Well, I'm sorry to hear that you can't use your tools properly. Like I said, I'm fluent in H.N. and it doesn't seem to cause me any of the problems that anti-H.N. people think it must have. Since I actually use it, perhaps my opinion on the matter is slightly more valid. It's not as if I'm trying to force you to use it.
I agree. Clearly this is a religious issue, like so many others, but one that can be solved with technology. One of the features I'm looking forward to in Visual Studio Whidbey (amongst many, many others) is a much enhanced auto-formatting system. Currently you can select a bunch of code and auto-format it but it doesn't have a lot of options. The new one sounds like you'll be able to tell it exactly how you lay out your code. Then, you can easily get VS to auto-format a source file when you check it out from source control, and reformat it back to some common standard on check-in. Of course this leaves a religious argument as to what the common format is, but it doesn't really matter, as no-one has to read it. This could certainly be extended to things like Hungarian notation. I'd like to see something like this. I hate reading other peoples' code, and they probably hate reading mine. They don't want to change their style, and nor do I. Often the proposed style is a third party's that we both hate. For example I'd eat my own colon before I'd use K&R braces. The solution is to recognise that not everyone speaks the same dialect, and to provide translation tools.
ps. Is/. being DOS'd? I'm getting 500 errors all over the place.
That's not a problem in practice. It's actually more useful for denoting scope than type, anyway. And yes, sometimes you change the scope of a variable. But not often, really, and I'm sure you know how to use search & replace. Newer refactoring tools make it even easier. Having said that, its usefulness does depend on the language you're coding in.
This kind of argument pops up all the time. I don't speak Hungarian*, but that's no fault of the Hungarian lanugage, I just haven't learned it. Hungarian notation isn't a whole language, it's something like grammatical agreement, but I find it very readable and helpful. I respect your right not to use it, but I expect you to show me the same courtesy...
* Actually that's a bad example, as I know a few words (I met my wife in Budapest [but she's Romanian {but her mother is Hungarian}])
Re:An indespensible book for the next generation
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
I'm on the first chapter of "Colloquial Hindi" but I'm a bit stuck on the pronunciation. I didn't buy the audio tapes, because (1) they're a ripoff (costing nearly as much as the book) and more importantly (2) where the fuck am I gonna find a cassette player? If I still have one it'll be under decade-old piles of crap.
But that way, things can only be in one folder. The whole point of the WinFS stuff is that you're not forced to store stuff in a rigid hierarchy. What if you wanted to find your favourite wedding pictures? Ones with your Mum & Dad in them? Ones with your wife in, but not necessarily from the wedding? I'm a game developer. We have a lot of "materials" which describe how to shade surfaces. Our editor allows you to put the materials anywhere under a certain directory. That's nice, as it avoids having thousands of files in the same directory, but in practice it's a bit of a nightmare. They're currently grouped in a number of different ways. All of the artists have their own folder. Then there are folders for each different level of the game. Also there are "grass", "metal", "wood" etc., and they're also sometimes grouped by slipperyness. It's a complete mess, as to find a material you have to check all the categories it might fit into. Allowing them to be dynamically grouped based on metadata would be a dream. I would implement it myself if I had time.
She can't help the way she looks, except that she tries to look as good as she can. If she's talking to you, you're halfway there. What was her day like?
I agree that there's an upper bound. But you said "It takes a split second to make this judgment." For a human. And I'm saying that not only are humans much better at this than state of the art filters (or at least, filters trained as well as we know how), but that it is taking longer and longer for humans to do it. And, you know, if you want to make a point in future, try to make it more clearly? Thanks. Sheesh. I don't know why you got your panties in a knot about this.
Right, but I get around 200 spams a day, after filtering. How many do I need to get, how long do I have to waste each day, before you accept that it's a problem? Geez, I swear people like you are part of the problem, not the solution. Grrrr!
I never wanted this to be an IQ competition. You brought that up. But the spammers are winning, and have been since they started. We were promised that Bayesian filters were going to can spam forever, but they failed. And I knew they would. And now it's time for the Bayesian fanboys to step aside, and let someone else have a go. If you feel you're up to it, I'm not stopping you.
