I suppose I misunderstood what your definition was. I thought you meant virtual rendering *about the network itself*, when in fact it seems you meant virtual rendering *using the network*.
Hay, my name's David, not Eistein, and I don't appreciate sarcasm. Okay?
Anyway, you're saying that Internet itself is cyberspace? That's interesting. Internet is simply a collection of nodes that can send packets to each other. Anything above that is application-specific. Therefore, Internet itself cannot entail cyberspace, but only applications that use Internet.
As for the application, I think this all depends on how you would define "virtual rendering". If displaying any kind of information at all about the network is virtual rendering (this is one of the fundamental function of computers), then ping, finger, and netstat are part of cyberspace.
On the other hand, is generating some code based on the state of a database that can by written to by many people over the network, sending that code over the network, and then rendering the code into pixels that are in formation so as to make your brain think of certain abstract ideas virtual rendering of the network? Yeah. Then okay, Slashdot is cyberspace.
On the gripping hand, we aren't really rendering anything to do with the network at all. We are just using the network to transmit the ideas that we want to render. Therefore, Slashdot is not cyberspace.
You mentioned MPOGs and stuff. They are cyberspace unless you consider the last paragraph.
Hay, what about that Doom game? By itself, it's just rendering. But with that patch (sorry, I can't give you the URL) that somebody wrote so that a monster is created for every process on the system and shooting a monster kills the processes with which t is associated, then it becomes cyberspace, correct?
Ooo...okay, so the WWW is a cyberspace.
You're saying that interlinked hypertext documents in a network-transparent namespace rendered by a graphical rendering program constitutes cyberspace?
Okay, whatever. Still, though, I think that the word is over-used by cluelesses.
A "namespace" is just a known scheme for naming a collection of entities. The books on my shelf are categorized and labeled, so they are in a namespace. But that isn't cyberspace.
There are a lot of namespaces that aren't cyberspaces. A file cabinet. A class tree. A phone book (good example). A directory tree. To some extent, the English dictionary is a simple namespace. Basically anywhere that you have a lot of information stored, there is probably a namespace there for finding the information.
I don't see any virtual renderings of computer networks. Am I missing something blatantly obvious? If that is the case, please spell it out for me.
If you're talking about the WWW, all it is is a collection of interlinked hypertext documents that are retrieved from servers using a common namespace. Still not what you're describing cyberspace as being.
This is getting rather off-topic, but every class goes in a different file. You never code objects at all, only classes. Then, some class magically gets its public static void main(String[] args) method called, from which you can instantiate objects based the classes that you have written.
In Java, every *class* needs to be in a separate file, except inner classes, which are only visible to the public class (the one with the name of the file).
Classes are organized into packages, and should be put into a directory tree that matches the package hierarchy.
What with has to do with MVC I'd rather not guess.
What exactly are they talking about when they talk about cyberspace? Surely not that which Gibson was. Why must the mass media people always relate the Network with physical things (cyberspace), when it isn't at all so.
What would I call it? Let's save that until it exist (it really doesn't, if I understand correctly).
Internet doesn't change what is wrong, though it may change how wrong can be accomplished.
Therefore, if somebody does something illegal, using Internet, then it would still be the same as though they had not used Internet to do the crime. That person can be prosecuted, but Internet itself has nothing to do with the crime, and remains free.
Because Internet is *a bunch of nodes that can send packets to each other*, it really doesn't need any special laws (other then FCC kind of stuff). However, using Internet does not exempt one from the existing laws.
This is why the Network itself must remain free, but usage of the Network does not make the user free.
I liked the article's note about "phonespace" to show the silliness of "cyperspace". Whoever coined that tern deserves to be executed (same with that bletcherous "Information Super Highway").
But on the other hand, the article *way* over-used cyberfoo words, so it's self- contradictitory in that way.
They took the peoples computers! The boxen have nothing to do with bandwidth tricking at all. Some of them may have crucial data on them.
And whose responsible for making sure that those "searching" them (why else what they want them?) is going to stick to things about the cable? I'm sure there is a chance that some local police guy might want to know something about a acquaintance of his...YIKES!
And look at the photo! The officer stands there and *grins* (you can see his teeth), and it appears that they have *opened* a box!
Why would they do that? I looks to my like they are just being a bunch of bullies.
In Java there is no concept of value vs. reference. Everything is a reference.
If I want a reference to a copy of this object that I have a reference to, I call its clone method:
foo = bar.clone();
Otherwise, whatever I pass is a reference. Even owning objects in variables and members is an illusion; you only have a reference to the object.
I'm not sure if this applies to the primitive types which Java unfortunately still has, but all object stuff is done by reference transparently, so there is no confusion, and no weird pointer syntax.
Well yeah, I do get tired of casting a variable three times in one statement to read a float out of a string.
