All the reasons stated here are valid. However, it wasn't always true when it wasn't Open Sourced (however, it was still free for download). Could the reason be the same reason Linux did? Of the most popular Open Source databases, which ones are GPL'd and which ones are under a BSD or MPL style license? I could ask the same question about Operating Systems and their respective licenses but I'm not going to offer that flamebait. But, I'll point this out as an argument and a reason for its popularity. Not the definitive answer, but perhaps one of many valid ones offered by other posts.
With the GPL, there is no forking, only experimentation...the code is there for all to share and not hidden away as another three lettered license would allow.
...Or, I should say the over-patenting disease we're experiencing? A forum where everybody could braindump their ideas and discuss them in a public space (what if a license or agreement stated all ideas posted are now public domain). When someeone attempts to patent the idea, this space could be pointed to as being the idea's origin, leaving the patent attempter in a dubious position?
= 9J =
The movie appears to have been lifted...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
...directly from the book, "Ice!"
written by Arnold Federbush in 1978.
I have to wonder if programmers had more creative sensibility when naming variables, classes and methods (hell, even package/component names), wouldn't it make code more interesting to read?
At the very least, it would make code a pleasure to navigate. No one appreciates being lost if your aim is to reach a definite goal. Considerate and friendly signs accurately describing the foreign landscape would be a welcome sight for a stranger. Who enjoys hacking through the thicket of maze-like logic in the dark without a helpful hint of the right direction to take?
Everyone knows that both the P4 and the Celeron share the same architecture ( Intelligence ? )
You've offered a creative comparison. However, I believe your point would be inaccurate to leave it so strictly bound to its analogy. It is known that intelligence doesn't take a single form. There are more flavors of intelligence than there are chip-types (just as there are chips specializing in certain types of processing). Meyers-Brigg (aka Keirsey Temperament) discovered 16 forms of intelligence (personality can be described as a person's visible manifestation of a particular flavor of intelligence), and are able to reasonably pigeon-hole most people to these generally common types (quite an impressive feat actually). But, aside from the innumerable and subtle sub-types of types, there are entire types outside the 16 that they've missed. Naturally, this has to do with the rather large population they'd have to sift through (multiple-billions resulting from uncountable environmental/genetic variables), and even so they'd never catch the emerging and immerging forms of intelligence. And, that's just the present. Imagine varied forms from the past that may or may no longer exist.
People with different personalities will accept data, process it, create information with it, and accept that information as knowledge in different, seemingly contradictory, ways. If we didn't, then we would be like CPUs and the identical data we processed would always come to the same result. As you know, one of the problems in the world is that we don't do this. Everyone has a unique CPU that does the work differently from the next person. That's not to say that the results won't be the same, but the reasons for the similarities in the results may be entirely different. A hundred people can look at the same issue, and you could have a hundred different opinions on it. Paradoxically, this is also considered a positive trait by democracies. Intelligence isn't a fixed target, which is why it has been and will continue to be so difficult to quantify. In the end, neurologists and physicists may find that all the seemingly limitless forms are simply facets of a single universal form at the sub-quantum level.
Not entirely offtopic as it deals with authoring works, but flips the subject behind the article on its head. And, it's something I couldn't resist sharing.
Jos Claerbout, in teaching himself OOP, has written one of the more creative and instructive tutorials on OOP design hosted at Stanford. The work is admittably rough around the edges and may be too short (nothing a good publishing editor couldn't have polished up). But, it remains valuable for those who tend to be more right-brained thinkers, rather than left, and who wish to participate in software engineering. Sadly, the author has passed away at a young age, but he's left a useful legacy for the rest of us. I've come to appreciate his humor by reading his college entrance essays.
Show me a "voice of reason" regarding business deals with MacroShaft, and I'll show you someone who's been in a cave since the mid-80's. Some of us are "conspiracy nuts" only because we've seen too many kicked there so often by The Monopoly.
What of the merits in porting Groovy to Mono/Gnome? Would there be an advantage to having this as the language to develop Gnome in?
Looks like Groovy has been voted in unanimously by the JCP Executive Committee. Sun, in particular, seems enthusiastic about it by their comment.
If the rest of the process goes right, it appears to be on its way to eventual adoption.
There might be an advantage in having a tie-in language between Mono and Java platforms that is so similar to C# and Java syntax (the language is designed for Java people to pick up easily), but with some claimed advancements. Gnome can still tap into the C# and Java programming pool, hardcore C/C++ guys may find it a decent compromise and swallow their pride long enough to play with a new toy without admitting that they're using C# or Java. And, should M$ try to "extend" the C# language that they cloned from Java to make it more difficult for Open Source implementers, they would already be using a more stable (referring to language, not performance) Open Source language to depend on.
Looking at the amazing inventions, discoveries and adventurers from Europe, particularly during the Victorian and Edwardian eras, gives me the impression that the Europeans have the "Right Stuff" too. The problem may very well be that those inventors, discoverers, and adventurers weren't hampered by legalities and red tape as they are now. Also, America wasn't ravaged by two great wars. Sadly, even without the wars, America has been heading the way of stagnanation in creativity due to legalities and red-tape (patents and lawsuits are only symptoms of the problem).
