a company that has nothing to offer but an overpaid legal department desperately trying to sell a few decade-old comments as "intellectual property" is causing noise all over the internet and in all media. Why waste time for that idiotic company instead of discussing companies that have to offer innovation and something useful? They are simply not worth the fuss.
In many areas (university institutes, certain companies) at least in Europe, Linux desktops are already more frequent than Apple desktops for some time. Most of the university institutes I worked for do not use Apple - if there is an Apple computer, it gathers dust in some corner. Secretaries work with Windows, nearly all other people use Linux on their desktop.
why? this would mean that you have to build many users that are not here for users but for programs. Effectively you misuse a security mechanism for something else, because there is nothing else there. Why is it so hard to adopt the thought that programs have rights that you can manage? This would be a natural extension to rights for users and files - rights for executables, stating what ressources they can and cannot access. I would expect a conservative attitude like this from hard-core Windows users ("user ids? we dont need that for the home edition...")
the usual picture - no creativity, no innovation - the really have nothing to offer except for a few eager and overpaid (thanks to MS' early licensing) lawyers. We should be able to care less.
On the contrary - the point is that there is usually no way how to know if you can trust a program or not. If I download a game, I want to play the game, but I might not want the program to send info to some server. it is therefore legitimate to restrict (or explicitly allow) the program to do that. This scheme should rather be extended. A program should also be optionally denied to do other things, e.g. modifiy the hard disk outside a specific directory. I.e. a dynamic and individual "sandbox" for programs which I have different levels of trust in. This would not force me to use only a very limited number of programs (which of the freshmeat programs are you really sure you can trust?) but at the same time minimize the potential desaster, should this really be malicious software.
So having options like this is the property of a system with better security, and this seems to be the rare case where I have additional security under Windows.
as you have guessed from my initial post, I am glad to hear about this! Certainly a very important contribution. As I am more an Linux end-user than a developer I cannot help much with ideas - except that there might be situations where a progam wants to establish a connection, but the user is not logged in or no interactive session exists. It might also be that a program running under root establishes a connection, but this was triggered by some other user. On many desktops there is usually only one user active... it would be good to be able to optionally "route" all permission requests to the interactive session of that user. Also it is probably not easy to get a client going for X and text-only users.
It would be easy to convince some linux user to run a program that has been modified to do spying. Any game, tool or other program will do. This need not be distributed by a "spyware" vendor - it could all kinds of paths to get on somebody's computer. And clearly, if such a protection program only gets developed after the first such trojans appear, it will be too late. Another point is that one might want to prevent programs from building a connection that are not spyware - there are dozens of reasons why you might want to do this. So really, I do not think it is pointless at all. It is a level of protection that is - if you are right and there is no such thing - clearly missing with Linux.
I wonder if there is some simple software for linux that alerts me every time a program tries to connect to the internet (outbound) and that allows me to allow or deny those connections. It should also detect new versions of the program using MD5 key or similar. Does such a program exist?
Are there any alternatives for linux that help you digitize the LP, adapt the gain, split into individual tracks and keep some order? And while I am asking - are there any linux MP3 players that let you adjust speed and pitch?
a reference mass must in some way enable you to *practically* compare some unknown mass with what you get from the reference. That is the reason why the caesium atom is used to define a second: you can build a device that will, based on that atom, tick away a very precise second. I doubt you can build a device that will allow you to weigh something based on a single C12 atom.
I mean, why, instead of getting things horribly complicated, dont they *find out* why this thing looses mass? A possible reason could be that the material contains traces of substances that are radioactive, thus loosing mass by emitting radiation and particles. And, we could simply replace the reference kilo by a piece that does not contain any unwanted impurities and does not loose mass (the article seems to indicate that other reference objects do not loose mass). Hell we could just use one of those other reference kilos as the new reference. So what is the problem with that?
They prefer fancy features, cool theming, and they like to rave about new releases. They want to be able to read all the Word-documents they receive by email and they want to browse all the badly written web pages. And that is, what they get. Making a stable system would have meant significant redesign long ago, would have been expensive, would have meant long development time and even longer testing time. Who would have paid for this? You?
I was against the war, for too many reasons to list here, but of course the US, having the largest arsenal of chemical, biological, atomic, and conventional weapons of mass and non-mass destruction, can do what they please. A bit like the retarded boy in primary school who had to repeat class three times in a row...
We will see what happens after the war. Will there be a government that magically is loyal to the US? One that makes it easy for US oil companies to get into business? One that will US currency instead of the Euro for doing business? nahhhh...
