It's not really that amazing. The executable might be 64k, but it needs DirectX to run. So basically the executable contains 64k of instructions that tell DirectX what to draw. It's not as if they wrote a 3D engine demo in 64k. More like a 64k DirectX script.
It does kind of feel that way. Since all previous versions have worried much about maintaining backward compatibility, a lot of new stuff has been added without removing the old stuff (merely deprecating it). Because of the "history" behind things. With Perl6, though, they're ripping everything apart and rebuilding it from scratch, using the experience and wisdom that have been gained over the years. What was good and we'd like to keep? What was bad and should be done away with? What was a nice concept but implemented poorly? These are the questions the designers are asking themselves. I think something people are dreading is that since this is a total rewrite, looking more towards Doing It Right than making sure it still works like it used to, there will be much to relearn. But personally I'm glad they decided to do it this way, because it means they can do exciting things, and get rid of annoying things, and not have to worry about the compatibility. In the end, I think it will turn out to be a much cleaner, more consistent, more powerful, and even friendlier Perl. It will be like a breath of fresh air, and each Apocalypse gives more to be excited about.
You'll still be able to use Perl5 regexes by indicating a special flag to the regex engine. So you don't have completely jump right in from the start. But from reading Apocalypse 5, Perl6 regexes look to be much much cooler. So you'll probably want to learn them anyway.
If you were actually George W., though, you'd probably be much more concerned about what pants to put on for the "big TV speech sitting at my desk," or maybe (but very doubtful) concerned with pre-reading the speech your writers wrote so you don't fumble on two of the "big words" they always put in, like you did with the last one (darn speech writers). You certainly wouldn't be concerned about the bacteriowhatsits, because they're probably just made up anyhow.
I've never grasped why most people think these are mutually exclusive either, but I suspect it's because they haven't been taught specifically that there is life out there. So I guess they just think, "Oh, it must not be so, or they would have told us."
The problem is you'd need an atom smasher/repairer to change a 0 to 1 or vice versa.
"Son, what's going on in your CD drive? It's glowing funny." "Oh just some nuclear fission and fusion. Try not to touch it, I don't want to blow up the city."
Also, it's MORONIC that NOT A SOUL is recommending a book that'll teach you even ONE of the Top Ten most important algorithms of the 20th century.
You're getting outraged over nothing. This page you link to gives the top ten most influential algorithms for computing in science and engineering, not the overall most influential algorithms of programming in general. Reading through them, I didn't see more than a couple that would be useful for general application. They're mostly just for the researchers in these different fields. Besides, everyone knows the most important and influential algorithm of all time is Hello World.
For my money, I really like the O'Reilly books. They're detailed and informative without feeling overwhelming or distant. I would recommend most of those to a beginner in whatever subject it may be.
You could get zero if the dog didn't bark at you. But you're right, it wouldn't be all that random unless your neighbors also got a new dog everytime you went over. Otherwise, after a while you'd be able to give a rough estimate of the number of barks, simply due to the dog's personality (how much he likes to bark, etc).
Although Sid was a character in Toy Story, it also stands for Still In Development. Unstable will always keep the name Sid, because it is the one where new versions of actively developed software land first. You can read more about that in the Debian FAQ.
Corporation Exec: Project Foo is killing our profits, what can we do?
The problem with these execs is that I guess they don't understand that people like to be creative with things they own. It's like those Aibo stories. People liked their Aibos, so they wanted to make them do cool things. People like the Blizzard games, but being forced to use the same servers for internet play is a little ridiculous, so they created their own server software. The execs don't realize that giving people a little more freedom will not only make the people happier (which they probably don't care about, but should) but will also give them more respect, which would lead to sales (people think: "Hey, Blizzard is really cool about letting end users enhance their own gaming experience. I'll buy one of their games.") I don't see why Vivendi thinks this is such a big deal. They should just take bnetd and package it with all their games and let people create their own online servers. I'm sure that would save them a helluva lot of money and headache over running their own servers all the time with the issues that brings.
Not only that, but if you read the legal complaint that Vivendi filed against them, Vivendi actually claims that the bnetd people used their code, illegally of course. Last time I knew, listening to client/server communication packets wasn't illegal, and it's a far cry from source code. Reverse engineering software is not illegal. It kinda sounds like Vivendi is grasping at straws with most of this stuff. Note the DMCA claims that were later dropped when they realized, "Oh yeah, I guess they didn't break any circumvention."
