What about a model in which a corporation pays for your ADSL connection, in return for n workunits/day of their distributed computing job run on your PC?
For this to be useful the corporation needs to be able to download and run programs at will. These programs will have to be different (for different computing needs), perhaps written by corporate customers. Needless to say, this has serious security issues; for the Joe Doe as well as the corporate customer (that wants to verify the integrity of the computations/data).
There do exist similar business models where spyware is using your harddisk/bandwidth as part of a distributed server for ads.
I do not claim that Grid Computing may not be usefull for the ordinary Web surfer. Perhaps some of the technologies developed may by used in various Open Source projects.
The SPD, along with partners, has voted for the 33% more expensive Linux solution. Of course SPD has to justify it's decision to voters in the upcoming election.
Germany is in recession, and $12 million of tax payers moneys is quite a bit of money, even for Munich. Most of Munichs inhabitants are using Microsoft anyway, so SPD might have some difficulties to explain their decision to their voters facing unemployment.
How orwellian our world is becoming. He must have had a time machine or something. Seriously if you havn't read 1984 you really should. Everything is coming true!!
will deny getting access to older articles in newspapers.
It's worth remembering that newspapers sometimes edit/remove articles they publish on their homepage.
Without a Google cache it may be much harder to verify that a story has indeed been modified.
Open Source do appear to be in fashion outside US. Last year US ambassador to Peru was pressurising Peru to abandon Open Source plans for the government.
The rebuttal from Peruean congressman Edgar Villanueva (http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html) does have some very good arguments for Open Source :
To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.
In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
The real rebuttal article (linked by the tabliod one given in the/. article) quite simply claims that solar sails will not work as expected due to lack of energy. The tabliod one give a false citiation that [solar sailing] "violates the laws of physics".
Why couldn't the contributor just reflect over the rebuttal article before posting?
This is a hack that uses a weakness in 007, not a back door placed in by someone working on 007.
Can't wait for the next sequel! Will we see James Bond in the next Matrix movie? Perhaps allied with a Tux? I'm sure Batman will have a few words to tell 007 of his bad choice of companions.
This not quite as clear cut as it seems, since there are conflicting interests of good : privacy versus transparency of power that be. Let me give a couple of examples :
A leftist radical news paper in Norway - in cold war era of the 70ties - collected public information (news paper articles, public records etc) in order to map US listening stations in Norway. This was published in the news paper, and at least one of the journalists was sentenced.The real controversial part is that they where not sentenced for spying (they did not), but that the collection of public available material and publicising an analysis was indeed judged classified. Many years later they where exonerated. Bad or good?
Perhaps a more nearer example for US readers is Watergate. The two journalist used the phonebook of "Comitte for Relection of Richard Nixon" (or similar name) to map out the organizational structure, and where thus able to penetrate the whole mess. Good or bad?
is not mentioned in the article. This new framework is claimed by MS to be much more secure, but we still have to live for a long time with "old" WIN32 applications.
How will "old" style WIN32 message passing be affected by.NET managed code respective to this security hole?
There are real health problems acossiated with this technology : A CAVE (yeah, a room filled with VERY big screens, often used by oil and automobile companies to display 3D graphics) will disturb your visual balance/depth, enough to impair your driving. In Norway you have restrictions on your driving after too much time inside a CAVE.
A day in front of a lousy monitor gives you less of a headache than a day of using even expensive, high-quality googles.
Technology like this is, like any other fancy GUI, has it's place, when used in an appropiate manner with well designed applications.
and fun ways of exploring new programming paradigms are welcomed by all, I gather. Multi-threaded programming is easier, better understood, but still hard.
Multi-threaded applications are less common that one might think. Even those GUI applications that would benefit alot from improved responsivness due to multi-treading avoids it, due to greatly increased complexity.
When the Gang of Four came out with their Design Pattern book, it was a great hit, and very usefull indeed. But design pattern for multi-threaded programming is not that well-know. But some are published, as the link below shows :
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/patterns-ace.ht ml
If MS respected other companies IP so much, why the following : (http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html)
As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).
The link is to an english translation of the response by the Peruean congressman Edgar Villanueva to US pressure to abandon open source plans.
What's next? The small police forces? Many "influential" people in USA want schools to be privatized (because public schools are apparently all failing eg. Philadelphia school board??). And so on. So do you not think USA will reach that state in the future?
Greenspan said something to the effect that the big tax cuts is a redistribution of wealth, and would not help the economy on the short term. The strong drive in US to privatize might be seen in this light. Similar things are happening in Europe as well. How will the future be? Who knows, but politics do change over time, even the current ones.
I disagree. You must have a very loose definition if you consider communism to be a form of capitalism.
I agree that the "definition" is too loose... State capitalism i.e. extensive state ownership of property is what one found in Soviet Union, as well as markets and money. The economy and markets was heavily regulated, of course. The Marxists themselves talk about "state capitalism under worker control" as an intermediate stage to communism, and concider socialism as a "lower" form of communism.