Despite not having the same rigorous educational system, when Europe passed the torch to America, our creativity (which was also present during Europe's creative height) is what kept us ahead of other countries where governments kept tighter control over their citizens' behavior. We've proven that it isn't Math or Science that gives a country an advantage, it's the creative use of them, even if your average citizenry shows lower math and science proficiency than in other countries. However, in this current American era (really quite short in European standards of achievement), control appears to be more important than independent thought and invention. Unfortunately, control stifles creativity, just as it stifles liberty.
Try solid wood or stone? Okay, so the stone is actually, Corian. Still, not too bad looking. Not that any of these are anywhere near affordable of course.
"I first started using Linux almost 6 years ago when I was a 15 year old high school sophomore...There are so many areas that OSX beats Linux for most geeky things that I couldn't even begin to start."
So, you're nearly 21, but clearly liquored up to make such a ridiculous statement. I commend you on an attempt to describe how enamored you are with an OS in the rest of your post. It may indicate true geek credentials. However, I do question your foresight. Flashy and shiny are to a quasi-nerd the equivalent of a promised fix to a heroin addict. Young geeks are boys who love their toys. Mature geeks are men who know what toys are good for society, and what toys are good for a single company. To be able to distinguish between the two isn't the sign of maturity; the willingness to is.
Continue playing with OS X for its attractiveness. Who can deny that it's pretty? But, I would also recommend playing with the hard, rough edges of Linux. The more you and others play with it, the softer the edges will get due to wear and use. Over time, you may not be able to tell which is prettier, but you'll know which is better for everybody.
As I said, "scary, but inevitable". And, by the way, President Bush is a good guy. All of government are good guys. We mustn't upset good guys. Nothing in this post should be misconstrued by any clandestine or non-clandestine agency, who may or may not be monitoring, as cynical or questionable towards government policies as they are all good guys and I only wish I could pay more taxes to support the good guys. Also, did I mention that I love the government, and never question their actions as I know it is all for my benefit? I, for one, welcome our...
Come to think of it, I lost my job when Bush Sr. was president. When Clinton was president, I was working. When Bush Jr became president, I lost my job again. The moral of the story is, a job in the hand is better than a hand job from two bushes.
but don't you think any body of laws represents a moral code?
Not all laws have the same roots. The most fundamental ones are based on a single, self-interested (some would say "selfish") code that is the basis of civilization and the benign behavior associated with civilized society.
There are two types of laws, those that are meant to restrict your behavior because you would violate the rights of others follow the Golden Rule. And, those that restrict your behavior because you would violate the beliefs of others follow the Moral Majority Rule.
The laws that protect against violating the rights of others are based on the idea that you wouldn't do anything to others that you wouldn't want done to yourself. Killing, maiming, theiving and so on. This is The Golden Rule.
The laws that force others to follow your belief system are based on the idea that a particular higher power has stated things are to be done in a certain manner. If others have the misfortune of not having association with this particular higher power they must be in the minority and of little consequence. Another way to look at these types of laws is that they protect you from the beliefs of others as long as you remain the majority. This is the Moral Majority Rule.
Being almost synonymous with common sense, the laws based on The Golden Rule are not often contested, unless there's an overlap with laws based on the Moral Majority Rule.
Clearly, it is advantages to be part of the majority when passing laws based on the Moral Majority Rule. However, the disadvantage is that the continuation and enforcement of laws based on the Moral Majority Rule are often susceptible to review against documents such the U.S. Constitution. If the comparison leaves the law found wanting, it is often discarded.
Republican FCC commissioner that keeps pushing for the legalization of competition in communications, and fighting off the courts when they try to turn it back.
That's baloney. Powell's son is trying to get others to do his work for him, and the courts have stated he hasn't been granted the authority to do that by congress. You can paint it anyway you want, but I have paint thinner.
Slashdot Mirror
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
At the very least, it would make code a pleasure to navigate. No one appreciates being lost if your aim is to reach a definite goal. Considerate and friendly signs accurately describing the foreign landscape would be a welcome sight for a stranger. Who enjoys hacking through the thicket of maze-like logic in the dark without a helpful hint of the right direction to take?
= 9J =
You've offered a creative comparison. However, I believe your point would be inaccurate to leave it so strictly bound to its analogy. It is known that intelligence doesn't take a single form. There are more flavors of intelligence than there are chip-types (just as there are chips specializing in certain types of processing). Meyers-Brigg (aka Keirsey Temperament) discovered 16 forms of intelligence (personality can be described as a person's visible manifestation of a particular flavor of intelligence), and are able to reasonably pigeon-hole most people to these generally common types (quite an impressive feat actually). But, aside from the innumerable and subtle sub-types of types, there are entire types outside the 16 that they've missed. Naturally, this has to do with the rather large population they'd have to sift through (multiple-billions resulting from uncountable environmental/genetic variables), and even so they'd never catch the emerging and immerging forms of intelligence. And, that's just the present. Imagine varied forms from the past that may or may no longer exist.