I don't know about you, but the plane trips I've taken have been some of the most boring periods of my life (running a close second to waiting in line at the DMV). Even with a new magazine in hand before the flight, I soon find myself wishing I could fall asleep rather than be completely and utterly bored. A little web browsing would definitely be a welcome distraction from staring at the back of the seat in front of me and feeling my life force slip away.
I think you've touched on something that's worth expounding. It seems like most people think that Object Orientation is some kind of special language feature that has to be specifically designed for and built it. In reality, OO is simply a programming methodology. It's more of a way to approach programming than a way to implement a program. Sure some languages have features that make it easier, but you can pretty much do it in any language, and it doesn't matter whether that language is strictly interpreted, bytecode interpreted, or natively compiled.
Regardless of the overall economic standing of a nation, basic sociological laws tell us that any society more advanced than hunting-and-gathering will have some amount of ecomonic stratification. And because people are fundamentally self-maximizing, those on the bottom will want to raise their position. If the perceived lowest cost way to do that, be it monetary or otherwise, involves crime, that is what they will resort to.
Although the "news" is that Microsoft released a patch for IIS holes, this headline isn't being untruthful. In order to fix a hole, the hole must exist. So obviously if they are fixing 8 holes, 8 holes previously unknown must have been found. Even if the headline had been "Microsoft fixes eight security holes in IIS", to me that would still say, "Hey guess, what? Eight new holes were found in IIS." The slashdot editors just don't care as much about making Microsoft seem like a good company, so they don't try to spin it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really that amazing. The executable might be 64k, but it needs DirectX to run. So basically the executable contains 64k of instructions that tell DirectX what to draw. It's not as if they wrote a 3D engine demo in 64k. More like a 64k DirectX script.
Yes, that is a good question.
How long b4 a critical mass uv peepil beegin 2 loose all sines of b-ing able 2 spel and t8ke the pop moozik w/ them?
It does kind of feel that way. Since all previous versions have worried much about maintaining backward compatibility, a lot of new stuff has been added without removing the old stuff (merely deprecating it). Because of the "history" behind things. With Perl6, though, they're ripping everything apart and rebuilding it from scratch, using the experience and wisdom that have been gained over the years. What was good and we'd like to keep? What was bad and should be done away with? What was a nice concept but implemented poorly? These are the questions the designers are asking themselves. I think something people are dreading is that since this is a total rewrite, looking more towards Doing It Right than making sure it still works like it used to, there will be much to relearn. But personally I'm glad they decided to do it this way, because it means they can do exciting things, and get rid of annoying things, and not have to worry about the compatibility. In the end, I think it will turn out to be a much cleaner, more consistent, more powerful, and even friendlier Perl. It will be like a breath of fresh air, and each Apocalypse gives more to be excited about.
You'll still be able to use Perl5 regexes by indicating a special flag to the regex engine. So you don't have completely jump right in from the start. But from reading Apocalypse 5, Perl6 regexes look to be much much cooler. So you'll probably want to learn them anyway.
If you were actually George W., though, you'd probably be much more concerned about what pants to put on for the "big TV speech sitting at my desk," or maybe (but very doubtful) concerned with pre-reading the speech your writers wrote so you don't fumble on two of the "big words" they always put in, like you did with the last one (darn speech writers). You certainly wouldn't be concerned about the bacteriowhatsits, because they're probably just made up anyhow.
I've never grasped why most people think these are mutually exclusive either, but I suspect it's because they haven't been taught specifically that there is life out there. So I guess they just think, "Oh, it must not be so, or they would have told us."
Guess what? There are books about running Linux too. Imagine that!
The problem is you'd need an atom smasher/repairer to change a 0 to 1 or vice versa.
"Son, what's going on in your CD drive? It's glowing funny."
"Oh just some nuclear fission and fusion. Try not to touch it, I don't want to blow up the city."
Wth is with bighorn sheep. It's a friggin Ram. The Ram Book.
Of course, it also made me glad I knew Python and Lisp, because they have easier ways of doing just about everything mentioned in the book.
