No, no, no - that's not the/. way! Accepting correction, let alone being grateful? Goodness, no. At the very least you should have given me a right flaming for my presumption...:)
Anyway, glad to be of service. At least I couldn't flame you for neglecting to use a spell-checker...
If you're going to use archaic English, at least do so properly! The archaic second-person-singular nominative pronoun is spelled thou; and it takes a corresponding singular possessive: thy (or thine before a vowel, as in this case). Not 'your'. (Half a mark for correctly using the corresponding verb form, 'shalt', though.)
And anyway, what's the problem? All the italics seem properly localised. Has the article been edited since your post?
If GPL fails your code will automatically revert to normal copyright
Sounds like a dangerous assumption. Yes, if the whole thing is declared null and void, then it 'fails safe'. But what if only one or two provisions were declared null and void? Or what if they're valid but don't mean exactly what people think, or otherwise allow some loophole?
I don't think we can make any 'fail-safe' assumptions.
(Of course, to my uninformed and untrained eye, it looks unlikely to fail. But we must make ourselves available for all eventualities.)
Unfortunately, the joke of Ford Prefect's name was lost on most Americans
To be fair, (much as I hate to be fair to Americans:) the joke was also lost on quite a few Brits too - myself included. It's probably an age-related thing; I was only 8 in 1980, so wasn't completely aware of the details of the second-hand car market...
Some versions of Cubase do scoring. It's probably not worth the expense unless you plan to do MIDI and/or audio recording too (at which it excels), but I'm reasonably happy with its scoring capabilities. It's a bit fiddly at times, but it's quite powerful, and because it's linked with the MIDI side of things you can play parts in with a MIDI keyboard in step time or real time, or enter them in the piano-roll editor (which can be faster for some types of music), and then see the results in traditional notation. And of course you can hear the results from a MIDI keyboard or sound module, or VST instruments.
I tried the demo of Finale for a bit, but wasn't impressed -- although entering basic notes was a little faster, I had trouble with anything more complex, and there were several things I simply couldn't get it to do. (Please don't ask -- it was a while ago and I don't remember...) So I went back to Cubase (SX).
I haven't tried Sibelius, though; that's supposed to be the best for scoring, but again, you pay for the privilege.
Another compromise for shorter distances is rollerskates, especially inlines ('RollerBlades'). You can get detachable ones, where the skate part unclips leaving plain boots, for public transport, hills, &c. Like cycling, it's good exercise, and a lot of fun!
Nah, we found a much better solution: put the ZX81 on the far edge of a (small) table, so that the RAM pack hung over the edge! Now, if only there'd been a solution for all those dodgy saves to tape...
And like any tool, it can be used or misused. Please don't think that there's no point in getting one unless you behave like those kids. It's not just for those very occasional must-haves; there are lots of nice-to-haves that you might discover if you got one. But of course, you may prefer not to have one, which is fine too.
Personally, I'm very pleased with my mobile phone (as we call 'em over here); I don't spend hours with it glued to my ear, and I've never revealed the number to anyone at work so all the (rare) calls I get are welcome. I use the vibrating alert in conjunction with a quiet and unobtrusive ringtone, and I don't shout into it, so I don't disturb people. But many times it's been extremely useful for things like travel problems (delays or getting lost), co-ordinating shopping, or simply contacting people when I'm away from a landline. I've even used it to surreptitiously signal someone (giving 3 rings) when to make a 'surprise' call to wish someone happy birthday! And of course I don't just use it for voice calls - in conjunction with my palmtop, it's invaluable for keeping up with email and CIX messages when I'm away from home. (Got to maintain my geek cred somehow...)
Not necessarily; reflection could do this with any old Object. Admittedly, the interface solution is normally neater, but it's also a better solution for maintenance purposes - too much dynamism makes code easier to write, but can make it much harder to maintain and introduce subtle bugs unless you're very disciplined (and, more importantly, so are every one of your predecessors and colleagues...)
If the code is source portable (something achieved by many languages) what's the big deal about one compile per platform?
The big deal is that unless you have the source, you're restricted to those platforms that the maker happens to support. Which is usually a depressingly small number, and if you're not running Windows XYZ, can be a pretty frustrating experience.
Permissions is usually the domain of the OS kernel, not the language runtime. How is putting the thing in a VM any more secure than putting the code on a secure kernel?
Flexibility. Can a secure kernel give different permissions to different parts of the same application, running in the same thread/process, based on where it was loaded from? Can such an application define its own security restrictions on the fly, to its own level of detail?
And that's ignoring the fact that the GPL exists only under the auspices of copyright...
What I want to know is what happens in 75 (or 100 or 3500 or however long the term gets) years' time, when software that's currently GPLed enters the public domain...
...or the original paper is*. All that stuff about Zeno's Paradox, for example; it's been solved, both formally and intuitively, for an awful long time. That this 'exciting' new theory provides a 'solution' to the paradox says nothing about its self-consistency nor its applicability to the real world. You could just as easily claim that position is inherently fuzzy and imprecise, which would 'solve' the paradox just as easily! So far, it sounds just like something Heisenberg thought of many decades ago with far better rationale, evidence, and mathematical precision.
