I'm glad you said that, because it's made me think even more about whether algorythms are or can be invented and/or discovered.
I consider algorithms to be an application of abstract mathematics. I also believe that all mathematics already exists and is never invented.
I think that once you understand the maths behind an algorythm the algorythm itself becomes obvious. Also, I assert that one cannot arrive at an algortythm without an understanding of the underlying maths. If this is true, it appears that an angorythm and its underlying maths are more than just associated: they are the same thing expressed differently.
I now, more than ever before firmly believe that algorythms in general are not inventions but discoveries.
Actually, I don't believe they did invent it. They have stated themselves that they accidentally found their useful search algorythm while trying to devise something else (a system for rating pages IIRC).
So, personally I would say they discovered it rather than invented.
Before the government intervened on such issues, the natural situation was that if someone heard, saw, or otherwise observed or recorded any image ro sound etc, they could reproduce or use that image or sound themselves in any way they was fit.
That situation (we are led to believe) was a bad environment for encouraging people to produce new works for our society(ies)
To something called copyright was invented which granted a limited monopoly to the creator of the work. The amount of time this lasted for needed to be enough that the produced of the content could (if the work was any good) make enough to provide that inventive.
Anything more than that is unneccesary (and unwelcome IMO) intervention.
If you asked me, with todays come-and-gone bands and films etc, I would say that five years is more than enough, anything else is just greed or an inefficnent monolithic company that need to be propped up by a longer period because they are not dynamic enough to survive without it.
The situation we have now is a joke. Not only does the copyright period last way longer than needed to provide an incentive, but it makes a small number of companies so hugely powerful that they can immediately destroy or consume any small and upcoming company that might challenge them.(also, so powerful that they can influence and corrupt legislators easily it seems) Ironically, this is causing a stagnant market and reducing the flow fresh new works which is exactly the opposite of what copyright was invented for.
Debuggers have their place, but in some cases, to have to resort to a debugger can mean that the code is too complicated, or badly designed in the first place. Furthermore, having to use a debugger many times on the same bits of code is a clear sign that the stlye of the code is bug-prone and it should be rewritten.
The client is only available on two platforms (windows and mac) and the protocols are not available for people to write clients for other platforms, meaning prople like myself who use linux at work cannot use notes very well.
Currently I am using notes for windows under wine (thanks wine team), but unless a client for linux is available soon, I will be pushing to replace the server with some more open alternative. (and judging by other peoples experiences with notes around here, I will get quite a lot of people supporting me in doing that)
.... tried to get Mozilla 1.2 up and running with anti-aliased fonts. I wasted the whole day
Two points: 1) Joe user doesn't download source and recompile it to be optimised the way he wants it. 2) Why didn't you just use the precompiled rpms with xft support for redhat 8?
Microsoft losing would be good here, not because we don't like Microsoft, but because it could be a good high profile publicly visible example of how the patent system is utterly broken.
are you using a matrox card by any chance? If so, there are known problems in the render accelleration IIRC. Try searching on bugzilla.redhat.com I'm not sure if thats where i heard about it though. if so add your comments, if not raise a bug!
The new legislation applies to all phones, not just stolen ones. And in any case if someone has already broken the law by stealing the phone, what makes you think they won't also break this new law?
Why would a person other than a thief want to change this?
The approach of illegalising things that have a potential "bad" use just because nobody can come straight out with a "good" use will end in disaster.
Defrauding telephone companies is already illegal. If some the telephone companies don't want this heppening then they should put it in their contracts. There is no need for new legislation.
The only reason this is happening IMO is to tie in with the RIP bill amendments that the UK government have already tried to rush through (thankfully, the changed were met with sufficient resistance to delay for a while) The government wants to be able to track and record everyones movement by their mobile phone. And of course this ability will prevent all future terrorist attacks and rid the country of crime. Everyone will he happy and all will rejoice.
what makes you think the source wouldn't be on the same machine the ftp server runs on? (I've seen much worse at closed source shops) If they had rooted the machine they _would_ have access to the source, but no white hats would.
