"Anyone who has been a serious java programmer in the last several years should know the name Josh Bloch, and more importantly, should have read his book Effective Java. Josh, acting as java's platform architect has been directing and guiding Java into it's current incarnation as a mature, robust (Cue the laughter from the peanut gallery) programming language.
The Java programming language has nothing but deteriorated under Josh Bloch's watch. It started with his introduction of "optional" methods in the collections framework, not to mention interface duplication. Then it continued through Java 1.5 as he led JSRs that included Generics (a terrible incarnation of psuedo-type saftiness) as well as the introduction of "printf". If I wanted to program in C++, I'd program in C++.
I wonder what kind of "great innovations" he has in store for us at Google.
Seems pretty simple to get around to me, this company is apparently targeting a specific hash algorithm (say md5), so all it'll take is two different hashing algorithms. If the data is not the same data, then even if the first hash algorithm results in a collision (same hash value), the second wouldn't. There's more than one hash algorithm out there ya know.:)
I'm glad somebody said this. Oooh wow! Free Certificates... I'll give anybody all the free certificates they want... as you pointed out... while it is true that the certificate is required for Apache's SSL to work, all it is used for is to validate identity. If a person's only concern is encryption, just create your own certificate. It isn't hard.
Sometimes I wonder about this "technical community" I'm forced to be a part of.
You must be confusing the CRX (which is no longer manufactured by Honda) with the insight (Honda's hybrid)? The insight does have a striking resemblance to the CRX. But the CRX never got 67mpg. I used to own one, and it did get great gas mileage (between 35 and 40mpg on the highway)... but never did it come anywhere close to 67.
The CRX (which is no longer manufactured by Honda) was built on the standard civic chassis. The Civic coupe, sedan, hatchback, and CRX all had the same chassis just a different passenger cab. Not only did these four cars share the same chassis, they also shared the same front-end (hood, fenders, windshield, headlights, engine, dashboard, etc). I used to own a CRX, and I often found myself buying sedan or coupe parts to replace broken parts on my CRX.
I don't know a whole lot about the Insight, but it does have a striking resemblance to the old CRX's. Maybe it too is based on the standard Civic chassis?
It's like people who are allergic to bee stings. The first time in thier life that they are stung, nothing big happens, but any subsequent sting (after the body has built up an immunity) can be lethal.
I have a full-time job that pays me to write software. However, the software I create at work has little/no personal value to me. Now, as a programmer, there are software programs I write for myself, for nobody but me. This, is where I think Open Source/Free Software makes the most sense.
If I've spent two weeks of my personal time trying to solve a problem that is of particular interest/use to me, why not share it? Gad knows I couldn't possibly have created some of the things I have had it not been for other people/companies giving me stuff for free in the first place.
My point here, is that some people believe that everything should revolve around a profit motive. Some of us have paying programming jobs, and also have open source projects... and for me, they coexist in a harmonious environment.
I agree. I was unemployed a few years ago, and I was told directly to my face on more than one occasion that I was overqualified for a position, and they were not willing to offer me a job for fear that I'd be too bored, and that I'd probably just leave after a while once I found a new job that was on my level.
That's not exactly true. If a company wishes to be a potential vendor to the U.S. Armed Forces, then it must pass certain guidelines for high and low temperatures, as well as shock, and a few other things. IIRC the standard is -30 degrees, and many hardware vendors fail to meet this guideline. For the longest time, the military used Sun products because they are/were one of the few vendors to meet all of the criteria. This is why I am a little suspect about the original article.
When DevFS came out, I thought, "Wow, this is gonna be great, I'll be able to keep track of my devices a LOT better"
Then I figured out that you couldn't use chmod on the devices. Oh no, you have to go edit some cryptic/etc/devfs.conf file. So now I disable devfs on all of my boxen. DevFS is my biggest pet peeve.
'knowing the right people and having a wealth of content on your hard disk to get into the clique.'"
If anyone already on the network can allow someone onto the network, then there is still a possibility of someone charming their way into the trust of others. They need to take it one step further, and give a unique public key/private key to each individual, and have a single person responsible for adding people to the network. Otherwise, if anyone on the network can invite anyone else, then the network will grow exponentially, and then you won't be able to control the network.
On top of this, if their claims of ownership of copyright and/or patent IP of Unix turns out to be false, they could face prosecution by the SEC if there is enough proof that SCO did all of this in an attempt to raise their stock price.
