Intriguing; I never thought about it that way, but you're right about stealing IP. This is something that should be brought up more often when people talk about "stealing" a company's copyrighted material.
The U.S., and not that I'm aware of. Actually, that's very strange, because the link I posted is on the same server, just a different URL. Hmm, looking at the HTML, must be a JavaScript problem.
Well, I won't argue which is better for speed and reliability/data integrity, I was just talking about user convenience. How the client interacts with the user isn't completely irrelevant, because it's partially influenced by what service you're using.
Sure, you could write a HTTP client that acts like an FTP client (ls [pattern], mget[pattern], mput [pattern]), but to make it work reliably across all servers, the server would have to have a somewhat-standardized FTP-like LIST command or page, since it would be hard to do globbing when the index page is hard to parse. Actually, you could do a folder-view interface like IE does for FTP, but that interface would suck for lynx.
So I claim that to get the convenience of FTP using HTTP, you'd have to add server features, and write clients to use those features. Of course most people never use globbing, so they might as well use plain HTTP.
Wget (don't know fetch, but assuming it's like Wget) doesn't let you browse to a file; you have to know the full path in advance, or use recursive downloading, or guess with pattern matching.
Lynx lets you browse, but you can't do globbing, so you see lots of irrelevant crap, and you have to select files to download one at a time.
For getting (possibly multiple) files whose location you don't know in advance, FTP is more flexible and efficient.
Read the damn GPL before spouting off please. More info on what the AC said: If binaries are already accompanied by source, the distributor has to do nothing further. If source is available by a "written offer," then you must make it available to any third party who asks for it. GPL 3a,3b:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
Me too. I'm not sure which I like better--caching or filtering. I'm on a modem connection, and still page views are pretty fast. My proxy's logs verify I'm bypassing loads of banners & previously cached objects, scripts, etc.
This does my ISP a favor, right?
Yep. I get 30-40% hit rate on my cache, and I can't imagine how much I save from filtering. I think I use 30% less bandwidth per month just from the proxy.
Hmm, 99% of my LAN's Internet traffic goes through my caching and filtering web proxy, so it would look like there was only one machine anyway. What little traffic doesn't go through the proxy is probably too scattered to detect a noticible trend. And as someone else mentioned, iptables might have to reassign the IPIDs to prevent collisions anyway. Maybe we'll get random IPIDs like FreeBSD, too:-) In my case, they might be better off looking at TTL, window size, and all the other stuff nmap uses to detect different OSes.
Scaled icons would be sweet. A nice step towards resolution independence. But how does SVG compare with other vector drawing systems, like display PDF? What are advantages and disadvantages of each?
For a program I'm writing, I use Ghostscript to render some postscript in one of my windows, but I wouldn't dream of using it to render my GUI widgets.:-)
What I might do, now that I'm thinking about it, is to add an alias to my.bashrc for mplayer, to add in the "-vo x11" part for me.
Or, you could just stick "vo=x11" in ~/.mplayer/config. Any option you pass on the command line can be put in the config file, if you want it to be always used. For example, my config file looks like this (along with some other garbage I don't feel like explaining;-)
vo=xv vop=pp=de:a #filter output
Mplayer has a ton of options, especially for filtering. Unfortunately, not all of the -vop pp options seem to be documented anymore, for example pp=ci, which does cubic deinterlacing for watching interlaced videos (like TV shows).
Arrgh, you're right, of course. No excuse for me, I suppose I missed the point then;-)
Personally, I tend to use either no name, or a descriptive name in function declarations, depending on how obvious the purposes of the arguments are. Then I use single-letter names in function definitions.
It's much harder to get a clash then, since the names in the declaration don't matter at all, and the names used in the code are hard-to-confuse single letters. But then, I've mostly been writing math code lately, where each function doesn't have many arguments, and single letters make sense anyway.
Which, of course, is legal java but does nothing when the accessor is called, and can be difficult to find that the parameter is incorrect case.
Hmm, are you sure? If so, Java must have different scoping rules than C++ ( I don't know any Java), because the following C++ program prints "5 6", since the formal parameter name makes the class variable inaccessible.
#include <iostream>
class foo { public:
int a;
foo () : a(5) { }
void setA (int a) { this->a = a; } };
What's the strangest thing I've found left on a hard drive? A bunch of twisty little slashdot articles, all alike. In my browser cache, that is (yeah, I know the "Adventure" reference isn't quite right, but I've never played it, so what the hey).
You said: The apostrophe is used to indicated contraction and possetion, it's not used before the s in plurals. (emphasis mine)
The source you cited says: The possessive pronouns its, his and her are all used without apostrophes. If you use an apostrophe in its, then it's the contraction for "it is".
Can't you even be bothered to read your own damn reference?!?
That's Quake3. They'll almost certainly GPL it too in a couple years. I think they already released the game logic, just not the rendering engine. I'm not sure what license they put it under though.
Yes, let's harshly punish successful businesses who have _LEGALLY_ obtained monopoly status.