I think you overestimate the intelligence of these creeps.
Well, maybe, but I think a lot of people underestimate them, and that's more dangerous. Remember that they need to defeat today's filters, not tomorrow's. They have no need to push the arms race any faster.
A human can filter spam.
Current spam, yes. But it's getting harder. Misleading subject lines make it harder to bulk delete stuff.
I never said any research was wasted... Geez...
Maybe you are smarter than the average spammer, but you need to prove it. When you produce your magical filter, I'll consider your intellectual prowess.
In the meantime, there are other techniques, such as SPF and the Penny Black project, which need to be tried.
But, as I said, that's a strong AI problem. Anyone can come up with stuff that's arbitrarily close to a real email, but is actually spam. In fact, the more we push spammers along this route, the harder it will be for humans to distinguish between spam and ham. These people are doing it for money. Lots of easy money. And they will not stop, until people stop paying them to do it.
I don't think I'm being overly strong. The stuff you're talking about is all fine, but it will fail because the spammers will evolve to defeat it. As they have done with every technique to date. Please don't be irritated, and I'm not trying to stop you. As you were.
I know, but have they specifically addressed the point I made, that spammers can get porn-surfers to do their computation for them? It might be in one of their papers, but I don't have time to look through all of them...
But then you have a situation of trust between the parties, so it's just an authentication problem. Mailing lists don't tend to get spammed, because they're run by nazis. Eheh. No, I mean, you have to apply to join, and that's checked by a human, and if you start spamming, your arse is out of there.
Nothing. People just have to realise that filtering based on content doesn't work, and will never work, until perhaps we have strong AI. Once the penny drops, we can move on... Having said that, the collaboration between spammers and pornographers means that they will have access to a lot of processing power. They just need to exchange porn for e-stamps. MS have probably thought about it, but I don't know what their solution is.
Hi, I think we're seeing it from different sides. I mean, as a (capitalist) producer, no-one should be able to tell you that you have set your price too high or low. As a consumer, I can certainly say "that's too pricey for me, I decline your offer." If I thought you underpriced your stuff, I would probably keep my mouth shut and buy lots of it!
Re:lets see if we cant do this in a more civil man
on
Stallman Goes to India
·
· Score: 1
OK, sorry about bringing MS into the argument. I had been drinking and I think I was beginning to drift off-topic...
I wasn't talking about MS EULAs. I was talking about the general way in which software is crafted. I prefer the Win32 environment to the Unix one. Then again, I have more experience with Win32. It doesn't matter, though, I'm free to make my choices.
I can't see MS's code, true. I rarely need to, though, and whenever I have a problem, I can find someone to talk to about it.
But if he IS a developer, my cost to him is that he contributes back any modifications to my code
As I have said all along, I have no problem with this. What I object to is having to give you stuff that isn't a modification to your code, but has become part of this "derivative work".
It wasn't my intention to attack you personally, so I'm sorry if my words had that effect.
Re:lets see if we cant do this in a more civil man
on
Stallman Goes to India
·
· Score: 1
GPL/GNU tried to make it so that there wont be more such waste going forward.
Well, that's a laudable goal, and I'm sure it has succeeded in certain circles. I personally prefer the Microsoft way of doing things, so the GNU stuff has little to offer me. I know I'm in a minority on this site to say that (although not a minority use Microsoft tools to say it) but I'm not scared of my karma or of a good argument.
It also tries to appeal to a lot of peoples sense of "fairness" in which they dont want entities which dont share their views on "free as in speech" to benefit from the code.
I don't think it's "fair" for entities who don't share my views on "free as in free to code as they like and not have to release it warts and all to the world" to rip off code either. But try telling to the various disassembler jockeys from the anti-MS community. I'm no stranger to disassemblers myself but please don't try to tell me that Wine "clean-roomed" Windows. YEAH, RIGHT.
It's all very well only licensing your code to people who agree with you. Oh no, wait, no it isn't. That's the sort of thing people would denounce as a Microsoft tactic. No. If your software is good, then maybe people will try it. As a programmer, especially as someone who has been told a zillion times that Linux is the shiznitz, let me tell you - a little cynicism goes a long way.
