What I found is that government agencies start to track students progress and interfere if possible. Why they want to interfere is not fully answered. There is already enough information of a students progress leaked to government agencies. Enough of it that some students find they are called to court or other agencies specifically on days of their classes. Attempts to arrange a more convenient day has led to denial. To many days missed guarantees a drop or ill-informed for tests. Professors, of how many is not counted, are very aware of these attempts by such agencies to interfere. One reason, is that those within the government agencies want to control who succeeds. The requirement for a degree in business is a key to unlock many potentials. Control what students get the degree and you control what students hold the keys. Like to key to get hired by the such governmental agencies. It's a way to keep government business a "family" business. Professors have subtly helped students acheive were interference is obvious. It seems as if one university will make the case to leave students alone!
Are whales deaf? The subwoofer is like a fan. It's also like a motor of a propeller in water. If that subwoofer is able to make such noise, what can the propellers in water acheive? What affect does it have on marine life? Is this subwoofer the proof of concept that we need to change our propellers into other kinds of quieter technology? This isn't FUD.
EMP or not... Why hasn't the government spent any of it money to destroy hurricanes while they are offshore; instead, they just sit back and watch the destruction. FEMA, SBA, and other agencies make big time bank like billions of dollars for every disaster because people pay to finance or refinance through presidentially declared disaster situations.
Atomatrix has a syntax a bit nicer. It uses a dynamic compiler, yet default syntax:
>:textate( "this is a test" split( " " ) );
textate() is a method off the user's command object to write text to the output. The colon is a shortcut from the command line to specify the user's command object. No dots between methods or expressions are used or even needed to evaluated object-orientated methods. The above would actually print out an array structure:
{ "this" , "is" , "a" , "test" }
Here is one way on how to join them on seperate lines like the demo.
>:textate( "this is a test" split( " " ) join( "\n" ) ); this
is
a
test
It's not new for Unix. Monad is commercially ready. If you read what a monad is, it sounds very similar to what an atomatrix is, and that was something programmed as an OO-shell for Unix more than 15 years ago.
If they implement the IP protocal with geocoded addresses instead of the IPv4 or IPv6, they wouldn't have such an argument to fight about in who controls the Internet.
That is a good suggestion. The pragmatic case of the two rivals yesterday only lay ground evidence why wireless multipoint networks are in demand today. It is also the same reason why such big landline companies don't want to implement wireless multipoint; they'll lose their "providership" when customers can easily route around the provider. In that case, customers might finally realize that they are the Internet and the big self-claimed providers are really not.
Even the change of the protocol to improve security is in theory a means for job security. The current Internet protocol allows for a decentralized administration. Any protocol changes to centralize any administration would obviously be for job security. Anotherwords, a rebuild for security suggects a change to support a commercial model or a government model of the Internet instead of it's choatic "free as in free beer" model it has now. That is questionable as in who is there to promise and protect such security improvements.
It is , I beleive, the fist object oriented shell.
Definitely not. Atomatrix started in the 1980's. It expands the oo-shell with a natural language interface, but the oo-shell is still accessible from the interface. It's gone through various rewrites and periods of inactivity. Even before that, there were variants of MOO.
the European politicians asked European computer industry representatives
...and, that is as far as it goes. Some countries and states do implement laws that require aspects of sources to be openly accessible. I don't want to point out specifics, but if you look you'll find the code, and there are some more actions in place to demand more open source within various legal systems. I doubt Microsoft would make such move to demand closed only source as a condition of use of standards because it would suddenly stop interoperablity with such countries and states. They, hence the countries and states, have no choice but to dump Microsoft completely if Microsoft demands such terms.
Why not hire a company to write a program? If it is a closed source program, some fool would want to make it mandatory to use. Once it is mandated, hidden rules, regulations, and factors creep in that adjust the calculated values. You won't know what your taxes go to afford or why. You won't be able to look at the code because the company has declared it proprietary.
This is actually being done now!
The computer software that is used by judges and commissioners to calculate child support is closed source proprietorship. Any attempt to appeal to such calculations that the program has done has failed because the company claims it does not need to release the source code. The program has added many factors into the child support equation, one that originally only required 3 knowns to compute.
If we mandate a program to use, we must also mandate that such program be open source software that is available to the public view.
The maturity level of the programmer that reads quality code is significantly determined by the quantity of demands to comment such code.
Comments are only needed were they are nothing less and nothing more than only needed.
Rule of thumb taught by professors, if it takes a minute to figure out what a single line of code does than comment it. If you find that your code is full of comments, try a different line of work.
