I've been hacking over 30 years. I also brew beer, distill whisky, hunt, grow food, etc. These are definitely all the same expression: to know how things work.
In most states, Good Samaritan laws do *not* apply to pets. And this guy could not have been arrested for tresspassing assuming it was his apartment that his dog was in. Furthermore, "official" agents (the fire department) were on the scene. If no agents of the government had been on the scene, he almost certainly would not have been arrested.
I suppose their "reasoning" goes like this: legally produced albums often come with lyrics. If people download music illegally, they don't get the album, so they must download the lyrics.
I think you're on the right track here, but it may be a more general principle. "Content Providers" (GOD I hate that term) are protective of anything that might be content. It is, after all, what they provide; if someone else provides it, they immediately throw a hissy fit, lest their entire industry evaporate underneath them. Music publishers provide sheet music for musicians, and are afraid that lyric sites giving away part of that sheet music will infringe upon their business. It would be interesting to find out if the actual songwriters make their money off cd sales, or off of sheet music sales. I'd bet its off album sales. Which means its the publishers that are in a tizzy here, not the songwriters. Of course, I don't know. I don't even know where to look.
-- Rich
Re:This is scary, or is it just over-reaction?
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
In regards to required pee/DNA/brain patterning, doesn't the 4th Am to the Constitution specifically mention your right to be secure in your person against unreasonable searches and seizures?
And you are. The government cannot compel you to provide urine, blood, or any other medical test. Now they are very good at talking you into agreeing to it. The trick of "If you give us the evidence we want, we'll be done and you can go home, otherwise, we'll have to keep you here as long as we can" ususally gets people to volunteer evidence.
Microsoft has every right to declare violations in EULA's. If they don't comply at some point with state law, than of course they are invalid and you can more than likely ignore that portion of the EULA.
I hate to say it but people that complain about an EULA, should also complain about GPL, and other source code licenses. It's frustrating to hear hypocrisy and judgement based on the fact that Microsoft is for-profit and not hear the same for similar agreements in the open source world.
OK, I'll bite. The difference can be expressed int 3 little words - "Quid pro quo" as in when I buy FoxPRO from Microsoft I'd better get Quo for my Quid -- and a click-through license that I MUST AGREE TO and CANNOT GET MY MONEY BACK -- cannot in most states take away my Quo. In other words, the deal can not be changed AFTER you get my money, I can expect fair value, *NOT* Whatever the fuck you say I get. Open Source and Free Software licenses are *NOT* the same -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO FUCKING PAY FOR THEM -- YOU GAVE UP NOTHING (the Quid) AND YOU GOT SOMETHING (the Quo) THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO. I hate to shout, But I get the feeling I'm talking to a Microsoft Astroturfer, because this argument is BLATANT JUSTIFICATION, of the Monopolist point of view, that anything may be put into a EULA at any time, and if you don't like it, tough. And then try to accuse OS/FS of the same thing. Yep, I talking to the MS legal department
Isn't using a buffer overflow like this violating the DMCA
Absolutely not. Hacking your own machine isn't illegal (yet). And so long as you are not distributing a tool to circumvent a copy protection mechanism, you're not violating (that part) of the DMCA (Instructions are NOT a tool). And as long as no illegal copying of copyrighted material is happening, then you're not violating "traditional" copyright law. IANAL, but I don't see any violation here.
Only if someone provides a "tool" for circumventing a copy protection device. In this case, no tool is being distributed (written instructions are NOT a tool, unless executable by a machine.) It is not prohibited to ACTUALLY circumvent copy protection devices (of course, unlicensed copying of copyrighted material is), just to provide the tools. I don't see the DMCA applying here, at all. Furthermore, an X-Box is largely like a Ramones CD; I can hit it with a hammer, let my neighbor borrow it, sell it on EBay, rip tracks (or chips) out of it (for my own use); Its only when I copy the music/software out of it and the distribute it that anybody has issues with it. And that's regular copyright law, not the DMCA.
