> Ok, so now you're arguing that the ease of use of a language is > directly related to its popularity, Yes. This is OBVIOUS. Do men wake each morning and say: "Today I will do things... THE HARD WAY"? People seek the easy way out - it's human nature.
> and that Dijkstra didn't mean what he said? Yes. Anyone who says: "Teaching BASIC should be a criminal offense." is a loudmouth spouting off.
You're treating Lisp like a god, and Dijkstra as it's prophet.
> You're the one who brings up conspiracy and tinfoil hats > -- I certainly didn't imply there was any conspiracy, I freely admit to hyperbole, but if you truly believe what you think, that's a justifiable suspicion - isn't it? With Lisp being so old, and so so easy, what else could turn the bulk of the world's programmers away from it?
> so you're jumping to conclusions and attacking a straw man, > because you have no better argument. Haha! It's funny.
> many Perl advocates enjoy that vile language, because they're brain > damaged beyond redemption. I say this with no malice: You are a fool. Please correct yourself.
> I think you're a wonderful example... > They hate Lisp with a passion... No. I am fond of Lisp. I learnt Perl after I learnt Lisp. Lisp is suited for certain problems. For most, it's the wrong tool. That's why other languages were invented.
> You declare that Lisp is unnatural for the human brain, but maybe > it's your brain that's impared?
Your Lisp fanboy-hood is showing.
Instead of XXXXX - "This is a case of bad tools blaming the carpenter." - XXXX
please modify to "giving a carpenter unsuitable tools, then blaming the carpenter". Lisp is, as I said, powerful and extensible, etc., but it's patently unsuitable for many programming tasks, which is why other languages were invented after it.
It's not a big world conspiray out there, no matter what you or D'stra think.
> It sounds like you don't actually know Perl or Lisp,
You make a lot of wrong assumptions. I noticed that about you.
I know them both. I use Perl regularly, and I haven't used Lisp for a few years.
> So please share your source of wisdom that tells you > that "the human brain takes more naturally to a straight-forward imperative languages"?
Gee, why don't you ask, you know, programmers! If Lisp was easier than Java, don't you think, it would be, like MORE POPULAR - maybe.
Instead you've got cases like where Yahoo ditches Lisp. For what? PHP! Oh, the humanity.
> If you've only seen programs represented by XML "a couple of times",
Sorry - that was my mistake - I meant a couple of 'programming environments' - one called 'JMeter' (http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter) and one called 'webMethods' (proprietary - webmethods.com). Both represent programs as XML, but have visual IDEs on top. I've had to read and modify these XML programs on a few occasions (IDE bugs/ convenience etc) and it was painful.
> Your own ignorance and incomprehension are not valid arguments that a language is flawed.
They're missing, and so is your argument.
> You declare that Lisp is unnatural for the human brain, but maybe > it's your brain that's impared?
Your Lisp fanboy-hood is showing. This is a case of bad tools blaming the carpenter.
> Your mistaken belief that declarative languages [c2.com] > are hard to understand might have been caused by learning > BASIC as your first language.
What is this 'childhood trauma by exposure to Basic' nonsense you're spouting? Are you serious? Dijkstra wasn't (at least I hope so... unless he is mentally damaged himself).
Do you think there some conspiracy to damage people's brains by teaching them imperative languages first? Break out the tinfoil hats people!
You really _so_ underestimate the human brain.
> Edsger W. Dijkstra observed in Selected Writings on Computing: > A Personal Perspective that "It is practically impossible to teach > good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to > BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond > hope of regeneration."
He's wrong.:) And since you so uncritically accepted his hyperbole, you're wrong.
Here's wikiquote on Dijkstra: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edsger_Dijkstra "Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could only have originated in California."
No. If Perl is hard, Lisp is harder. Sure, Lisp may be more elegant or powerful or whatnot, but the human brain takes more naturally to a straight-forward imperative languages.
XML, by itself, is not a programming language, so the equating it's '' to Lisp's parenthesis clutter is invalid. The couple of times I've seen programs represented by XML, they were incomprehensible except for machines.
> > No matter how much you try to convince me, I'll not take your side
> Yet you're the one calling me closed minded.
Close minded means refusing to even listen. The guy just held a long discussion with you, inspected your arguments, which you had ample time to make, and rejected them.
Read again the points the other guy made - he's right. You're a prisoner of your biases - that's a bad thing, because truth doesn't work that way.
I use Perl under Cygwin myself. http://cygwin.com/ You could use a move native Perl like ActiPerl.
Recently, I played around with the Perl Win32 libraries. They do the usual API access, but one of them (forget which) lets you simulate keyclicks. There's a sample program on the web somewhere that has a 5-line Perl script launching Excel, and enter data in Excel cells.
What I like to see: a scripting engine with a Konfabulator like UI. Konfabulator isn't open-source, but I would like a client-side scripting engine with similar power. Haven't seen any.
"Yahoo! said the reason they purchased Konfabulator was that they wanted an easy way to open up its APIs to the developer community.." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konfabulator If Yahoo are building web-services support into Konfabulator, it can access any web-service, including on an Intranet.
Good on you for exposing them. Cops are citizens like us, if they do the crime, they must serve the time.
I think it's become more difficult to fool people these days, with huge increases in both information flow and knowledge. Eg: Abu Gharib.