...Duh...The punishment is for abusing their monopoly position, not for attaining it. Nobody minds that MS is big and successful, they just don't like MS using their success to screw everyone else over.
No. The code is Free, but not the artwork and datafiles that came with the original games. For example, the codebase licenses of Doom,
Quake, and Quake 2 are all GPL.
Just a note: -felide-constructors seems to have become the default in gcc 3.2. Judging from the manpages of 2.95 and 3.2, the behavior also changed between the C++ draft standard and the final standard.
One place where gcc isn't quite standards-compliant is with IEEE floating point math. This isn't a problem usually, but for a library I'm writing, I have to enable -ffloat-store or I'll get slightly wrong results. Intel's C compiler is worse on this front by default though, since you have to enable two or three flags to get standard behavior;-)
I found that after reading the first few chapters of A Guide to LaTeX, I was able to do nearly everything I wanted. The book now makes a convenient reference, even though I still haven't read most of it. I've even done a little TeX programming, with the book as reference. I think Lamport's book gets good reviews too, but I haven't seen it.
...I find it easier to remember "geographically" (go from bottom>up> over> down across> there, etc) where my menu entry is.
You have a good point there, actually. You do get used to menu locations so that you don't even have to read them anymore. The only pain is when the new version moves them around and adds new ones, which doesn't happen much with CLIs. Once a switch is in a CLI, it usually stays the same.
My biggest problem with cli is not only syntax which is hard enough but trying to remember the exact file names with version numbers and where they live to even get to them. It'sa like you can't get there from here unless you already know exactly where "there" is, and if ya did, you wouldn't need to search.
Yeah, that can be a pain. A tab-completing CLI helps a lot here, even completing and describing option switches for you, but it's not a panacea; you still need to have a starting point, or it would take you hours to tab through the whole filesystem:-) Still, you can get the same "where are my files" problem in GUIs, in which case you usually pull out your find tool. Which is the same thing I do with "find" on the command line.
The voice-command idea would be cool, and I think it could work. Here's an amusing concept: Have it display the words you're speaking, and disambiguate them as you go, just like tab-completing in my CLI. You might be able to make voice interfaces much more efficient that way. Hmm, you'd be telling the computer what to do, instead of showing it. If they can get good natural language processing, it might even get the power of a CLI with the ease-of-use of a GUI (yeah, wishful thinking:-).
Reality is, 99% of most people think in "pictures", they DON'T think in terms of lines of text/symbols in a console...
I don't think people think in "pictures." They think in concepts. I'm not seeing anything in my head as I write this, not even letters or words. I just think it.
Unless you're doing something spatial or graphical in nature, you'll probably think in terms of what subtasks need to be done to accomplish your task. The easiest way for most people of expressing such an idea is to put it in words. So by using the command line, you're simply describing the steps of the task you want to accomplish, albeit in a rather terse form that must be learned.
On the other hand, GUIs work on a more metaphorical level, so that once you have an idea in your head, you have to figure out what graphical desktop metaphor it corresponds to. Sometimes this is intuitively obvious, sometimes not (note that I'm not getting this from theory or anything, I'm just writing what seems to be the case to me). When the metaphor is obvious, the GUI can be used with a minimum of effort. However, when the metaphor sucks or is buried somewhere hard to find, GUIs can be incredibly frustrating (much more so than CLIs, IMO). Then it usually comes down to trial and error searching for the method required to do what you want.
Finally, when there is no metaphor for some action, it gets stuck in a menu somewhere, which brings us back to thinking in text instead of graphically. Menus in a GUI are nice since they list all the options, hopefully categorically, but you can do nearly (just?) as well with a tab-completing CLI.
Anyway, I'm not refuting your post, except for what I quoted. I think GUIs are good for most tasks that are graphical in nature, and those which have good metaphors, such as moving files. I tend to think CLIs are superior for most other things, even though the learning curve is higher. That's enough rambling from me.
if you feed gcc a text file explaining in plain English the program that you want, will it work? Or do you have to follow rules of syntax, vocabulary, and grammar, understanding that the system only works if you are explicit and precise in your use of language?
Yes, but I would find the C version of a program easier to understand than a fully-specified-in-English version analogous to legalese. Thus your analogy suggests a possible improvement to me. It seems to me that a language just for legal documents (Legal++?) would be more efficient than writing all that incomprehensible crap known as legalese. Sure, you'd have to learn the language to understand it, but the same is practically true of legalese.
Slashdot Mirror
So which is it, Microsoft? Treason, or perjury (or both)? (Yes, Microsoft bashing is fun, you should try it some time)
Intriguing; I never thought about it that way, but you're right about stealing IP. This is something that should be brought up more often when people talk about "stealing" a company's copyrighted material.
The U.S., and not that I'm aware of. Actually, that's very strange, because the link I posted is on the same server, just a different URL. Hmm, looking at the HTML, must be a JavaScript problem.
