Yes, this is definitely where functional programming shines. This is also the kind of problem that I really enjoy working on... you've got a complex set of data and your code has to do some deep thinking on it to come up with an answer.
OCaml fully supports both functional and imperative styles. I've had a lot of luck mixing and matching styles to solve various problems.
One project was an IRC bot that took requests from irc channels, a web interface, or the console. Juggling the interaction was a no brainer. And I find that when it comes to the actual computational part, the functional style is much more concise and error free.
[shrug] I kind of wish that all speeders would get nailed for breaking the law, potentially with speed-detection devices hidden in all cars. With speeding, people's lives are actually at risk (as opposed to folks just infringing copyrights). However, most people don't like the idea, because they like breaking the law to some degree. I suspect that the same applies to your "I hope the company is an RIAA front" idea -- probably most other people, like me, find the idea of going after users in such a manner distasteful.
Speeding is prosecuted. I should know, I just got back from traffic school. Why should this be any different? Sure, nobody is going to get killed pirating MP3s, but if that's your justification then do we get rid of all non-violent crime?
As for your "speed-detection devices", we're not talking about installing key loggers on your box. How many thousands of people illegally trade files compared to the tiny tiny few who are prosecuted? The ratio of speeders to speeding tickets is probably not that far off.
In a real high level language, say OCaml, you're going to be able to write a given data structure in a tenth of the code that you'll need to write it in assembly.
It will be portable between different machines.
It will be polymorphic.. allowing you to use the datastructure with different types.. a list of arrays of hashtables of red/black trees containing strings.
You won't tell the computer what kind of pointer you want. I'm not sure why you imagine this is an issue in the 32 bit world we live in.
You will appreciate having the typechecker catch bugs in the code, because you're working on a problem of some complexity. Often, when your program typechecks, it will work perfectly.
Everyone should learn assembly. It is important that you know how the machine works so you can get a good idea what the costs of various operations are going to be.
But outside people writing device drivers and maybe some code for embedded devices, (highly machine dependend and not algorithmically complex), nobody should be programming in it.
I loved my PC jr. My dad was working for IBM at the time and I think he probably bought 2 for $1000.
The remote control keyboards were too cool. I can remember sitting across the room, playing advanced games like Willy the Worm. (Which I copied onto a ram disk, so I didn't have to wait for the levels to load).
It was a fun machine to program. Turbo pascal was perfect, since it compiled to ram. ( I had the expansion module to bring my memory up to something reasonable).
(once you learn what "sz" "lp", "pI" and so on stands for)
I'm not sure about "sz", but an "lp" is what I used to put on my parent's stereo, and a "pI" is what you hire when your wife starts wearing six inch stilletto heels when she goes to visit her "friend".
You download a file, that's copying the data from their hard drive to yours. Don't kid yourself, it's illegal.
The RIAA is going after sharers because it is easy for them to target the worst offenders. They just need to check your machine to find 500 shared songs, and they know you're not a one time downloader. Much harder to track people from the other side.
Well, he sure as heck loses the ability to sell his product to you. If you've been following the conversation, you'll see we've been talking about someone who has downloaded his entire book collection and read it without paying.
Now, what makes you special. If it's ok for you to download his entire collection and read it, then it must be ok for everyone to do it.
Now, nobody pays him, or it they do pay him, it's out of charity and good will. Is it fair to make Mr. Card work for your charity?
You don't have to agree to a copywrite to be bound by it.
In the boss's case, he is breaking a contract.
In the downloader's case, he is infringing copywrite.
In both cases, someone is getting shafted by doing work that isn't payed for by the people benefiting.
And as an aside to the moderators: Just because my opinion pisses you off doesn't make it flamebate. It is intended as a serious continuation of the conversation. I'm tired of people flippantly announcing that they shouldn't have to pay for something they use, and I want to put it in a context that they understand: What if they didn't get paid for work they did? How would they feel?
