really? how many kids make their *parents* lunch? I've never heard of this one. Anyway, I can easily make or pack my own lunch, or trade green paper for it.
- Give you a hug
not necessary
- Smile
overratted
- Hold your hand
germs
- Carry your bag
Although I like where you are going with the forced labor theme, unfortunately most children just aren't that capable. I don't really have that many bags that need holding (or dropping) either.
- Laugh
see Smile
- Get sick
I'm not so sure about this one...computers seem to be able to get sick just fine
- Cry
Which is fortunate as that would probably fry the electronics.
- Call you at work
Thank god.
- Run into you
You got me on this one. I'll just have to take your word for it. I never really felt the need to be "run into".
- No matter how many laptops you buy, you won't be able to share your life, your lessons, your beliefs, or your ideas with a laptop.
Boo hoo. For one, I probably can share all of those things with a laptop. But secondly, isn't it at least a little selfish and conceited to require the existence of somebody else *just* to "share" yourself with? Maybe my life, lessons and beliefs are just stupid. Is it right for me to force that stupidity on a child that doesn't really know any better? At the least its just a futile ego trip.
Issue 8 of the ZeroC (creators of the Ice RPC protocol) linked to an active discussion in the rpc blogosphere on the legacy of CORBA, the fate of SOAP, and the age old problems of RPC:
Even if I do define WSDL that is "loose" and makes lots of things optional, that typically doesn't help me. Loose coupling isn't of interest just for its own sake, but is of interest because people are looking for a way to solve the versioning problem: how can I evolve a distributed application over time without breaking everything that is deployed already, and without having to recompile and redeploy the universe? If I define WSDL that is "loose" to start with, so I get the loose coupling I so much need, by implication, I know in advance how the application will evolve: I put the "loose" bits in the WSDL definitions where I expect future variation in the data. But real life doesn't work that way. None of us is prescient and, as a rule, what makes the versioning problem so hard is that we *don't* know how an application will evolve in the future. In other words, people who say that I can solve the problem by writing "loose" WSDL are kidding themselves: the real world is not cooperative enough for this to work.
* Michi Henning
It's odd that CORBA should end up being sidelined by most of its original supporters, in favour of a supposedly simpler and cheaper system that ends up being frantically complicated (well over 100 related specifications, and counting) and far more expensive. But that's business for you!
And here is another prediction: once people get over their current fixation with loose coupling, they will finally realize that, to get loose coupling, I don't need loose type systems that throw away compile-time type safety, and I don't need support at the protocol level at horrendous cost in performance. All I need is intelligent system design, a middleware that offers a workable implementation of multiple interfaces (check out Ice facets), and domain-specific standardization. With that, I get type safety, flexibility, and performance.
Not to quibble with your point but patents *are* like property in that they exist to enforce the physical notion of mutual exclusion. We can't both distinctly have/use the same physical property at the same time (ok, we can share the use if we make some further arrangement using requiring a tradeoff in time or space). This is not the case with "intellectual" property so patents are one way to make this non-tangible property act (at least in a single fashion) like physical property. So whether or not that is the best legal characterization of patents, it is at least tenable as A characterization of patents. Yes, lawyers should probably know better about using the right language.
By revealing the government's conspiracy to infringe on our freedoms you are leaking sensitive information and are obstructing the government's ability to protect the freedoms of ours that we now no longer have. Shame on you liberal elitist Slashdot.
I think it's because typically the "message" which is meaningful to most application is of larger granularity than a single byte, so it makes sense to instead synchronize around that message. Also, you want to ensure that the semantics of your API and your synchronization match. It makes no sense to preserve integrety without preserving semantics. The best way to do that is to either explicitly make a copy, or to "lease" the structure until such time as you are notified that all necessary work has been done. You need access to be atomic on the scale you are interested in. Not just arbitrary bytes. After all we already have instructions that are atomic on arbitrary bytes.
What is so bad about Slashdot Coliseo wordmark and the goddamn stupid fucking green colour? Sure it might be fun to have maybe a different goddamn stupid fucking color, but the green isn't *that* bad. I happen to like the Coliseo logo.
To me, it comes down to the fact that if you want to build really robust systems, guess what, you have to deal with that "decentralized" problem. It doesn't go away. A local display is a lot simpler to create. A distributed display, like X11, is a lot more complicated, but opens a new world of possibilities. Same goes for everything else: distributed disk, distributed compute resources, distributed input devices (multiple keyboards, mice, anyone?), distributed screens, distributed media production/consumption (phonon, nimm: http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS5209121793.html).