Unfortunately there is a small problem with this article. From the article:
...everyone who owns a copy of Linux will be able to sue SCO for withholding that source code in violation of the GPL
Unfortunately this is a widely held misconception of the protection granted by the GPL. The GPL does not grant ownership of license to the commons (general public). It is true that SCO could be sued if this is the case, BUT, the only person (people) who can legally sue are those who own the copyrights of the GPL'd code that SCO illegally used, or derived works from.
In simpler terms, only a licensor has the right to uphold a license. Users and Licensee's have no inherent right to uphold the GPL on code to which they do not own the copyright. A user or licensee may only report the violation back to the copyright holder.
There is actually a good reason that it works this way. Albeit the linux kernel code is quite complex and has many contributors. However, let's take a much simpler GPL'd codebase as an example. Let us also assume this code has a single copyright owner. Now just because entity X obtains the code under the GPL, doesn't mean that the Licensor doesn't have a previous, or postuous agreement with entity Y using a completely different license. The license is an agreement strictly between the licensor and the licensee... there is no implied rights between licensees.
However, none of this prevents one from suing SCO in the USA... you just won't win, and the Judge will probably dismiss the case before it even reaches court.
I run an SB Live with optical outputs to my stereo. For video, I use a Tview Micro which converts svga to s-video and handles up to 1600x1200 resolution (works great under Linux too). Combine that with a simple wireless keyboard/mouse and yer set.
My setup is a 55inch Toshiba HDTV (4:3) with a Pioneer Stereo Receiver, a 1800+ AMD based PC (built myself) running dual boot of Slackware and Win 98. My Pioneer receiver doubles as a video switch with 5 or 6 S-Video inputs. My TV acts as a dumb monitor (I don't use its tuner). Then, off of my Pioneer receiver, I have a 6 piece (5.1) surround sound system which includes Bose bookshelf speakers at the FR and FL positions.
Also, I picked up a couple of 10 foot usb extension cables which allows me to run Gravis gamepad's to my couch to be used for all of my favorite games.
First: I've had hundreds of downloads, and since I run this project on a Cable Modem connection, my ISP hasn't become unhappy:)
Second: I've had dozens of email's asking for support as well as asking how to contribute.
and Third and finally (I think this one is a very good indicator): There are other websites out there that link to my site.
Oh, and there's a fourth optional measure of success... more for bragging rights... my site is THE FIRST result when querying google with "Java X10".
All in all, it is a very small project, but I have tangibles that give me a sense of success. Will this ever reach the magnatude of Apache? Probably not, but gawd, I'd prefer it remain relatively small anyway where I can control it.:)
A cell phone will use more energy to create the vibration than it will be able to regain from that vibration.
Due to the laws of thermodynamics and energy,(particularly the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed), the device that generates energy from vibration would then (by definition) have to absorb some of the vibration's energy. Therefore, in order for this mechanism to "produce" any amount of valuable energy, the source (the cell phone) would have to increase its vibration. However, it will always be the case that the cell phone uses more energy than it gains back (otherwise the phone wouldn't vibrate). Therefore, it would be more condusive of the cell phone to focus its energy on notifying its owner of an incoming call, and do so in the most efficient way.
Basically, (as stated in the parent post) this invention at MIT doesn't do much for the cell phone industry. Cell phones would be better off being more efficient with the energy they have rather than trying to regain some of the energy expelled while producing environmental feedback.
Hmm, I think we may have a problem with the "Redundant" moderation. My post got modded down as redundant however, the "duplicate" comment was typed into slashdot at relatively the same time. Kind of a "beat you to it" type situation.
In other words, my comment didn't already exist before I began to type mine in, but someone else beat me to it.
Slashdot Mirror
How about this typo:
"Anyone who has been a serious java programmer in the last several years should know the name Josh Bloch, and more importantly, should have read his book Effective Java. Josh, acting as java's platform architect has been directing and guiding Java into it's current incarnation as a mature, robust (Cue the laughter from the peanut gallery) programming language.
The Java programming language has nothing but deteriorated under Josh Bloch's watch. It started with his introduction of "optional" methods in the collections framework, not to mention interface duplication. Then it continued through Java 1.5 as he led JSRs that included Generics (a terrible incarnation of psuedo-type saftiness) as well as the introduction of "printf". If I wanted to program in C++, I'd program in C++.
