Month IE Firefox Safari Mozilla Netscape May 64.2 16.7 5.3 0* 1.3 June 64.7 17.9 5.4 0* 1 July 65.9 15.6 4.6 3.8 2.1 Aug 66.8 16.6 5 2.5 1.6 Sep 62.9 19.2 5.9 3.2 1.7 Oct 59 20 5.8 3.9 2.4
Under [ ] No Karma Bonus and [ ] Post Anonymously there is a dropdown which you can change to 'Code'; your post will be formatted without the need for <br/>, <p></p>, etc.
Totally off-topic, but I have been to Slovenia last year, and the proud employee of a wine cellar ("We even export to France!") showed me their long-term white wine cellar; some of the bottles there were 50 years old.
He told me the old whites were very pleasing to the taste buds, and in the dictatorial 'communist/socialist' age many a bottle has been poured down the throats of party officials.
Actually, most of Holland is below sea level; Holland however is not a country, The Netherlands is the name of the country. Holland is only 2 provinces: Noord Holland and Zuid Holland (North & South Holland). The Netherlands is made up of 12 provinces: the two mentioned, Zeeland, Utrecht, Noord Brabant, Overijssel, Drenthe, Limburg, Friesland, Flevoland (entirely below sea-level), Groningen and Gelderland.
Calling someone from Friesland a Hollander may get you in the same troubles as calling a Scotsman English.
And about the costs: they were really big. One cannot simply compare costs raised by a country of about 10 million people (in 1950) to the costs of the Iraq war raised by the world's only remaining military superpower.
Having said that: the US government should come to realize that all the money spent trying to constantly manipulate the world is better spent on the US inhabitants.
You are completely right: different languages with different uses. I was not trying to convince otherwise. I think that Sun (wether they knew in advance or not) came up with a more cross-platform language that looks a bit like c++, but leaves you less room to make mistakes. For most business logic it makes sense to use java, because of these reasons. Avg. speed of development is better with java. Avg size of executables and execution is better with c++. Take assembly, and the speed and size goes ever further down, at the cost of speed of development.
As you stated: different languages, different results and uses.
I get the impression that you think that I think that c++ is not powerful. It might very well be, as you claim, the most powerful language on Earth. Java however works better for me in the work I do (business logic and that sort of stuff). It works better because I can concentrate more at the task to be solved. I do not have to worry about memory leaks or getting to know another non-standard library. Java enables me to write clean-looking solutions at a higher speed than in c++.
Does the resulting binary use more memory. Yup. Does it require a faster cpu? Yup, although the speed increases in 1.4 and 5 have been really noticable. However, that does not matter where I code. Shelling out 5000 euro more for a faster server with more memory is nothing compared to the time that would be put in development time if I were to code everything in c++.
Wether or not the gc should be part of the language is almost a religious choice, so I will not argue on that point;-).
I am afraid I do not get the part about introspection: the information on how object-data is represented in memory is only present once (every object has a 'pointer' to the virtual method table, class info, or what you would like to call it), so that has only a cost of O(1) in memory space (can one use O() wrt size? I forgot...). Performance-wise there is high cost: without multiple inheritance the compiler knows exactely at which offsets member variables can be found, so this has equivalent performance as in c++.
Yes, I know these are fundamental changes, that's why I put the word 'few' in between quotes.
Point of fact stays however: c++ has an enormous learning curve. Complexity in the language is imho comparable to Latin: you can almost recognise the author by lookin at the code. That complexity is far, far less in java.
Especially the gc makes life a lot easier for even seasoned programmers.
And by the way: you can be almost as un-OO in java as you can be in c++. Introspection in java is mostly used in 'frameworks', like for instance the serialization API; normally you almost never use it.
Unfortunately when you go to google maps and scroll to the right (to Europe), you will see that some idiot(s) at google screwed up by calling the Netherlands 'Belgium' and calling Belgium 'The Netherlands'.
This does not exactly enhance my trust in google. I guess "it's just old Europe".
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 1
First of all you should define what is yours and what isn't. If you are buying software from a developer who is only selling you the binaries or a license to use them, then the source code is hardly yours. :-) Very sane point. Now we come to something called 'ethics'. RMS for instance claims closed source is unethical. I tend to agree.
