Maybe you kid, but it is interesting that APT seems to be able to handle more complex dependency graphs than RPM. What I've never understood is why it needs to.
Note that APT/RPM can't solve the rpm sudoku game. Worth noting is that the above pseudo-code is pretty close to high level way explanation of how YUM solves deps. (without --skip-broken).
Having the bar change color is basically worthless security, on the other hand the user still has to be trained to see that they are using https instead of http when on a "security" site... and that is still not obvious enough.
Yes, we have a whole host of secret scripts but they're all in awk (which was what we used in those days, perl was an improvement damit!)... so you wouldn't understand them.
That's my problem with McCain, he loves to compromise with Democrats on big issues like whether the Constituition means anything.
On come on, this comment after the last 8 years of the Republicans screwing the constitution for all it's worth? Or is it just that they didn't threaten to take your guns away, so it's all ok?
Bah, I hate them all, the Dems. just seem like they'll be the least worst... but it's hard to tell (and rewarding the Republicans after the last 8 years isn't a pretty alternative). Kang or Kodos, you get to vote!
precisely how would you like to pay for such a deployment?
Maybe with the billions of dollars that we've already given the cable and telco companies?... oh, right, we've already given it to them and got nothing... ooops.
I have a better idea: if people want broadband, let them pay what it costs for them to obtain it. What a novel idea! Costs of services being tied to costs of providing those services! Imagine that!
You could say the same thing about Water, Sewer and Electricity. But those are already heavily regulated... are you arguing that the regulation should stop? If the water or power company wants to charge you $1,000 a month (becuase, you have no alternative), you should either pay or go without?
The free market solves problems well, when there is a market. So realistically you have to fix the market, or have the government step in.
And, frankly not many people are arguing that every person in the.us should get fiber to their home... but we do have a range of population densities between "miles between houses" and "skyscraper".
You can have the best of both worlds (a stable API, and the ability to make changes). The fact of the matter is that the APIs don't change all that often, and frequently they change in a way that would allow for a trivial compatibility layer.
Your argument is basically that writing shared libraries is just as easy as writing applications, and that maintaining API/ABI compatibility in shared libraries is "easy". Both of which contradict years of experience.
And, specifically from the kernel perspective, the usual example is the Solaris kernel in the 2.3/2.4/2.5 timeframe (memory is getting old) where they refused to fix a security bug because it would break ABI compatibility. So the corollary to your argument then is that Solaris kernel engineers are idiots?
At the very least, are you going to feel good about yourself knowing that an action you took helped kill someone, possibly a third party that wasn't involved in your ego trip?
So a bunch of you seem to have the idea that I was advocating slamming on brakes, so let me clear this up... no, don't do that... you can hurt people, esp. yourself (whiplash etc. is more likely to hurt the front car than anyone behind, AIUI).
No, if you slam on your brakes for no reason, you can certainly be found to have acted recklessly. That someone is tailgatting you doesn't matter.
"I think i saw something" doesn't usually fly either.
Again, maybe if you admit to intent... or intent can somehow be proven. But I've seen accidents where two cars were going around a "roundabout" and the one in front slammed on the brakes for no reason, the driver got out of the car and said (roughly) "I'm sorry I did that, I thought I saw something, this is completely my fault."... and the end result was insurance of the driver traveling behind paid for all damages.
This is because, generally, you don't have to prove why you needed to stop... the people behind you are still not allowed to drive into you. And, personally, I have roughly 0% sympathy for tailgaters they are a danger to themselves and to the people unlucky enough to be in front of them.
Seriously, there's nothing you can do if someone is tailgatting you but pulling off the road to let them pass.
Apart from anything else, doing that is positive re-enforcement. Your best option is to slow down because if you then need to stop they'll have more time to react and they'll be traveling slower when they hit you (ergo. cause you less harm).
The moron in the car intentionally braking hard caused an accident with a pickup and a school bus, killing three of the four teenagers in the pickup. The pickup was being driven irresponsibly as well. I believe the car driver has been charged with man-slaughter.