"gave nothing back"
My friend, I can give back just as much as most of the leechers who download your stuff. In fact probably much more. But what is my incentive? To have the leechers laugh at me? "See that idiot? That guy paid for the stuff that I leeched!". Joy!
You want a snowballing effect of more free software. That's fine to say for someone who still lives in his/her parents' basement. Most people need to make a living once they leave that stage. While there is no guarantee that any particular individual will make it that way, there remains a sizable population of people worldwide who command a salary because they help to create wealth. Free software people may help to create wealth, but they rarely collect on it.
Aiight I am pretty tired now. But one more point for you. Most "Open Source" licenses are pretty close to BSD. Most useful Open Source stuff out there is under a pretty reasonable licence. And most people do not make use of the freedom that they have. I'm not altogether upset about the status quo. There's always room for doom and gloom. But at the same time, you should look at the real world around you. Is "the man" standing with his jackboot on your neck? Or is it possible to see a non-GPL-zealot as a reasonable, perhaps sociable person?
Re:lets see if we cant do this in a more civil man
on
Stallman Goes to India
·
· Score: 1
Hi Mr. Ghoul! I saw your response a long time ago but I'm sorry, I was caught up in other replies. Actually I feel very bad because I should have replied to you first. I hope you are still awake. Anyway, thankyou very much for your thoughtful reply.
I am very grateful that you didn't try the old straw man thing that everyone else tried. Your summary of my position was most accurate. I have only one point to make:-
I don't claim that the GPL is more restrictive than any other Open Source licence. I'm not familiar with all Open Source licences. However, it's my intuition that the GPL probably is more restrictive than most if not all Open Source licences, because of RMS's strong ideology. He believes that restrictions are necessary to enforce freedom, as all ideologues are wont to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm sorry to hear that you can't use your tools properly. Like I said, I'm fluent in H.N. and it doesn't seem to cause me any of the problems that anti-H.N. people think it must have. Since I actually use it, perhaps my opinion on the matter is slightly more valid. It's not as if I'm trying to force you to use it.
I agree. Clearly this is a religious issue, like so many others, but one that can be solved with technology. One of the features I'm looking forward to in Visual Studio Whidbey (amongst many, many others) is a much enhanced auto-formatting system. Currently you can select a bunch of code and auto-format it but it doesn't have a lot of options. The new one sounds like you'll be able to tell it exactly how you lay out your code. Then, you can easily get VS to auto-format a source file when you check it out from source control, and reformat it back to some common standard on check-in. Of course this leaves a religious argument as to what the common format is, but it doesn't really matter, as no-one has to read it.
/. being DOS'd? I'm getting 500 errors all over the place.
This could certainly be extended to things like Hungarian notation. I'd like to see something like this. I hate reading other peoples' code, and they probably hate reading mine. They don't want to change their style, and nor do I. Often the proposed style is a third party's that we both hate. For example I'd eat my own colon before I'd use K&R braces.
The solution is to recognise that not everyone speaks the same dialect, and to provide translation tools.
ps. Is
Sure, we're talking relatively. I and many others are fluent in H.N. and you and many others aren't. It has merit to me, not to you.
That's not a problem in practice. It's actually more useful for denoting scope than type, anyway. And yes, sometimes you change the scope of a variable. But not often, really, and I'm sure you know how to use search & replace. Newer refactoring tools make it even easier. Having said that, its usefulness does depend on the language you're coding in.
This kind of argument pops up all the time. I don't speak Hungarian*, but that's no fault of the Hungarian lanugage, I just haven't learned it. Hungarian notation isn't a whole language, it's something like grammatical agreement, but I find it very readable and helpful. I respect your right not to use it, but I expect you to show me the same courtesy...
* Actually that's a bad example, as I know a few words (I met my wife in Budapest [but she's Romanian {but her mother is Hungarian}])
I'm on the first chapter of "Colloquial Hindi" but I'm a bit stuck on the pronunciation. I didn't buy the audio tapes, because (1) they're a ripoff (costing nearly as much as the book) and more importantly (2) where the fuck am I gonna find a cassette player? If I still have one it'll be under decade-old piles of crap.