Re: Insiders. The plots to hit Cuba sound plausible. After all, this is the same CIA which in from the Bay of Pigs(Kennedy's administration), plans to get Castro with poisonous cigars, hair loss, etc. When people don't have boundaries, they also seem to drop common sense. However, this does not sound top secret. I doubt you have that access, or alternatively, some "outsiders" are regaling you with tall tales of their secret life as insiders.
Regarding boundaries -- I respect Bush - people can call him a moron and worse, but he is sincere, clear and fundamentally honest. I've never seen a sitting US president apologize so forthrightly about past US government misdeeds back in the 70s, not even Clinton.
Re: give and take - thank you. I especially appreciate the civility of our conversation. But you know, I wish I could take more away from it. I wish I could say "this guy is mature and makes a lot of sense". Unfortunately, you indulge in wishful thinking way too easily, as our interaction has shown. A lot of the stuff you're still espousing is false. The harm of this is that when people believe lies, the truth gets obscured, allowing others to engage in all types of deception and self-deception. Here's an example: a specific community in Australia has a crime problem. A couple of years back a large amount of gang rapes were committed in Sydney, almost all by Lebenese Muslims. When convicted (sometimes 10 men raping one girl), the mothers of the rapists would scream down and taunt the (single) raped woman in courtrooms, the rapists would get permission to act as their own grandstanding defense counsel and taunt their victim while cross-examining them, Lebenese imams would proclaim that the _main_ responsibility for the rape was Western girl dressed obscenely, they would claim racial prejudice after conviction, etc, etc. As long as this community cannot face up and act on the truth - it's crime problem - it festers, and harms them and others.
The Oswald-Ruby story looked shonky the first time I read it.
Re: dark suits and jihadists working hand in hand: sure, the pinstripes can be as greedy and evil and cruel as Bin Laden, but they're not omnipotent. But somehow you've confused greed with levels of skill in infilitrating jihadist organizations that Mossad only dreams about. You know, a lot of money flow to the jihadists anyway from rich Muslim countries - they don't need the pinstripes. And the pinstripes have a lot of easier ways to make money than playing risky lets-pretend-I've-got-a-beard games with others who don't play by any accepted rules.
Bush is right. Iraq is massively stabilizing. What do you think millions of Iraqis did recently? After Zarquavi waxed eloquent about the evil Greek meaning of "democracy" ("rule of the people") and how it is opposed to Islam, the population of Iraq rejected him and voted. Remember, the US has a good track record of doing this.
The Downing Street memos contain nothing incriminating from what I read. Sure you don't like their contents, but people are entitled to their opinions.
If you think the London bomb blasts take the heat off Karl Rove, you need to learn about how government processes work. Remember Kenneth Starr? He didn't back off with Bosnia, or the Afghan missile strikes, or the embassy bombings in Kenya, did he?
Power aggregation. Cash. Bad Smells. You should seriously consider how much of these "bad smells" are your own manufacture. Also remember, the more you ignore the truth, the more the problems fester, and the more the real risk of abuse of power grows.
London bombers. By now you probably know that they're suicide bombers of Pakistani descent. Surely you don't still don't think their uppermost controllers wear pin-stripe suits?
My response: BIG DEAL. So ONE SECURITY company was running a disaster management drill for a London based COMPANY and this drill (conducted in a meeting room, no less) included what to do in a train bombing scenario. NOTE: there was nothing going on in a real rail stations, the government wasn't involved, not even all employees for this company - just crisis managers in a MEETING ROOM at the company. http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/10/london_bombin gs_coin.html
Now this guy (probably seeking publicity for his company) mentions this, and you blow it out if all proportion and go on like: 'Omigosh Omigosh... the EVIL government planned the bombing. Workers awake... blah blah blah'. With no evidence this drill helped the bombings (bit difficult to do from a meeting room) this is just plain lying. Does a the struggle of facts and wishful lies creates something beautiful in synthesis? No, it is just creates more lies. The truth is independent of how we wish it to be.
It's the cat's whiskers in conspiracy theories. All the ones you mentioned, plus bonus groundless conspiracies, with this one taking the cake: "Israel being behind Hamas".
According to the foolish ideology these guys subscribe to, Jihadists can do no wrong - they're just foolish monkeys dancing to the tunes of Bush, etc. The breathtaking arrogance of those who presume that conscience is their prerogative. The rest of the human race is the same as you are!
The crazy stuff about "NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time." finds its echoes in what you are saying -- and the page shows it to just more crazy bullshit with no evidence. OK, lets see this page - a top ranked Googled site - has to offer:
Oh, but does it really hit a building? lets see... "Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building. "
BIG DEAL. 1 drill in 1 building - no planes involved, no radars involved, one building involved
NORAD was running two drills on Sep 11 according to this website: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/051203atlanticcity fighters.html One which was a week old and targeted Russians over the North pole. No info on second drill, but probably similar given tone of article.
BIG DEAL - this is just the military doing what it is supposed to do.
Suddenly, these two perfectly innocuous pieces of information change... they multiply, becomes darker, more sinister,... EVIL! until it becomes a monster drill involving NORAD radar showing many, _many_ _hijacked_ planes. 22 planes - no less.
So where did this number 22 come from? No evidence.
You people are experts in deceiving yourself. Forget this wishful thinking of "too many coincidences" --- there are no serious coincid
> The bbc ran the interview. Data. That's evidence so far What are you talking about? Please be specific. Mutting dark words and meaningful glances do not work very well on the Internet. If you have evidence, explicitly lay it out. If you viewed some BBC program that exposed a dastardly conspiracy, quote from it to back up your assertions. Otherwise you just obscure the light, and end up running from your own shadows.