Because coders, like other craftspeople, will take a schematic quick way to solve the problem over the tediousness and attention to detail and painstaking slow work that any quality craft requires.
Coders almost ALWAYS take the quickest way (on commercial projects) Why ? Because coders are evaluated on the basis of what they get done, and how quickly. Bug counts are hardly ever relevant; in a world where delivery schedules are the ALL IMPORTANT factor, a craftsman is a LIABILITY. Assuming he doesn't get fired for not meeting the same schedule as guys who throw something together as quickly as possible and then forget about it, His wonderfully crafted, nearly bug-free, easy to use application will fail miserably, because a dozen or so crappy applications beat him to market. Face it folks, the software buying world rewards those who 1. Are first to market 2. Control the market.
Craft helps neither first, or control. Hence, the people who fund software development DON'T CARE about it.
On the other hand, Open Source and Free Software do not have this kind of profit-maximizing strategy, hence these observations do not apply.
A more relevant problem is that RIAA labels hold up the copyrights on old material
Indubitably. There are some out-of-print recordings I would love to have. And simply can't buy. I would pay top dollar for a CD of Paul Kantner's "The Planet Earth Rock & Roll Orchestra" BUT RCA WON'T TAKE MY MONEY. It's sad. Especially when something like this could fix it. And they could have my money.
Of course,.NET (and Java) seeks to provide binary-level compatability. No recompiling necessary.
So ? Its owned by Microsoft, and, as far as I know, all Windows (tm) programs are already binary compatible.
Not to mention support for a minor little thing we've thought up within the past twenty years -- OOP
Well,.NET doesn't help you here much unless you like C#'s OOP model. The class libraries are great, for their model of what OOP is, other models (like Objective-C, Smalltalk, C++, etc) have to either Change (into Managed C++, whatever Eiffel turned into, etc) or go away. Not forcing all object models into one mold does not equal ignoring OOP
Not to mention a component model. Unfortunately, that component model is based on a single, language enforced, object model. Which is fantastic if you think that everyone is going to code in C# for the next 20 years.
Starting to see the point?
Yes, I see the point..NET codifies a vision of computing held by Microsoft. It does not tolerate any other methodology. If you agree with Microsoft and their methodology is one that you like, by all means use.NET . I, on the other hand, have always believed that an enforced object model is a Bad Thing(tm) whether that model was in NextSTEP, KDE, or.NET.
You are arguing about what _ought_ to be, not what is. If it's illegal, it's illegal. The DMCS stinks, but facts are facts. Sorry I wasn't clear. Modding itself cannot be illegal. Circumventing a copy protection device is illegal under the DMCA, and if I sell Mod chips to do this I am in violation of that extremely stupid law. It may be a fine point, but its not the modding that's illegal, its the goal of the modding. Owning and using a hammer is not illegal. Using a hammer to smash someone else's X-box is. The Illegality involved here is in (1) violating ordinary, useful copyright law if Microsoft code is being modified to make a mod chip and (2) violating unusual useless DMCA law in circumventing a technological device. If I make a mod chip that causes my X-Box to run Mandrake, I haven't violated anybodies law, and Microsoft can't tell me that I can't do that. That was my point.
The fact of the matter is that if under current law those companies are the rightsholders
Hold on there cowboy. Modding your X-box can't be illegal because you own it. It is not, by anybody's definition licensed. I bought it. It is not software. It may contain software, which is presumably licensed, but that license cannot disseize me of property rights. The Mod itself could be illegal, that is, and illegal copying of copyrighted software, and that seems to be what is happening here. If I buy a mod chip from someone, they are responsible for the legality of what they are selling, not me, so long as there is a quid pro quo. Which seems to be where Lik Sang screwed up.
grey activities may help them sell more units does not make those activities any more legal or morally acceptable
Your statement here makes the assumption that we all believe that sellers have the intrinsic right to dictate to buyers what they can and cannot do with the product which they have bought. This is so utterly ludicrous that I have to believe that you are astroturfing for the MPAA. I suggest you review the legal concept of quid pro quo. I'll give you a hint, its latin, and it means "this for that". And when you sell something You Give Up Ownership This is the fundamental principle of Capitalism. Get used to it.