However, in C++ you can't just see what methods a particular object can handle, or load a given implementation of an interface based on a String you got from a properties file or something.
But the best that I have used in terms of dynamicaless has got to be Objective-C.
In Java, you can have a reference of type Object, which will point to any kind of object. But you can't really do anything with it, other then pass it around and store it. You can't call methods on it without figuring out what type it is.
In Objective-C, you can call those methods. If the type implements them, then great. If not, then an exception is thrown. And all kinds of other cool things. However, the syntax is weird <smile> as if that matters </smile>:
Okay, so you think you've found the cookie crumbs back to your parents' bed? Great! Who's in the bed? You don't know. You can theorize how a lot of stuff came to be (and that's great, that's what science is). However, you still don't know about those first five seconds.
Doesn't one of the laws have to do with matter not being able to be created, but only moved around? If so, then there must be something outside of science, outside of limited human understanding, that originated the Universe. And why not it be God?
You also seem to have an exact account of everything that happened in the Universe after that, and you say that it is because of a few simple rules, and a whole lot of randomness, that everything is at it is.
If you were taking a walk through the woods and saw a log cabin sitting there with smoke coming out of the chimney, you could formulate two theories:
Somebody desired, designed, and built it.
The laws of physics caused the trees to fell themselves, become arranged exactly how they should be, the ones in the fireplace ignite, and the whole thing not deteriorate a lot for however long it's been sitting there.
The second theory is totally bogus for obvious reasons.
How then, can you believe that, for example, the moon, or a tree, or your body, all of which are much more complex then a log cabin, be formed randomly?
Furthermore, what about fossils is contradictory to Creationism?
He says:
Because bones of exticnt aminals , including tranitional forms are essential argument in favour of Evoltion? Because they contradict the reduclaous Noahs Arc myth?
The existence of dead animals doesn't favor evolution. If you have any specific reason why, please elaborate.
Show me a transitional form. If I recall correctly, there aren't any, and why not those that there may be be simply other species that are extinct?
As for the Flood, again, how do fossils contradict it? Please elaborate.
Of course the Flood is ridiculous, if there is no God. But if there is a God, and he created the Universe, then obviously he can do whatever he wants, and therefore the Flood is not ridiculous.
is that they show extreme ignorance of basic logic. When they state "there is god' the burden of proof is on them. Untill they can logically prove existabce of god its pretty safe to assume there is no god just like there is no Santa Claus or Pink Unicorn.
If gifts spontaneously appeared under trees every Christmas, and there honestly was no accounting for them, we could formulate two theories:
There is a Santa Claus that is beyond our full understanding who brings gifts on Christmas.
The gift are formed out of a spontaneously explosion and just happened to evolve -- all by themselves -- into beautiful things for us to enjoy.
So, which theory is correct?
He says:
declared "Satans Work" just like Creationists declared that devil pklanted fossils to confuse us and steer the way from god.
I've never heard that before, and I think it's probably just one, isolated psycho. Furthermore, what about fossils is contradictory to Creationism?
I don't really care how cheesecakey it is. I don't want to see that kind of junk at all; even the thought of it I find repulsive. It's addictive. It hurts people's brains.
Things which offend *vast* numbers of people (and I'm guessing are probably forbidden by every religion there is except the Church of Emacs) should not be covertly hidden in what would appears from the outside to be a perfectly harmless article. If there was some note ("that link has some porn randomly deployed in it"), I wouldn't mind at all; people who don't what to subject themselves to that can refrain from reading the article.
Even if they cost a little more, I think you'll find yourself grateful for a warranty to fall back on. Plus, when machines go boom, you aren't instantly blamed. If you roll your own, any system that crashes will be pinned on YOU, and you alone.
/quote
You don't get all the blame pinned on YOU anyway?
"I installed PrintHouse Deluxe Super Platinum Extra 47 last week and now my CD-ROM drive won't open! You're always tinkering with things and messing them up!"
Yes, embedded devices are great and necessary, but calling this device a PDA is like calling a typewriter a PC.
And yes, a BS2 would be great for telling your in-car PC to turn off. In fact, a BS1 (one) would do nicely.http://www.parallaxinc.com/
Just have a little daemon that listens to your serial port, and calls 'init 0' when a particular string is sent by the stamp. I haven't read from a serial port in Linux before, but I imagine that there is some device file for it. You could even write the daemon in bash.
I'm a little rusty in pBASIC, but a program (on the stamp) that would do that would be:
loop:
button p1 send
goto loop
send:
serout 2400n, something, something, p1, "shutdown"
goto loop
------
Then have pin 1 go high when the car shuts off. I haven't done stamps in years; you'll have to look up the commands in a manual.