Of course, all these things would be *good*, not *evil* especially for the US. It will help them to get even richer and help enlarging the stockpile of those weapons which they first sold to Iraq, then fight a war to get them fully destroyed. But then - if they wouldnt destroy them, you could not sell new ones to them...
under Windows, this should work when you have the Quickstart feature enabled (not sure though, since I only use Linux). Under Linux, use the MSS start script to start Mozilla:
http://kingant.net/?p=mss
It will either start a new Mozilla, or open a new window of an already running one.
Define something like this:
javascript:(function(){ var e,s; IB=1; function isDigit(c) { return ("0" =0; --e) if (isDigit(L.charAt(e))) { for(s=e-1; s>=0; --s) if (!isDigit(L.charAt(s))) break; break; } ++s; if (e0) return; oldNum = L.substring(s,e+1); newNum = "" + (parseInt(oldNum,10) + IB); while (newNum.length oldNum.length) newNum = "0" + newNum; location.href = L.substring(0,s) + newNum + L.slice(e+1); })();
as a bookmark and put it in the personal toolbar (in Mozilla). Clicking the bookmark will auto-incrment the last number in the URL.
I got this from somewhere in the net, I am sure you find more if looking for "bookmarklet"
A language that does not allow functions to return functions (or rather, closures) can only be called retarded and crippled IMO. If D is supposed to be a "modern" C then it is already an anachronism. It looks a bit like an attempt to modernize transportation by making those horse-carriages out of carbon fiber....
There are good reasons for this. Note that the different design decisions that are made for a language ultimately should lead to make life easier for the programmer.While some of the issues you raise might look like limitations or complicated at first sight, they allow a design that makes other things possible which are more important. For example, the different operators for float and int might look like unnecessary work at first sight, but when you look at it a second time it makes you more aware of what type you are really using. This is actually a strength of Ocaml and one of the reasons why programs tend to be less error prone once the have managed it through the compiler. I am not really an expert, but I suspect that this also makes type inference easier or even possible, and this by far outweights the problem of typing that additional dot for float addition. Type inference and type parametrization are something that is incredible useful, once you have tried it. The nice thing about Ocaml is also that you can actually use different programming paradigms, depending on taste and aplicability: modules, functors, closures, objects, functional style or procedural style, pattern matching - it is your choice.
I do not know whether anybody calls Ocaml a hacker's language nor even what your idea of a hacker's language is. Fact is that Ocaml is a language that supports the process of problem solving better than many other language and certainly better than C, C++, or D. Anybody who invested a week or two to learn how to program in a modern language like Ocaml will experience that he/she is now suddenly capable of implementing more functionality in less time. Maybe even with less lines of code. And much smaller likelyhood of crashes. Actually, I have yet to see a program written in Ocaml crash.
Why not use an existing modern, well-designed one?
on
The D Language Progresses
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why not simply use a well-designed, modern language like Ocaml (www.ocaml.org)? Functional programming and strong typing compined with type inference can give your productivity quite a boost, once you get used to the modern times.
Note that the kind of navigation they describe is already possible if you use links instead of the back button for going back in sites. Then, navigation with that back link will give you traditional hierarchical navigation while the browsers back button used after hierarchical navigation will do a historical navigation.
E.g. if you browse through the following pages in that order by only clicking links in the pages but not the back button of the browser:/,/a,/a/1,/a,/,/b,/,/c
then the current back button will let you go back through all those pages in reverse order.
I you would have used the back button for navigating through those pages wherever it can be used, there would be only the opetion to go back to "/" from c, nothing else.
If the browser manages to more clearly identify chierarchical moves (ie clicking on a link that
really brings you back to where you come from), then the navigation could be done with
dedicated buttons for both hierarchical and historical navigation.
Given the above example, a browser that would truly detect hierarchical browsing would *not* let you go through all the visited pages even if you used links. It would show exactly the same behavior after you use the links as if you would have used the back button to navigate.
*Then* an additional back button for going back the full list of pages would make sense.
An additional complication for pure hierarchical browsing is of course that it can lead to counter intuidive situations: if you start at/a/b/c and click the "home" button to come to "/", then the
hierarchical "up" button will lead you back to "/a/b/c".
they come up with a thing to power my laptop.
Propelling rockets, my ass. We need this for
laptops, remote controls and cordless mice.
I dont give a damn about fusion unless they can
put it in a AAA cell.