> In the US the government was running "drills" about airliners crashing into buildings, > yet later they denied at the commission investigation that they had any idea > that something like that could happen. So you're alleging that the US government conducted some drill with a dastardly purpose in mind. Where's your evidence about their intent? Was the drill how to handle an aircraft impact (and what's wrong with that?), or were they practising how to fly aircraft into buildings? Be specific - clarity is the enemy of darkness.
> How is it that up to 9-11, all previous incidents of major planes off course > had jet fighters on them within minutes, but on 9-11 none of that happened? Coincidence?
> You may believe in political coincidences, > in regards such high stakes endeavors as changing the political > course of entire nations,not to mention trillions in potential profits, > but I sure don't, not when they keep happening over and over again and > *always* in favor of increasing big brother actions.
Powerful and greedy men attempt to make profits in any way possible. But you seem to insist on attributing omniscience and omnipotence to these mere mortals. That's foolish. Other humans are not easily controllled...
> And al queda, what exactly is this al queda thing, where did it come from? > Oh ya, it means the "base" or database of cia contracted muslim jihadists > who were organized, trained and supplied to be assymetrical warfare fighters. > Isn't that interesting. More allegations without proof. Of course the US funded jihadists when their interests converged when the USSR was alive. But obviously they don't control them now.
What do you make of the Muslim who stood outside Langley CIA headquarters gunning down CIA employees a few years ago. A CIA plant? What do you make about the fact he was executed for his crime? Do men willingly kill themselves to benefit those that they hate? What about the 9/11 bombers who killed themselves? If you think Muslim jihadists are being willingly - or unwillingly - trained by the CIA to kill both themselves, you are extremely foolish. Perhaps you think, contrary to all reason, that the upper echelons of Al-Queda (or jihadists in general) stand implausibly isolated from the foot soldiers below - that these top level jihadists are really filled with love and grace towards the CIA, so that they send their cousins and blood bretheren to their deaths in an effort to fulfill Bush's nefarious agenda. That the obvious hatred toward the West that afflicts the Muslim world has miraculously passed them by. That somehow the US convinced Osama to suffer a life of discomfort, leading a double life among murderous followers, because, you know, he really wanted the money.
Besides your own desire to validate your fantasies, what makes you think that so few can deceive so many for so long?
> The US and the UK have a very long past verified history of supporting coups, > counter coups, revolutions, take overs, support for tin pot dictators and support > FROM
> You cannot know the success:failure ratio of closed-source projects. No. You can estimate it. I've worked in industry in three countries, and after a decade you get a good idea about the success/failure ratio. Also, there is a lot of published work available.
I'd say the success:failure ratio is around 1:1, perhaps better. Of course, it depends on how "successful enough" is defined, but I'm assuming commonly accepted definitions.
I don't have as-firm figures for open source (and yes, they do "fail", by similar commonly accepted definitions) - but I think it's ratio would be worse. But this is _fine_ I say... for one thing, failure is an acceptable result for many more open-source projects than closed source ones.
A couple of interesting URLs I just googled: IT Failure Rates--70% or 10-15%? (don't have a subscription to view the article, but the title and abstract are interesting... )
Data Mining Project History in Open Source Software Communities where the author states: "But we can also find that this method can predict the 'failed' projects by the project history with good confidence". His paper does not appear to carry the actual data on number of open-source SF projects that he classifies as 'FAIL' - a bit frustrating for our discussion:)
Are you sure? 'RAMMS+EIN' didn't mention anything to do with AJAX (as far as I can see) but said: "Probably the closest you can get is a form for submitting new messages, and a reloading page that displays the last few messages"
Looks like 'goynang' is right to update 'RAMMS+EIN' about AJAX.
"If you are after gaming, multimedia, good WiFi+Bluetooth support, a lot of accessories and versatility, go with Pocket PC.
If you are after small and stylish devices with good battery life, simple interface and simple PIM apps, go with PalmOS."
Anyone else see a remarkable similarity to how the Apple and PC story played out in the last couple of decades? Except in this case, Microsoft even has the better multi-media support.
True, but the success:failure ratio is much higher. Which is as it should be - money and livelihoods depend on the success of commercial projects, while a lot of open source projects are hobbyists or people learning.
Ah, don't forget bombings in India, in Russia, in the Phillipines, in Pakistan, in Iraq. Indeed, the Al-Queda linked jihadists wage war against non-believers in Indonesia (a Muslim country) and in the Sudan. Whose got troops in these countries?
Killing innocents is evil, full stop. It must be seperated out from a hundred other "bundled" problems and justice dealt swiftly.
If you don't like the Saudis' corrupt repressive _and century-old_ dictatorship, address that separately. Just note, Bin Laden had a roaring relationship with the Saudis himself until a decade or so ago. There is no moral justification for the bombings.
> You obviously don't get the point.... > going to extreme costs to slightly reduce the chance of something similar happening again
You obviously didn't get my point. Or you're just setting up and tearing down a non-existent strawman. In either case, reread the first sentence of my post above - "full body scanners isn't a good idea" And it's not only the costs - such huge 'sterile' areas require a huge infrastructure - and the larger it is, the more easily it can be defeated. But anyway...