If you're the kind of person who decides which desktop to use based on reading a few reviews or asking your friends, then maybe this review is for you. Good luck.
If you're like me and you like try things for yourself, then you're probably already downloading it, and you probably already know that you're more different from the average person than you think, and you already know that you are constantly surprised by how much you disagree with reviews of this kind.
Seriously, I would recommend that everyone tries gnome 2.0 if you have time.
I think you have highlighted an ambiguity in what I said. When I the number "only decreases when they are fixed." I didn't mean that the only thing that happens it that the number decreases. I meant that there is no other way for the number of bugs to decrease other than fixing them. What I meant is very nearly trivially obvious, but not quite. I should have been clearer.
Open Source can do that but most don't. Most don't have to. Even if less than 1% do, my conclusion stands.
I don't see why you would assume the incidence of bugs in released Closed Source and released Open Source is the same. In the absence of any reason to believe otherwise, I chose an unbiased starting point. Do you have any reason to suppose that one starts off with more bugs than the other on average?
Having access to the source doesn't mean that people look at the source.
They don't have to. Only a significant minority have to - and they do.
The apache exmaple is perfect. Yes, one fix offered was not "proper" (even though it did the job temporarily some say) but the proper fix is available now, and with CSS there likely would not have been any fix so far.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't break out of the locked session.
How do you know that XFree86 was not the problem?
or gdm or even some other GNOME component?
Could you still ping or ssh to the machine?
I'm glad you said that, because it's made me think even more about whether algorythms are or can be invented and/or discovered.
I consider algorithms to be an application of abstract mathematics. I also believe that all mathematics already exists and is never invented.
I think that once you understand the maths behind an algorythm the algorythm itself becomes obvious. Also, I assert that one cannot arrive at an algortythm without an understanding of the underlying maths. If this is true, it appears that an angorythm and its underlying maths are more than just associated: they are the same thing expressed differently.
I now, more than ever before firmly believe that algorythms in general are not inventions but discoveries.
Actually, I don't believe they did invent it. They have stated themselves that they accidentally found their useful search algorythm while trying to devise something else (a system for rating pages IIRC).
So, personally I would say they discovered it rather than invented.
But it doesn't matter of course because I use crypto-loop for exactly these reasons.
Before the government intervened on such issues, the natural situation was that if someone heard, saw, or otherwise observed or recorded any image ro sound etc, they could reproduce or use that image or sound themselves in any way they was fit.
That situation (we are led to believe) was a bad environment for encouraging people to produce new works for our society(ies)
To something called copyright was invented which granted a limited monopoly to the creator of the work. The amount of time this lasted for needed to be enough that the produced of the content could (if the work was any good) make enough to provide that inventive.
Anything more than that is unneccesary (and unwelcome IMO) intervention.
If you asked me, with todays come-and-gone bands and films etc, I would say that five years is more than enough, anything else is just greed or an inefficnent monolithic company that need to be propped up by a longer period because they are not dynamic enough to survive without it.
The situation we have now is a joke. Not only does the copyright period last way longer than needed to provide an incentive, but it makes a small number of companies so hugely powerful that they can immediately destroy or consume any small and upcoming company that might challenge them.(also, so powerful that they can influence and corrupt legislators easily it seems) Ironically, this is causing a stagnant market and reducing the flow fresh new works which is exactly the opposite of what copyright was invented for.
sdgafh
Debuggers have their place, but in some cases, to have to resort to a debugger can mean that the code is too complicated, or badly designed in the first place. Furthermore, having to use a debugger many times on the same bits of code is a clear sign that the stlye of the code is bug-prone and it should be rewritten.
The client is only available on two platforms (windows and mac) and the protocols are not available for people to write clients for other platforms, meaning prople like myself who use linux at work cannot use notes very well.
