Why the fscking obsession to append "GNU" to everything?
I've never seen GNU appended to anything. I've seen GNU prepended to something, however. But then, I've never seen an obsession even to prepend GNU to everything. I've never seen GNU/Windows, GNU/Solaris, GNU/Outlook Express, GNU/Internet explorer, GNU/Slashdot, GNU/Google, GNU/Amazon, GNU/DRM, GNU/DMCA, GNU/Patriot Act, GNU/Government, GNU/CIA, GNU/FBI, GNU/Bush,...
What about files like ~/.bashrc, ~/.cshrc or ~/.emacs? Those need not be explicitly called, because they will be executed implicitly as soon as the next bash, csh or (X)Emacs is started.
Another interesting file is.Xauthority. While it doesn't contain any executable files, it would allow to connect to your X session (and e.g. grab images of what you are doing, and send synthetic events to X programs). Even more interesting could be ~/.ssh/authorized-keys. The security given by.ssh is compromized if anyone can write his own key into that file.
So even if you cannot execute a file directly, there are a lot of interesting things you can do if you get unlimited write permission in the user's home directory.
He just said that he took initiative in creating the internet. That may be anything. For example, it could be to initiate funding of people creating the internet. Then the internet is still invented by those people, not by the one who initiated the funding.
GIF is on it's way out? So which widely supported format provides animantions, again?
BTW, did you check the image format of the Slashdot images? The Google logo? The ebay logo/icons? The Yahoo logo/icons? For a format on the way out, GIF is still used a lot.
Actually, he would have to write the same optimization for 3.x and 4.0, in order to compare the difficulty. And, of course, he'd have to do that with at least two optimizations (better more), changing the order of compilers he implements them on, so the advantage of implementing the same optimization a second time would go to both compilers the same number of times.
"Computing" can be thought of as a local reduction in entropy. It is impossible to do (non quantum) computing without generating heat. Erasing information is a thermodynamically irreversible process that increases the entropy of a system.
It is theoretically possible to do classical computing without any loss of energy. The point is that every classical computation can be done without erasing information (that's called "reversible computing"). However, in practise it would be a huge step forward if our processors would even come close to the theoretical minimum energy dissipation for traditional classical computing!
I didn't know that p2p technology could be used as weapon against space ships...
"Shields to maximum!" "Captain, the shields don't help!" "How's that possible?" "They seem to use a new technology named p2p." "P2p? What's that?" "Well, it's a new weapon which can avoid our shields." "How that? The shields should protect from anything targeted on our ship!" "That's exactly the point. They don't actually target our ship." "Oh... but then, we shouldn't be in danger, should we?" "Well, yes, we are. You see the little probe out there?" "What's that probe to do with it?" "Well, that's the tracker." "The what?" "The tracker. It's the device which allows to damage us without actually targetting us." "But then we would just have to shoot the tracker, don't we?" "Yes." "So why don't we?" "Ehm... I think we were too busy discussing the technology..." "Ok, phaser to maximum, target the tracker!" "Ok, but I think we are already too late..." (The ship explodes)
Every business (a store, barbership, taxi,...) must pay a fee if the wish to have a radio on during business hours.
While it is true that you have to pay for the radio, in this case I'm almost certain it doesn't go to the music industry (except through fees paid by radio stations, of course). Of course I don't know from which country you are, nor do I know the regulations in all countries, but here in Germany (as well as in other European countries), you pay to the public broadcasting stations, not to the music industry.
The first one. Lexing is greedy; it only stops when the result wouldn't be a valid token any more.
So at "+++", adding the second "+" to the first still gives a valid token (namely "++"), so it's done. Then there's only one + left for the next token. Of course, unless it's using C++ overloaded operators, it's still undefined behaviour.
Proof: Assuming it were right, it must of course be wrong (because it's a generalism itself). But assuming it's wrong doesn't give a contradiction (because the negation of it is just "not all generalisms are wrong", from which you cannot complude that especially this one has to be right). Therefore it's wrong.
Your comments are clearly lacking. It should read s.th. like
a = 5;// assign the integer constant value 5 to the integer variable named 'a' b = 2;// assign the integer constant value 2 to the integer variable named 'b' print(a+b);// print to the console the sum of the current value of the integer variable named 'a' and the current value of the integer variable named 'b'
/* function: pi
* calculates pi to an arbitrary number of digits (rounding downwards).
* parameters:
* digits: how many digits to calculate. Any unsigned long value is allowed
* return value:
* any of "3", "3.1", "3.14", "3.141", "3.1415", "3.14159", "3.1415926",
* "3.14159265", "3.141592653", "3.1415926535", "3.14159265358",
(a few days later the editor rejects all further input: Maximal file size reached)
Well, actually for code in the GNU project (GCC, glibc, etc.), you have to assign copyright to the FSF in order to contribute your code to the official version. Therefore from a copyright perspective, the FSF could actually make any such code proprietary. Of course actually it cannot anyway, because part of the copyright assignment contract is AFAIK that the FSF contracts not to do that, so if they did it anyway, it would be breach of contract (which is unrelated to copyright). Not that I'd suspect the FSF of a desire to do so.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I've never seen GNU appended to anything. I've seen GNU prepended to something, however.