Your poorly thought about response supporting the OP goes to show how some people delude themselves with moral equivalance, with combined with vigourous hand-wringing about the great unwashed masses not being 'perceptive' enough, like you.
Oh, if only the rest of us had your emotional strength and perceptiveness, O anonymous coward; not to mention your speed reading abilities! Yes, we'd be right sunk!
Those who push technological silver bullet against terror are wrong. I think the full body scanners isn't a good idea. But on the flip side, there are people like you...
> If there had been 50 extra heart attacks... > If it weren't for the wall to wall media coverage, this would have been a non-event.
Those - like you - who exhibit such disregard about human murder are just about as bad.
Don't know where you live, but if some criminal organization in your city shot or strangled 50 people one night, would you still call it a non-event?
Would you be so cavalier in your comments if it was your father or daughter who was murdered.
You're welcome and your civitility is appreciate. My answers/added comments are:
1) Because it is unfair. And because it deals with "handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport."
2) A monopolist (not evil in itself) convicted of unfair trade practises
3) No, you support the USPTO granting unfair patents, and gave Bush a bad name by dragging his name into the conversation.
4) 4.1) Granting a patent on current and future embodiments of automating an existing manual process is ridiculous.
4.2) Their first patent does not restrict itself and has absurdly limitless boundaries - it says their "invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims" - claims like claim 10 below, which are so broad as to cover all current and future embodiments: This is CLAIM 10: "10. The method of claim 1 in which comparing the obtained image with stored image information comprises deriving a set of descriptors of at least the iris portion of the obtained image and comparing the derived descriptors with stored reference descriptors derived from a previous image for identifying the person." This is CLAIM 1: "1. A method of identification of a person, comprising: storing image information of at least a portion of the iris and pupil of the person's eye; illuminating an eye, of an unidentified person having an iris and a pupil; obtaining at least one image of at least the same portion of the iris and pupil of the eye of the unidentified person; and comparing at least the iris portion of the obtained image with the stored image information to identify the unidentified person."
You are muddled on cause on effect. The US patent office has developed a false liberality which is unjust. The "tear shedder" is absolutely right when he says: "More often than not, patents give the discoverer/holder an unfair advantage that gives them the power to gouge the public and make a killing."
Take the Eolas plug-in patent. Does your browser support plug-ins? Then for years, you may have used it illegally, according to the USPTO. (Thankfully that one patent is now invalidated)
Regarding the Slashdot article we are discussing, here's the first Iridian patent from the eighties: Iris patent It covers AUTOMATION of an existing manual process - iris recognition - that opthalmologists and common people do day in and day out. (Note how it says _multiple_ pictures may be used of the iris driven to different dilations). Even you have probably done this - remember the Afghan girl on the cover of National Geographic, and her followup picture decades later, taken veiled, showing only her eyes? How can a patent on all possible way to automate this process be granted? See end of the patent statement which says: Although the present invention has been described in connection with a plurality of preferred embodiments thereof, many other variations and modifications will now become apparent to those skilled in the art. It is preferred, therefore, that the present invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims.
Now see this more recent patent granted to Iridian Handheld iris imaging apparatus and method . It references their first patent, and now covers handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport. Ironically, it was issued on 9/11.
Now see the end of this patent: Although illustrated and described herein with reference to certain specific embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the invention is not limited to the embodiments specifically disclosed herein. Those skilled in the art also will appreciate that many other variations of the specific embodiments described herein are intended to be within the scope of the invention as defined by the following claims.
So industry is unfairly restrained a few decades more by this patent -- and this will hold back God knows how many real improvements to security. Happy now?
> To say Bill Gates doesn't deserve all the money he as gotten bespoils > the name of a great entrepreneur. He probably deserved much of it, but to say he deserved "all the money" he got is foolish, given the company he led was convicted and forced to compensate others in multiple cases, and Gates was personally fined in the anti-trust lawsuit.
> I'm sure it's Bush's fault too. No. I support Bush. Your opinion gives him a bad name.
Thanks! That's interesting.:) He'd better not lose those candy wrappers.:P
At least one of the two pen readers I linked to above can translate barcodes.
What would be cool is adding a bluetooth module to one of these readers so it can associate with a computer as an additional keyboard. Like so:
Website requests authentication -> user scans browser address bar -> pen device brings up the associated credentials -> user sends them via bluetooth keyboard
Slashdot Mirror
> Ok, so now you're arguing that the ease of use of a language is ... THE HARD WAY"?
... ...
> directly related to its popularity,
Yes. This is OBVIOUS.
Do men wake each morning and say: "Today I will do things
People seek the easy way out - it's human nature.
> and that Dijkstra didn't mean what he said?
Yes. Anyone who says: "Teaching BASIC should be a criminal offense." is a loudmouth spouting off.
You're treating Lisp like a god, and Dijkstra as it's prophet.
> You're the one who brings up conspiracy and tinfoil hats
> -- I certainly didn't imply there was any conspiracy,
I freely admit to hyperbole, but if you truly believe what you think, that's a justifiable suspicion - isn't it? With Lisp being so old, and so so easy, what else could turn the bulk of the world's programmers away from it?
> so you're jumping to conclusions and attacking a straw man,
> because you have no better argument.
Haha! It's funny.
> many Perl advocates enjoy that vile language, because they're brain
> damaged beyond redemption.