I don't think so, the "moron" didn't cause the accident by just hitting his brakes under any driving laws in the US (or a bunch of other countries that I know of). If (s)he was intoxicated, or speeding etc. they may decide to charge then. And it's possible if (s)he got out of the car shouting "ha take that you tailgating scum" they might be able to charge for something but "I think I saw something and braked" is a completely valid reason to brake.
"Well 3x9 is almost like 3x10, so it's 30.. but then we subtract 3 and get 27."
Which is perfectly valid as a mneumonic, but it's not strictly necessary. Teach the best way to always get a correct answer. Optimize later. Simple computer science rule. The current New Math invasion is supposedly all about making things easier to understand by expressing it in words. Instead, they're teaching a lot of premature optimization.
I would certainly not call this an "optimization", as this is pretty close to how I'd do it mentally (well for different/bigger numbers). The problem with "old math" was that only some of the people actually crossed the gap and understood what they were really doing with all the long calculations of numbers and so could use it usefully. The point of "new math" is try and teach everyone what the numbers mean, so when someone sees something like 3x9 you "know" it's "roughly" the same as 3x10, but "a bit" less.
Obviously you can make mistakes with either old or new math, but the mistakes are likely to be closer to the correct answer if you understand what the numbers are doing as against putting numbers into a formula and getting a result.
There's also the "pro. new math" side from a college math professor, which is in response to someone else saying mostly the same thing you did.
So yeah, I think that maybe you can't compare the cost of an ATM machine to a voting machine. After all, the cost of making paper ballots were never compared to to cost of making a dollar bill.
I would have been happy if they'd compared the cost (and security) of making and running an digital voting machine with the same costs for a non-digital version.
Just so happens that most mainstream media outlets have a leftist bias. Also just so happens that most successful talk radio has a conservative bias. Anyone claiming to be "impartial" is not telling the truth.
Err. no. If you think that's true you really need to get out more. Even accounting for the fact that "leftist" and "conservative" encompass huge overlapping viewpoints, depending on the speaker, to pretend that Fox/talk-radio are just the "right balance" to the "general left" is just so far out there in cuckoo land it's not even funny.
Maybe you mean the next big.deb based thing? Lots of rpm based distros. have had "patch pkgs" for a while now. Fedora is probably the most recent/biggest (although it's not a default feature, yet). But SuSE (and I'm pretty sure mandrake) have had them for a while.
IIRC the reason debian never added them was the same reason Fedora havn't made them a default/core feature yet... it requires a lot more from the mirrors.
By comparison, I'm pretty sure I could knock out a minimal compliant XMPP server in an afternoon, and it would support Unicode for free.
Well first of all, while I haven't studied XMPP in detail, from what I've seen of it that's not even close to true. XMPP is not trivial. But IMHO much more important is that you are assuming that you can include thousands of lines of XML code, for free... and presumably that you are getting all the network IO related work for "free" too. Personally I would have to do a lot of work before I trusted an XML parser enough to make it publicly accessible, for basically arbitrary content.
Then again, I could probably write a functional IRC client or server in a few hours (re-using only code I'd written before)... and someone else could probably do it in even less time using the perl or python irc libraries... but it wouldn't be as functional as X-Chat or ircd-hybrid. In the same vein I've seen "HTTP servers" written in 6 lines of C, and they work to an extent. Getting something useful is always much more work, and the amount of work needed only goes up as the complexity of the underlying base is higher.
They would rather rake the poor over the coals with high interest just because it has a higher return.
No one is forcing them to take it, and if you want to give people with a low credit rating money at a low interest rate... you are obviously free to do so. Go to prosper.com and give away as much as you want today (hey... I'll happily take a $25k loan for 4%, just let me know).
Oh, what's that you don't want to give away your money... just other people's. Interesting.
Show me the candidate that wants to ban credit cards
Sure, they could also ban mortgages too... which would be equally stupid.
