1. The pulling teeth part! You need to use the 3rd party ant-contrib package to even get basic if-else and for loop functionality. And even then, since it's XML, you end up with crap like this:
What I'm always hoping for is a build system that is just a perl / python library, so I can write the build script in a real language and call the build system when I want to.
2. Ant's simplistic rebuild-on-file-mod way of doing things misses things. Say class A.java calls class B.java. You build and all is well. Then you change B.java's interface, but not where it is called in A.java. By right your build should break now, but ant only rebuilds B.java, because it's file mod time is updated; it does no analysis of what depends on it and should be rebuilt. So you run the program and if that line of code gets called you get a NoSuchMethodError, examine that stack trace, and manually delete the.class file or somesuch. What ant needs is something like what gcc -M does for make.
... hey, I use it, but it's the year 2005 for crying out loud.
Ever gotten into GoldenEye on N64? It's not painful or frustrating -- it's a different game. I fell in love with the SUAVE feeling that comes from that console controller and having to aim most of the time with no crosshairs. So much nicer than yer quakes and yer counter-strikes IMHO.
True, it would be painful to just plug a console controller into a FPS for a PC -- because the game was probably designed for a mouse, and you're probably playing against people with mice.
But the GoldenEye SUAVE -- damn! Can I hear an amen?
a recent comment (which I cannot find) defined "X is uploading" as meaning that the transfer was initiated by by X and the payload is travelling away from X. And "Y is downloading" as: the transfer was initiated by Y and the payload is travelling toward Y.
So according to this, the system on the other end of a download / upload is not uploading / downloading. They are doing something else. Serving / recieving, perhaps.
was that correct or what?
ESR's jargonfile definition defines them in terms of direction only. So according to ESR, when a webserver is serving, it is also uploading. seems wack.
The article sayeth: "any attempt to advertise on headstones would require planning permission from local authorities whether the land was public or private.... Mr Carrington said: "It is illegal to put any advertising up outdoors without planning permission...."" [emphasis mine.]
First of all, when they talk of "compliance," that can only mean that there will be ways of providing encryption that the government doesn't allow. That's some hub right there, bub.
Even if the registration process is completely non-discriminatory, any mandatory registration/compliance scheme will still impose cost on the providers, and push some of them out of the market. (addressed by the excellent book "What everyone should know about economics and prosperity", readable online.) We all know that the point of many regulatory regimes isn't to ensure quality or protect the public (both dubious goals anyway), but simply to reduce the instances of the regulated activity (classic example being "sin taxes".) We should not sit back and hope that these costs will be low. Even if such regulation did not obliterate encryption, there's a very real possibility that the costs of the registration scheme would restrict how it is effectively used. Everyone should be wary of any talk of mandatory registration and compliance -- open source developers especially.
And even if neither of the above were to play out, there is still good reason to resist mandatory registration of encryption providers. Lawrence Lessig raised this issue in "Code and other laws of cyberspace," (reviewed on/.). One of the many wonderful things about the internet (as we know it today) is the fact that essentially any individual can publish, quickly, at negligible cost, and without asking leave of any government agency. This has made censorship vastly more difficult than it was when publishing was carried out only by a few large, visible, stationary-target companies. I can't recall if he applied the point to other areas of endevour as well, but even if he didn't, we can: imposing mandatory registration on encryption providers would make the currently dizzying whack-the-mole board into a nice, indexed collection of slow-moving targets. I don't want that, do you?
These undesirable qualities are part and parcel of mandatory registration/certification regimes. I defy you to propose one that doesn't exhibit them.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The pulling teeth part! You need to use the 3rd party ant-contrib package to even get basic if-else and for loop functionality. And even then, since it's XML, you end up with crap like this:
.class file or somesuch. What ant needs is something like what gcc -M does for make.
<if>
<equals arg1="${foo}" arg2="bar"/>
<then>
<property name="bat" value="barf"/>
</then>
</if>
... give me a break.
What I'm always hoping for is a build system that is just a perl / python library, so I can write the build script in a real language and call the build system when I want to.
2. Ant's simplistic rebuild-on-file-mod way of doing things misses things. Say class A.java calls class B.java. You build and all is well. Then you change B.java's interface, but not where it is called in A.java. By right your build should break now, but ant only rebuilds B.java, because it's file mod time is updated; it does no analysis of what depends on it and should be rebuilt. So you run the program and if that line of code gets called you get a NoSuchMethodError, examine that stack trace, and manually delete the
... hey, I use it, but it's the year 2005 for crying out loud.
Ever gotten into GoldenEye on N64? It's not painful or frustrating -- it's a different game. I fell in love with the SUAVE feeling that comes from that console controller and having to aim most of the time with no crosshairs. So much nicer than yer quakes and yer counter-strikes IMHO.
True, it would be painful to just plug a console controller into a FPS for a PC -- because the game was probably designed for a mouse, and you're probably playing against people with mice.
But the GoldenEye SUAVE -- damn! Can I hear an amen?
a recent comment (which I cannot find) defined "X is uploading" as meaning that the transfer was initiated by by X and the payload is travelling away from X. And "Y is downloading" as: the transfer was initiated by Y and the payload is travelling toward Y.
So according to this, the system on the other end of a download / upload is not uploading / downloading. They are doing something else. Serving / recieving, perhaps.
was that correct or what?
ESR's jargonfile definition defines them in terms of direction only. So according to ESR, when a webserver is serving, it is also uploading. seems wack.
The article sayeth: "any attempt to advertise on headstones would require planning permission from local authorities whether the land was public or private.... Mr Carrington said: "It is illegal to put any advertising up outdoors without planning permission...."" [emphasis mine.]
Probably right too. *sigh*.
First of all, when they talk of "compliance," that can only mean that there will be ways of providing encryption that the government doesn't allow. That's some hub right there, bub.
Even if the registration process is completely non-discriminatory, any mandatory registration/compliance scheme will still impose cost on the providers, and push some of them out of the market. (addressed by the excellent book "What everyone should know about economics and prosperity", readable online.) We all know that the point of many regulatory regimes isn't to ensure quality or protect the public (both dubious goals anyway), but simply to reduce the instances of the regulated activity (classic example being "sin taxes".) We should not sit back and hope that these costs will be low. Even if such regulation did not obliterate encryption, there's a very real possibility that the costs of the registration scheme would restrict how it is effectively used. Everyone should be wary of any talk of mandatory registration and compliance -- open source developers especially.
And even if neither of the above were to play out, there is still good reason to resist mandatory registration of encryption providers. Lawrence Lessig raised this issue in "Code and other laws of cyberspace," (reviewed on /.). One of the many wonderful things about the internet (as we know it today) is the fact that essentially any individual can publish, quickly, at negligible cost, and without asking leave of any government agency. This has made censorship vastly more difficult than it was when publishing was carried out only by a few large, visible, stationary-target companies. I can't recall if he applied the point to other areas of endevour as well, but even if he didn't, we can: imposing mandatory registration on encryption providers would make the currently dizzying whack-the-mole board into a nice, indexed collection of slow-moving targets. I don't want that, do you?
These undesirable qualities are part and parcel of mandatory registration/certification regimes. I defy you to propose one that doesn't exhibit them.
album: "I care because you do."
"Electronica" has about as much unity as "guitar music", but this is as close as it gets to an overarching classic, methinks.