I say this with no malice:
You are a fool. Please correct yourself.
> I think you're a wonderful example
> They hate Lisp with a passion
No. I am fond of Lisp. I learnt Perl after I learnt Lisp. Lisp is suited for certain problems. For most, it's the wrong tool. That's why other languages were invented.
> You declare that Lisp is unnatural for the human brain, but maybe
> it's your brain that's impared?
Your Lisp fanboy-hood is showing.
Instead of
XXXXX - "This is a case of bad tools blaming the carpenter." - XXXX
please modify to "giving a carpenter unsuitable tools, then blaming the carpenter". Lisp is, as I said, powerful and extensible, etc., but it's patently unsuitable for many programming tasks, which is why other languages were invented after it.
It's not a big world conspiray out there, no matter what you or D'stra think.
> It sounds like you don't actually know Perl or Lisp,
:) And since you so uncritically accepted his hyperbole, you're wrong.
You make a lot of wrong assumptions. I noticed that about you.
I know them both. I use Perl regularly, and I haven't used Lisp for a few years.
> So please share your source of wisdom that tells you
> that "the human brain takes more naturally to a straight-forward imperative languages"?
Gee, why don't you ask, you know, programmers! If Lisp was easier than Java, don't you think, it would be, like MORE POPULAR - maybe.
Instead you've got cases like where Yahoo ditches Lisp. For what? PHP! Oh, the humanity.
> If you've only seen programs represented by XML "a couple of times",
Sorry - that was my mistake - I meant a couple of 'programming environments' - one called 'JMeter' (http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter) and one called 'webMethods' (proprietary - webmethods.com). Both represent programs as XML, but have visual IDEs on top. I've had to read and modify these XML programs on a few occasions (IDE bugs/ convenience etc) and it was painful.
> Your own ignorance and incomprehension are not valid arguments that a language is flawed.
They're missing, and so is your argument.
> You declare that Lisp is unnatural for the human brain, but maybe
> it's your brain that's impared?
Your Lisp fanboy-hood is showing.
This is a case of bad tools blaming the carpenter.
> Your mistaken belief that declarative languages [c2.com]
> are hard to understand might have been caused by learning
> BASIC as your first language.
What is this 'childhood trauma by exposure to Basic' nonsense you're spouting? Are you serious? Dijkstra wasn't (at least I hope so... unless he is mentally damaged himself).
Do you think there some conspiracy to damage people's brains by teaching them imperative languages first? Break out the tinfoil hats people!
You really _so_ underestimate the human brain.
> Edsger W. Dijkstra observed in Selected Writings on Computing:
> A Personal Perspective that "It is practically impossible to teach
> good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to
> BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond
> hope of regeneration."
He's wrong.
Here's wikiquote on Dijkstra:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edsger_Dijkstra
"Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could only have originated in California."
BASIC was first, then Fortran, Pascal, C and Lisp in that order.
2 07751
I am right about what I posted: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157313&cid=13
Yes. And I'm still right.
No. If Perl is hard, Lisp is harder. Sure, Lisp may be more elegant or powerful or whatnot, but the human brain takes more naturally to a straight-forward imperative languages.
XML, by itself, is not a programming language, so the equating it's '' to Lisp's parenthesis clutter is invalid. The couple of times I've seen programs represented by XML, they were incomprehensible except for machines.
> Unless they somehow release an upgrade to the 1st gen boxes
This is possible. I recall reading about the SATA standard allowing for external connectors.
MS could sell an external HD-DVD drive upgrade (with a external SATA + power connector.)
> > No matter how much you try to convince me, I'll not take your side
> Yet you're the one calling me closed minded.
Close minded means refusing to even listen. The guy just held a long discussion with you, inspected your arguments, which you had ample time to make, and rejected them.
Read again the points the other guy made - he's right. You're a prisoner of your biases - that's a bad thing, because truth doesn't work that way.
> What makes the life of a fly or ant that you've most certainly killed less
> precious than the frozen embryo that never developed into a human?
The same thing that:
- makes _your_ life more precious than said fly
- made it precious when _you_ were a _human embryo_
I use Perl under Cygwin myself.
/ 0530230&tid=185&tid=187&tid=95&tid=1&tid=3
.."
http://cygwin.com/
You could use a move native Perl like ActiPerl.
Recently, I played around with the Perl Win32 libraries. They do the usual API access, but one of them (forget which) lets you simulate keyclicks. There's a sample program on the web somewhere that has a 5-line Perl script launching Excel, and enter data in Excel cells.
What I like to see: a scripting engine with a Konfabulator like UI. Konfabulator isn't open-source, but I would like a client-side scripting engine with similar power. Haven't seen any.
This is interesting:
"Yahoo Purchases Konfabulator"
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/25
"Yahoo! said the reason they purchased Konfabulator was that they wanted an easy way to open up its APIs to the developer community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konfabulator
If Yahoo are building web-services support into Konfabulator, it can access any web-service, including on an Intranet.
Good on you for exposing them. Cops are citizens like us, if they do the crime, they must serve the time.
I think it's become more difficult to fool people these days, with huge increases in both information flow and knowledge. Eg: Abu Gharib.
Re: Insiders. The plots to hit Cuba sound plausible. After all, this is the same CIA which in from the Bay of Pigs(Kennedy's administration), plans to get Castro with poisonous cigars, hair loss, etc. When people don't have boundaries, they also seem to drop common sense. However, this does not sound top secret. I doubt you have that access, or alternatively, some "outsiders" are regaling you with tall tales of their secret life as insiders.