Assuming you don't mean a *.google.com web site, see above. You aren't the one explicitly using Google, the site that you're visiting is.
With both ads and google JS stats. stuff you'd be making direct requests to *.google.com servers, to download the ads or do the XML-RPC JS requests.
Again, you probably aren't the one explicitly contacting anything owned by Network Solutions. Most people use their ISP's DNS servers, so your ISP is the only one that you're directly contacting.
Maybe most currently, but certainly not all. And with always on DSL etc. it's not obvious that it's a good idea for people to use caching DNS servers at their ISP.
Essentially, the judge ruled that the injunction did indeed include the DNS servers the company had. Imagine that, he got that one right!
If you "harass" your electricity company and they get an injunction, are you then not allowed to use electricity? If you harass AT&T and move to another phone company, are you then not allowed to phone anyone on AT&T? What about google, they get an injunction and you aren't allowed to visit any site that uses google or doubleclick ads, or google JS stats.? Get an injunction from Network Solutions and you can't use DNS at all?
Anyway you look at it, this looks like a bad decision.
The last time I had free rein in something like that, I did just that, and made a clean rewrite to make a few cleanly commented, consistent Python modules that did the work of all the previous scripts, sans bugs.
Sounds good, then someone can come in a few months/years from now and re-write in NBL because it's getting 100x as much data and now takes 3 weeks to process the data, using 500GB of RAM. Or because it's dumping pages of backtrace for a: missing file / an int() that should be a str() / misspelled word. Or just that noone can (under)stand the invisible syntax, so can't work with it.
As someone who's worked a lot with both Perl and Python, I'd say the biggest differences are that Perl has had a lot more inexperienced developers writing code for it and that Perl has basically been unmaintained for like 8 years now. Oh and that Python developers think that their languages is the best, but Perl developers know their language used to be;).
As I covered in another post, the going rate for CDs is about $9.99. Prices have indeed dropped. They were in the $18 range about five years ago, but due to piracy, competition from other forms of entertainment, etc. etc. they've dropped significantly.
They drop in sales etc.... but the list price is will ~$19. Go see: Amazon's Music Top-100, and they are the best selling Music they should be cheaper than average. I guess if you only buy current Top-10 Music, you can probably get close to a $9.99 average... but some of us have, ya know, taste;p.
Yes, CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE is a distinct capability. See "man capabilities" on a Linux box, although you may also want to give it CAP_SYS_CHROOT... depending on how paranoid you are.
Files indented with two spaces instead of a tab, or even just one space. Fortunately this can be worked around with tools.
This is at best personal opinion, and AFAIK all the actually testing done on this shows that 1 space indentation isn't enough, which is why 2, 4 or 8 spaces are the norm. My opinion is that TABs should never be used for indentation, as none of the tools will multi line things up correctly (Ie. you need to use TABs to the start of the original line, and then space to line up). Also TABs and spaces mixed are the spawn of satan, and given that we can't get rid of spaces getting rid of TABs is the only sane option.
Macros for integral constants (yes, even in C), since enum does the job and obeys scope (yes, C has different scopes, not just C++).
What people call C is really two languages, and the pre-processor doesn't understand enums so that's a major reason to use macros instead. This is esp. useful when you are defining an interface and need to expand it (Ie. #ifdef FOO/* code for older interface where FOO doesn't exist */). You can mostly get around this by using enums and then defining macros of the same name to the enums, but that doesn't always work... or you can just not use enums because noone else does either.
Fundamentally, things that aren't highly modular and can be understood and used in isolation. I want to combine modules and have a minimum of complexity increase due to this combination.
While that's a nice goal, it's really really hard to do well. Making a shared library that does X is at least 10x harder than just doing X IMO.... making it work well can be even harder. And the maintenance burden is probably closer to 100x harder, unless you take the retarded route like OpenSSL and cause everyone using your API massive pain.