That a state has a capitalistic system (either private or state owned) does not in itself make it either democratic or undemocratic. A communist system (for all intent and purposes today, a Soviet Union) is much more than just being state capitalistic. Luckily we are getting rid of such oppressive systems.
Capitalism requires free markets!
Capitalism does appear to require a market, but it does not have to be free. Even the term "free" is a bit problematic here : there are a lot of regulations and protectionism. Besides, free for whom?
Under PURE capitalism, what you are saying will likely not be true
There no such thing as pure capitalism. There are quite variations, where the current US neo-liberal type is very dominant. Communism may be concidered a form of state capitalism. Scandinavian countries have a mixture of state and private capitalism.
For example, once schools are privatized (I mean ALL schools; not one here and there), chances of people producing knowledge or work for the public good will almost become extinct
History shows otherwise, and even today there are many private institutions in USA that are financing production of knowledge for the public good; though they do get alot of public funding.
MSVC hasn't played tricks on you... it has become *more* standards compliant, which seems to violate the preconceptions of most people around here.
The impression from different programming jobs is that some programmers are very resistant to take advantage of what C++ and STL (and Boost) has to offer, and just continue to write mid 1980 C-style code. For a C-program this migth be fine, for an OO C++ program it sure isn't.
My beef with VC this time was that I was forced to make quite a few changes to legacy code I plan to ditch later anyway.
Ah well, the parent must be a troll, but quite a few subscribe to so mercantile and narrow minded views.
Nobody deserves money for anything they produce unless they can and do sell it for money.
This view of production is quite naive. Alot of stuff is produced that is not sold, even though the producers get money for their work. An example is mathematicians that produce mathematical knowledge, and are paid for their work by grants and/or saleries. Most mathematics that are produced are certainly not gonna be "sold" in the near future, if ever.
... nor will it attract high quality money-motivated programmers, because if you're in it for the money, you're not going to be writing open source projects without a salary anyway.
Programmers that are just motivated by money are usually not high quality programmers. They tend to leave an unmaintainable buggy mess after themselves.
There are Open Source projects that have paid programmers. An example is the Norwegian company Systems In Motien (www.sim.no) that have the Open Source 3D API Coin3D (www.coin3d.org)
Try working on old legacy code in which none of the current developers has written. Upgrading code that was ported from Unix (Irix, really, with it's shitty compiler) to Windows is done by us in controlled testable stages.
We write new modules to replace old code, but I need old and new code to interoperate until it's pahes out. Having VC playing tricks on me are _not_ appreciated.
In this we had little choice, I'm afraid. It's old code, and I regulary do small controlled cleanups to more modern C++. But I prefer not to have it rammed down my throat.
If you remove the preprocessor, you'll wont be able to compile a _great_ many programs without great many changes. C++ has it's root's in C, and it show by it supporting some pretty obscure C constructs.
Another use of the preprocessor, that I'm sure you use (unless you're using VC with #pragma once) is somthing like
#ifndef __SOMEHEADERFILE_H__
#define __SOMEHEADERFILE_H__.......
#endif
Slashdot Mirror
For this to be useful the corporation needs to be able to download and run programs at will. These programs will have to be different (for different computing needs), perhaps written by corporate customers. Needless to say, this has serious security issues; for the Joe Doe as well as the corporate customer (that wants to verify the integrity of the computations/data).
There do exist similar business models where spyware is using your harddisk/bandwidth as part of a distributed server for ads.
I do not claim that Grid Computing may not be usefull for the ordinary Web surfer. Perhaps some of the technologies developed may by used in various Open Source projects.
As for security, authentication and authorization are challenging, and you may be pretty sure that Joe Schmoe will not have access to these resources.
The following article gives a nice overview :
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-2/p42.html
Germany is in recession, and $12 million of tax payers moneys is quite a bit of money, even for Munich. Most of Munichs inhabitants are using Microsoft anyway, so SPD might have some difficulties to explain their decision to their voters facing unemployment.
And yes, more Linux means more freedom.
Orwell was an optimist.
May I suggest that you ease a little on the intake of Afgani opium?
It's worth remembering that newspapers sometimes edit/remove articles they publish on their homepage. Without a Google cache it may be much harder to verify that a story has indeed been modified.
The rebuttal from Peruean congressman Edgar Villanueva (http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html) does have some very good arguments for Open Source :
To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.
In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
Why couldn't the contributor just reflect over the rebuttal article before posting?
Can't wait for the next sequel! Will we see James Bond in the next Matrix movie? Perhaps allied with a Tux? I'm sure Batman will have a few words to tell 007 of his bad choice of companions.
A leftist radical news paper in Norway - in cold war era of the 70ties - collected public information (news paper articles, public records etc) in order to map US listening stations in Norway. This was published in the news paper, and at least one of the journalists was sentenced.The real controversial part is that they where not sentenced for spying (they did not), but that the collection of public available material and publicising an analysis was indeed judged classified. Many years later they where exonerated. Bad or good?