<mocking>What CPU does it have? How about a BASIC Stamp 2?</mocking>
Furthermore, I'm very tired of having these underpowered, stupid, etc., devices with colorful cases targeted at children and teenagers, as if they needed colors and didn't need a real OS.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose I misunderstood what your definition was. I thought you meant virtual rendering *about the network itself*, when in fact it seems you meant virtual rendering *using the network*.
Okay, that's cool.
Hay, my name's David, not Eistein, and I don't appreciate sarcasm. Okay?
Anyway, you're saying that Internet itself is cyberspace? That's interesting. Internet is simply a collection of nodes that can send packets to each other. Anything above that is application-specific. Therefore, Internet itself cannot entail cyberspace, but only applications that use Internet.
As for the application, I think this all depends on how you would define "virtual rendering". If displaying any kind of information at all about the network is virtual rendering (this is one of the fundamental function of computers), then ping, finger, and netstat are part of cyberspace.
On the other hand, is generating some code based on the state of a database that can by written to by many people over the network, sending that code over the network, and then rendering the code into pixels that are in formation so as to make your brain think of certain abstract ideas virtual rendering of the network? Yeah. Then okay, Slashdot is cyberspace.
On the gripping hand, we aren't really rendering anything to do with the network at all. We are just using the network to transmit the ideas that we want to render. Therefore, Slashdot is not cyberspace.
You mentioned MPOGs and stuff. They are cyberspace unless you consider the last paragraph.
Hay, what about that Doom game? By itself, it's just rendering. But with that patch (sorry, I can't give you the URL) that somebody wrote so that a monster is created for every process on the system and shooting a monster kills the processes with which t is associated, then it becomes cyberspace, correct?
Ooo...okay, so the WWW is a cyberspace. You're saying that interlinked hypertext documents in a network-transparent namespace rendered by a graphical rendering program constitutes cyberspace? Okay, whatever. Still, though, I think that the word is over-used by cluelesses.
A "namespace" is just a known scheme for naming a collection of entities. The books on my shelf are categorized and labeled, so they are in a namespace. But that isn't cyberspace.
There are a lot of namespaces that aren't cyberspaces. A file cabinet. A class tree. A phone book (good example). A directory tree. To some extent, the English dictionary is a simple namespace. Basically anywhere that you have a lot of information stored, there is probably a namespace there for finding the information.
What "virtual renderings of computer networks"?
I don't see any virtual renderings of computer networks. Am I missing something blatantly obvious? If that is the case, please spell it out for me.
If you're talking about the WWW, all it is is a collection of interlinked hypertext documents that are retrieved from servers using a common namespace. Still not what you're describing cyberspace as being.
This is getting rather off-topic, but every class goes in a different file. You never code objects at all, only classes. Then, some class magically gets its public static void main(String[] args) method called, from which you can instantiate objects based the classes that you have written.
Um...what *are* you talking about?
In Java, every *class* needs to be in a separate file, except inner classes, which are only visible to the public class (the one with the name of the file).
Classes are organized into packages, and should be put into a directory tree that matches the package hierarchy.
What with has to do with MVC I'd rather not guess.
Its just over-used and silly.
What exactly are they talking about when they talk about cyberspace? Surely not that which Gibson was. Why must the mass media people always relate the Network with physical things (cyberspace), when it isn't at all so.
What would I call it? Let's save that until it exist (it really doesn't, if I understand correctly).
Hello!
This doesn't make since because:
Internet doesn't change what is wrong, though it may change how wrong can be accomplished.
Therefore, if somebody does something illegal, using Internet, then it would still be the same as though they had not used Internet to do the crime. That person can be prosecuted, but Internet itself has nothing to do with the crime, and remains free.
Because Internet is *a bunch of nodes that can send packets to each other*, it really doesn't need any special laws (other then FCC kind of stuff). However, using Internet does not exempt one from the existing laws.
This is why the Network itself must remain free, but usage of the Network does not make the user free.
I liked the article's note about "phonespace" to show the silliness of "cyperspace". Whoever coined that tern deserves to be executed (same with that bletcherous "Information Super Highway").
But on the other hand, the article *way* over-used cyberfoo words, so it's self- contradictitory in that way.
For most people it's not about faster. It's about being quiet. Very, very quiet.
AOL!!!
They took the peoples computers! The boxen have nothing to do with bandwidth tricking at all. Some of them may have crucial data on them.
And whose responsible for making sure that those "searching" them (why else what they want them?) is going to stick to things about the cable? I'm sure there is a chance that some local police guy might want to know something about a acquaintance of his...YIKES!
And look at the photo! The officer stands there and *grins* (you can see his teeth), and it appears that they have *opened* a box!
Why would they do that? I looks to my like they are just being a bunch of bullies.
Actually, there are not pointer, they are references, which in C++ terms are different.
References are basically pointers except that you don't see them. They are transparent pointers.
C++ has references. I don't remember exactly how different they are from C++ pointer, but they are two separate things.