To reduce comments, use fully functional prototypes. Take a class if you haven't learned about such precedences.
Also, I have seen too many times that someone has tried to explain in their code what they want a function to accomplish only then read the code and find out it does not do as commented. N.B.
The middle ground you want is well written prototypes. The code content beyond the prototypes does not need to be commented. Well written prototypes would allow you to understand the entire program without any code seen. These kind of prototypes do include completely documented states of all input and output values. There does exist a movement to make such prototype documentation as readable as mathematic symbols and equations to avoid the translations, like from english to chinese and so on. Those kinds of symbols, however, are not easy to put in ASCII bounded code.
That is only needed for compilers that aren't smart enough to know that the value of zero is congruent to nothing, nullity, or no value. That is only confused when the default index for binary starts with 0 for the ordinal first instead of 1, like in positive natural integers.
Without the #define NULL in the source code, look at just the assembly output. How does one tell the difference between the valid address 0 and the macro-expanded value of NULL to 0? The use of NULL is obscure when it looks the same as something else when compiled.
A case in point, do you feel the need to comment what your just wrote in that reply? If you preach the dire need of comments, then I want to see what you preach with everything you write.
Ok, I know you're about to say, "I meant just program code and not English." Does it mean, for say, that one is not a good writer in English if this one does not also translate their English sentences into Chinese? Kind-of silly for the common case -- don't you think?
After many years of code digestation, I read code like I read any other written language. There is no need to translate everything written into another language for those who know how to read. I tend to delete others comments just so I can read the code easier.
Comments in code are only helpful as hints and not helpful to translate the code into English or another language. If you write programs well, there is no need to comment the code. If you write programs well, there is no need to even make sense out of the names of variables and functions; they are only helpful hints and never meant to be spoken english.
One thing to consider is the amount of money spent to update the comments in code when a simple program change is made. Does one try to justify the need for completely commented source code for revenue?
If you want to live by comments, go ahead and spend your life in a repeated explanation of yourself or what you have done, for in essence that is what commented code tries to acheive.
offloading network processing normally isn't useful
With implementation of Vanderpool (VMX) instructions, I doubt the goal was just to offload the network process just to benefit one kernel. I see this move as to move the TCP/IP stack out of the kernel. That move would allow an easier approach to implement multiple kernels on the same machine with the use of VMX where each one access the TCP/IP hardware directly. Each kernel/system would benefit overall.
I predict an option for the regular Cellular Phone with VoIP capability to transmit to you nearby vehicle with a VoIP to Cellular Network gateway. That way the Phone on hand doesn't use as much energy to transmit and doesn't have the fear to scramble nearby brains with radio electromagnetic signals. Car to Car networks woulds only increase the likelyhood of this prediction.
If your neighbors have wireless access, you could become the the neighborhood ISP for the time being. Wireless access also means that the backbone does not have to be by landline. We could do away with the landline ISP and go strictly with wireless. For now, you can make the step possible if you do it right. Move to provide the network connection for free and only charge for the services you provice. At first, you might want to charge for network connection to cover the initial startup fees.
The news about the very hot water is already known. A pebble bed reactor that is combined with a fuel cell is already funded at the federal level. The Bush Administration pushed its design out for another 5 years. The steam from the reactor is split off and fed directly into a fuel cell. Overall all, more energy is gained from a single nuclear reactor. The pebble bed design allows the reactor to get very hot without worry of the meltdown conditions.
The database file system originated from the ideas of an object-orientated database. Keywords and references are all part of the orientation objects of the database to index to files or other objects. It does away with the traditional hierarchal view, being rooted at some place. The OODB does not need to be rooted as it is more like a web. The DBFS seems to try to implement part of the concept of the OODB. Good. There are many more features an OODBFS can offer: dynamic organization, classification, and mutliple "skeletal" views to name a few. I hope that this DBFS will give a taste of what an OODBFS offers.
If Linux is still not sold as commercial software, patents should not be an issue. Copyrights affect free and commercial software; however, patents only affect commercial software. Some business-people must have got their confusion when businesses like Red Hat, Debian, Yellow Dog, and more started to package Linux with commercial software and distributed it; it looked like commercial software. The GPL avoids patent issues, but that confusion makes it an issue. Some businesses want to find excuses that makes it an issue that their patents are valid in non-commercial software.
For what I could prove inaccurate, I did and won. I still can't easily stop the pro tems or judges from a "ability to pay" statement. Such statement is not based on actual income and expenses. So based on the figures that they write down as input for the formula, the audits render correctly to that point. Beyond those input values where the actual amounts are found, the auditor never see that.