Slashdot Mirror
a company that has nothing to offer but an overpaid legal department desperately trying to sell a few decade-old comments as "intellectual property" is causing noise all over the internet and in all media. Why waste time for that idiotic company instead of discussing companies that have to offer innovation and something useful? They are simply not worth the fuss.
In many areas (university institutes, certain companies) at least in Europe, Linux desktops are already more frequent than Apple desktops for some time. Most of the university institutes I worked for do not use Apple - if there is an Apple computer, it gathers dust in some corner. Secretaries work with Windows, nearly all other people use Linux on their desktop.
why? this would mean that you have to build many users that are not here for users but for programs. Effectively you misuse a security mechanism for something else, because there is nothing else there. Why is it so hard to adopt the thought that programs have rights that you can manage? This would be a natural extension to rights for users and files - rights for executables, stating what ressources they can and cannot access. I would expect a conservative attitude like this from hard-core Windows users ("user ids? we dont need that for the home edition ...")
the usual picture - no creativity, no innovation - the really have nothing to offer except for a few eager and overpaid (thanks to MS' early licensing) lawyers. We should be able to care less.
On the contrary - the point is that there is usually no way how to know if you can trust a program or not. If I download a game, I want to play the game, but I might not want the program to send info to some server. it is therefore legitimate to restrict (or explicitly allow) the program to do that. This scheme should rather be extended. A program should also be optionally denied to do other things, e.g. modifiy the hard disk outside a specific directory. I.e. a dynamic and individual "sandbox" for programs which I have different levels of trust in. This would not force me to use only a very limited number of programs (which of the freshmeat programs are you really sure you can trust?) but at the same time minimize the potential desaster, should this really be malicious software. So having options like this is the property of a system with better security, and this seems to be the rare case where I have additional security under Windows.
as you have guessed from my initial post, I am glad to hear about this! Certainly a very important contribution. As I am more an Linux end-user than a developer I cannot help much with ideas - except that there might be situations where a progam wants to establish a connection, but the user is not logged in or no interactive session exists. It might also be that a program running under root establishes a connection, but this was triggered by some other user. On many desktops there is usually only one user active ... it would be good to be able to optionally "route" all permission requests to the interactive session of that user. Also it is probably not easy to get a client going for X and text-only users.
It would be easy to convince some linux user to run a program that has been modified to do spying. Any game, tool or other program will do. This need not be distributed by a "spyware" vendor - it could all kinds of paths to get on somebody's computer. And clearly, if such a protection program only gets developed after the first such trojans appear, it will be too late. Another point is that one might want to prevent programs from building a connection that are not spyware - there are dozens of reasons why you might want to do this. So really, I do not think it is pointless at all. It is a level of protection that is - if you are right and there is no such thing - clearly missing with Linux.
I wonder if there is some simple software for linux that alerts me every time a program tries to connect to the internet (outbound) and that allows me to allow or deny those connections. It should also detect new versions of the program using MD5 key or similar. Does such a program exist?
Are there any alternatives for linux that help you digitize the LP, adapt the gain, split into individual tracks and keep some order? And while I am asking - are there any linux MP3 players that let you adjust speed and pitch?
a reference mass must in some way enable you to *practically* compare some unknown mass with what you get from the reference. That is the reason why the caesium atom is used to define a second: you can build a device that will, based on that atom, tick away a very precise second. I doubt you can build a device that will allow you to weigh something based on a single C12 atom.
I mean, why, instead of getting things horribly complicated, dont they *find out* why this thing looses mass? A possible reason could be that the material contains traces of substances that are radioactive, thus loosing mass by emitting radiation and particles. And, we could simply replace the reference kilo by a piece that does not contain any unwanted impurities and does not loose mass (the article seems to indicate that other reference objects do not loose mass). Hell we could just use one of those other reference kilos as the new reference. So what is the problem with that?
They prefer fancy features, cool theming, and they like to rave about new releases. They want to be able to read all the Word-documents they receive by email and they want to browse all the badly written web pages. And that is, what they get. Making a stable system would have meant significant redesign long ago, would have been expensive, would have meant long development time and even longer testing time. Who would have paid for this? You?
n/t
I was against the war, for too many reasons to list here, but of course the US, having the largest arsenal of chemical, biological, atomic, and conventional weapons of mass and non-mass destruction, can do what they please. A bit like the retarded boy in primary school who had to repeat class three times in a row ...
...
...