The points you raise are indeed valid ones: there is no wrong or right in closed/open, there is only ethics. Humans have both a tendency to work together for a common goal as well as a more egoistic tendency of letting others do the work for them. Pure Marxism tries to build on the first, pure kapitalism tries to build on the second. Socialistic kapitalism tries to build on both.
IMHO closed source builds on the worst parts of both Marxism and kapitalism, while open source builds on the best parts of both.
That is why I think free software is the way to go: it brings (IMHO) the most benefit to society as a whole. And normally I am also opposed to extremism, but I think RMS is one of the few (maybe even only one?) extremists that actually do good and cause progress in this world.
I think we (all of us people) should do our best to make 'everything better'; more or less a humanistic point of view. I think it is ethically better if all software were free. Knowledge should be shared. Software (algorithms) is knowledge and should thus be shared.
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 1
You can theoretically modify the source code?
Yes, that is exactely it. No one or no rule should keep you from changing the source. If you want to and if you have the ability to do make something better, there should be no rules against you. It does not matter how many people actually do this.
One classic example is Microsoft Visual Basic: with the upgrade to a newer version (basically a different language) everyone is forced to either use the new version (breaking existing apps) or continue the old, now unsupported version. Had VB been free/open, someone or some group would have had the chance (==freedom) to fork the old version and continue work on it.
As a counter example, take XFree: the XFree guys managed to piss off their userbase (and a lot of developers) enough to cause a fork and major shift to X.org. The codebase was open, so it could be forked.
(...)anyone can modify the source, but (...) how many people actually do?
Everyone can do maintenance and repairs on their own cars, but how many actually do? The fact is simply that you *can* if you want and are able enough.
Unless I can find a group of people to help me, I'm no more free than using Opera or IE.
That is not the point. I guess 99.9% of all humans living in 'civilised' countries would not survive on their own. They *need* other people, because we are all more or less specialized. We need doctors, bakers, butchers, farmers, cops, etc. That need does not make one less free.
Linux distros? How many of them make major changes to the kernel?
Not many, but that is because they all know that being compatible is quite important. But I can choose freely for such a distro, or even start my own that does massivly change the kernel. Just like I can vote for any party I want, and can start my own political party.
Yeah, it may be a huge freedom, but what does it matter if the only people able to take advantage of that freedom are those who have enough money/charm to pay/convince other people to help them?
There is a Dutch song, called 'Over De Muur' ('on the other side of the wall') that is about the Berlin Wall (before it fell of course). One part of it goes like this (rougly translated of course; the Dutch lyrics are probably waisted on 99.99% of all humans;-)
But what is that freedom without a home, without a job?
So many turkish people in Kreuzberg who can barely even exist?
Okay, you can rally and protest,
but only with your back against the wall,
and only having money makes freedom not expensive.
This to me indicates that the problem you sketch is in human nature or human society, rather than freedom itself.
(...) it would be illegal not to walk around naked if you were an attractive woman. Yet another reason why nobody ever votes me dictator for life. *sigh*
Beautiful exhibitionist women might vote for you...
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You might be trolling, but I'll bite anyway.
Because you don't edit and complile your own source code, you are dependent on "the man" and are not free.
No. It is not because you do not edit and compile your own software; it is because you are PREVENTED to edit and compile your own software that you are not free
Because you did not build your own computer from scratch you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED from building your own computer, you are not free
Because you did not crack the molecules from crude oil in your mother's basement and fashion the plastic case for your computer on your own, you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED to crack your own molecules, then you are not free.
Because you do not generate your own electricity, you are dependent on some utility and are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED from generating your own electricity, you are not free.
Because you did not start out with a fist full of raw sand and turn it into a video card you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED to make your own video card, then you are not free
I never walk in protest marches. Does that mean I would agree with taking away the right for OTHER people to walk in protest marches? No, as that would take away their freedom directly (and mine indirectly). I never build my own TV set. Does that mean I would agree with legislation that would prevent OTHER people to build their own TV set (without broadcast flag checking)? No.