Not if there are a few joins. But if 1 single extra column can mean the difference between a 200 character SQL query and a 2000 character SQL query, then yes I'd definitely consider adding a bit of redundant data to make my queries simpler.
[...]
I'll give you another example. In a system I'm working on, we have a 'documents' table with columns (id,title). One of the requirements is that our users must be able to see changes made to a document in the past. So we have a 'document_revisions' table,
[...]
Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, ordering inside a group is not possible, and so it's not possible to do this in 1 query without utilizing a subquery. Subqueries are expensive.
What you seem not to know about are: 1) CREATE VIEW. 2) Materialized Views. 3) HAVING. 4) Stored procedures. Also the "sub-queries are expensive" is an interesting assertion, given that your answer seems to be to change an insert into an select + update + insert (or at least update + insert, but that has very bad behaviour). Maybe you are using a crappy RDBMS, or it doesn't have INDEXes in the correct places?
In terms of liability, as long as you give the code away and perhaps add a note that it comes with no warranties of any kind if your jurisdiction cares about such things, I don't see what could be simpler.
How can you communicate/enforce this "no warranty" clause, if you are PD'ing? With a license, like MIT, you say "take it and use it as you will, but you don't have any warranty claims, or don't take it at all"... with PD you say what? Take it and please don't sue me?
I don't see that any jurisdiction issues are going to be any more complicated with public domain works than with the enforceability or otherwise of complicated licence agreements under different fair use frameworks and so on.
Because licenses are well understood and mostly compatible, due to the WTO, because proprietary companies need them to be roughly similar. And, again, you license with a "you get X,Y,Z privilages in return for doing A,B,C" whereas with PD you are saying "This is PD, whatever that happens to mean in your locality" (and it may not even be possible to explicitly PD a work in a locality, so it's technically not usable by anyone but the copyright holder there).
Slashdot Mirror
DPKG == RPM, APT/DPKG == APT/RPM == YUM == SMART == ZYPP.
Note that APT/RPM can't solve the rpm sudoku game. Worth noting is that the above pseudo-code is pretty close to high level way explanation of how YUM solves deps. (without --skip-broken).
But they do it using the sudoku game based on dpkg data, the rpm game is different. So it's a fir title, IMO.
Better? Maybe. Good enough? No.
Having the bar change color is basically worthless security, on the other hand the user still has to be trained to see that they are using https instead of http when on a "security" site ... and that is still not obvious enough.
Yes, we have a whole host of secret scripts but they're all in awk (which was what we used in those days, perl was an improvement damit!) ... so you wouldn't understand them.
On come on, this comment after the last 8 years of the Republicans screwing the constitution for all it's worth? Or is it just that they didn't threaten to take your guns away, so it's all ok?
Bah, I hate them all, the Dems. just seem like they'll be the least worst ... but it's hard to tell (and rewarding the Republicans after the last 8 years isn't a pretty alternative). Kang or Kodos, you get to vote!
Maybe with the billions of dollars that we've already given the cable and telco companies? ... oh, right, we've already given it to them and got nothing ... ooops.
You could say the same thing about Water, Sewer and Electricity. But those are already heavily regulated ... are you arguing that the regulation should stop? If the water or power company wants to charge you $1,000 a month (becuase, you have no alternative), you should either pay or go without?
The free market solves problems well, when there is a market. So realistically you have to fix the market, or have the government step in.
And, frankly not many people are arguing that every person in the .us should get fiber to their home ... but we do have a range of population densities between "miles between houses" and "skyscraper".
Your argument is basically that writing shared libraries is just as easy as writing applications, and that maintaining API/ABI compatibility in shared libraries is "easy". Both of which contradict years of experience.
And, specifically from the kernel perspective, the usual example is the Solaris kernel in the 2.3/2.4/2.5 timeframe (memory is getting old) where they refused to fix a security bug because it would break ABI compatibility. So the corollary to your argument then is that Solaris kernel engineers are idiots?