Regarding boundaries -- I respect Bush - people can call him a moron and worse, but he is sincere, clear and fundamentally honest. I've never seen a sitting US president apologize so forthrightly about past US government misdeeds back in the 70s, not even Clinton.
Re: give and take - thank you. I especially appreciate the civility of our conversation. But you know, I wish I could take more away from it. I wish I could say "this guy is mature and makes a lot of sense". Unfortunately, you indulge in wishful thinking way too easily, as our interaction has shown. A lot of the stuff you're still espousing is false. The harm of this is that when people believe lies, the truth gets obscured, allowing others to engage in all types of deception and self-deception. Here's an example: a specific community in Australia has a crime problem. A couple of years back a large amount of gang rapes were committed in Sydney, almost all by Lebenese Muslims. When convicted (sometimes 10 men raping one girl), the mothers of the rapists would scream down and taunt the (single) raped woman in courtrooms, the rapists would get permission to act as their own grandstanding defense counsel and taunt their victim while cross-examining them, Lebenese imams would proclaim that the _main_ responsibility for the rape was Western girl dressed obscenely, they would claim racial prejudice after conviction, etc, etc. As long as this community cannot face up and act on the truth - it's crime problem - it festers, and harms them and others.
The Oswald-Ruby story looked shonky the first time I read it.
Re: dark suits and jihadists working hand in hand: sure, the pinstripes can be as greedy and evil and cruel as Bin Laden, but they're not omnipotent. But somehow you've confused greed with levels of skill in infilitrating jihadist organizations that Mossad only dreams about. You know, a lot of money flow to the jihadists anyway from rich Muslim countries - they don't need the pinstripes. And the pinstripes have a lot of easier ways to make money than playing risky lets-pretend-I've-got-a-beard games with others who don't play by any accepted rules.
Bush is right. Iraq is massively stabilizing. What do you think millions of Iraqis did recently? After Zarquavi waxed eloquent about the evil Greek meaning of "democracy" ("rule of the people") and how it is opposed to Islam, the population of Iraq rejected him and voted. Remember, the US has a good track record of doing this.
The Downing Street memos contain nothing incriminating from what I read. Sure you don't like their contents, but people are entitled to their opinions.
If you think the London bomb blasts take the heat off Karl Rove, you need to learn about how government processes work. Remember Kenneth Starr? He didn't back off with Bosnia, or the Afghan missile strikes, or the embassy bombings in Kenya, did he?
Power aggregation. Cash. Bad Smells.
You should seriously consider how much of these "bad smells" are your own manufacture. Also remember, the more you ignore the truth, the more the problems fester, and the more the real risk of abuse of power grows.
London bombers. By now you probably know that they're suicide bombers of Pakistani descent. Surely you don't still don't think their uppermost controllers wear pin-stripe suits?
Tr
"Visor": Now you're getting someplace. Yes, I read about this company. Here's the website: http://www.visorconsultants.com/index.html
... EVIL! until it becomes a monster drill involving NORAD radar showing many, _many_ _hijacked_ planes. 22 planes - no less.
My response: BIG DEAL. So ONE SECURITY company was running a disaster management drill for a London based COMPANY and this drill (conducted in a meeting room, no less) included what to do in a train bombing scenario. NOTE: there was nothing going on in a real rail stations, the government wasn't involved, not even all employees for this company - just crisis managers in a MEETING ROOM at the company.
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/10/london_bombin gs_coin.html
Now this guy (probably seeking publicity for his company) mentions this, and you blow it out if all proportion and go on like: 'Omigosh Omigosh... the EVIL government planned the bombing. Workers awake... blah blah blah'. With no evidence this drill helped the bombings (bit difficult to do from a meeting room) this is just plain lying. Does a the struggle of facts and wishful lies creates something beautiful in synthesis? No, it is just creates more lies. The truth is independent of how we wish it to be.
Perhaps this silly page influences you:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/0907 05bombingexercises.htm
It's the cat's whiskers in conspiracy theories. All the ones you mentioned, plus bonus groundless conspiracies, with this one taking the cake: "Israel being behind Hamas".
According to the foolish ideology these guys subscribe to, Jihadists can do no wrong - they're just foolish monkeys dancing to the tunes of Bush, etc. The breathtaking arrogance of those who presume that conscience is their prerogative. The rest of the human race is the same as you are!
The crazy stuff about "NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time." finds its echoes in what you are saying -- and the page shows it to just more crazy bullshit with no evidence. OK, lets see this page - a top ranked Googled site - has to offer:
The one solid information it links to about this mirrored page about ONE jet hitting ONE building:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/agency_planned_exercis e_on_sept_11_built_around_a_plane_crashing_into_a_ building.htm
Oh, but does it really hit a building? lets see...
"Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building. "
BIG DEAL. 1 drill in 1 building - no planes involved, no radars involved, one building involved
NORAD was running two drills on Sep 11 according to this website:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/051203atlanticcity fighters.html
One which was a week old and targeted Russians over the North pole. No info on second drill, but probably similar given tone of article.
BIG DEAL - this is just the military doing what it is supposed to do.
Suddenly, these two perfectly innocuous pieces of information change... they multiply, becomes darker, more sinister,
So where did this number 22 come from? No evidence.