Perhaps a more nearer example for US readers is Watergate. The two journalist used the phonebook of "Comitte for Relection of Richard Nixon" (or similar name) to map out the organizational structure, and where thus able to penetrate the whole mess. Good or bad?
How will "old" style WIN32 message passing be affected by .NET managed code respective to this security hole?
There are real health problems acossiated with this technology : A CAVE (yeah, a room filled with VERY big screens, often used by oil and automobile companies to display 3D graphics) will disturb your visual balance/depth, enough to impair your driving. In Norway you have restrictions on your driving after too much time inside a CAVE.
A day in front of a lousy monitor gives you less of a headache than a day of using even expensive, high-quality googles.
Technology like this is, like any other fancy GUI, has it's place, when used in an appropiate manner with well designed applications.
Multi-threaded applications are less common that one might think. Even those GUI applications that would benefit alot from improved responsivness due to multi-treading avoids it, due to greatly increased complexity.
When the Gang of Four came out with their Design Pattern book, it was a great hit, and very usefull indeed. But design pattern for multi-threaded programming is not that well-know. But some are published, as the link below shows :
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/patterns-ace.ht ml
As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).
The link is to an english translation of the response by the Peruean congressman Edgar Villanueva to US pressure to abandon open source plans.
like Germany, France and Italy has not implemented the directive. Do they have second thoughts about this, and thus delaying? For what reasons?
Greenspan said something to the effect that the big tax cuts is a redistribution of wealth, and would not help the economy on the short term. The strong drive in US to privatize might be seen in this light. Similar things are happening in Europe as well. How will the future be? Who knows, but politics do change over time, even the current ones.
I disagree. You must have a very loose definition if you consider communism to be a form of capitalism.
I agree that the "definition" is too loose... State capitalism i.e. extensive state ownership of property is what one found in Soviet Union, as well as markets and money. The economy and markets was heavily regulated, of course. The Marxists themselves talk about "state capitalism under worker control" as an intermediate stage to communism, and concider socialism as a "lower" form of communism.
That a state has a capitalistic system (either private or state owned) does not in itself make it either democratic or undemocratic. A communist system (for all intent and purposes today, a Soviet Union) is much more than just being state capitalistic. Luckily we are getting rid of such oppressive systems.
Capitalism requires free markets!
Capitalism does appear to require a market, but it does not have to be free. Even the term "free" is a bit problematic here : there are a lot of regulations and protectionism. Besides, free for whom?
There no such thing as pure capitalism. There are quite variations, where the current US neo-liberal type is very dominant. Communism may be concidered a form of state capitalism. Scandinavian countries have a mixture of state and private capitalism.
For example, once schools are privatized (I mean ALL schools; not one here and there), chances of people producing knowledge or work for the public good will almost become extinct
History shows otherwise, and even today there are many private institutions in USA that are financing production of knowledge for the public good; though they do get alot of public funding.
The impression from different programming jobs is that some programmers are very resistant to take advantage of what C++ and STL (and Boost) has to offer, and just continue to write mid 1980 C-style code. For a C-program this migth be fine, for an OO C++ program it sure isn't.
My beef with VC this time was that I was forced to make quite a few changes to legacy code I plan to ditch later anyway.
Nobody deserves money for anything they produce unless they can and do sell it for money.
This view of production is quite naive. Alot of stuff is produced that is not sold, even though the producers get money for their work. An example is mathematicians that produce mathematical knowledge, and are paid for their work by grants and/or saleries. Most mathematics that are produced are certainly not gonna be "sold" in the near future, if ever.
Programmers that are just motivated by money are usually not high quality programmers. They tend to leave an unmaintainable buggy mess after themselves.
There are Open Source projects that have paid programmers. An example is the Norwegian company Systems In Motien (www.sim.no) that have the Open Source 3D API Coin3D (www.coin3d.org)
We write new modules to replace old code, but I need old and new code to interoperate until it's pahes out. Having VC playing tricks on me are _not_ appreciated.
In this we had little choice, I'm afraid. It's old code, and I regulary do small controlled cleanups to more modern C++. But I prefer not to have it rammed down my throat.
that says that unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to hide and thus nothing to fear from the goverment.
By using iterators and containers in STL (and www.Boost.org) you may avoid many of those pitfalls.
Have a look at www.Boost.org smart pointers, that is proposed as a standard.
If you remove the preprocessor, you'll wont be able to compile a _great_ many programs without great many changes. C++ has it's root's in C, and it show by it supporting some pretty obscure C constructs. Another use of the preprocessor, that I'm sure you use (unless you're using VC with #pragma once) is somthing like #ifndef __SOMEHEADERFILE_H__ #define __SOMEHEADERFILE_H__ .......
#endif