I wonder what kind of "great innovations" he has in store for us at Google.
Seems pretty simple to get around to me, this company is apparently targeting a specific hash algorithm (say md5), so all it'll take is two different hashing algorithms. If the data is not the same data, then even if the first hash algorithm results in a collision (same hash value), the second wouldn't. There's more than one hash algorithm out there ya know. :)
I'm glad somebody said this. Oooh wow! Free Certificates... I'll give anybody all the free certificates they want... as you pointed out... while it is true that the certificate is required for Apache's SSL to work, all it is used for is to validate identity. If a person's only concern is encryption, just create your own certificate. It isn't hard.
Sometimes I wonder about this "technical community" I'm forced to be a part of.
You must be confusing the CRX (which is no longer manufactured by Honda) with the insight (Honda's hybrid)? The insight does have a striking resemblance to the CRX. But the CRX never got 67mpg. I used to own one, and it did get great gas mileage (between 35 and 40mpg on the highway)... but never did it come anywhere close to 67.
The CRX (which is no longer manufactured by Honda) was built on the standard civic chassis. The Civic coupe, sedan, hatchback, and CRX all had the same chassis just a different passenger cab. Not only did these four cars share the same chassis, they also shared the same front-end (hood, fenders, windshield, headlights, engine, dashboard, etc). I used to own a CRX, and I often found myself buying sedan or coupe parts to replace broken parts on my CRX.
I don't know a whole lot about the Insight, but it does have a striking resemblance to the old CRX's. Maybe it too is based on the standard Civic chassis?
It's like people who are allergic to bee stings. The first time in thier life that they are stung, nothing big happens, but any subsequent sting (after the body has built up an immunity) can be lethal.
Motorola/General Dynamics has been doing similar things for years. OpenWings This is more for millitary use, but it's still the same concept.
I have a full-time job that pays me to write software. However, the software I create at work has little/no personal value to me. Now, as a programmer, there are software programs I write for myself, for nobody but me. This, is where I think Open Source/Free Software makes the most sense.
If I've spent two weeks of my personal time trying to solve a problem that is of particular interest/use to me, why not share it? Gad knows I couldn't possibly have created some of the things I have had it not been for other people/companies giving me stuff for free in the first place.
My point here, is that some people believe that everything should revolve around a profit motive. Some of us have paying programming jobs, and also have open source projects... and for me, they coexist in a harmonious environment.
I agree. I was unemployed a few years ago, and I was told directly to my face on more than one occasion that I was overqualified for a position, and they were not willing to offer me a job for fear that I'd be too bored, and that I'd probably just leave after a while once I found a new job that was on my level.
That's not exactly true. If a company wishes to be a potential vendor to the U.S. Armed Forces, then it must pass certain guidelines for high and low temperatures, as well as shock, and a few other things. IIRC the standard is -30 degrees, and many hardware vendors fail to meet this guideline. For the longest time, the military used Sun products because they are/were one of the few vendors to meet all of the criteria. This is why I am a little suspect about the original article.
I agree with the parent. I can see the point of having a standard user interface, but I don't agree that all others should fall by the wayside.
In any case, I think we are already seeing this. Every mainstream distributions that I'm aware of use KDE or Gnome as the default.
Hmm, I wonder if Microsoft funded this article as a way to create dissent in the Linux community.
Where have you people been? This was originally posted on Slashdot on Friday. This is a repost of: This. See the Update "ESR Responds".
I guess this answers the age old question: How many companies does it take to replace a lightbulb? Apparently the answer is 3.
When DevFS came out, I thought, "Wow, this is gonna be great, I'll be able to keep track of my devices a LOT better"
/etc/devfs.conf file. So now I disable devfs on all of my boxen. DevFS is my biggest pet peeve.
Then I figured out that you couldn't use chmod on the devices. Oh no, you have to go edit some cryptic
The following really jumped out at me:
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem
conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.
What Darl meant to say was:
"I must say that our decision to file legal action (against IBM) does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of SCO."
From the original post:
'knowing the right people and having a wealth of content on your hard disk to get into the clique.'"
If anyone already on the network can allow someone onto the network, then there is still a possibility of someone charming their way into the trust of others. They need to take it one step further, and give a unique public key/private key to each individual, and have a single person responsible for adding people to the network. Otherwise, if anyone on the network can invite anyone else, then the network will grow exponentially, and then you won't be able to control the network.