So eventually you have to solve the problem. Might as well drive the solution straight to the core of the kernel so it can handle these situations natively.
Err...except "North America" is a continent, not a political region, and the line between state and federal government is quite clear in the USA, whereas by your own description it is much less clear:
* "UK, which is a country and member nation of the UN" * "England, which is a region, home nation and constituent country of the UK" (ok, so now a country can be composed of other countries) * "England...doesn't have it's own government", "The NHS in England is run by the UK government"... ok so "England" which is a "region" doesn't have it's own government like most "country"s would, but instead relies on some parent federal UK government, but on the other hand other terroritories, which you are calling "constituent countries" DO have their own governments (or well, NHS at least) * let's not forget sundry colonies...are these technically in the UK still?
So please, figure out what the fuck is going on amongst yourselves. I guess I'm guided to just call you all "British" in the meantime.
You've just lost a powerful abstraction in the Python and Ruby syntax (in C++ I think the concept of buffering is "built-in" to all the stream classes, but I'm not sure). The BufferedReader in Java can wrap *arbitrary* readers (and streams), whether they originate from a file, or socket, or simply a byte array in memory. I don't buy the verbosity argument. For one, auto-completion solves that almost entirely...with Eclipse, I rarely ever have to type out the entire class name, just Buf{ctrl-space}. Furthermore, verbose code is more documenting. If I'm in a deadlock situation, I know to start looking to see if something is doing some blocking buffering. So really verbosity is the least of Java's problems, if one can even consider it a problem.
"And only the looniest christian churches condemn people just because "they're gay".
That's interesting. The only Christians I have *ever* heard do indeed "condemn" gay people, even if it is the "soft" condemnation of merely treating them as a sinner of the worst sort (honor thy mother and father, do not covet thy neighbor's house, remember the sabbath day - what about all those other technical "sinners" out there?).
So where are these moderate christians, and why aren't they speaking out, instead of letting all the "loony" ones speak for them?
Lack of belief in a god is not a belief of a lack of a god. That is what it seems the religious don't understand - that if you simply refrain from belief that you suddenly have a positive disbelief (and are therefore sinful, evil, satanic, etc.). Given that gods are by definition undetectable the debate and question is pointless. It's not that people absolutely believe in the lack of a god, it's just that there is no evidence for one.
Since when is Intelligent Design/Creationism a "theory"? It doesn't even deserve the reputation as theory. Theories are rational, testable and predictive. ID/Creationism is fantasy. Evolution can offer predictions about the natural world. What can ID/Creationism "predict"?
Actually the article was very confusing. At one point it refers the the nerd team as the MySQL team (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261695-4,00. htm), after previously introducing the nerd team as the Oracel (BDB) team. Then in the last picture is says that the nerd team had a strong lead but the mysql team came back and won. The picture actually depicts the Oracle nerd team with trophies. So it's anybody's guess what the fuck is going on. I know it's trivial, but that type of shit bugs the hell out of me.
Why would Apple care if the app is "ported" to the Mac? If it can be run in virtualization, it essentially is already "ported"! That gives more people reason to buy Macs!
"What have many Slashdot readers done to gain experience with tools not taught inside the classroom?"
I find money is a good motivation. Find a job that gives you room to learn (or in fact demands that you learn). Most CS, even most of the theory, can be readily learned from textbooks. The professors are just reiterating the textbook to you. The computer and manuals are the only tools you need, and presuming you actually have access to a computer all the other stuff is dirt cheap (compared to physical sciences...).
Slashdot Mirror
"The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation"
Presumably if the installation is in YOUR OWN HOUSE it has been "authorized" by...YOURSELF.
- Mow your lawn
they make machines for that
- Make your lunch
really? how many kids make their *parents* lunch? I've never heard of this one. Anyway, I can easily make or pack my own lunch, or trade green paper for it.
- Give you a hug
not necessary
- Smile
overratted
- Hold your hand
germs
- Carry your bag
Although I like where you are going with the forced labor theme, unfortunately most children just aren't that capable. I don't really have that many bags that need holding (or dropping) either.
- Laugh
see Smile
- Get sick
I'm not so sure about this one...computers seem to be able to get sick just fine
- Cry
Which is fortunate as that would probably fry the electronics.
- Call you at work
Thank god.
- Run into you
You got me on this one. I'll just have to take your word for it. I never really felt the need to be "run into".
- No matter how many laptops you buy, you won't be able to share your life, your lessons, your beliefs, or your ideas with a laptop.