Do I edit and compile the software I run? Sometimes. If I did not I would still see that someone preventing me from being able to edit and compile the software that I run is taking away my freedom
The idea that Bin Laden wants less freedom for us is Bush propaganda.
If it is propaganda, then why is Bush complying? Why is Bush taking away freedom if Osama wants him to?
And of course Osama wants the US troops to leave 'holy Saudi soil'. He is also no dumb idiot; he's immoral, but no idiot. He knows that *he* cannot get US troops to leave Saudi Arabia or other muslim countries *by himself*. He knows that the US *public* can put pressure on its government. He also knows that the US public is generally uninterested in what happens abroad. So he wants to get them interested. How? Simple: by letting the US public feel how a great number of muslims are feeling at this moment. He *wants* US constitutional rights to be withdrawn, because *that* will get the US public up in arms.
Place yourself in his shoes/sandals/whatever. He knows how several US governments have 'influenced' (to put it mildly) the internal political situation of a lot of countries. The succeeding governments continue doing it, because their voters do not give a damn (generally speaking) and the political 2-party, winner takes all system is corrupt. So how do you get US forces out of your beloved country? Bombing those troops? You haven't got the resources to kill enough troops to make 'em leave. Asking politely? Yeah, right. No, if you are desperate enough you'll go after the voters of those US governments, because they can be influenced with the least amount of effort. Stir them, shake them, make their own government take away their rights. Make 'em revolt! Make them change their government and the foreign policies.
Because I am not that pessimistic by nature. But you are right: they are not mutually exclusive. That would be the most frightening: option 2 and 3 combined...
Osama Bin Laden gets exactly what he publicly stated he wanted to accomplish: make the US government behave more like some 'muslim' governments. OBL thinks that only when the US populace suffers the same as the muslim populace that change will come to the world.
The fact that he publicly stated this is where it gets interersting, because this leaves open (IMHO) 3 options for the US government:
US government does not know what Osama said was his reason for attacking the US, and therefor simply react how Osama wants them to react; in this case US government consists of a bunch of morons
US government knows *damn well* what Osama said and do Osamas bidding, because it suits them well in becoming more like Big Brother
US government knows what Osama said, but think he is lying. Question is: why would a terrorist be lying? A terrorist wants to get his way, so there is no use in lying about what you want to accomplish through terrorism. Like option 1, US government is filled with morons.
So, US government is either too dumb for words or wants to be like Big Brother. Don't know which of the two is more scary.
Homeland Security is a bigger threat to the American way of life than anything Osama bin Forgotten can come up w/.
Aha, but that is just exactly what he did: come up with it. He even stated that he wanted the american people to feel as oppressed as people of a lot of 'muslim' countries. He would like to see roadblocks, censorship, etc. in the USA, because that would cause the people to revolt and overthrow its government. It would end the idiotic foreign policies that have been a major factor in causing extremism and terrorism to flourish in the first place.
And the frightning thing is, he has with his actions succeeded to influence the US government more than any US citizen could ever do.
Think about it: one man (according to messiah-like myth forming) being able to cause the most powerful nation on earth to do what he publicly stated he wanted them to do. Pretty frightning.
I was reading this with a 'this just might be' attitude, until I came across "This combined with the the fact that the single biggest threat Red Hat faces right now is that of the possiblity of IBM could settling with SCO and then release its own Linux, (...)
IBM settling with SCO while they seem to be holding them at their balls? And then releasing their own linux distro? Yeah, right.
This 'article' is nothing, ziltch, nada, nop. No new facts, no reasoning, no nothing.
Emphasis mine: "I think that when someone is 60 years old he should better leave it to someone else to follow trends in technology. But until then there's still a lot to do," he said.
Slashdot Mirror
For a moment I read: This government is bought for you by Haliburton, (...)