OSS would allow, as it has in the past, an open protocol to which agencies that report income and expense information could work together in a non proprietary fashion to share such data. The only thing that stops it now is privacy issues; however, didn't we just have another story about how Allan Greenspan (fed gov) wants to enable the transfer of money over the internet? We can assume they have already started to deal with the privacy issues.
If you download and try the DissoMaster software, you'll see that there is no way to add multiple mothers. A father with kids from multiple mothers is screwed by paying at least two to three times the amount of child support as it would be for the situation with all the kids from only one mother. The fathers get punished for having kids with multiple mothers.
Luckily, the state has upheld laws that keep dads out of jail even when they can't pay. All the dad has to do is show that he tries to provide maintenance and education to his family.
An open source income and expense system would allow multiple agencies to contribute software updates to verify income and expenses of all related parties to determine a more accurate child support rate. It should not be based on the current equation which was setup for an ideal situation based on a normal marriage where both parties still lived together. It does not take in account where both parties have to pay for seperate homeage, seperate cars, and etc. But to focus on the open source issue, any agency could contribute protocols or procedures that fetch data or centralize data to easily offer the parents a consolidated view of income and expenses.
In reality, child support should not be based directly upon the amount any party earns. What if the software could easily fetch the amounts of cost to rent a house to keep the kids at. The software would know when it charges one parent with too much child support owed.
I wonder why they can't just credit something like a credit card that is only to be used for the children's expenses. Then the system could track exactly the amount of money needed so the payor doesn't pay too much to the enjoyment of the other party.
The open source system could also get rid of the amount of money that the state pockets for every child support payment. It is written in California law that the state makes and income off of child support payments. An open source system could easily allow competition and lower any transaction or overhead cost to transfer money. I know that 20% of the child support payment I made went directly in to the pocket of the state. It is like double taxation! (Former Gov Davis had a bill on his desk with Senate and Assembly approval to regulate the child support and he vetoed it.) The closed source system tries to prevent competition and any derived works. All the judges and attorneys that I have seen use the DissoMaster monopoly.
If it is so easy for the judge or attorneys to enter the amounts in the screen, why do they have to? Why can't we just create a system where both parties can enter in their information directly without the need to go to court and spend more money for income and expense modifications?
Slashdot Mirror
What I found is that government agencies start to track students progress and interfere if possible. Why they want to interfere is not fully answered. There is already enough information of a students progress leaked to government agencies. Enough of it that some students find they are called to court or other agencies specifically on days of their classes. Attempts to arrange a more convenient day has led to denial. To many days missed guarantees a drop or ill-informed for tests. Professors, of how many is not counted, are very aware of these attempts by such agencies to interfere. One reason, is that those within the government agencies want to control who succeeds. The requirement for a degree in business is a key to unlock many potentials. Control what students get the degree and you control what students hold the keys. Like to key to get hired by the such governmental agencies. It's a way to keep government business a "family" business. Professors have subtly helped students acheive were interference is obvious. It seems as if one university will make the case to leave students alone!
Are whales deaf? The subwoofer is like a fan. It's also like a motor of a propeller in water. If that subwoofer is able to make such noise, what can the propellers in water acheive? What affect does it have on marine life? Is this subwoofer the proof of concept that we need to change our propellers into other kinds of quieter technology? This isn't FUD.
EMP or not... Why hasn't the government spent any of it money to destroy hurricanes while they are offshore; instead, they just sit back and watch the destruction. FEMA, SBA, and other agencies make big time bank like billions of dollars for every disaster because people pay to finance or refinance through presidentially declared disaster situations.
Atomatrix has a syntax a bit nicer. It uses a dynamic compiler, yet default syntax:
:textate( "this is a test" split( " " ) ) ;
:textate( "this is a test" split( " " ) join( "\n" ) ) ;
>
textate() is a method off the user's command object to write text to the output. The colon is a shortcut from the command line to specify the user's command object. No dots between methods or expressions are used or even needed to evaluated object-orientated methods. The above would actually print out an array structure:
{ "this" , "is" , "a" , "test" }
Here is one way on how to join them on seperate lines like the demo.
>
this
is
a
test
It's not new for Unix. Monad is commercially ready. If you read what a monad is, it sounds very similar to what an atomatrix is, and that was something programmed as an OO-shell for Unix more than 15 years ago.
Certainly that is prior art?
ASCII has control characters to accomplish the same of XML. That is prior art.