And if your boss decides he's going to use your salary on expensive call girls and very smooth gin instead of depositing it in your bank account, technically you haven't lost anything. You just haven't gained.
It's as if he never agreed to pay you in the first place.
Programs like Peerguardian (search google and you'll find it for dl) are good for blocking tcp-only connections to you, when they try to download and verify the file is 'real' but if all they are looking for is a files-size and name, then it wont help either because that's not hard to get.
Actually Peerguardian is a joke. As you say, there are many companies out there looking for pirated material. They all have many banks of ip addresses (for this very reason).
It's kind of like the star wars missle defense system. If even one gets through.. you lose. And you'll never stop them all.
This one made me laugh: So they want to be able to use all the tools we create and all the benefits of efficiency and ease of use to make profit and make weapons, but the common man can not download a fuckin mp3?
Well to be fair, this is a buffer overflow exploit. So in this case, it may not be that the code isn't being sandboxed, but more that the sandbox is leaking.
The difference, of course, is that along with the Old Man Murray shtick, they actually do have something to say. Usually something perceptive, presented in a persuasive and entertaining way, where persuasive=damning and entertaining=pee in my pants funny.
Slashdot Mirror
is full of eels!
Yes, this is definitely where functional programming shines. This is also the kind of problem that I really enjoy working on... you've got a complex set of data and your code has to do some deep thinking on it to come up with an answer.
OCaml fully supports both functional and imperative styles. I've had a lot of luck mixing and matching styles to solve various problems.
One project was an IRC bot that took requests from irc channels, a web interface, or the console. Juggling the interaction was a no brainer. And I find that when it comes to the actual computational part, the functional style is much more concise and error free.
It's nice to have the best of both worlds.
[shrug] I kind of wish that all speeders would get nailed for breaking the law, potentially with speed-detection devices hidden in all cars. With speeding, people's lives are actually at risk (as opposed to folks just infringing copyrights). However, most people don't like the idea, because they like breaking the law to some degree. I suspect that the same applies to your "I hope the company is an RIAA front" idea -- probably most other people, like me, find the idea of going after users in such a manner distasteful.
Speeding is prosecuted. I should know, I just got back from traffic school. Why should this be any different? Sure, nobody is going to get killed pirating MP3s, but if that's your justification then do we get rid of all non-violent crime?
As for your "speed-detection devices", we're not talking about installing key loggers on your box. How many thousands of people illegally trade files compared to the tiny tiny few who are prosecuted? The ratio of speeders to speeding tickets is probably not that far off.
Exactly. It's like having a big brother. When someone on the outside comes after you, he will defend you.
But when there is no external danger around, he likes to pin you down to the ground and give you nuggies.
Fear the IBM nuggies!
In a real high level language, say OCaml, you're going to be able to write a given data structure in a tenth of the code that you'll need to write it in assembly.
It will be portable between different machines.
It will be polymorphic.. allowing you to use the datastructure with different types.. a list of arrays of hashtables of red/black trees containing strings.
You won't tell the computer what kind of pointer you want. I'm not sure why you imagine this is an issue in the 32 bit world we live in.
You will appreciate having the typechecker catch bugs in the code, because you're working on a problem of some complexity. Often, when your program typechecks, it will work perfectly.
Everyone should learn assembly. It is important that you know how the machine works so you can get a good idea what the costs of various operations are going to be.
But outside people writing device drivers and maybe some code for embedded devices, (highly machine dependend and not algorithmically complex), nobody should be programming in it.
And what software there was would be impossible to modify.
This Apple "switch" ad should help you figure it out:
Thank you. I now understand what you are saying, and I am enlightened.
Very unusual for slashdot.
I guess I'm missing your point too.
Have you seen the CSS zen garden?
100s of attractive layouts all using the same XHTML document.
Your example is apt:
Would you call the police and report the theft of your potted plant? And if you did, would they care?
You know, it does kinda look like this guy GPLed his Programming 101 homework assignments :)
I loved my PC jr. My dad was working for IBM at the time and I think he probably bought 2 for $1000.