This individual does not have military training as his shots have actually not been that accurate and he is not killing for the sake of killing... so he is doing the killings with a commonly available shorter barrel AR-15 derivatives
If this guy is making long shots (500 yds +) with an AR-15, then he is as accurate as the most accurate military shooters (I am assuming no scope here). I know, I was a rifle coach/sniper in the USMC. The bullseye used at 500 yds by the USMC represents a man's head and chest. And not even the best shots hit it every time. To get better than that you have to use scopes and bipods, as well as weapons that are tighter than the standard issue M-16. By the way, I am assuming that this guy is making long shots because of the varying reports as to the sound of the shot.
That is a good point, This guy hits reliably and doesn't freak out. My own take is that this is someone with military sniper training. What bothers me most about that is that sniping is hardly glamour killing; its boring, monotonous work. I have a very hard time understanding why someone who is killing people for some sick kind of emotional reward would do it this way. It is, however, probably the best way to get away with it. Then again, I worry about anybody who could get inside this guys head. He is very scary.
what if the guy your trying to track is a complete nutcase Well, I'd say he's certainly some kind of nutcase. Examination of his method, however, reveals a few interesting things. First, he acts like a military sniper; that is he selects a target, takes 1 shot, and then (presumably) leaves his position, taking everything (like shell casings) with him. In other words, all the work is in preparing his site, and leaving it. The actual shooting doesn't take much time or effort. Second is his selection of target. It appears to be random, although shooting a kid going to school could be designed to cause fear. Its almost as if the target is secondary to the location; this nutball may be picking sites from which he thinks he can get someone, and then killing whoever shows up. If this is the case, this location software may be just the thing; on the other hand, his criteria for picking a site might not have anything to do with where he lives. Anyway, I hope they catch this bastard soon, and I really don't care how they do it. -- Rich
In a way, it's a little sad that open source fans can't all get behind one specific office suite.
This attitude, that "There can be only one" is a sure fire recipe for making Open Source software suck as badly as closed source software. The competition between KDE and Gnome has been nothing but good for both sides. M$ succeeded in the first place by the desire that many people had 10 years ago for 1 OS, 1 Word Processor and so on. Well, we have it now, and only people with an MCSE like it.
The desire for a single Office Suite, Desktop System, etc. comes from the desire to "Beat Microsoft". We have one strength over M$ - They are a marketing machine, not a technology machine. If we try to beat them at their own game, we will lose. If we play our own game - Free software competing with ITSELF, then we will win. And we won't get stuck with software that was developed for its marketing value. The idea that we ought to all work together is rubbish; for all its ugliness the KDE vs. Gnome war made both sides better. And they will continue to get better because of the competition. The same chance exists with Office Suites. Don't tell me we ought to "work together" ; tell me why "yours" is great, and mine "sucks". "Mine" will be better for it. And so will "yours"
The legal difference between Microsoft and Free Software Organizations is simple - "quid pro quo". There is, legally speaking, much more liabilty if someone has paid you for something, than if they simply took it (even with permission). If there is no quid pro quo, it would be VERY difficult to convince a judge that a developer, or organization is liable for damages.
The problem here is that the population has to support the cause. Most muslims I know, (which is quite a few) spit on the ground at the mention of the Taliban. Most Afghani's want the Taliban out of their country as much as everyone else does. Super Fundamental Religious Purity is almost always unpopular. and by the way, it doesn't matter how motivated/angry/etc you are if you are fighting a foreign superpower. The superpower can deny you food, water, ammunition. Unless you get help from some other power, your starving mujahidin will surrender begging for water, with only knives to defend themselves against modern weapons.
"Modern C++ Design" shows the wonderfull and elegent power of generic programming (templates.)
