The first thing to note is that, like a Perl 5 qr, a Perl 6 rx can take (almost) any delimiters we choose. The $hunk pattern uses {...}, but we could have used:
rx/pattern/ # Standard
rx[pattern] # Alternative bracket-delimiter style
rx<pattern> # Alternative bracket-delimiter style
rxforme # Délimiteurs très chic
rx>pattern< # Inverted bracketing is allowed too (!)
rxMuster # Begrenzungen im korrekten Auftrag
rx!pattern! # Excited
rx=pattern= # Unusual
rx?pattern? # No special meaning in Perl 6
rx#pattern# # Careful with these: they disable internal comments
Are these allowed for the sole purpose of creating new T-Shirt patterns?
There are elemtns of.net that allow "Web services" to be written, but actually the main idea of.net is the same as Java..net is a misnomer; the main idea of.net is to have a selection of languages (microsoft make C# and VB.NET) that compile into common machine-independant code (CLR). This is exactly like Java compiles to Java bytecode, but with.net multiple languages compile to the same CLR that can be run on any machine..net is object orientated. There are ".net classes" which should be implemented to make any.net implementation usable; these include ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows.Forms:-) When mono gets there, it should be able to run most CLR code. It is unlikely to ever be able to run code that interfaces with windows-specific technologies such as DirectX.
The scary bit about.net is that C# appears to be in some respects an extremely advanced language. It treats XML data as objects and database information as objects. Combined with the language-independance, you can see how using.net is ideally suited for web services.
I have barely used.net so there may be mistakes in the above.
I had a bring-your-own-machine LAN party. Playing Unreal Tournament, we had 2 linux boxen (1 debian, 1 gentoo (? well, some people have the time...)), 1 windows 98, 1 "windows me" (sounds like a self-curse) and 1 windows xp.
Guess which one didn't work?
Plus "product activation" and microsoft-gestapo-isness makes it a bit worse.
Well, I suppose they could be sharing debs as well as RPMs. But if the whole point is to avoid instant slashdotting of new releases, there's not much point... it couldn't really be argued that debian collapses when a new release comes out, for the simple reason it's not there for a couple of months.
Open Source, on the other hand, provided an important bridge between corporate suits and the concept of using peer review and the scientific process to obtain better quality software.
The
scientific process is making a hypothesis, seeing if it fits the facts of nature, and a lot of "lather, rinse, repeat"ing. Can you not misuse the term please, because it can cause as much confusion as the "Linux"/"Gnu/Linux" and "Free"/"Open Source" nomenclature.
The licensing is legal. Basically you can download binaries for free, and you can pay to get a copy of GPL'd sources. (Note: Blender don't have to comply with the GPL to distribute under it, since they are the copyright holders).
If the sources are under the GPL, you can redistribute freely (in both senses of the word) to people who haven't paid the membership fee. So the licensing is flawed, but legal.
Strategically, the undead are very strong. Somewhat akin to the protoss from Starcraft, the undead buildings can only be built on what is known as blight.
If you give the source to the company, you have "open-sourced" it. The people who have the binaries have the source.
Are you wanting to do more, to put it under a free software license so that if the company redistribute it further they have to bundle the source code with it? Because that's what it sounds like.
I would argue that the OSS community is as unorganised as you can get. It's just that everybody essentially wants the same thing - software that works and a bit of fun hacking - that drives development forward. But people come and go, submit a patch and are never seen again, etc...
That said, "organising the OSS community for activism" is never going to work. Because the OSS community is only united in computer ideas, and divided in political ideals. Look at the divide between free software programmers, open source programmers, and couldn't care less programmers.
Addendum: The abstract on arxiv.org says that this theory about cyclic universes doesn't need M-theory or superstring theory, just that it provides an ideal setting for it to take place in and the paper is actually in terms of conventional 4D cosmology.
Now I am not an astronomer, or a physicist, but I'll add my knowledge to this thread.
Einstein's theories assume that space-time is one 4D continuum. In 1919, Kaluza sent a paper to Einstein taking it one step further, as long as he was allowed 5 dimensions, explaining light as vibrations in the 5th dimension. Einstein didn't like it because... where is the 5th dimension?