You people are experts in deceiving yourself. Forget this wishful thinking of "too many coincidences" --- there are no serious coincid
> The bbc ran the interview. Data. That's evidence so far
What are you talking about? Please be specific. Mutting dark words and meaningful glances do not work very well on the Internet. If you have evidence, explicitly lay it out. If you viewed some BBC program that exposed a dastardly conspiracy, quote from it to back up your assertions. Otherwise you just obscure the light, and end up running from your own shadows.
> In the US the government was running "drills" about airliners crashing into buildings,
> yet later they denied at the commission investigation that they had any idea
> that something like that could happen.
So you're alleging that the US government conducted some drill with a dastardly purpose in mind. Where's your evidence about their intent? Was the drill how to handle an aircraft impact (and what's wrong with that?), or were they practising how to fly aircraft into buildings? Be specific - clarity is the enemy of darkness.
> How is it that up to 9-11, all previous incidents of major planes off course
> had jet fighters on them within minutes, but on 9-11 none of that happened? Coincidence?
No, just wishful thinking on your part causing you to ignore a basic fact. The aircraft transponders had been switched off by the hijackers. And the simple truth is "The use of transponders increases the detection range of the radar, eliminates clutter interference from other reflectors, and provides a means of aircraft identification and altitude reporting."
> You may believe in political coincidences,
> in regards such high stakes endeavors as changing the political
> course of entire nations,not to mention trillions in potential profits,
> but I sure don't, not when they keep happening over and over again and
> *always* in favor of increasing big brother actions.
Powerful and greedy men attempt to make profits in any way possible. But you seem to insist on attributing omniscience and omnipotence to these mere mortals. That's foolish. Other humans are not easily controllled...
> And al queda, what exactly is this al queda thing, where did it come from?
> Oh ya, it means the "base" or database of cia contracted muslim jihadists
> who were organized, trained and supplied to be assymetrical warfare fighters.
> Isn't that interesting.
More allegations without proof. Of course the US funded jihadists when their interests converged when the USSR was alive. But obviously they don't control them now.
What do you make of the Muslim who stood outside Langley CIA headquarters gunning down CIA employees a few years ago. A CIA plant? What do you make about the fact he was executed for his crime? Do men willingly kill themselves to benefit those that they hate? What about the 9/11 bombers who killed themselves? If you think Muslim jihadists are being willingly - or unwillingly - trained by the CIA to kill both themselves, you are extremely foolish. Perhaps you think, contrary to all reason, that the upper echelons of Al-Queda (or jihadists in general) stand implausibly isolated from the foot soldiers below - that these top level jihadists are really filled with love and grace towards the CIA, so that they send their cousins and blood bretheren to their deaths in an effort to fulfill Bush's nefarious agenda. That the obvious hatred toward the West that afflicts the Muslim world has miraculously passed them by. That somehow the US convinced Osama to suffer a life of discomfort, leading a double life among murderous followers, because, you know, he really wanted the money.
Besides your own desire to validate your fantasies, what makes you think that so few can deceive so many for so long?
> The US and the UK have a very long past verified history of supporting coups,
> counter coups, revolutions, take overs, support for tin pot dictators and support
> FROM
Allegations without evidence are distasteful.
Revisionism without evidence is distasteful.
Conpiracy theories with no evidence are distasteful.
Ignoring facts that stare you in the face is distasteful.
> You cannot know the success:failure ratio of closed-source projects.
:)
No. You can estimate it. I've worked in industry in three countries, and after a decade you get a good idea about the success/failure ratio. Also, there is a lot of published work available.
I'd say the success:failure ratio is around 1:1, perhaps better. Of course, it depends on how "successful enough" is defined, but I'm assuming commonly accepted definitions.
I don't have as-firm figures for open source (and yes, they do "fail", by similar commonly accepted definitions) - but I think it's ratio would be worse. But this is _fine_ I say... for one thing, failure is an acceptable result for many more open-source projects than closed source ones.
A couple of interesting URLs I just googled:
IT Failure Rates--70% or 10-15%? (don't have a subscription to view the article, but the title and abstract are interesting... )
Data Mining Project History in Open Source Software Communities where the author states: "But we can also find that this method can predict the 'failed' projects by the project history with good confidence". His paper does not appear to carry the actual data on number of open-source SF projects that he classifies as 'FAIL' - a bit frustrating for our discussion
> You're not understanding him.
Are you sure? 'RAMMS+EIN' didn't mention anything to do with AJAX (as far as I can see) but said:
"Probably the closest you can get is a form for submitting new messages, and a reloading page that displays the last few messages"
Looks like 'goynang' is right to update 'RAMMS+EIN' about AJAX.
"If you are after gaming, multimedia, good WiFi+Bluetooth support, a lot of accessories and versatility, go with Pocket PC.
If you are after small and stylish devices with good battery life, simple interface and simple PIM apps, go with PalmOS."
Anyone else see a remarkable similarity to how the Apple and PC story played out in the last couple of decades? Except in this case, Microsoft even has the better multi-media support.
True, but the success:failure ratio is much higher. Which is as it should be - money and livelihoods depend on the success of commercial projects, while a lot of open source projects are hobbyists or people learning.
Ah, don't forget bombings in India, in Russia, in the Phillipines, in Pakistan, in Iraq. Indeed, the Al-Queda linked jihadists wage war against non-believers in Indonesia (a Muslim country) and in the Sudan. Whose got troops in these countries?