IAAKW (I Am A Karma Whore):
Month IE Firefox Safari Mozilla Netscape
May 64.2 16.7 5.3 0* 1.3
June 64.7 17.9 5.4 0* 1
July 65.9 15.6 4.6 3.8 2.1
Aug 66.8 16.6 5 2.5 1.6
Sep 62.9 19.2 5.9 3.2 1.7
Oct 59 20 5.8 3.9 2.4
Under [ ] No Karma Bonus and [ ] Post Anonymously there is a dropdown which you can change to 'Code'; your post will be formatted without the need for <br/>, <p></p>, etc.
Totally off-topic, but I have been to Slovenia last year, and the proud employee of a wine cellar ("We even export to France!") showed me their long-term white wine cellar; some of the bottles there were 50 years old.
He told me the old whites were very pleasing to the taste buds, and in the dictatorial 'communist/socialist' age many a bottle has been poured down the throats of party officials.
Actually, most of Holland is below sea level; Holland however is not a country, The Netherlands is the name of the country. Holland is only 2 provinces: Noord Holland and Zuid Holland (North & South Holland). The Netherlands is made up of 12 provinces: the two mentioned, Zeeland, Utrecht, Noord Brabant, Overijssel, Drenthe, Limburg, Friesland, Flevoland (entirely below sea-level), Groningen and Gelderland.
Calling someone from Friesland a Hollander may get you in the same troubles as calling a Scotsman English.
And about the costs: they were really big. One cannot simply compare costs raised by a country of about 10 million people (in 1950) to the costs of the Iraq war raised by the world's only remaining military superpower.
Having said that: the US government should come to realize that all the money spent trying to constantly manipulate the world is better spent on the US inhabitants.
That's ok :-). About 80% of normal communication is non-verbal, so we humans tend to miss a lot on these kinds of discussions.
You are completely right: different languages with different uses. I was not trying to convince otherwise. I think that Sun (wether they knew in advance or not) came up with a more cross-platform language that looks a bit like c++, but leaves you less room to make mistakes. For most business logic it makes sense to use java, because of these reasons. Avg. speed of development is better with java. Avg size of executables and execution is better with c++. Take assembly, and the speed and size goes ever further down, at the cost of speed of development.
As you stated: different languages, different results and uses.
:-)
I get the impression that you think that I think that c++ is not powerful. It might very well be, as you claim, the most powerful language on Earth. Java however works better for me in the work I do (business logic and that sort of stuff). It works better because I can concentrate more at the task to be solved. I do not have to worry about memory leaks or getting to know another non-standard library. Java enables me to write clean-looking solutions at a higher speed than in c++.
Does the resulting binary use more memory. Yup. Does it require a faster cpu? Yup, although the speed increases in 1.4 and 5 have been really noticable. However, that does not matter where I code. Shelling out 5000 euro more for a faster server with more memory is nothing compared to the time that would be put in development time if I were to code everything in c++.
Wether or not the gc should be part of the language is almost a religious choice, so I will not argue on that point ;-).
I am afraid I do not get the part about introspection: the information on how object-data is represented in memory is only present once (every object has a 'pointer' to the virtual method table, class info, or what you would like to call it), so that has only a cost of O(1) in memory space (can one use O() wrt size? I forgot...). Performance-wise there is high cost: without multiple inheritance the compiler knows exactely at which offsets member variables can be found, so this has equivalent performance as in c++.
Or am I missing something here?
Yes, I know these are fundamental changes, that's why I put the word 'few' in between quotes.
Point of fact stays however: c++ has an enormous learning curve. Complexity in the language is imho comparable to Latin: you can almost recognise the author by lookin at the code. That complexity is far, far less in java.
Especially the gc makes life a lot easier for even seasoned programmers.
And by the way: you can be almost as un-OO in java as you can be in c++. Introspection in java is mostly used in 'frameworks', like for instance the serialization API; normally you almost never use it.
Shaving off a 'few' rough edges to make it more easy for newbies... It's that what Sun tried to do? (hint: java)
Unfortunately when you go to google maps and scroll to the right (to Europe), you will see that some idiot(s) at google screwed up by calling the Netherlands 'Belgium' and calling Belgium 'The Netherlands'.
This does not exactly enhance my trust in google. I guess "it's just old Europe".
First of all you should define what is yours and what isn't. If you are buying software from a developer who is only selling you the binaries or a license to use them, then the source code is hardly yours.