C++ needs templates because it does not have a singly rooted class heirarchy. Much of the bloat in C++ programs comes from the fact that (all existing) C++ compilers generate a new class for each template instantiation. And just how much template debugging have you done anyways ? Its brutally difficult to debug template programs too. ObjC doesn't have these problems: Containers can take any NSObject as an element, and you can check types at runtime. Because there is only one implementation of a container class, there are no funky giant method names.
"In what areas does Obj-C do better then C++" ? Is it only cleaner syntax?
As if cleaner syntax isn't enough;-) But seriously, ObjC is "really" object-oriented. Introspection and runtime typing are built in, so funky code generators like QT's moc and MFC's crap are unnecessary. You would think that ObjC would be less efficient than C++ because of this, but my experience says -- no, not really. ObjC programs are almost always smaller (no templates to instantiate), and as fast as C++ programs. ObjC is also "semantically" cleaner than C++. There aren't any references, operator overloading, returning objects by value, etc. that make C++ so difficult to learn and filled with pitfalls for the novice (and not-so-novice ). ObjC also clearly distinguishes between object-oriented operations, and procedural operations.
"What can Obj-C do that C++ can't?"
Well both are Turing-complete so can't really isn't the right thing to say. ObjC is really object-oriented, so "truly" object oriented programming is much easier in ObjC. Many people find ObjC easier to work with because its Object Model is so much simpler than C++'s. IMHO, ObjC's Object Model is more complete than C++'s also.
Hold on there cowboy... First of all, the mechanics of climate change are very poorly understood (by any scientists).
And the planet is getting hotter. But you are absolutely correct, the earth has been warming up. Never mind that its been cooling off for the last 1000 years.
Ozone depletion (yes, it IS linked to global warming) is worsening.
Ozone depletion research corresponds nicely with the expiration of the patent on Freon. Anyone with any knowledge of chemistry realizes that when a cosmic ray hits O2 it form 03 (ozone). In other words, depleting ozone just makes the atmosphere produce more ozone.
These are scientific facts that no amount of bullshit rhetoric will change.
You're not much of a scientist if you can't distinguish between facts and conclusions. Just because the planet is warming up doesn't mean that human activity has anything to do with it. (It doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything to do with it either) Any correlation between particular types of human activity and global warming is just that, correlation, which proves NOTHING, and certainly isn't a fact.
If you would like to read more about the kind of fallacious argument you are making, read "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field" by Kary Mullis. He's a real scientist, and has a Nobel Prize. And he's not a conservative, nor is he bought by industry. Nor does he engage in "Bullshit rhetoric".
--Rich
Re:Excellent! All we need now is Phil Dick
on
Lord of Light
·
· Score: 1
If you do a review on Phil Dick's work you'll be batting a thousand.
Is this just TOO much to ask ?
I also read Lord of Light at about 16. This book has to be in the top 10 "required" science fiction books (along with Foundation, Stranger in a Strange Land, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,... ). The portrayal in this book of the inherent conflicts in religions set me on a lifelong study of religion. The quotations in the book of Hindu and Buddhist religious texts were my first exposure to Eastern religions, after reading it, i ran out and bought a copy of Dhammapada. If you haven't read it, read it; regardless of what religious point of view you come from, it will change the way you view religion. I can't say enough good about this book... Oh just get a copy and read it.
There is another, more tangible resource. Contributing also get you reputation, which is becoming more and more a valuable commodity. One of the biggest problems in hiring programmers is that you never *really* know how skilled they are. Someone who has contributed to an Open Source project has credentials that are very difficult to get otherwise... A prospective employer can actually look at what they've done. Don't underestimate this kind of capital.
BillG & Co are making so much noise, and the logic of their comments is so random and confusing and random, that it may actually be pushing some journalists to find out what the deal really is.
I have a hard time believing that they don't know what the deal is. This is FUD, pure and simple. BillG's statements are NOT intended for us, they are intended for our bosses; if they can scare people into thinking that they can't use GPL'ed systems, then they will win in the commercial world. Fortunately, though, this seems to be a last ditch effort, they have run out of other means with which to attack the Free Software world.
It's the same reason that drug testing is perfectly legal. If they don't want to hire someone who does drugs, then they don't have to.