Your link appears to be dead, but I did find this. Heh, an M68040 comes in at last place. Wonder how my TI-92+ would do? ;)
Sure, you could write a HTTP client that acts like an FTP client (ls [pattern], mget[pattern], mput [pattern]), but to make it work reliably across all servers, the server would have to have a somewhat-standardized FTP-like LIST command or page, since it would be hard to do globbing when the index page is hard to parse. Actually, you could do a folder-view interface like IE does for FTP, but that interface would suck for lynx.
So I claim that to get the convenience of FTP using HTTP, you'd have to add server features, and write clients to use those features. Of course most people never use globbing, so they might as well use plain HTTP.
Lynx lets you browse, but you can't do globbing, so you see lots of irrelevant crap, and you have to select files to download one at a time.
For getting (possibly multiple) files whose location you don't know in advance, FTP is more flexible and efficient.
Hmm, 99% of my LAN's Internet traffic goes through my caching and filtering web proxy, so it would look like there was only one machine anyway. What little traffic doesn't go through the proxy is probably too scattered to detect a noticible trend. And as someone else mentioned, iptables might have to reassign the IPIDs to prevent collisions anyway. Maybe we'll get random IPIDs like FreeBSD, too :-) In my case, they might be better off looking at TTL, window size, and all the other stuff nmap uses to detect different OSes.
For a program I'm writing, I use Ghostscript to render some postscript in one of my windows, but I wouldn't dream of using it to render my GUI widgets. :-)
Personally, I tend to use either no name, or a descriptive name in function declarations, depending on how obvious the purposes of the arguments are. Then I use single-letter names in function definitions.
It's much harder to get a clash then, since the names in the declaration don't matter at all, and the names used in the code are hard-to-confuse single letters. But then, I've mostly been writing math code lately, where each function doesn't have many arguments, and single letters make sense anyway.
Hmm, are you sure? If so, Java must have different scoping rules than C++ ( I don't know any Java), because the following C++ program prints "5 6", since the formal parameter name makes the class variable inaccessible.It's still rather confusing and should be changed, of course, but the meaning is clear if you understand C++'s scope rules.
What's the strangest thing I've found left on a hard drive? A bunch of twisty little slashdot articles, all alike. In my browser cache, that is (yeah, I know the "Adventure" reference isn't quite right, but I've never played it, so what the hey).
5. Get lots of ad revenue from page views.
6. Profit!
The source you cited says: The possessive pronouns its, his and her are all used without apostrophes. If you use an apostrophe in its, then it's the contraction for "it is".
Can't you even be bothered to read your own damn reference?!?
That's Quake3. They'll almost certainly GPL it too in a couple years. I think they already released the game logic, just not the rendering engine. I'm not sure what license they put it under though.
One place where gcc isn't quite standards-compliant is with IEEE floating point math. This isn't a problem usually, but for a library I'm writing, I have to enable -ffloat-store or I'll get slightly wrong results. Intel's C compiler is worse on this front by default though, since you have to enable two or three flags to get standard behavior
I found that after reading the first few chapters of A Guide to LaTeX, I was able to do nearly everything I wanted. The book now makes a convenient reference, even though I still haven't read most of it. I've even done a little TeX programming, with the book as reference. I think Lamport's book gets good reviews too, but I haven't seen it.
The voice-command idea would be cool, and I think it could work. Here's an amusing concept: Have it display the words you're speaking, and disambiguate them as you go, just like tab-completing in my CLI. You might be able to make voice interfaces much more efficient that way. Hmm, you'd be telling the computer what to do, instead of showing it. If they can get good natural language processing, it might even get the power of a CLI with the ease-of-use of a GUI (yeah, wishful thinking :-).
Unless you're doing something spatial or graphical in nature, you'll probably think in terms of what subtasks need to be done to accomplish your task. The easiest way for most people of expressing such an idea is to put it in words. So by using the command line, you're simply describing the steps of the task you want to accomplish, albeit in a rather terse form that must be learned.
On the other hand, GUIs work on a more metaphorical level, so that once you have an idea in your head, you have to figure out what graphical desktop metaphor it corresponds to. Sometimes this is intuitively obvious, sometimes not (note that I'm not getting this from theory or anything, I'm just writing what seems to be the case to me). When the metaphor is obvious, the GUI can be used with a minimum of effort. However, when the metaphor sucks or is buried somewhere hard to find, GUIs can be incredibly frustrating (much more so than CLIs, IMO). Then it usually comes down to trial and error searching for the method required to do what you want.
Finally, when there is no metaphor for some action, it gets stuck in a menu somewhere, which brings us back to thinking in text instead of graphically. Menus in a GUI are nice since they list all the options, hopefully categorically, but you can do nearly (just?) as well with a tab-completing CLI.
Anyway, I'm not refuting your post, except for what I quoted. I think GUIs are good for most tasks that are graphical in nature, and those which have good metaphors, such as moving files. I tend to think CLIs are superior for most other things, even though the learning curve is higher. That's enough rambling from me.
And to think, some people think code is too "functional" in nature to be constitutionally protected.