Interpreted languages are like that.
Also, it's MORONIC that NOT A SOUL is recommending a book that'll teach you even ONE of the Top Ten most important algorithms of the 20th century.
You're getting outraged over nothing. This page you link to gives the top ten most influential algorithms for computing in science and engineering, not the overall most influential algorithms of programming in general. Reading through them, I didn't see more than a couple that would be useful for general application. They're mostly just for the researchers in these different fields. Besides, everyone knows the most important and influential algorithm of all time is Hello World.
For my money, I really like the O'Reilly books. They're detailed and informative without feeling overwhelming or distant. I would recommend most of those to a beginner in whatever subject it may be.
You could get zero if the dog didn't bark at you. But you're right, it wouldn't be all that random unless your neighbors also got a new dog everytime you went over. Otherwise, after a while you'd be able to give a rough estimate of the number of barks, simply due to the dog's personality (how much he likes to bark, etc).
Can't you just xor all three numbers?
return (a^b^c);
They're related in the way that most people know very little about either except that both are religious groups.
Although Sid was a character in Toy Story, it also stands for Still In Development. Unstable will always keep the name Sid, because it is the one where new versions of actively developed software land first. You can read more about that in the Debian FAQ.
Corporation Exec: Project Foo is killing our profits, what can we do?
The problem with these execs is that I guess they don't understand that people like to be creative with things they own. It's like those Aibo stories. People liked their Aibos, so they wanted to make them do cool things. People like the Blizzard games, but being forced to use the same servers for internet play is a little ridiculous, so they created their own server software. The execs don't realize that giving people a little more freedom will not only make the people happier (which they probably don't care about, but should) but will also give them more respect, which would lead to sales (people think: "Hey, Blizzard is really cool about letting end users enhance their own gaming experience. I'll buy one of their games.") I don't see why Vivendi thinks this is such a big deal. They should just take bnetd and package it with all their games and let people create their own online servers. I'm sure that would save them a helluva lot of money and headache over running their own servers all the time with the issues that brings.
Not only that, but if you read the legal complaint that Vivendi filed against them, Vivendi actually claims that the bnetd people used their code, illegally of course. Last time I knew, listening to client/server communication packets wasn't illegal, and it's a far cry from source code. Reverse engineering software is not illegal. It kinda sounds like Vivendi is grasping at straws with most of this stuff. Note the DMCA claims that were later dropped when they realized, "Oh yeah, I guess they didn't break any circumvention."
A few more killer apps wouldn't hurt, either.
*nod* They should port Office to it!
The only problem with that is that I don't want to spend 49.99 for a 300 page paperback.
I don't know about you, but the plane trips I've taken have been some of the most boring periods of my life (running a close second to waiting in line at the DMV). Even with a new magazine in hand before the flight, I soon find myself wishing I could fall asleep rather than be completely and utterly bored. A little web browsing would definitely be a welcome distraction from staring at the back of the seat in front of me and feeling my life force slip away.
I think you've touched on something that's worth expounding. It seems like most people think that Object Orientation is some kind of special language feature that has to be specifically designed for and built it. In reality, OO is simply a programming methodology. It's more of a way to approach programming than a way to implement a program. Sure some languages have features that make it easier, but you can pretty much do it in any language, and it doesn't matter whether that language is strictly interpreted, bytecode interpreted, or natively compiled.
Regardless of the overall economic standing of a nation, basic sociological laws tell us that any society more advanced than hunting-and-gathering will have some amount of ecomonic stratification. And because people are fundamentally self-maximizing, those on the bottom will want to raise their position. If the perceived lowest cost way to do that, be it monetary or otherwise, involves crime, that is what they will resort to.
Although the "news" is that Microsoft released a patch for IIS holes, this headline isn't being untruthful. In order to fix a hole, the hole must exist. So obviously if they are fixing 8 holes, 8 holes previously unknown must have been found. Even if the headline had been "Microsoft fixes eight security holes in IIS", to me that would still say, "Hey guess, what? Eight new holes were found in IIS." The slashdot editors just don't care as much about making Microsoft seem like a good company, so they don't try to spin it that way.
I suppose hasbro will argue that they have a portable version of their monopoly game.
Incidentally, they do.