This is the perfect analogy, because it points out the problem; if its what employers want to do, fine, its their money, their workplace, and their stuff. However, many employers don't want to do drug testing, but do anyway Why you ask ? Easy, insurance. I know a guy who owned a small business. Several of his employees used drugs on their off-time, he knew this, but was of the opinion that if it didn't affect their performance at work, they could do whatever they wanted. Unfortunately, his insurance company raised his rates, and then told him that they would lower them IFF he instituted a drug testing policy and submitted the results to the insurance company. He ended up losing some of his best people, and his company was never the same afterwards. So much for caring only about your employees doing their job.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been hacking over 30 years. I also brew beer, distill whisky, hunt, grow food, etc. These are definitely all the same expression: to know how things work.
-- Rich
The fire department had the police arrest him
In most states, Good Samaritan laws do *not* apply to pets. And this guy could not have been arrested for tresspassing assuming it was his apartment that his dog was in. Furthermore, "official" agents (the fire department) were on the scene. If no agents of the government had been on the scene, he almost certainly would not have been arrested.
-- Rich
I suppose their "reasoning" goes like this: legally produced albums often come with lyrics. If people download music illegally, they don't get the album, so they must download the lyrics.
I think you're on the right track here, but it may be a more general principle. "Content Providers" (GOD I hate that term) are protective of anything that might be content. It is, after all, what they provide; if someone else provides it, they immediately throw a hissy fit, lest their entire industry evaporate underneath them. Music publishers provide sheet music for musicians, and are afraid that lyric sites giving away part of that sheet music will infringe upon their business. It would be interesting to find out if the actual songwriters make their money off cd sales, or off of sheet music sales. I'd bet its off album sales. Which means its the publishers that are in a tizzy here, not the songwriters. Of course, I don't know. I don't even know where to look.
-- Rich
In regards to required pee/DNA/brain patterning, doesn't the 4th Am to the Constitution specifically mention your right to be secure in your person against unreasonable searches and seizures?
And you are. The government cannot compel you to provide urine, blood, or any other medical test. Now they are very good at talking you into agreeing to it. The trick of "If you give us the evidence we want, we'll be done and you can go home, otherwise, we'll have to keep you here as long as we can" ususally gets people to volunteer evidence.
-- Rich
Microsoft has every right to declare violations in EULA's. If they don't comply at some point with state law, than of course they are invalid and you can more than likely ignore that portion of the EULA.
I hate to say it but people that complain about an EULA, should also complain about GPL, and other source code licenses. It's frustrating to hear hypocrisy and judgement based on the fact that Microsoft is for-profit and not hear the same for similar agreements in the open source world.
OK, I'll bite. The difference can be expressed int 3 little words - "Quid pro quo" as in when I buy FoxPRO from Microsoft I'd better get Quo for my Quid -- and a click-through license that I MUST AGREE TO and CANNOT GET MY MONEY BACK -- cannot in most states take away my Quo. In other words, the deal can not be changed AFTER you get my money, I can expect fair value, *NOT* Whatever the fuck you say I get. Open Source and Free Software licenses are *NOT* the same -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO FUCKING PAY FOR THEM -- YOU GAVE UP NOTHING (the Quid) AND YOU GOT SOMETHING (the Quo) THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO. I hate to shout, But I get the feeling I'm talking to a Microsoft Astroturfer, because this argument is BLATANT JUSTIFICATION, of the Monopolist point of view, that anything may be put into a EULA at any time, and if you don't like it, tough. And then try to accuse OS/FS of the same thing. Yep, I talking to the MS legal department
Have a Bad Day,
-- Rich
It means "God From ..." as in "Deus ex machina" (god from a machine)
-- Rich
Isn't using a buffer overflow like this violating the DMCA
Absolutely not. Hacking your own machine isn't illegal (yet). And so long as you are not distributing a tool to circumvent a copy protection mechanism, you're not violating (that part) of the DMCA (Instructions are NOT a tool). And as long as no illegal copying of copyrighted material is happening, then you're not violating "traditional" copyright law. IANAL, but I don't see any violation here.