People with different personalities will accept data, process it, create information with it, and accept that information as knowledge in different, seemingly contradictory, ways. If we didn't, then we would be like CPUs and the identical data we processed would always come to the same result. As you know, one of the problems in the world is that we don't do this. Everyone has a unique CPU that does the work differently from the next person. That's not to say that the results won't be the same, but the reasons for the similarities in the results may be entirely different. A hundred people can look at the same issue, and you could have a hundred different opinions on it. Paradoxically, this is also considered a positive trait by democracies. Intelligence isn't a fixed target, which is why it has been and will continue to be so difficult to quantify. In the end, neurologists and physicists may find that all the seemingly limitless forms are simply facets of a single universal form at the sub-quantum level.
= 9J =
Jos Claerbout, in teaching himself OOP, has written one of the more creative and instructive tutorials on OOP design hosted at Stanford. The work is admittably rough around the edges and may be too short (nothing a good publishing editor couldn't have polished up). But, it remains valuable for those who tend to be more right-brained thinkers, rather than left, and who wish to participate in software engineering. Sadly, the author has passed away at a young age, but he's left a useful legacy for the rest of us. I've come to appreciate his humor by reading his college entrance essays.
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
Show me a "voice of reason" regarding business deals with MacroShaft, and I'll show you someone who's been in a cave since the mid-80's. Some of us are "conspiracy nuts" only because we've seen too many kicked there so often by The Monopoly.
= 9J =
Looks like Groovy has been voted in unanimously by the JCP Executive Committee. Sun, in particular, seems enthusiastic about it by their comment.
If the rest of the process goes right, it appears to be on its way to eventual adoption.
There might be an advantage in having a tie-in language between Mono and Java platforms that is so similar to C# and Java syntax (the language is designed for Java people to pick up easily), but with some claimed advancements. Gnome can still tap into the C# and Java programming pool, hardcore C/C++ guys may find it a decent compromise and swallow their pride long enough to play with a new toy without admitting that they're using C# or Java. And, should M$ try to "extend" the C# language that they cloned from Java to make it more difficult for Open Source implementers, they would already be using a more stable (referring to language, not performance) Open Source language to depend on.
= 9J =
Despite not having the same rigorous educational system, when Europe passed the torch to America, our creativity (which was also present during Europe's creative height) is what kept us ahead of other countries where governments kept tighter control over their citizens' behavior. We've proven that it isn't Math or Science that gives a country an advantage, it's the creative use of them, even if your average citizenry shows lower math and science proficiency than in other countries. However, in this current American era (really quite short in European standards of achievement), control appears to be more important than independent thought and invention. Unfortunately, control stifles creativity, just as it stifles liberty.
= 9J =
Sure you can. I think therefore I am.
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
So, you're nearly 21, but clearly liquored up to make such a ridiculous statement. I commend you on an attempt to describe how enamored you are with an OS in the rest of your post. It may indicate true geek credentials. However, I do question your foresight. Flashy and shiny are to a quasi-nerd the equivalent of a promised fix to a heroin addict. Young geeks are boys who love their toys. Mature geeks are men who know what toys are good for society, and what toys are good for a single company. To be able to distinguish between the two isn't the sign of maturity; the willingness to is.
Continue playing with OS X for its attractiveness. Who can deny that it's pretty? But, I would also recommend playing with the hard, rough edges of Linux. The more you and others play with it, the softer the edges will get due to wear and use. Over time, you may not be able to tell which is prettier, but you'll know which is better for everybody.
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
I already do. Everywhere.
= 9J =
Not all laws have the same roots. The most fundamental ones are based on a single, self-interested (some would say "selfish") code that is the basis of civilization and the benign behavior associated with civilized society.
There are two types of laws, those that are meant to restrict your behavior because you would violate the rights of others follow the Golden Rule. And, those that restrict your behavior because you would violate the beliefs of others follow the Moral Majority Rule. The laws that protect against violating the rights of others are based on the idea that you wouldn't do anything to others that you wouldn't want done to yourself. Killing, maiming, theiving and so on. This is The Golden Rule.
The laws that force others to follow your belief system are based on the idea that a particular higher power has stated things are to be done in a certain manner. If others have the misfortune of not having association with this particular higher power they must be in the minority and of little consequence. Another way to look at these types of laws is that they protect you from the beliefs of others as long as you remain the majority. This is the Moral Majority Rule.
Being almost synonymous with common sense, the laws based on The Golden Rule are not often contested, unless there's an overlap with laws based on the Moral Majority Rule. Clearly, it is advantages to be part of the majority when passing laws based on the Moral Majority Rule. However, the disadvantage is that the continuation and enforcement of laws based on the Moral Majority Rule are often susceptible to review against documents such the U.S. Constitution. If the comparison leaves the law found wanting, it is often discarded.
= 9J =
That's baloney. Powell's son is trying to get others to do his work for him, and the courts have stated he hasn't been granted the authority to do that by congress. You can paint it anyway you want, but I have paint thinner.
= 9J =
= 9J =