(* Or both, of course.)
But then as regards scientific understanding, I only have a couple of science A-Levels, a maths degree, a brother who works with particle physics to advise me, and a reasonable background knowledge of science. Has anyone read the paper itself, or feels otherwise better qualified to judge?
In that case, though, both parties have input to the price-setting process. This makes it (relatively) fair.
But in the corporate cases we're talking about, corporates will set the price they think you'll pay, and you can either like it or lump it. No haggling, no discussion, no chance to influence the seller in any way (except long-term, statistically, which is no help in a single transaction).
Actually, we do sometimes use 'fries', to distinguish them from 'chips' which are usually more than three millimetres thick and have actually been near a potato! We also use both 'cookie' and 'biscuit'; the former for larger, thicker things, often with chocolate drops, nuts, or whatever. What do you mean by 'biscuit'?
And I've no idea what 'podger' is - I've never heard it, and neither dictionaries nor Google can come up with anything more relevant than its use as a surname. Is it an obscure regional or dialect term?
On a more general point, ISTM that US English tends to like ambiguity more than British English, which is a slightly more precise tool that can distinguish between a rubber thing on a car wheel (tyre) and to become exhausted (tire); between road edging (kerb) and to prevent (curb); between verb and noun forms of practise/practice, license/licence, &c; between a measuring device (meter) and the unit of length (metre); between a movement of fluid (draught) and a rough outline (draft); between a series of instructions to a computer (program) and a list of events (programme); between a test (check) and a written instruction to a bank (cheque); &c &c. The 'pissed'/'pissed off' distinction is simply one more example of this.
The other interesting point is that in the majority of cases where usage, spelling, punctuation &c differs, it's US English that is the older variant. Oddly enough, here we seem to be more open to change, especially positive change, to the language.
Not "I urinated", but "I got urinated" - how could it tell?
To be precise (goodness knows why...), just as you'd never say "I got urinated" without a qualifier, such as "I got urinated on", the same applies to 'pissed' too. You could get pissed on, which would refer unambiguously to urination (literally or metaphorically), but if you just "got pissed", with no qualifier, it would almost certainly refer to inebriation. (Unless you were resorting to US slang -- but IME that usage is still very rare here.)
...there's no ambiguity. Becoming angry is getting pissed off. I urinated is I pissed (no 'got'). So, here, your sentence could only refer to inebriation. (Though why that should be a prerequisite for installing such a cool system, I've no idea.)
I always said you Yanks couldn't even use your own language properly... [fx: ducks]
The parable here is this: the RIAA could save a LOT of money by simply sending a letter to people "caught" file sharing that says "Cut it out, or we'll sue you." I think most of us would be sufficiently scared to curb out practices.
Really? I think that most of us would feel free to do whatever we liked, safe in the knowledge that we'd have a chance to stop before getting into trouble. It would only deter those people they actually sent letters to, instead of deterring everyone as at present (though still not very much).
I'm of medium build*, and with a not-excessively-thick neck. But if I get a size 16+ for a comfortable neck size, you could fit two of me into the main body; and conversely if I get a size comfortable for my body, then I asphyxiate well before the top button is near done up.
(* For a European, which probably equates to 'thin as a rake' size in the US...)
Short of getting (and paying for) made-to-measure shirts, I have to compromise; my usual one is never to do my top button up, and when I wear a tie, use a large enough tie knot that it covers the gap. Not ideal, but necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no - that's not the /. way! Accepting correction, let alone being grateful? Goodness, no. At the very least you should have given me a right flaming for my presumption... :)
Anyway, glad to be of service. At least I couldn't flame you for neglecting to use a spell-checker...
And anyway, what's the problem? All the italics seem properly localised. Has the article been edited since your post?
Sounds like a dangerous assumption. Yes, if the whole thing is declared null and void, then it 'fails safe'. But what if only one or two provisions were declared null and void? Or what if they're valid but don't mean exactly what people think, or otherwise allow some loophole?
I don't think we can make any 'fail-safe' assumptions.
(Of course, to my uninformed and untrained eye, it looks unlikely to fail. But we must make ourselves available for all eventualities.)
To be fair, (much as I hate to be fair to Americans :) the joke was also lost on quite a few Brits too - myself included. It's probably an age-related thing; I was only 8 in 1980, so wasn't completely aware of the details of the second-hand car market...
I tried the demo of Finale for a bit, but wasn't impressed -- although entering basic notes was a little faster, I had trouble with anything more complex, and there were several things I simply couldn't get it to do. (Please don't ask -- it was a while ago and I don't remember...) So I went back to Cubase (SX).
I haven't tried Sibelius, though; that's supposed to be the best for scoring, but again, you pay for the privilege.
Another compromise for shorter distances is rollerskates, especially inlines ('RollerBlades'). You can get detachable ones, where the skate part unclips leaving plain boots, for public transport, hills, &c. Like cycling, it's good exercise, and a lot of fun!
No, not as we would understand the term (i.e. with paving stones). They're usually tarmac (tar on compacted gravel) or concrete.