If they implement the IP protocal with geocoded addresses instead of the IPv4 or IPv6, they wouldn't have such an argument to fight about in who controls the Internet.
The best option is to ditch your provider...
That is a good suggestion. The pragmatic case of the two rivals yesterday only lay ground evidence why wireless multipoint networks are in demand today. It is also the same reason why such big landline companies don't want to implement wireless multipoint; they'll lose their "providership" when customers can easily route around the provider. In that case, customers might finally realize that they are the Internet and the big self-claimed providers are really not.
This looks like a good idea in theory
Even the change of the protocol to improve security is in theory a means for job security. The current Internet protocol allows for a decentralized administration. Any protocol changes to centralize any administration would obviously be for job security. Anotherwords, a rebuild for security suggects a change to support a commercial model or a government model of the Internet instead of it's choatic "free as in free beer" model it has now. That is questionable as in who is there to promise and protect such security improvements.
It is , I beleive, the fist object oriented shell.
Definitely not. Atomatrix started in the 1980's. It expands the oo-shell with a natural language interface, but the oo-shell is still accessible from the interface. It's gone through various rewrites and periods of inactivity. Even before that, there were variants of MOO.
the European politicians asked European computer industry representatives
...and, that is as far as it goes. Some countries and states do implement laws that require aspects of sources to be openly accessible. I don't want to point out specifics, but if you look you'll find the code, and there are some more actions in place to demand more open source within various legal systems. I doubt Microsoft would make such move to demand closed only source as a condition of use of standards because it would suddenly stop interoperablity with such countries and states. They, hence the countries and states, have no choice but to dump Microsoft completely if Microsoft demands such terms.
Why not hire a company to write a program? If it is a closed source program, some fool would want to make it mandatory to use. Once it is mandated, hidden rules, regulations, and factors creep in that adjust the calculated values. You won't know what your taxes go to afford or why. You won't be able to look at the code because the company has declared it proprietary.
This is actually being done now!
The computer software that is used by judges and commissioners to calculate child support is closed source proprietorship. Any attempt to appeal to such calculations that the program has done has failed because the company claims it does not need to release the source code. The program has added many factors into the child support equation, one that originally only required 3 knowns to compute.
If we mandate a program to use, we must also mandate that such program be open source software that is available to the public view.
The maturity level of the programmer that reads quality code is significantly determined by the quantity of demands to comment such code.
Comments are only needed were they are nothing less and nothing more than only needed.
Rule of thumb taught by professors, if it takes a minute to figure out what a single line of code does than comment it. If you find that your code is full of comments, try a different line of work.
To reduce comments, use fully functional prototypes. Take a class if you haven't learned about such precedences.
Also, I have seen too many times that someone has tried to explain in their code what they want a function to accomplish only then read the code and find out it does not do as commented. N.B.
That site to stream data over the event of the slashdot effect just survived. It's good. It's real good.
What you need is prototypes, not comments.
That is only needed for compilers that aren't smart enough to know that the value of zero is congruent to nothing, nullity, or no value. That is only confused when the default index for binary starts with 0 for the ordinal first instead of 1, like in positive natural integers.
Without the #define NULL in the source code, look at just the assembly output. How does one tell the difference between the valid address 0 and the macro-expanded value of NULL to 0? The use of NULL is obscure when it looks the same as something else when compiled.
A case in point, do you feel the need to comment what your just wrote in that reply? If you preach the dire need of comments, then I want to see what you preach with everything you write.
Ok, I know you're about to say, "I meant just program code and not English." Does it mean, for say, that one is not a good writer in English if this one does not also translate their English sentences into Chinese? Kind-of silly for the common case -- don't you think?
After many years of code digestation, I read code like I read any other written language. There is no need to translate everything written into another language for those who know how to read. I tend to delete others comments just so I can read the code easier.
Comments in code are only helpful as hints and not helpful to translate the code into English or another language. If you write programs well, there is no need to comment the code. If you write programs well, there is no need to even make sense out of the names of variables and functions; they are only helpful hints and never meant to be spoken english.
One thing to consider is the amount of money spent to update the comments in code when a simple program change is made. Does one try to justify the need for completely commented source code for revenue?
If you want to live by comments, go ahead and spend your life in a repeated explanation of yourself or what you have done, for in essence that is what commented code tries to acheive.
offloading network processing normally isn't useful With implementation of Vanderpool (VMX) instructions, I doubt the goal was just to offload the network process just to benefit one kernel. I see this move as to move the TCP/IP stack out of the kernel. That move would allow an easier approach to implement multiple kernels on the same machine with the use of VMX where each one access the TCP/IP hardware directly. Each kernel/system would benefit overall.