So a bunch of you seem to have the idea that I was advocating slamming on brakes, so let me clear this up ... no, don't do that ... you can hurt people, esp. yourself (whiplash etc. is more likely to hurt the front car than anyone behind, AIUI).
Again, maybe if you admit to intent ... or intent can somehow be proven. But I've seen accidents where two cars were going around a "roundabout" and the one in front slammed on the brakes for no reason, the driver got out of the car and said (roughly) "I'm sorry I did that, I thought I saw something, this is completely my fault." ... and the end result was insurance of the driver traveling behind paid for all damages.
This is because, generally, you don't have to prove why you needed to stop ... the people behind you are still not allowed to drive into you. And, personally, I have roughly 0% sympathy for tailgaters they are a danger to themselves and to the people unlucky enough to be in front of them.
Apart from anything else, doing that is positive re-enforcement. Your best option is to slow down because if you then need to stop they'll have more time to react and they'll be traveling slower when they hit you (ergo. cause you less harm).
I don't think so, the "moron" didn't cause the accident by just hitting his brakes under any driving laws in the US (or a bunch of other countries that I know of). If (s)he was intoxicated, or speeding etc. they may decide to charge then. And it's possible if (s)he got out of the car shouting "ha take that you tailgating scum" they might be able to charge for something but "I think I saw something and braked" is a completely valid reason to brake.
I would certainly not call this an "optimization", as this is pretty close to how I'd do it mentally (well for different/bigger numbers). The problem with "old math" was that only some of the people actually crossed the gap and understood what they were really doing with all the long calculations of numbers and so could use it usefully. The point of "new math" is try and teach everyone what the numbers mean, so when someone sees something like 3x9 you "know" it's "roughly" the same as 3x10, but "a bit" less.
Obviously you can make mistakes with either old or new math, but the mistakes are likely to be closer to the correct answer if you understand what the numbers are doing as against putting numbers into a formula and getting a result.
There's also the "pro. new math" side from a college math professor, which is in response to someone else saying mostly the same thing you did.
I would have been happy if they'd compared the cost (and security) of making and running an digital voting machine with the same costs for a non-digital version.
Err. no. If you think that's true you really need to get out more. Even accounting for the fact that "leftist" and "conservative" encompass huge overlapping viewpoints, depending on the speaker, to pretend that Fox/talk-radio are just the "right balance" to the "general left" is just so far out there in cuckoo land it's not even funny.
Maybe you mean the next big .deb based thing? Lots of rpm based distros. have had "patch pkgs" for a while now. Fedora is probably the most recent/biggest (although it's not a default feature, yet). But SuSE (and I'm pretty sure mandrake) have had them for a while.
IIRC the reason debian never added them was the same reason Fedora havn't made them a default/core feature yet ... it requires a lot more from the mirrors.
Well first of all, while I haven't studied XMPP in detail, from what I've seen of it that's not even close to true. XMPP is not trivial. But IMHO much more important is that you are assuming that you can include thousands of lines of XML code, for free ... and presumably that you are getting all the network IO related work for "free" too. Personally I would have to do a lot of work before I trusted an XML parser enough to make it publicly accessible, for basically arbitrary content.
Then again, I could probably write a functional IRC client or server in a few hours (re-using only code I'd written before) ... and someone else could probably do it in even less time using the perl or python irc libraries ... but it wouldn't be as functional as X-Chat or ircd-hybrid. In the same vein I've seen "HTTP servers" written in 6 lines of C, and they work to an extent. Getting something useful is always much more work, and the amount of work needed only goes up as the complexity of the underlying base is higher.
No one is forcing them to take it, and if you want to give people with a low credit rating money at a low interest rate ... you are obviously free to do so. Go to prosper.com and give away as much as you want today (hey ... I'll happily take a $25k loan for 4%, just let me know).
Oh, what's that you don't want to give away your money ... just other people's. Interesting.
Sure, they could also ban mortgages too ... which would be equally stupid.