We will see what happens after the war. Will there be a government that magically is loyal to the US? One that makes it easy for US oil companies to get into business? One that will US currency instead of the Euro for doing business? nahhhh
Of course, all these things would be *good*, not *evil* especially for the US. It will help them to get even richer and help enlarging the stockpile of those weapons which they first sold to Iraq, then fight a war to get them fully destroyed. But then - if they wouldnt destroy them, you could not sell new ones to them
under Windows, this should work when you have the Quickstart feature enabled (not sure though, since I only use Linux). Under Linux, use the MSS start script to start Mozilla: http://kingant.net/?p=mss It will either start a new Mozilla, or open a new window of an already running one.
Define something like this: javascript:(function(){ var e,s; IB=1; function isDigit(c) { return ("0" =0; --e) if (isDigit(L.charAt(e))) { for(s=e-1; s>=0; --s) if (!isDigit(L.charAt(s))) break; break; } ++s; if (e0) return; oldNum = L.substring(s,e+1); newNum = "" + (parseInt(oldNum,10) + IB); while (newNum.length oldNum.length) newNum = "0" + newNum; location.href = L.substring(0,s) + newNum + L.slice(e+1); })(); as a bookmark and put it in the personal toolbar (in Mozilla). Clicking the bookmark will auto-incrment the last number in the URL. I got this from somewhere in the net, I am sure you find more if looking for "bookmarklet"
Make some claim, do not explain how it works, give no info on how to repeat what you did and get lots of publicity - THAT is science, obviously.
`` Adnan says a six-fold increase is about the maximum practical boost. "At seven times it actually crashes so I have limited it to six." Go figure ...
A language that does not allow functions to return functions (or rather, closures) can only be called retarded and crippled IMO. If D is supposed to be a "modern" C then it is already an anachronism. It looks a bit like an attempt to modernize transportation by making those horse-carriages out of carbon fiber ....
There are good reasons for this. Note that the different design decisions that are made for a language ultimately should lead to make life easier for the programmer.While some of the issues you raise might look like limitations or complicated at first sight, they allow a design that makes other things possible which are more important. For example, the different operators for float and int might look like unnecessary work at first sight, but when you look at it a second time it makes you more aware of what type you are really using. This is actually a strength of Ocaml and one of the reasons why programs tend to be less error prone once the have managed it through the compiler. I am not really an expert, but I suspect that this also makes type inference easier or even possible, and this by far outweights the problem of typing that additional dot for float addition. Type inference and type parametrization are something that is incredible useful, once you have tried it. The nice thing about Ocaml is also that you can actually use different programming paradigms, depending on taste and aplicability: modules, functors, closures, objects, functional style or procedural style, pattern matching - it is your choice.
that the US are probably the only country in the world where something like this is currently possible.
I do not know whether anybody calls Ocaml a hacker's language nor even what your idea of a hacker's language is. Fact is that Ocaml is a language that supports the process of problem solving better than many other language and certainly better than C, C++, or D. Anybody who invested a week or two to learn how to program in a modern language like Ocaml will experience that he/she is now suddenly capable of implementing more functionality in less time. Maybe even with less lines of code. And much smaller likelyhood of crashes. Actually, I have yet to see a program written in Ocaml crash.
Why not simply use a well-designed, modern language like Ocaml (www.ocaml.org)? Functional programming and strong typing compined with type inference can give your productivity quite a boost, once you get used to the modern times.
E.g. if you browse through the following pages in that order by only clicking links in the pages but not the back button of the browser: /, /a, /a/1, /a, /, /b, /, /c
then the current back button will let you go back through all those pages in reverse order.
I you would have used the back button for navigating through those pages wherever it can be used, there would be only the opetion to go back to "/" from c, nothing else.
If the browser manages to more clearly identify chierarchical moves (ie clicking on a link that really brings you back to where you come from), then the navigation could be done with dedicated buttons for both hierarchical and historical navigation. Given the above example, a browser that would truly detect hierarchical browsing would *not* let you go through all the visited pages even if you used links. It would show exactly the same behavior after you use the links as if you would have used the back button to navigate.
*Then* an additional back button for going back the full list of pages would make sense.
An additional complication for pure hierarchical browsing is of course that it can lead to counter intuidive situations: if you start at /a/b/c and click the "home" button to come to "/", then the
hierarchical "up" button will lead you back to "/a/b/c".
they come up with a thing to power my laptop. Propelling rockets, my ass. We need this for laptops, remote controls and cordless mice. I dont give a damn about fusion unless they can put it in a AAA cell.