I predict an option for the regular Cellular Phone with VoIP capability to transmit to you nearby vehicle with a VoIP to Cellular Network gateway. That way the Phone on hand doesn't use as much energy to transmit and doesn't have the fear to scramble nearby brains with radio electromagnetic signals. Car to Car networks woulds only increase the likelyhood of this prediction.
If your neighbors have wireless access, you could become the the neighborhood ISP for the time being. Wireless access also means that the backbone does not have to be by landline. We could do away with the landline ISP and go strictly with wireless. For now, you can make the step possible if you do it right. Move to provide the network connection for free and only charge for the services you provice. At first, you might want to charge for network connection to cover the initial startup fees.
The news about the very hot water is already known. A pebble bed reactor that is combined with a fuel cell is already funded at the federal level. The Bush Administration pushed its design out for another 5 years. The steam from the reactor is split off and fed directly into a fuel cell. Overall all, more energy is gained from a single nuclear reactor. The pebble bed design allows the reactor to get very hot without worry of the meltdown conditions.
The database file system originated from the ideas of an object-orientated database. Keywords and references are all part of the orientation objects of the database to index to files or other objects. It does away with the traditional hierarchal view, being rooted at some place. The OODB does not need to be rooted as it is more like a web. The DBFS seems to try to implement part of the concept of the OODB. Good. There are many more features an OODBFS can offer: dynamic organization, classification, and mutliple "skeletal" views to name a few. I hope that this DBFS will give a taste of what an OODBFS offers.
Copyrights and patents are two different things.
If Linux is still not sold as commercial software, patents should not be an issue. Copyrights affect free and commercial software; however, patents only affect commercial software. Some business-people must have got their confusion when businesses like Red Hat, Debian, Yellow Dog, and more started to package Linux with commercial software and distributed it; it looked like commercial software. The GPL avoids patent issues, but that confusion makes it an issue. Some businesses want to find excuses that makes it an issue that their patents are valid in non-commercial software.
For what I could prove inaccurate, I did and won. I still can't easily stop the pro tems or judges from a "ability to pay" statement. Such statement is not based on actual income and expenses. So based on the figures that they write down as input for the formula, the audits render correctly to that point. Beyond those input values where the actual amounts are found, the auditor never see that.
OSS would allow, as it has in the past, an open protocol to which agencies that report income and expense information could work together in a non proprietary fashion to share such data. The only thing that stops it now is privacy issues; however, didn't we just have another story about how Allan Greenspan (fed gov) wants to enable the transfer of money over the internet? We can assume they have already started to deal with the privacy issues.
If you download and try the DissoMaster software, you'll see that there is no way to add multiple mothers. A father with kids from multiple mothers is screwed by paying at least two to three times the amount of child support as it would be for the situation with all the kids from only one mother. The fathers get punished for having kids with multiple mothers. Luckily, the state has upheld laws that keep dads out of jail even when they can't pay. All the dad has to do is show that he tries to provide maintenance and education to his family. An open source income and expense system would allow multiple agencies to contribute software updates to verify income and expenses of all related parties to determine a more accurate child support rate. It should not be based on the current equation which was setup for an ideal situation based on a normal marriage where both parties still lived together. It does not take in account where both parties have to pay for seperate homeage, seperate cars, and etc. But to focus on the open source issue, any agency could contribute protocols or procedures that fetch data or centralize data to easily offer the parents a consolidated view of income and expenses. In reality, child support should not be based directly upon the amount any party earns. What if the software could easily fetch the amounts of cost to rent a house to keep the kids at. The software would know when it charges one parent with too much child support owed. I wonder why they can't just credit something like a credit card that is only to be used for the children's expenses. Then the system could track exactly the amount of money needed so the payor doesn't pay too much to the enjoyment of the other party. The open source system could also get rid of the amount of money that the state pockets for every child support payment. It is written in California law that the state makes and income off of child support payments. An open source system could easily allow competition and lower any transaction or overhead cost to transfer money. I know that 20% of the child support payment I made went directly in to the pocket of the state. It is like double taxation! (Former Gov Davis had a bill on his desk with Senate and Assembly approval to regulate the child support and he vetoed it.) The closed source system tries to prevent competition and any derived works. All the judges and attorneys that I have seen use the DissoMaster monopoly. If it is so easy for the judge or attorneys to enter the amounts in the screen, why do they have to? Why can't we just create a system where both parties can enter in their information directly without the need to go to court and spend more money for income and expense modifications?