:-) Very sane point. Now we come to something called 'ethics'. RMS for instance claims closed source is unethical. I tend to agree.
The points you raise are indeed valid ones: there is no wrong or right in closed/open, there is only ethics. Humans have both a tendency to work together for a common goal as well as a more egoistic tendency of letting others do the work for them. Pure Marxism tries to build on the first, pure kapitalism tries to build on the second. Socialistic kapitalism tries to build on both.
IMHO closed source builds on the worst parts of both Marxism and kapitalism, while open source builds on the best parts of both.
That is why I think free software is the way to go: it brings (IMHO) the most benefit to society as a whole. And normally I am also opposed to extremism, but I think RMS is one of the few (maybe even only one?) extremists that actually do good and cause progress in this world.
I think we (all of us people) should do our best to make 'everything better'; more or less a humanistic point of view. I think it is ethically better if all software were free. Knowledge should be shared. Software (algorithms) is knowledge and should thus be shared.
You can theoretically modify the source code?
Yes, that is exactely it. No one or no rule should keep you from changing the source. If you want to and if you have the ability to do make something better, there should be no rules against you. It does not matter how many people actually do this.
One classic example is Microsoft Visual Basic: with the upgrade to a newer version (basically a different language) everyone is forced to either use the new version (breaking existing apps) or continue the old, now unsupported version. Had VB been free/open, someone or some group would have had the chance (==freedom) to fork the old version and continue work on it.
As a counter example, take XFree: the XFree guys managed to piss off their userbase (and a lot of developers) enough to cause a fork and major shift to X.org. The codebase was open, so it could be forked.
(...)anyone can modify the source, but (...) how many people actually do?
Everyone can do maintenance and repairs on their own cars, but how many actually do? The fact is simply that you *can* if you want and are able enough.
Unless I can find a group of people to help me, I'm no more free than using Opera or IE. That is not the point. I guess 99.9% of all humans living in 'civilised' countries would not survive on their own. They *need* other people, because we are all more or less specialized. We need doctors, bakers, butchers, farmers, cops, etc. That need does not make one less free.
Linux distros? How many of them make major changes to the kernel?
Not many, but that is because they all know that being compatible is quite important. But I can choose freely for such a distro, or even start my own that does massivly change the kernel. Just like I can vote for any party I want, and can start my own political party.
Yeah, it may be a huge freedom, but what does it matter if the only people able to take advantage of that freedom are those who have enough money/charm to pay/convince other people to help them? ;-)
There is a Dutch song, called 'Over De Muur' ('on the other side of the wall') that is about the Berlin Wall (before it fell of course). One part of it goes like this (rougly translated of course; the Dutch lyrics are probably waisted on 99.99% of all humans
But what is that freedom without a home, without a job?
So many turkish people in Kreuzberg who can barely even exist?
Okay, you can rally and protest,
but only with your back against the wall,
and only having money makes freedom not expensive.
This to me indicates that the problem you sketch is in human nature or human society, rather than freedom itself.
(...) it would be illegal not to walk around naked if you were an attractive woman. Yet another reason why nobody ever votes me dictator for life. *sigh*
Beautiful exhibitionist women might vote for you...You might be trolling, but I'll bite anyway.
Because you don't edit and complile your own source code, you are dependent on "the man" and are not free.
No. It is not because you do not edit and compile your own software; it is because you are PREVENTED to edit and compile your own software that you are not free
Because you did not build your own computer from scratch you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED from building your own computer, you are not free
Because you did not crack the molecules from crude oil in your mother's basement and fashion the plastic case for your computer on your own, you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED to crack your own molecules, then you are not free.
Because you do not generate your own electricity, you are dependent on some utility and are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED from generating your own electricity, you are not free.
Because you did not start out with a fist full of raw sand and turn it into a video card you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED to make your own video card, then you are not free
I never walk in protest marches. Does that mean I would agree with taking away the right for OTHER people to walk in protest marches? No, as that would take away their freedom directly (and mine indirectly). I never build my own TV set. Does that mean I would agree with legislation that would prevent OTHER people to build their own TV set (without broadcast flag checking)? No.