Later, Klein proposed that we could not see this dimension because it was curled up into a space smaller than an atom (remember that even 4D space time is curved... think rubber sheets). If you curl it round on itself it will look like a line - ie. non-existant.
To explain forces, it turned out that people needed to bring in more dimensions than Kaluza did. But to make a theory that describes all the forces, they ended up with 10 dimensions (all curled up). This was (or is) superstring theory, named because everything is made up of little strings vibrating in multiple dimensions.
Edward Witten then came up with M-theory which explains many problems with superstring theory... if he can have one more dimension! M-theory, or membrane theory, says now the tiny strings are replaced by sheets known as membranes. Additionally there is something mathematically special about 10 and 11 dimensions, suggesting maybe we don't just keep adding more every time we hit a problem;-)
I think M-theory says that the 11-dimension sheets hit each other at the time of the big bang and many dimensions got squashed.
A lot of the information above was gratuitously lifted from "Black holes, wormholes and time machines" by Jim Al-Khalili which I recommend if you want some light reading about this sort of physics (ignore the oxymoron). I heard about membrane theory as described in the article many months ago... but I wish I knew where!
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, their last stable version depends upon version 1.4.x of the libraries which have been stable for _years_. What are you on about?
From the exegesis:
The first thing to note is that, like a Perl 5 qr, a Perl 6 rx can take (almost) any delimiters we choose. The $hunk pattern uses {...}, but we could have used:
rx/pattern/ # Standard
rx[pattern] # Alternative bracket-delimiter style
rx<pattern> # Alternative bracket-delimiter style
rxforme # Délimiteurs très chic
rx>pattern< # Inverted bracketing is allowed too (!)
rxMuster # Begrenzungen im korrekten Auftrag
rx!pattern! # Excited
rx=pattern= # Unusual
rx?pattern? # No special meaning in Perl 6
rx#pattern# # Careful with these: they disable internal comments
Are these allowed for the sole purpose of creating new T-Shirt patterns?
Do you think that this means:
a) when Microsoft make a DRM-aware OS, and
b) IF they've still got desktop market majority
then the record companies will see a _decrease_ in sales as more people lose the ability to download music?
Look at the expensive failures of Audrey and other such machines.
I'm sorry, Audrey was a woman or a Big Green Monster From Outer Space depending on who you ask (and which one you're talking about). Stop trolling.
Well, when Perl 6 is released (a while yet, I think) you'll find radical changes to the regexps. See Apocalypse 5 for more information.
There are elemtns of .net that allow "Web services" to be written, but actually the main idea of .net is the same as Java. .net is a misnomer; the main idea of .net is to have a selection of languages (microsoft make C# and VB.NET) that compile into common machine-independant code (CLR). This is exactly like Java compiles to Java bytecode, but with .net multiple languages compile to the same CLR that can be run on any machine. .net is object orientated. There are ".net classes" which should be implemented to make any .net implementation usable; these include ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows.Forms :-) When mono gets there, it should be able to run most CLR code. It is unlikely to ever be able to run code that interfaces with windows-specific technologies such as DirectX.
.net is that C# appears to be in some respects an extremely advanced language. It treats XML data as objects and database information as objects. Combined with the language-independance, you can see how using .net is ideally suited for web services.
.net so there may be mistakes in the above.
The scary bit about
I have barely used
CVS doesn't scale well to big projects
Ooh, can you think of the disaster that would cause? Using it for Gnome? Mozilla? Aaarrgghh!
The fixes they submitted were more technical recommendations.
"You want to use OpenGL to run the graphics on that machine. Look, it's an Open Standard!!!"
**points**
The graphics are dire but that's not the point.
I had a bring-your-own-machine LAN party. Playing Unreal Tournament, we had 2 linux boxen (1 debian, 1 gentoo (? well, some people have the time...)), 1 windows 98, 1 "windows me" (sounds like a self-curse) and 1 windows xp.
Guess which one didn't work?
Plus "product activation" and microsoft-gestapo-isness makes it a bit worse.
No easy way to configure X - especially change resolution on the fly.