--- Rich
Only if someone provides a "tool" for circumventing a copy protection device. In this case, no tool is being distributed (written instructions are NOT a tool, unless executable by a machine.) It is not prohibited to ACTUALLY circumvent copy protection devices (of course, unlicensed copying of copyrighted material is), just to provide the tools. I don't see the DMCA applying here, at all. Furthermore, an X-Box is largely like a Ramones CD; I can hit it with a hammer, let my neighbor borrow it, sell it on EBay, rip tracks (or chips) out of it (for my own use); Its only when I copy the music/software out of it and the distribute it that anybody has issues with it. And that's regular copyright law, not the DMCA.
-- Rich
Because coders, like other craftspeople, will take a schematic quick way to solve the problem over the tediousness and attention to detail and painstaking slow work that any quality craft requires.
Coders almost ALWAYS take the quickest way (on commercial projects) Why ? Because coders are evaluated on the basis of what they get done, and how quickly. Bug counts are hardly ever relevant; in a world where delivery schedules are the ALL IMPORTANT factor, a craftsman is a LIABILITY. Assuming he doesn't get fired for not meeting the same schedule as guys who throw something together as quickly as possible and then forget about it, His wonderfully crafted, nearly bug-free, easy to use application will fail miserably, because a dozen or so crappy applications beat him to market. Face it folks, the software buying world rewards those who
1. Are first to market
2. Control the market.
Craft helps neither first, or control. Hence, the people who fund software development DON'T CARE about it.
On the other hand, Open Source and Free Software do not have this kind of profit-maximizing strategy, hence these observations do not apply.
-- Rich
A more relevant problem is that RIAA labels hold up the copyrights on old material
Indubitably. There are some out-of-print recordings I would love to have. And simply can't buy. I would pay top dollar for a CD of Paul Kantner's "The Planet Earth Rock & Roll Orchestra" BUT RCA WON'T TAKE MY MONEY. It's sad. Especially when something like this could fix it. And they could have my money.
-- Rich
Of course, .NET (and Java) seeks to provide binary-level compatability. No recompiling necessary.
.NET doesn't help you here much unless you like C#'s OOP model. The class libraries are great, for their model of what OOP is, other models (like Objective-C, Smalltalk, C++, etc) have to either Change (into Managed C++, whatever Eiffel turned into, etc) or go away. Not forcing all object models into one mold does not equal ignoring OOP
.NET codifies a vision of computing held by Microsoft. It does not tolerate any other methodology. If you agree with Microsoft and their methodology is one that you like, by all means use .NET . I, on the other hand, have always believed that an enforced object model is a Bad Thing(tm) whether that model was in NextSTEP, KDE, or .NET .
So ? Its owned by Microsoft, and, as far as I know, all Windows (tm) programs are already binary compatible.
Not to mention support for a minor little thing we've thought up within the past twenty years -- OOP
Well,
Not to mention a component model.
Unfortunately, that component model is based on a single, language enforced, object model. Which is fantastic if you think that everyone is going to code in C# for the next 20 years.
Starting to see the point?
Yes, I see the point.
Either that, or I've been trolled.
-- Rich
You are arguing about what _ought_ to be, not what is. If it's illegal, it's illegal. The DMCS stinks, but facts are facts.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Modding itself cannot be illegal. Circumventing a copy protection device is illegal under the DMCA, and if I sell Mod chips to do this I am in violation of that extremely stupid law. It may be a fine point, but its not the modding that's illegal, its the goal of the modding. Owning and using a hammer is not illegal. Using a hammer to smash someone else's X-box is. The Illegality involved here is in (1) violating ordinary, useful copyright law if Microsoft code is being modified to make a mod chip and (2) violating unusual useless DMCA law in circumventing a technological device. If I make a mod chip that causes my X-Box to run Mandrake, I haven't violated anybodies law, and Microsoft can't tell me that I can't do that.
That was my point.