Do I edit and compile the software I run? Sometimes. If I did not I would still see that someone preventing me from being able to edit and compile the software that I run is taking away my freedom
The idea that Bin Laden wants less freedom for us is Bush propaganda.
If it is propaganda, then why is Bush complying? Why is Bush taking away freedom if Osama wants him to?
And of course Osama wants the US troops to leave 'holy Saudi soil'. He is also no dumb idiot; he's immoral, but no idiot. He knows that *he* cannot get US troops to leave Saudi Arabia or other muslim countries *by himself*. He knows that the US *public* can put pressure on its government. He also knows that the US public is generally uninterested in what happens abroad. So he wants to get them interested. How? Simple: by letting the US public feel how a great number of muslims are feeling at this moment. He *wants* US constitutional rights to be withdrawn, because *that* will get the US public up in arms.
Place yourself in his shoes/sandals/whatever. He knows how several US governments have 'influenced' (to put it mildly) the internal political situation of a lot of countries. The succeeding governments continue doing it, because their voters do not give a damn (generally speaking) and the political 2-party, winner takes all system is corrupt. So how do you get US forces out of your beloved country? Bombing those troops? You haven't got the resources to kill enough troops to make 'em leave. Asking politely? Yeah, right. No, if you are desperate enough you'll go after the voters of those US governments, because they can be influenced with the least amount of effort. Stir them, shake them, make their own government take away their rights. Make 'em revolt! Make them change their government and the foreign policies.
Because I am not that pessimistic by nature. But you are right: they are not mutually exclusive. That would be the most frightening: option 2 and 3 combined...
The fact that he publicly stated this is where it gets interersting, because this leaves open (IMHO) 3 options for the US government:
- US government does not know what Osama said was his reason for attacking the US, and therefor simply react how Osama wants them to react; in this case US government consists of a bunch of morons
- US government knows *damn well* what Osama said and do Osamas bidding, because it suits them well in becoming more like Big Brother
- US government knows what Osama said, but think he is lying. Question is: why would a terrorist be lying? A terrorist wants to get his way, so there is no use in lying about what you want to accomplish through terrorism. Like option 1, US government is filled with morons.
So, US government is either too dumb for words or wants to be like Big Brother. Don't know which of the two is more scary.That's funny, the last time I checked it was nowhere near 30 years. You seem to have a comma error; it is more like 3 years than 30.
Homeland Security is a bigger threat to the American way of life than anything Osama bin Forgotten can come up w/.
Aha, but that is just exactly what he did: come up with it. He even stated that he wanted the american people to feel as oppressed as people of a lot of 'muslim' countries. He would like to see roadblocks, censorship, etc. in the USA, because that would cause the people to revolt and overthrow its government. It would end the idiotic foreign policies that have been a major factor in causing extremism and terrorism to flourish in the first place.
And the frightning thing is, he has with his actions succeeded to influence the US government more than any US citizen could ever do.
Think about it: one man (according to messiah-like myth forming) being able to cause the most powerful nation on earth to do what he publicly stated he wanted them to do. Pretty frightning.
coup de tat (is that how you spell it??)
coup d'état
You are right. I am a Dutchie, and I have had a hard weekend. Those two combined can produce some nice Engrish.
I was reading this with a 'this just might be' attitude, until I came across "This combined with the the fact that the single biggest threat Red Hat faces right now is that of the possiblity of IBM could settling with SCO and then release its own Linux, (...)
IBM settling with SCO while they seem to be holding them at their balls? And then releasing their own linux distro? Yeah, right.
This 'article' is nothing, ziltch, nada, nop. No new facts, no reasoning, no nothing.
Emphasis mine:
"I think that when someone is 60 years old he should better leave it to someone else to follow trends in technology. But until then there's still a lot to do," he said.
Funny that: follow. Not lead. Freudian slip?
They must adopt on 30-Jun-2005 (when they are small) or 30-Jun-2010 (when they are big).
Monopolies on closed source give you no choice. It is close to Soviet-communism: We Know What Is Good For You (tm).