But then, I've never seen an obsession even to prepend GNU to everything. I've never seen GNU/Windows, GNU/Solaris, GNU/Outlook Express, GNU/Internet explorer, GNU/Slashdot, GNU/Google, GNU/Amazon, GNU/DRM, GNU/DMCA, GNU/Patriot Act, GNU/Government, GNU/CIA, GNU/FBI, GNU/Bush,
What about files like ~/.bashrc, ~/.cshrc or ~/.emacs? Those need not be explicitly called, because they will be executed implicitly as soon as the next bash, csh or (X)Emacs is started.
.Xauthority. While it doesn't contain any executable files, it would allow to connect to your X session (and e.g. grab images of what you are doing, and send synthetic events to X programs). Even more interesting could be ~/.ssh/authorized-keys. The security given by .ssh is compromized if anyone can write his own key into that file.
Another interesting file is
So even if you cannot execute a file directly, there are a lot of interesting things you can do if you get unlimited write permission in the user's home directory.
He just said that he took initiative in creating the internet. That may be anything. For example, it could be to initiate funding of people creating the internet. Then the internet is still invented by those people, not by the one who initiated the funding.
GIF is on it's way out? So which widely supported format provides animantions, again?
BTW, did you check the image format of the Slashdot images? The Google logo? The ebay logo/icons? The Yahoo logo/icons? For a format on the way out, GIF is still used a lot.
Does that format allow embedded documents?
.doc format document embedded ...
If so, Microsoft might just produce "conforming" files which have a single
No. But if it had come as a
Actually, he would have to write the same optimization for 3.x and 4.0, in order to compare the difficulty. And, of course, he'd have to do that with at least two optimizations (better more), changing the order of compilers he implements them on, so the advantage of implementing the same optimization a second time would go to both compilers the same number of times.
It is theoretically possible to do classical computing without any loss of energy. The point is that every classical computation can be done without erasing information (that's called "reversible computing"). However, in practise it would be a huge step forward if our processors would even come close to the theoretical minimum energy dissipation for traditional classical computing!
I didn't know that p2p technology could be used as weapon against space ships ...
... but then, we shouldn't be in danger, should we?" ... I think we were too busy discussing the technology ..." ..."
"Shields to maximum!"
"Captain, the shields don't help!"
"How's that possible?"
"They seem to use a new technology named p2p."
"P2p? What's that?"
"Well, it's a new weapon which can avoid our shields."
"How that? The shields should protect from anything targeted on our ship!"
"That's exactly the point. They don't actually target our ship."
"Oh
"Well, yes, we are. You see the little probe out there?"
"What's that probe to do with it?"
"Well, that's the tracker."
"The what?"
"The tracker. It's the device which allows to damage us without actually targetting us."
"But then we would just have to shoot the tracker, don't we?"
"Yes."
"So why don't we?"
"Ehm
"Ok, phaser to maximum, target the tracker!"
"Ok, but I think we are already too late
(The ship explodes)
Well, let's hope they didn't send Marvin. Otherwise the result could be very depressing ...
While it is true that you have to pay for the radio, in this case I'm almost certain it doesn't go to the music industry (except through fees paid by radio stations, of course). Of course I don't know from which country you are, nor do I know the regulations in all countries, but here in Germany (as well as in other European countries), you pay to the public broadcasting stations, not to the music industry.
Well, that's nothing. Wait for the music industry for taxing your ears. Because after all, you can use them to listen to illegally copied music!
Well, fortunately slashdot didn't link to the plane's bord computer ;-)
Actually, isn't to make money the whole point in most corporate decisions?
HAL? Then I understand the addition of Trusted Computing. It's needed to implement "Sorry Dave, I cannot let you do that!"
Well, you should have followed the good advice of the RIAA: Always protect your valuable IP! ;-)
No, silence is already copyrighted by John Cage. (4'33").
This wonderful piece of art would never have existed without the DMCA! :-)
"the" and "a"/"an".
The first one. Lexing is greedy; it only stops when the result wouldn't be a valid token any more.
So at "+++", adding the second "+" to the first still gives a valid token (namely "++"), so it's done. Then there's only one + left for the next token. Of course, unless it's using C++ overloaded operators, it's still undefined behaviour.
No, it's just wrong.
Proof: Assuming it were right, it must of course be wrong (because it's a generalism itself). But assuming it's wrong doesn't give a contradiction (because the negation of it is just "not all generalisms are wrong", from which you cannot complude that especially this one has to be right). Therefore it's wrong.
Well, actually for code in the GNU project (GCC, glibc, etc.), you have to assign copyright to the FSF in order to contribute your code to the official version. Therefore from a copyright perspective, the FSF could actually make any such code proprietary. Of course actually it cannot anyway, because part of the copyright assignment contract is AFAIK that the FSF contracts not to do that, so if they did it anyway, it would be breach of contract (which is unrelated to copyright). Not that I'd suspect the FSF of a desire to do so. ;-)