-- Rich
The fact of the matter is that if under current law those companies are the rightsholders
Hold on there cowboy. Modding your X-box can't be illegal because you own it. It is not, by anybody's definition licensed. I bought it. It is not software. It may contain software, which is presumably licensed, but that license cannot disseize me of property rights. The Mod itself could be illegal, that is, and illegal copying of copyrighted software, and that seems to be what is happening here. If I buy a mod chip from someone, they are responsible for the legality of what they are selling, not me, so long as there is a quid pro quo. Which seems to be where Lik Sang screwed up.
grey activities may help them sell more units does not make those activities any more legal or morally acceptable
Your statement here makes the assumption that we all believe that sellers have the intrinsic right to dictate to buyers what they can and cannot do with the product which they have bought. This is so utterly ludicrous that I have to believe that you are astroturfing for the MPAA. I suggest you review the legal concept of quid pro quo. I'll give you a hint, its latin, and it means "this for that". And when you sell something You Give Up Ownership This is the fundamental principle of Capitalism. Get used to it.
-- Rich
This individual does not have military training as his shots have actually not been that accurate and he is not killing for the sake of killing ... so he is doing the killings with a commonly available shorter barrel AR-15 derivatives
If this guy is making long shots (500 yds +) with an AR-15, then he is as accurate as the most accurate military shooters (I am assuming no scope here). I know, I was a rifle coach/sniper in the USMC. The bullseye used at 500 yds by the USMC represents a man's head and chest. And not even the best shots hit it every time. To get better than that you have to use scopes and bipods, as well as weapons that are tighter than the standard issue M-16. By the way, I am assuming that this guy is making long shots because of the varying reports as to the sound of the shot.
-- Rich
That is a good point, This guy hits reliably and doesn't freak out. My own take is that this is someone with military sniper training. What bothers me most about that is that sniping is hardly glamour killing; its boring, monotonous work. I have a very hard time understanding why someone who is killing people for some sick kind of emotional reward would do it this way. It is, however, probably the best way to get away with it. Then again, I worry about anybody who could get inside this guys head. He is very scary.
-- Rich
what if the guy your trying to track is a complete nutcase
Well, I'd say he's certainly some kind of nutcase. Examination of his method, however, reveals a few interesting things. First, he acts like a military sniper; that is he selects a target, takes 1 shot, and then (presumably) leaves his position, taking everything (like shell casings) with him. In other words, all the work is in preparing his site, and leaving it. The actual shooting doesn't take much time or effort. Second is his selection of target. It appears to be random, although shooting a kid going to school could be designed to cause fear. Its almost as if the target is secondary to the location; this nutball may be picking sites from which he thinks he can get someone, and then killing whoever shows up. If this is the case, this location software may be just the thing; on the other hand, his criteria for picking a site might not have anything to do with where he lives. Anyway, I hope they catch this bastard soon, and I really don't care how they do it.
-- Rich
In a way, it's a little sad that open source fans can't all get behind one specific office suite.
This attitude, that "There can be only one" is a sure fire recipe for making Open Source software suck as badly as closed source software. The competition between KDE and Gnome has been nothing but good for both sides. M$ succeeded in the first place by the desire that many people had 10 years ago for 1 OS, 1 Word Processor and so on. Well, we have it now, and only people with an MCSE like it.
The desire for a single Office Suite, Desktop System, etc. comes from the desire to "Beat Microsoft". We have one strength over M$ - They are a marketing machine, not a technology machine. If we try to beat them at their own game, we will lose. If we play our own game - Free software competing with ITSELF, then we will win. And we won't get stuck with software that was developed for its marketing value. The idea that we ought to all work together is rubbish; for all its ugliness the KDE vs. Gnome war made both sides better. And they will continue to get better because of the competition. The same chance exists with Office Suites. Don't tell me we ought to "work together" ; tell me why "yours" is great, and mine "sucks". "Mine" will be better for it. And so will "yours"
-- Recon
The legal difference between Microsoft and Free Software Organizations is simple - "quid pro quo". There is, legally speaking, much more liabilty if someone has paid you for something, than if they simply took it (even with permission). If there is no quid pro quo, it would be VERY difficult to convince a judge that a developer, or organization is liable for damages.