In Java there is no concept of value vs. reference. Everything is a reference.
If I want a reference to a copy of this object that I have a reference to, I call its clone method:
foo = bar.clone();
Otherwise, whatever I pass is a reference. Even owning objects in variables and members is an illusion; you only have a reference to the object.
I'm not sure if this applies to the primitive types which Java unfortunately still has, but all object stuff is done by reference transparently, so there is no confusion, and no weird pointer syntax.
We don't even have pointers.
Oh, I guess that's right. Anyway, Java is a *lot* nicer then C++.
Well yeah, I do get tired of casting a variable three times in one statement to read a float out of a string.
However, in C++ you can't just see what methods a particular object can handle, or load a given implementation of an interface based on a String you got from a properties file or something.
But the best that I have used in terms of dynamicaless has got to be Objective-C.
In Java, you can have a reference of type Object, which will point to any kind of object. But you can't really do anything with it, other then pass it around and store it. You can't call methods on it without figuring out what type it is.
In Objective-C, you can call those methods. If the type implements them, then great. If not, then an exception is thrown. And all kinds of other cool things. However, the syntax is weird <smile> as if that matters </smile>:
Instead of
object.method( arg1, arg2 );
It's
[object method:arg1 nameOfArg2: arg2];
All the argument have names, which makes things easier when you can't remember what order they go in some methods.
Okay, so you think you've found the cookie crumbs back to your parents' bed? Great! Who's in the bed? You don't know. You can theorize how a lot of stuff came to be (and that's great, that's what science is). However, you still don't know about those first five seconds.
Doesn't one of the laws have to do with matter not being able to be created, but only moved around? If so, then there must be something outside of science, outside of limited human understanding, that originated the Universe. And why not it be God?
You also seem to have an exact account of everything that happened in the Universe after that, and you say that it is because of a few simple rules, and a whole lot of randomness, that everything is at it is.
If you were taking a walk through the woods and saw a log cabin sitting there with smoke coming out of the chimney, you could formulate two theories:
The second theory is totally bogus for obvious reasons.
How then, can you believe that, for example, the moon, or a tree, or your body, all of which are much more complex then a log cabin, be formed randomly?
The existence of dead animals doesn't favor evolution. If you have any specific reason why, please elaborate.
Show me a transitional form. If I recall correctly, there aren't any, and why not those that there may be be simply other species that are extinct?
As for the Flood, again, how do fossils contradict it? Please elaborate.
Of course the Flood is ridiculous, if there is no God. But if there is a God, and he created the Universe, then obviously he can do whatever he wants, and therefore the Flood is not ridiculous.
If gifts spontaneously appeared under trees every Christmas, and there honestly was no accounting for them, we could formulate two theories:
So, which theory is correct?
He says:I've never heard that before, and I think it's probably just one, isolated psycho. Furthermore, what about fossils is contradictory to Creationism?
I don't really care how cheesecakey it is. I don't want to see that kind of junk at all; even the thought of it I find repulsive. It's addictive. It hurts people's brains. Things which offend *vast* numbers of people (and I'm guessing are probably forbidden by every religion there is except the Church of Emacs) should not be covertly hidden in what would appears from the outside to be a perfectly harmless article. If there was some note ("that link has some porn randomly deployed in it"), I wouldn't mind at all; people who don't what to subject themselves to that can refrain from reading the article.
I don't thinks it's nice of Slashdot to link to pages with PORNOGRAPHY without warning us!
No, they can't keep you from format-shifting that which you have bought from them.
It's completely fair use, <jest>thou brainwashed</jest>.
You don't get all the blame pinned on YOU anyway?
"I installed PrintHouse Deluxe Super Platinum Extra 47 last week and now my CD-ROM drive won't open! You're always tinkering with things and messing them up!"
Yes, embedded devices are great and necessary, but calling this device a PDA is like calling a typewriter a PC. And yes, a BS2 would be great for telling your in-car PC to turn off. In fact, a BS1 (one) would do nicely.http://www.parallaxinc.com/ Just have a little daemon that listens to your serial port, and calls 'init 0' when a particular string is sent by the stamp. I haven't read from a serial port in Linux before, but I imagine that there is some device file for it. You could even write the daemon in bash. I'm a little rusty in pBASIC, but a program (on the stamp) that would do that would be: loop: button p1 send goto loop send: serout 2400n, something, something, p1, "shutdown" goto loop ------ Then have pin 1 go high when the car shuts off. I haven't done stamps in years; you'll have to look up the commands in a manual.
That's not a PDA. It's a stupid drawing thing.
<mocking>What CPU does it have? How about a BASIC Stamp 2?</mocking>
Furthermore, I'm very tired of having these underpowered, stupid, etc., devices with colorful cases targeted at children and teenagers, as if they needed colors and didn't need a real OS.
But what about people like me who can type about five times faster then we can write?