't not impinge on the same pursuit of any other person. Now, of course this is very vague. But IMHO, at the point you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or threaten to assasinate the president, etc., you are infringing upon the rights of other people to otherwise feel safe. You may actually be causing harm. You are disturbing the peace. Sure, this is all very vague, but there can be obvious exceptions, like the above. Intimidating somebody with physical harm, e.g., I'd say is not "free speech".
It scares me how much stuff might actually be running out there written by people that actually thought they could "Learn C++ in 24 hours". *SHUDDER* "Learning" C++ is a labor of *years*.