Any takers on how long before this is misused and someone sues ebay?
On top of this, if their claims of ownership of copyright and/or patent IP of Unix turns out to be false, they could face prosecution by the SEC if there is enough proof that SCO did all of this in an attempt to raise their stock price.
Unfortunately there is a small problem with this article. From the article:
...everyone who owns a copy of Linux will be able to sue SCO for withholding that source code in violation of the GPL
Unfortunately this is a widely held misconception of the protection granted by the GPL. The GPL does not grant ownership of license to the commons (general public). It is true that SCO could be sued if this is the case, BUT, the only person (people) who can legally sue are those who own the copyrights of the GPL'd code that SCO illegally used, or derived works from.
In simpler terms, only a licensor has the right to uphold a license. Users and Licensee's have no inherent right to uphold the GPL on code to which they do not own the copyright. A user or licensee may only report the violation back to the copyright holder.
There is actually a good reason that it works this way. Albeit the linux kernel code is quite complex and has many contributors. However, let's take a much simpler GPL'd codebase as an example. Let us also assume this code has a single copyright owner. Now just because entity X obtains the code under the GPL, doesn't mean that the Licensor doesn't have a previous, or postuous agreement with entity Y using a completely different license. The license is an agreement strictly between the licensor and the licensee... there is no implied rights between licensees.
However, none of this prevents one from suing SCO in the USA... you just won't win, and the Judge will probably dismiss the case before it even reaches court.
I'd just like to say that I'm proud to be a Kansan, and I'd like to think that my telephone call to Senator Brownback had something to do with this. :)
Not to mention what would happen if Procter and Gamble decided to invoke DMCA for modifications to their pringles cans. ;)
I run an SB Live with optical outputs to my stereo. For video, I use a Tview Micro which converts svga to s-video and handles up to 1600x1200 resolution (works great under Linux too). Combine that with a simple wireless keyboard/mouse and yer set.
My setup is a 55inch Toshiba HDTV (4:3) with a Pioneer Stereo Receiver, a 1800+ AMD based PC (built myself) running dual boot of Slackware and Win 98. My Pioneer receiver doubles as a video switch with 5 or 6 S-Video inputs. My TV acts as a dumb monitor (I don't use its tuner). Then, off of my Pioneer receiver, I have a 6 piece (5.1) surround sound system which includes Bose bookshelf speakers at the FR and FL positions.
Also, I picked up a couple of 10 foot usb extension cables which allows me to run Gravis gamepad's to my couch to be used for all of my favorite games.
All in all, it is a pretty nice setup
If you are looking for indicators of success of an open source project, you have to first decide what success is.
:)
:)
I consider my project, The Java X10 Project, a success based on several factors:
First: I've had hundreds of downloads, and since I run this project on a Cable Modem connection, my ISP hasn't become unhappy
Second: I've had dozens of email's asking for support as well as asking how to contribute.
and Third and finally (I think this one is a very good indicator): There are other websites out there that link to my site.
Oh, and there's a fourth optional measure of success... more for bragging rights... my site is THE FIRST result when querying google with "Java X10".
All in all, it is a very small project, but I have tangibles that give me a sense of success. Will this ever reach the magnatude of Apache? Probably not, but gawd, I'd prefer it remain relatively small anyway where I can control it.
To paraphrase the parent post's comments:
A cell phone will use more energy to create the vibration than it will be able to regain from that vibration.
Due to the laws of thermodynamics and energy,(particularly the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed), the device that generates energy from vibration would then (by definition) have to absorb some of the vibration's energy. Therefore, in order for this mechanism to "produce" any amount of valuable energy, the source (the cell phone) would have to increase its vibration. However, it will always be the case that the cell phone uses more energy than it gains back (otherwise the phone wouldn't vibrate). Therefore, it would be more condusive of the cell phone to focus its energy on notifying its owner of an incoming call, and do so in the most efficient way.
Basically, (as stated in the parent post) this invention at MIT doesn't do much for the cell phone industry. Cell phones would be better off being more efficient with the energy they have rather than trying to regain some of the energy expelled while producing environmental feedback.
Hmm, I think we may have a problem with the "Redundant" moderation. My post got modded down as redundant however, the "duplicate" comment was typed into slashdot at relatively the same time. Kind of a "beat you to it" type situation.
In other words, my comment didn't already exist before I began to type mine in, but someone else beat me to it.