The remote control keyboards were too cool. I can remember sitting across the room, playing advanced games like Willy the Worm. (Which I copied onto a ram disk, so I didn't have to wait for the levels to load).
It was a fun machine to program. Turbo pascal was perfect, since it compiled to ram. ( I had the expansion module to bring my memory up to something reasonable).
Good times, good times.
Exactly! In fact, there is a damn good reason that voters don't currently get receipts:
If they did, they could be intimidated or bribed into voting for a particular candidate.
BARNEY:
What is this thing? Some kinda weapon?
SCIENTIST:
Put that down-it's a prototype.
We hear Barney fire the Tau cannon. It blasts through the wall where the player is walking.
BARNEY:
Man! Why aren't we using it?
SCIENTIST
It's much too unpredictable. Don't let it overcharge!
BARNEY:
What do you mean, overcharge?
There is an explosion and SCREAMS.
(once you learn what "sz" "lp", "pI" and so on stands for)
I'm not sure about "sz", but an "lp" is what I used to put on my parent's stereo, and a "pI" is what you hire when your wife starts wearing six inch stilletto heels when she goes to visit her "friend".
Hang on there bucko..
You infringe on someone's copyright when you make a copy:
Section 106 (1) U.S. Copyright law
You download a file, that's copying the data from their hard drive to yours. Don't kid yourself, it's illegal.
The RIAA is going after sharers because it is easy for them to target the worst offenders. They just need to check your machine to find 500 shared songs, and they know you're not a one time downloader. Much harder to track people from the other side.
he doesn't lose the ability to sell his product.
Well, he sure as heck loses the ability to sell his product to you. If you've been following the conversation, you'll see we've been talking about someone who has downloaded his entire book collection and read it without paying.
Now, what makes you special. If it's ok for you to download his entire collection and read it, then it must be ok for everyone to do it.
Now, nobody pays him, or it they do pay him, it's out of charity and good will. Is it fair to make Mr. Card work for your charity?
You don't have to agree to a copywrite to be bound by it.
In the boss's case, he is breaking a contract.
In the downloader's case, he is infringing copywrite.
In both cases, someone is getting shafted by doing work that isn't payed for by the people benefiting.
And as an aside to the moderators: Just because my opinion pisses you off doesn't make it flamebate. It is intended as a serious continuation of the conversation. I'm tired of people flippantly announcing that they shouldn't have to pay for something they use, and I want to put it in a context that they understand: What if they didn't get paid for work they did? How would they feel?
And if your boss decides he's going to use your salary on expensive call girls and very smooth gin instead of depositing it in your bank account, technically you haven't lost anything. You just haven't gained.
It's as if he never agreed to pay you in the first place.
Programs like Peerguardian (search google and you'll find it for dl) are good for blocking tcp-only connections to you, when they try to download and verify the file is 'real' but if all they are looking for is a files-size and name, then it wont help either because that's not hard to get.
Actually Peerguardian is a joke. As you say, there are many companies out there looking for pirated material. They all have many banks of ip addresses (for this very reason).
It's kind of like the star wars missle defense system. If even one gets through.. you lose. And you'll never stop them all.
This one made me laugh:
So they want to be able to use all the tools we create and all the benefits of efficiency and ease of use to make profit and make weapons, but the common man can not download a fuckin mp3?
Out of context means without context.
It means that the quotation does not include the surrounding facts which might shed a different light on its meaning.
Well to be fair, this is a buffer overflow exploit. So in this case, it may not be that the code isn't being sandboxed, but more that the sandbox is leaking.
The difference, of course, is that along with the Old Man Murray shtick, they actually do have something to say. Usually something perceptive, presented in a persuasive and entertaining way, where persuasive=damning and entertaining=pee in my pants funny.
Check out their diatribe on adventure games:
http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html
You've got to admire the stup^h^h^h^hbravery of someone actually bringing a slash dotting upon themself.