With both ads and google JS stats. stuff you'd be making direct requests to *.google.com servers, to download the ads or do the XML-RPC JS requests.
Maybe most currently, but certainly not all. And with always on DSL etc. it's not obvious that it's a good idea for people to use caching DNS servers at their ISP.
If you "harass" your electricity company and they get an injunction, are you then not allowed to use electricity? If you harass AT&T and move to another phone company, are you then not allowed to phone anyone on AT&T? What about google, they get an injunction and you aren't allowed to visit any site that uses google or doubleclick ads, or google JS stats.? Get an injunction from Network Solutions and you can't use DNS at all?
Anyway you look at it, this looks like a bad decision.
Sounds good, then someone can come in a few months/years from now and re-write in NBL because it's getting 100x as much data and now takes 3 weeks to process the data, using 500GB of RAM. Or because it's dumping pages of backtrace for a: missing file / an int() that should be a str() / misspelled word. Or just that noone can (under)stand the invisible syntax, so can't work with it.
As someone who's worked a lot with both Perl and Python, I'd say the biggest differences are that Perl has had a lot more inexperienced developers writing code for it and that Perl has basically been unmaintained for like 8 years now. Oh and that Python developers think that their languages is the best, but Perl developers know their language used to be ;).
They drop in sales etc. ... but the list price is will ~$19. Go see: Amazon's Music Top-100, and they are the best selling Music they should be cheaper than average. I guess if you only buy current Top-10 Music, you can probably get close to a $9.99 average ... but some of us have, ya know, taste ;p.
See the RHEL support policy, everything gets a 7 year support policy by default. IIRC RHEL-2.1 has at least a couple of years extension from that too.
Yes, CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE is a distinct capability. See "man capabilities" on a Linux box, although you may also want to give it CAP_SYS_CHROOT ... depending on how paranoid you are.
This is at best personal opinion, and AFAIK all the actually testing done on this shows that 1 space indentation isn't enough, which is why 2, 4 or 8 spaces are the norm. My opinion is that TABs should never be used for indentation, as none of the tools will multi line things up correctly (Ie. you need to use TABs to the start of the original line, and then space to line up). Also TABs and spaces mixed are the spawn of satan, and given that we can't get rid of spaces getting rid of TABs is the only sane option.
What people call C is really two languages, and the pre-processor doesn't understand enums so that's a major reason to use macros instead. This is esp. useful when you are defining an interface and need to expand it (Ie. #ifdef FOO /* code for older interface where FOO doesn't exist */). You can mostly get around this by using enums and then defining macros of the same name to the enums, but that doesn't always work ... or you can just not use enums because noone else does either.
While that's a nice goal, it's really really hard to do well. Making a shared library that does X is at least 10x harder than just doing X IMO. ... making it work well can be even harder. And the maintenance burden is probably closer to 100x harder, unless you take the retarded route like OpenSSL and cause everyone using your API massive pain.
What you seem not to know about are: 1) CREATE VIEW. 2) Materialized Views. 3) HAVING. 4) Stored procedures. Also the "sub-queries are expensive" is an interesting assertion, given that your answer seems to be to change an insert into an select + update + insert (or at least update + insert, but that has very bad behaviour). Maybe you are using a crappy RDBMS, or it doesn't have INDEXes in the correct places?
The register's reputation isn't in question, we have the answer and it's worth much less than Wikipedia.
How can you communicate/enforce this "no warranty" clause, if you are PD'ing? With a license, like MIT, you say "take it and use it as you will, but you don't have any warranty claims, or don't take it at all" ... with PD you say what? Take it and please don't sue me?
Because licenses are well understood and mostly compatible, due to the WTO, because proprietary companies need them to be roughly similar. And, again, you license with a "you get X,Y,Z privilages in return for doing A,B,C" whereas with PD you are saying "This is PD, whatever that happens to mean in your locality" (and it may not even be possible to explicitly PD a work in a locality, so it's technically not usable by anyone but the copyright holder there).