You don't need a semicolon after a namespace {} either.
But that way, things can only be in one folder. The whole point of the WinFS stuff is that you're not forced to store stuff in a rigid hierarchy.
What if you wanted to find your favourite wedding pictures? Ones with your Mum & Dad in them? Ones with your wife in, but not necessarily from the wedding?
I'm a game developer. We have a lot of "materials" which describe how to shade surfaces. Our editor allows you to put the materials anywhere under a certain directory. That's nice, as it avoids having thousands of files in the same directory, but in practice it's a bit of a nightmare.
They're currently grouped in a number of different ways. All of the artists have their own folder. Then there are folders for each different level of the game. Also there are "grass", "metal", "wood" etc., and they're also sometimes grouped by slipperyness. It's a complete mess, as to find a material you have to check all the categories it might fit into.
Allowing them to be dynamically grouped based on metadata would be a dream. I would implement it myself if I had time.
She can't help the way she looks, except that she tries to look as good as she can.
If she's talking to you, you're halfway there. What was her day like?
It's currently suffering A New Kind of Slashdotting.
I agree that there's an upper bound. But you said "It takes a split second to make this judgment." For a human. And I'm saying that not only are humans much better at this than state of the art filters (or at least, filters trained as well as we know how), but that it is taking longer and longer for humans to do it. And, you know, if you want to make a point in future, try to make it more clearly? Thanks. Sheesh. I don't know why you got your panties in a knot about this.
Well I found this a while back. I want one. And I'm not even into case modding. It's just tres cool.
If in doubt, it's spam. Simple rule, really.
Oh, if only life were that simple...
It takes a split second to make this judgment.
Right, but I get around 200 spams a day, after filtering. How many do I need to get, how long do I have to waste each day, before you accept that it's a problem? Geez, I swear people like you are part of the problem, not the solution. Grrrr!
I never wanted this to be an IQ competition. You brought that up. But the spammers are winning, and have been since they started. We were promised that Bayesian filters were going to can spam forever, but they failed. And I knew they would. And now it's time for the Bayesian fanboys to step aside, and let someone else have a go. If you feel you're up to it, I'm not stopping you.
I think you overestimate the intelligence of these creeps.
Well, maybe, but I think a lot of people underestimate them, and that's more dangerous. Remember that they need to defeat today's filters, not tomorrow's. They have no need to push the arms race any faster.
A human can filter spam.
Current spam, yes. But it's getting harder. Misleading subject lines make it harder to bulk delete stuff.
I never said any research was wasted... Geez...
Maybe you are smarter than the average spammer, but you need to prove it. When you produce your magical filter, I'll consider your intellectual prowess.
In the meantime, there are other techniques, such as SPF and the Penny Black project, which need to be tried.
That's easily solved though, innit? Call them a dumbfuck and delete their account. Job done.
But, as I said, that's a strong AI problem. Anyone can come up with stuff that's arbitrarily close to a real email, but is actually spam. In fact, the more we push spammers along this route, the harder it will be for humans to distinguish between spam and ham.
These people are doing it for money. Lots of easy money. And they will not stop, until people stop paying them to do it.
I don't think I'm being overly strong. The stuff you're talking about is all fine, but it will fail because the spammers will evolve to defeat it. As they have done with every technique to date.
Please don't be irritated, and I'm not trying to stop you. As you were.
I know, but have they specifically addressed the point I made, that spammers can get porn-surfers to do their computation for them? It might be in one of their papers, but I don't have time to look through all of them...
But then you have a situation of trust between the parties, so it's just an authentication problem. Mailing lists don't tend to get spammed, because they're run by nazis. Eheh. No, I mean, you have to apply to join, and that's checked by a human, and if you start spamming, your arse is out of there.
Nothing. People just have to realise that filtering based on content doesn't work, and will never work, until perhaps we have strong AI. Once the penny drops, we can move on...