Boo hoo. For one, I probably can share all of those things with a laptop. But secondly, isn't it at least a little selfish and conceited to require the existence of somebody else *just* to "share" yourself with? Maybe my life, lessons and beliefs are just stupid. Is it right for me to force that stupidity on a child that doesn't really know any better? At the least its just a futile ego trip.
Issue 8 of the ZeroC (creators of the Ice RPC protocol) linked to an active discussion in the rpc blogosphere on the legacy of CORBA, the fate of SOAP, and the age old problems of RPC:
* exhibit A: 11:40 Oct 3, 05: Mark Baker claims CORBA was a technical failure ( http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/Blog/2005/10/03#20 05-10-ws-corba )
* exhibit B: 15:38 Oct 3, 05: Steve Vinoski of Iona (leading CORBA vendor) begs to differ ( http://www.iona.com/blogs/vinoski/archives/000214. html ); a long discussion including Michi Henning from ZeroC ensues in the comments, including:
Even if I do define WSDL that is "loose" and makes lots of things optional, that typically doesn't help me. Loose coupling isn't of interest just for its own sake, but is of interest because people are looking for a way to solve the versioning problem: how can I evolve a distributed application over time without breaking everything that is deployed already, and without having to recompile and redeploy the universe? If I define WSDL that is "loose" to start with, so I get the loose coupling I so much need, by implication, I know in advance how the application will evolve: I put the "loose" bits in the WSDL definitions where I expect future variation in the data. But real life doesn't work that way. None of us is prescient and, as a rule, what makes the versioning problem so hard is that we *don't* know how an application will evolve in the future. In other words, people who say that I can solve the problem by writing "loose" WSDL are kidding themselves: the real world is not cooperative enough for this to work.
* Michi Henning
It's odd that CORBA should end up being sidelined by most of its original supporters, in favour of a supposedly simpler and cheaper system that ends up being frantically complicated (well over 100 related specifications, and counting) and far more expensive. But that's business for you!
* Tom Welsh
* exhibit C: 23:05 Oct 13, 05: Ted Neward discovers and enters the discussion ( http://blogs.tedneward.com/CommentView,guid,070274 e8-ccfd-4ebd-87b5-494564c39b77.aspx )
And here is another prediction: once people get over their current fixation with loose coupling, they will finally realize that, to get loose coupling, I don't need loose type systems that throw away compile-time type safety, and I don't need support at the protocol level at horrendous cost in performance. All I need is intelligent system design, a middleware that offers a workable implementation of multiple interfaces (check out Ice facets), and domain-specific standardization. With that, I get type safety, flexibility, and performance.
* Michi Henning
* exhibit D: 17:32 Oct 22, 05: Ken Horn comments on the issue ( http://kendes.blogspot.com/2005/10/loose-coupling- corba-vs-ws.html )
Links
* PEPt - An Architecture for Adaptable Remoting Systems ( http://haroldcarr.net/pept/ )
* YAML ( http://www.yaml.org/ )
* A Conversation with Roger Sessions and Terry Coatta ( http://www.acmqueue.com/m
the most "successful" organisms are bacteria, so yeah
Not to quibble with your point but patents *are* like property in that they exist to enforce the physical notion of mutual exclusion. We can't both distinctly have/use the same physical property at the same time (ok, we can share the use if we make some further arrangement using requiring a tradeoff in time or space). This is not the case with "intellectual" property so patents are one way to make this non-tangible property act (at least in a single fashion) like physical property. So whether or not that is the best legal characterization of patents, it is at least tenable as A characterization of patents. Yes, lawyers should probably know better about using the right language.
By revealing the government's conspiracy to infringe on our freedoms you are leaking sensitive information and are obstructing the government's ability to protect the freedoms of ours that we now no longer have. Shame on you liberal elitist Slashdot.
Yeah, bring Nixon back. That guy was the paragon of ethics compared to this administration.
I think it's because typically the "message" which is meaningful to most application is of larger granularity than a single byte, so it makes sense to instead synchronize around that message. Also, you want to ensure that the semantics of your API and your synchronization match. It makes no sense to preserve integrety without preserving semantics. The best way to do that is to either explicitly make a copy, or to "lease" the structure until such time as you are notified that all necessary work has been done. You need access to be atomic on the scale you are interested in. Not just arbitrary bytes. After all we already have instructions that are atomic on arbitrary bytes.
I'd like to see what the "Lite"/"Simple" modes look like in the new scheme (any/all of them).
wow that is pretty nice. I'm more of an elegant and simple CSS guy than flashy curvy ergonomics guy.