Currently I am using notes for windows under wine (thanks wine team), but unless a client for linux is available soon, I will be pushing to replace the server with some more open alternative. (and judging by other peoples experiences with notes around here, I will get quite a lot of people supporting me in doing that)
"11x12 metres of space"?
Is this ride only for 2D people. I'm gonna wait until they invent a 3D version.
.... tried to get Mozilla 1.2 up and running with anti-aliased fonts. I wasted the whole day
Two points:
1) Joe user doesn't download source and recompile it to be optimised the way he wants it.
2) Why didn't you just use the precompiled rpms with xft support for redhat 8?
Microsoft losing would be good here, not because we don't like Microsoft, but because it could be a good high profile publicly visible example of how the patent system is utterly broken.
Why don't just just catch a bus or train?
are you using a matrox card by any chance?
If so, there are known problems in the render accelleration IIRC. Try searching on bugzilla.redhat.com I'm not sure if thats where i heard about it though. if so add your comments, if not raise a bug!
I see your point, but it could be argued that its not the signon system thats stupid - it's the person signing on and then walking away to get coffee.
wget and diff
Because if it's done in an anti-competitive way (as it was with java) then it's illegal.
For a better answer, read the judges findings of fact from the case.
Google is your friend.
You are right of course cannot break the licence on any code they use.
However, the GNU GPL'd code requires that other code mixed with it is released as GPL.
If the other code has a licence preventing this then that means the two licences are incompatible and they cannot distribute the binaries at all.
Breaking one license (the GNU GPL) in order not to break another is not legal. They must conform to both licences or not distribute the code at all.
what his spam filter would make of his article?
these are stolen phones
Eh? What are?
The new legislation applies to all phones, not just stolen ones. And in any case if someone has already broken the law by stealing the phone, what makes you think they won't also break this new law?
Why would a person other than a thief want to change this?
The approach of illegalising things that have a potential "bad" use just because nobody can come straight out with a "good" use will end in disaster.
Defrauding telephone companies is already illegal. If some the telephone companies don't want this heppening then they should put it in their contracts. There is no need for new legislation.
The only reason this is happening IMO is to tie in with the RIP bill amendments that the UK government have already tried to rush through (thankfully, the changed were met with sufficient resistance to delay for a while)
The government wants to be able to track and record everyones movement by their mobile phone. And of course this ability will prevent all future terrorist attacks and rid the country of crime. Everyone will he happy and all will rejoice.
what makes you think the source wouldn't be on the same machine the ftp server runs on? (I've seen much worse at closed source shops)
If they had rooted the machine they _would_ have access to the source, but no white hats would.
If you're the kind of person who decides which desktop to use based on reading a few reviews or asking your friends, then maybe this review is for you. Good luck.
If you're like me and you like try things for yourself, then you're probably already downloading it, and you probably already know that you're more different from the average person than you think, and you already know that you are constantly surprised by how much you disagree with reviews of this kind.
Seriously, I would recommend that everyone tries gnome 2.0 if you have time.
Fixing one problem might very well expose others.
:-)
I think you have highlighted an ambiguity in what I said.
When I the number "only decreases when they are fixed." I didn't mean that the only thing that happens it that the number decreases. I meant that there is no other way for the number of bugs to decrease other than fixing them. What I meant is very nearly trivially obvious, but not quite. I should have been clearer.
BTW, the word you want...
Right word, wtong spelling
Open Source can do that but most don't.
Most don't have to. Even if less than 1% do, my conclusion stands.
I don't see why you would assume the incidence of bugs in released Closed Source and released Open Source is the same.
In the absence of any reason to believe otherwise, I chose an unbiased starting point. Do you have any reason to suppose that one starts off with more bugs than the other on average?
Having access to the source doesn't mean that people look at the source.
They don't have to. Only a significant minority have to - and they do.
The apache exmaple is perfect. Yes, one fix offered was not "proper" (even though it did the job temporarily some say) but the proper fix is available now, and with CSS there likely would not have been any fix so far.