Having said that, the collaboration between spammers and pornographers means that they will have access to a lot of processing power. They just need to exchange porn for e-stamps. MS have probably thought about it, but I don't know what their solution is.
Hi, I think we're seeing it from different sides. I mean, as a (capitalist) producer, no-one should be able to tell you that you have set your price too high or low. As a consumer, I can certainly say "that's too pricey for me, I decline your offer." If I thought you underpriced your stuff, I would probably keep my mouth shut and buy lots of it!
OK, sorry about bringing MS into the argument. I had been drinking and I think I was beginning to drift off-topic...
I wasn't talking about MS EULAs. I was talking about the general way in which software is crafted. I prefer the Win32 environment to the Unix one. Then again, I have more experience with Win32. It doesn't matter, though, I'm free to make my choices.
I can't see MS's code, true. I rarely need to, though, and whenever I have a problem, I can find someone to talk to about it.
But if he IS a developer, my cost to him is that he contributes
back any modifications to my code
As I have said all along, I have no problem with this. What I object to is having to give you stuff that isn't a modification to your code, but has become part of this "derivative work".
It wasn't my intention to attack you personally, so I'm sorry if my words had that effect.
GPL/GNU tried to make it so that there wont be more such waste going forward.
Well, that's a laudable goal, and I'm sure it has succeeded in certain circles. I personally prefer the Microsoft way of doing things, so the GNU stuff has little to offer me. I know I'm in a minority on this site to say that (although not a minority use Microsoft tools to say it) but I'm not scared of my karma or of a good argument.
It also tries to appeal to a lot of peoples sense of "fairness" in which they dont want entities which dont share their views on "free as in speech" to benefit from the code.
I don't think it's "fair" for entities who don't share my views on "free as in free to code as they like and not have to release it warts and all to the world" to rip off code either. But try telling to the various disassembler jockeys from the anti-MS community. I'm no stranger to disassemblers myself but please don't try to tell me that Wine "clean-roomed" Windows. YEAH, RIGHT.
It's all very well only licensing your code to people who agree with you. Oh no, wait, no it isn't. That's the sort of thing people would denounce as a Microsoft tactic. No. If your software is good, then maybe people will try it. As a programmer, especially as someone who has been told a zillion times that Linux is the shiznitz, let me tell you - a little cynicism goes a long way.
"gave nothing back"
My friend, I can give back just as much as most of the leechers who download your stuff. In fact probably much more. But what is my incentive? To have the leechers laugh at me? "See that idiot? That guy paid for the stuff that I leeched!". Joy!
You want a snowballing effect of more free software. That's fine to say for someone who still lives in his/her parents' basement. Most people need to make a living once they leave that stage. While there is no guarantee that any particular individual will make it that way, there remains a sizable population of people worldwide who command a salary because they help to create wealth. Free software people may help to create wealth, but they rarely collect on it.
Aiight I am pretty tired now. But one more point for you. Most "Open Source" licenses are pretty close to BSD. Most useful Open Source stuff out there is under a pretty reasonable licence. And most people do not make use of the freedom that they have. I'm not altogether upset about the status quo. There's always room for doom and gloom. But at the same time, you should look at the real world around you. Is "the man" standing with his jackboot on your neck? Or is it possible to see a non-GPL-zealot as a reasonable, perhaps sociable person?
Hi Mr. Ghoul! I saw your response a long time ago but I'm sorry, I was caught up in other replies. Actually I feel very bad because I should have replied to you first. I hope you are still awake. Anyway, thankyou very much for your thoughtful reply.
I am very grateful that you didn't try the old straw man thing that everyone else tried. Your summary of my position was most accurate. I have only one point to make:-
I don't claim that the GPL is more restrictive than any other Open Source licence. I'm not familiar with all Open Source licences. However, it's my intuition that the GPL probably is more restrictive than most if not all Open Source licences, because of RMS's strong ideology. He believes that restrictions are necessary to enforce freedom, as all ideologues are wont to do.
OK I'll post this and then reply with thye rest.
OK. Here's my code:-
++thingy;
Now please provide me with a link to all of your code.
Oh, and if it was already Open Source, it doesn't count.