What is so bad about Slashdot Coliseo wordmark and the goddamn stupid fucking green colour? Sure it might be fun to have maybe a different goddamn stupid fucking color, but the green isn't *that* bad. I happen to like the Coliseo logo.
To me, it comes down to the fact that if you want to build really robust systems, guess what, you have to deal with that "decentralized" problem. It doesn't go away. A local display is a lot simpler to create. A distributed display, like X11, is a lot more complicated, but opens a new world of possibilities. Same goes for everything else: distributed disk, distributed compute resources, distributed input devices (multiple keyboards, mice, anyone?), distributed screens, distributed media production/consumption (phonon, nimm: http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS5209121793.html ).
So eventually you have to solve the problem. Might as well drive the solution straight to the core of the kernel so it can handle these situations natively.
Does Adam Smith's invisible hand cure cancer?
Err...except "North America" is a continent, not a political region, and the line between state and federal government is quite clear in the USA, whereas by your own description it is much less clear:
* "UK, which is a country and member nation of the UN"
* "England, which is a region, home nation and constituent country of the UK" (ok, so now a country can be composed of other countries)
* "England...doesn't have it's own government", "The NHS in England is run by the UK government"... ok so "England" which is a "region" doesn't have it's own government like most "country"s would, but instead relies on some parent federal UK government, but on the other hand other terroritories, which you are calling "constituent countries" DO have their own governments (or well, NHS at least)
* let's not forget sundry colonies...are these technically in the UK still?
So please, figure out what the fuck is going on amongst yourselves. I guess I'm guided to just call you all "British" in the meantime.
You've just lost a powerful abstraction in the Python and Ruby syntax (in C++ I think the concept of buffering is "built-in" to all the stream classes, but I'm not sure). The BufferedReader in Java can wrap *arbitrary* readers (and streams), whether they originate from a file, or socket, or simply a byte array in memory. I don't buy the verbosity argument. For one, auto-completion solves that almost entirely...with Eclipse, I rarely ever have to type out the entire class name, just Buf{ctrl-space}. Furthermore, verbose code is more documenting. If I'm in a deadlock situation, I know to start looking to see if something is doing some blocking buffering. So really verbosity is the least of Java's problems, if one can even consider it a problem.
This brings a whole new meaning to: "can you reset my password?"
It's just a LOGO, who cares.
I mostly use the Simple Layout style to get rid of the vestigial column on the left hand side. Other than that the layout seems fine.
Oh yeah, Gonzales is a good actor. He acts like an incompetent and feckless yes man.
"And only the looniest christian churches condemn people just because "they're gay".
That's interesting. The only Christians I have *ever* heard do indeed "condemn" gay people, even if it is the "soft" condemnation of merely treating them as a sinner of the worst sort (honor thy mother and father, do not covet thy neighbor's house, remember the sabbath day - what about all those other technical "sinners" out there?).
So where are these moderate christians, and why aren't they speaking out, instead of letting all the "loony" ones speak for them?
Lack of belief in a god is not a belief of a lack of a god. That is what it seems the religious don't understand - that if you simply refrain from belief that you suddenly have a positive disbelief (and are therefore sinful, evil, satanic, etc.). Given that gods are by definition undetectable the debate and question is pointless. It's not that people absolutely believe in the lack of a god, it's just that there is no evidence for one.
Since when is Intelligent Design/Creationism a "theory"? It doesn't even deserve the reputation as theory. Theories are rational, testable and predictive. ID/Creationism is fantasy. Evolution can offer predictions about the natural world. What can ID/Creationism "predict"?
Actually the article was very confusing. At one point it refers the the nerd team as the MySQL team (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261695-4,00. htm), after previously introducing the nerd team as the Oracel (BDB) team. Then in the last picture is says that the nerd team had a strong lead but the mysql team came back and won. The picture actually depicts the Oracle nerd team with trophies. So it's anybody's guess what the fuck is going on. I know it's trivial, but that type of shit bugs the hell out of me.
you didn't even skim the article did you?
Why would Apple care if the app is "ported" to the Mac? If it can be run in virtualization, it essentially is already "ported"! That gives more people reason to buy Macs!
"What have many Slashdot readers done to gain experience with tools not taught inside the classroom?"
I find money is a good motivation. Find a job that gives you room to learn (or in fact demands that you learn). Most CS, even most of the theory, can be readily learned from textbooks. The professors are just reiterating the textbook to you. The computer and manuals are the only tools you need, and presuming you actually have access to a computer all the other stuff is dirt cheap (compared to physical sciences...).