Killing innocents is evil, full stop. It must be seperated out from a hundred other "bundled" problems and justice dealt swiftly.
If you don't like the Saudis' corrupt repressive _and century-old_ dictatorship, address that separately. Just note, Bin Laden had a roaring relationship with the Saudis himself until a decade or so ago. There is no moral justification for the bombings.
> You obviously don't get the point. ...
> going to extreme costs to slightly reduce the chance of something similar happening again
You obviously didn't get my point. Or you're just setting up and tearing down a non-existent strawman. In either case, reread the first sentence of my post above - "full body scanners isn't a good idea" And it's not only the costs - such huge 'sterile' areas require a huge infrastructure - and the larger it is, the more easily it can be defeated. But anyway...
Your poorly thought about response supporting the OP goes to show how some people delude themselves with moral equivalance, with combined with vigourous hand-wringing about the great unwashed masses not being 'perceptive' enough, like you.
Oh, if only the rest of us had your emotional strength and perceptiveness, O anonymous coward; not to mention your speed reading abilities! Yes, we'd be right sunk!
Those who push technological silver bullet against terror are wrong. I think the full body scanners isn't a good idea. But on the flip side, there are people like you...
> If there had been 50 extra heart attacks...
> If it weren't for the wall to wall media coverage, this would have been a non-event.
Those - like you - who exhibit such disregard about human murder are just about as bad.
Don't know where you live, but if some criminal organization in your city shot or strangled 50 people one night, would you still call it a non-event?
Would you be so cavalier in your comments if it was your father or daughter who was murdered.
Fool!
You're welcome and your civitility is appreciate. My answers/added comments are:
1) Because it is unfair. And because it deals with "handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport."
2) A monopolist (not evil in itself) convicted of unfair trade practises
3) No, you support the USPTO granting unfair patents, and gave Bush a bad name by dragging his name into the conversation.
4)
4.1) Granting a patent on current and future embodiments of automating an existing manual process is ridiculous.
4.2) Their first patent does not restrict itself and has absurdly limitless boundaries - it says their "invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims" - claims like claim 10 below, which are so broad as to cover all current and future embodiments:
This is CLAIM 10:
"10. The method of claim 1 in which comparing the obtained image with stored image information comprises deriving a set of descriptors of at least the iris portion of the obtained image and comparing the derived descriptors with stored reference descriptors derived from a previous image for identifying the person."
This is CLAIM 1:
"1. A method of identification of a person, comprising:
storing image information of at least a portion of the iris and pupil of the person's eye;
illuminating an eye, of an unidentified person having an iris and a pupil;
obtaining at least one image of at least the same portion of the iris and pupil of the eye of the unidentified person; and
comparing at least the iris portion of the obtained image with the stored image information to identify the unidentified person."
4.3) I don't know which ellipsis you speak of
You are muddled on cause on effect. The US patent office has developed a false liberality which is unjust. The "tear shedder" is absolutely right when he says: "More often than not, patents give the discoverer/holder an unfair advantage that gives them the power to gouge the public and make a killing."
Take the Eolas plug-in patent. Does your browser support plug-ins? Then for years, you may have used it illegally, according to the USPTO. (Thankfully that one patent is now invalidated)
Regarding the Slashdot article we are discussing, here's the first Iridian patent from the eighties: Iris patent
It covers AUTOMATION of an existing manual process - iris recognition - that opthalmologists and common people do day in and day out. (Note how it says _multiple_ pictures may be used of the iris driven to different dilations). Even you have probably done this - remember the Afghan girl on the cover of National Geographic, and her followup picture decades later, taken veiled, showing only her eyes? How can a patent on all possible way to automate this process be granted? See end of the patent statement which says:
Although the present invention has been described in connection with a plurality of preferred embodiments thereof, many other variations and modifications will now become apparent to those skilled in the art. It is preferred, therefore, that the present invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims.
Now see this more recent patent granted to Iridian Handheld iris imaging apparatus and method . It references their first patent, and now covers handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport. Ironically, it was issued on 9/11.
Now see the end of this patent:
Although illustrated and described herein with reference to certain specific embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the invention is not limited to the embodiments specifically disclosed herein. Those skilled in the art also will appreciate that many other variations of the specific embodiments described herein are intended to be within the scope of the invention as defined by the following claims.
So industry is unfairly restrained a few decades more by this patent -- and this will hold back God knows how many real improvements to security. Happy now?
> To say Bill Gates doesn't deserve all the money he as gotten bespoils
> the name of a great entrepreneur.
He probably deserved much of it, but to say he deserved "all the money" he got is foolish, given the company he led was convicted and forced to compensate others in multiple cases, and Gates was personally fined in the anti-trust lawsuit.
> I'm sure it's Bush's fault too.
No. I support Bush. Your opinion gives him a bad name.
Echoing since this is rated 0:
> Microsoft did not innovate the Force feedback joystick.
> They bought out a company that was making them
Thanks AC
Thanks! That's interesting. :) He'd better not lose those candy wrappers. :P
At least one of the two pen readers I linked to above can translate barcodes.
What would be cool is adding a bluetooth module to one of these readers so it can associate with a computer as an additional keyboard. Like so:
Website requests authentication -> user scans browser address bar -> pen device brings up the associated credentials -> user sends them via bluetooth keyboard