** hits Alt-Control-Minus, Alt-Control-Plus
I can!
Go... go play with your silly oblongated ball.
Do the Americans play rugby?
Well, I suppose they could be sharing debs as well as RPMs. But if the whole point is to avoid instant slashdotting of new releases, there's not much point... it couldn't really be argued that debian collapses when a new release comes out, for the simple reason it's not there for a couple of months.
I love debian.
Open Source, on the other hand, provided an important bridge between corporate suits and the concept of using peer review and the scientific process to obtain better quality software.
The scientific process is making a hypothesis, seeing if it fits the facts of nature, and a lot of "lather, rinse, repeat"ing. Can you not misuse the term please, because it can cause as much confusion as the "Linux"/"Gnu/Linux" and "Free"/"Open Source" nomenclature.
The licensing is legal. Basically you can download binaries for free, and you can pay to get a copy of GPL'd sources. (Note: Blender don't have to comply with the GPL to distribute under it, since they are the copyright holders).
If the sources are under the GPL, you can redistribute freely (in both senses of the word) to people who haven't paid the membership fee. So the licensing is flawed, but legal.
Strategically, the undead are very strong. Somewhat akin to the protoss from Starcraft, the undead buildings can only be built on what is known as blight.
:=)
Surely they mean zerg?
From eviloverlord.com:
"My main computers will have their own special operating system that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and Macintosh powerbooks."
My college has that one.
Cowboy Neal
Resort to watching TV
Interact with my SO
Improve my Perl foo
Discover IRC
Read SlashDot
Haaaaated iiiiiiiit
If you give the source to the company, you have "open-sourced" it. The people who have the binaries have the source.
Are you wanting to do more, to put it under a free software license so that if the company redistribute it further they have to bundle the source code with it? Because that's what it sounds like.
Useful for the person named in reference A607727 of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy....
Doctors don't swear to it anymore due to it being slightly stupid - here it is.
I would argue that the OSS community is as unorganised as you can get. It's just that everybody essentially wants the same thing - software that works and a bit of fun hacking - that drives development forward. But people come and go, submit a patch and are never seen again, etc... That said, "organising the OSS community for activism" is never going to work. Because the OSS community is only united in computer ideas, and divided in political ideals. Look at the divide between free software programmers, open source programmers, and couldn't care less programmers.
Addendum: The abstract on arxiv.org says that this theory about cyclic universes doesn't need M-theory or superstring theory, just that it provides an ideal setting for it to take place in and the paper is actually in terms of conventional 4D cosmology.
Now I am not an astronomer, or a physicist, but I'll add my knowledge to this thread.
;-)
Einstein's theories assume that space-time is one 4D continuum. In 1919, Kaluza sent a paper to Einstein taking it one step further, as long as he was allowed 5 dimensions, explaining light as vibrations in the 5th dimension. Einstein didn't like it because... where is the 5th dimension?
Later, Klein proposed that we could not see this dimension because it was curled up into a space smaller than an atom (remember that even 4D space time is curved... think rubber sheets). If you curl it round on itself it will look like a line - ie. non-existant.
To explain forces, it turned out that people needed to bring in more dimensions than Kaluza did. But to make a theory that describes all the forces, they ended up with 10 dimensions (all curled up). This was (or is) superstring theory, named because everything is made up of little strings vibrating in multiple dimensions.
Edward Witten then came up with M-theory which explains many problems with superstring theory... if he can have one more dimension! M-theory, or membrane theory, says now the tiny strings are replaced by sheets known as membranes. Additionally there is something mathematically special about 10 and 11 dimensions, suggesting maybe we don't just keep adding more every time we hit a problem
I think M-theory says that the 11-dimension sheets hit each other at the time of the big bang and many dimensions got squashed.
A lot of the information above was gratuitously lifted from "Black holes, wormholes and time machines" by Jim Al-Khalili which I recommend if you want some light reading about this sort of physics (ignore the oxymoron). I heard about membrane theory as described in the article many months ago... but I wish I knew where!
It is, actually, according to rms
Yeah, that's right. ...keep everything free. Write a pre-preamble to the GNU GPL that's wrong and misrepresents the license.