Of course, some pavements are asphalt, too, but many are paved.
Nah, we found a much better solution: put the ZX81 on the far edge of a (small) table, so that the RAM pack hung over the edge! Now, if only there'd been a solution for all those dodgy saves to tape...
Personally, I'm very pleased with my mobile phone (as we call 'em over here); I don't spend hours with it glued to my ear, and I've never revealed the number to anyone at work so all the (rare) calls I get are welcome. I use the vibrating alert in conjunction with a quiet and unobtrusive ringtone, and I don't shout into it, so I don't disturb people. But many times it's been extremely useful for things like travel problems (delays or getting lost), co-ordinating shopping, or simply contacting people when I'm away from a landline. I've even used it to surreptitiously signal someone (giving 3 rings) when to make a 'surprise' call to wish someone happy birthday! And of course I don't just use it for voice calls - in conjunction with my palmtop, it's invaluable for keeping up with email and CIX messages when I'm away from home. (Got to maintain my geek cred somehow...)
Not necessarily; reflection could do this with any old Object. Admittedly, the interface solution is normally neater, but it's also a better solution for maintenance purposes - too much dynamism makes code easier to write, but can make it much harder to maintain and introduce subtle bugs unless you're very disciplined (and, more importantly, so are every one of your predecessors and colleagues...)
The big deal is that unless you have the source, you're restricted to those platforms that the maker happens to support. Which is usually a depressingly small number, and if you're not running Windows XYZ, can be a pretty frustrating experience.
Permissions is usually the domain of the OS kernel, not the language runtime. How is putting the thing in a VM any more secure than putting the code on a secure kernel?
Flexibility. Can a secure kernel give different permissions to different parts of the same application, running in the same thread/process, based on where it was loaded from? Can such an application define its own security restrictions on the fly, to its own level of detail?
Indeed. In fact, in at least one online community, '<AOL>!' is the standard synonym for 'Me too!'.
What I want to know is what happens in 75 (or 100 or 3500 or however long the term gets) years' time, when software that's currently GPLed enters the public domain...
(* Or both, of course.)
But then as regards scientific understanding, I only have a couple of science A-Levels, a maths degree, a brother who works with particle physics to advise me, and a reasonable background knowledge of science. Has anyone read the paper itself, or feels otherwise better qualified to judge?
Oh yes they do - they understand very well how to squeeze the maximum amount of money from the maximum number of people...
In fact, I've heard both, but I prefer the alliteration of the version I gave :)
(Just don't ask how to pronounce them...)
But in the corporate cases we're talking about, corporates will set the price they think you'll pay, and you can either like it or lump it. No haggling, no discussion, no chance to influence the seller in any way (except long-term, statistically, which is no help in a single transaction).
Hardly comparable.
Actually, we do sometimes use 'fries', to distinguish them from 'chips' which are usually more than three millimetres thick and have actually been near a potato! We also use both 'cookie' and 'biscuit'; the former for larger, thicker things, often with chocolate drops, nuts, or whatever. What do you mean by 'biscuit'?
And I've no idea what 'podger' is - I've never heard it, and neither dictionaries nor Google can come up with anything more relevant than its use as a surname. Is it an obscure regional or dialect term?
On a more general point, ISTM that US English tends to like ambiguity more than British English, which is a slightly more precise tool that can distinguish between a rubber thing on a car wheel (tyre) and to become exhausted (tire); between road edging (kerb) and to prevent (curb); between verb and noun forms of practise/practice, license/licence, &c; between a measuring device (meter) and the unit of length (metre); between a movement of fluid (draught) and a rough outline (draft); between a series of instructions to a computer (program) and a list of events (programme); between a test (check) and a written instruction to a bank (cheque); &c &c. The 'pissed'/'pissed off' distinction is simply one more example of this.
The other interesting point is that in the majority of cases where usage, spelling, punctuation &c differs, it's US English that is the older variant. Oddly enough, here we seem to be more open to change, especially positive change, to the language.
You're still being too sensible
Story of my life. :)
Oh, and ObQuote:
To be precise (goodness knows why...), just as you'd never say "I got urinated" without a qualifier, such as "I got urinated on", the same applies to 'pissed' too. You could get pissed on, which would refer unambiguously to urination (literally or metaphorically), but if you just "got pissed", with no qualifier, it would almost certainly refer to inebriation. (Unless you were resorting to US slang -- but IME that usage is still very rare here.)
I always said you Yanks couldn't even use your own language properly... [fx: ducks]
Really? I think that most of us would feel free to do whatever we liked, safe in the knowledge that we'd have a chance to stop before getting into trouble. It would only deter those people they actually sent letters to, instead of deterring everyone as at present (though still not very much).
Personally (and knowing both languages well), I'd consider that a problem with C, not with Java...
(* For a European, which probably equates to 'thin as a rake' size in the US...)
Short of getting (and paying for) made-to-measure shirts, I have to compromise; my usual one is never to do my top button up, and when I wear a tie, use a large enough tie knot that it covers the gap. Not ideal, but necessary.