-- Rich
The problem here is that the population has to support the cause. Most muslims I know, (which is quite a few) spit on the ground at the mention of the Taliban. Most Afghani's want the Taliban out of their country as much as everyone else does. Super Fundamental Religious Purity is almost always unpopular. and by the way, it doesn't matter how motivated/angry/etc you are if you are fighting a foreign superpower. The superpower can deny you food, water, ammunition. Unless you get help from some other power, your starving mujahidin will surrender begging for water, with only knives to defend themselves against modern weapons.
-- Rich
"Modern C++ Design" shows the wonderfull and elegent power of generic programming (templates.)
;-) But seriously, ObjC is "really" object-oriented. Introspection and runtime typing are built in, so funky code generators like QT's moc and MFC's crap are unnecessary. You would think that ObjC would be less efficient than C++ because of this, but my experience says -- no, not really. ObjC programs are almost always smaller (no templates to instantiate), and as fast as C++ programs. ObjC is also "semantically" cleaner than C++. There aren't any references, operator overloading, returning objects by value, etc. that make C++ so difficult to learn and filled with pitfalls for the novice (and not-so-novice ). ObjC also clearly distinguishes between object-oriented operations, and procedural operations.
C++ needs templates because it does not have a singly rooted class heirarchy. Much of the bloat in C++ programs comes from the fact that (all existing) C++ compilers generate a new class for each template instantiation. And just how much template debugging have you done anyways ? Its brutally difficult to debug template programs too. ObjC doesn't have these problems: Containers can take any NSObject as an element, and you can check types at runtime. Because there is only one implementation of a container class, there are no funky giant method names.
"In what areas does Obj-C do better then C++" ? Is it only cleaner syntax?
As if cleaner syntax isn't enough
"What can Obj-C do that C++ can't?"
Well both are Turing-complete so can't really isn't the right thing to say. ObjC is really object-oriented, so "truly" object oriented programming is much easier in ObjC. Many people find ObjC easier to work with because its Object Model is so much simpler than C++'s. IMHO, ObjC's Object Model is more complete than C++'s also.
-- Rich
Hold on there cowboy... First of all, the mechanics of climate change are very poorly understood (by any scientists).
And the planet is getting hotter.
But you are absolutely correct, the earth has been warming up. Never mind that its been cooling off for the last 1000 years.
Ozone depletion (yes, it IS linked to global warming) is worsening.
Ozone depletion research corresponds nicely with the expiration of the patent on Freon. Anyone with any knowledge of chemistry realizes that when a cosmic ray hits O2 it form 03 (ozone). In other words, depleting ozone just makes the atmosphere produce more ozone.
These are scientific facts that no amount of bullshit rhetoric will change.
You're not much of a scientist if you can't distinguish between facts and conclusions. Just because the planet is warming up doesn't mean that human activity has anything to do with it. (It doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything to do with it either) Any correlation between particular types of human activity and global warming is just that, correlation, which proves NOTHING, and certainly isn't a fact.
If you would like to read more about the kind of fallacious argument you are making, read "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field" by Kary Mullis. He's a real scientist, and has a Nobel Prize. And he's not a conservative, nor is he bought by industry. Nor does he engage in "Bullshit rhetoric".
--Rich
If you do a review on Phil Dick's work you'll be batting a thousand.
... ). The portrayal in this book of the inherent conflicts in religions set me on a lifelong study of religion. The quotations in the book of Hindu and Buddhist religious texts were my first exposure to Eastern religions, after reading it, i ran out and bought a copy of Dhammapada. If you haven't read it, read it; regardless of what religious point of view you come from, it will change the way you view religion. I can't say enough good about this book ... Oh just get a copy and read it.
Is this just TOO much to ask ?
I also read Lord of Light at about 16. This book has to be in the top 10 "required" science fiction books (along with Foundation, Stranger in a Strange Land, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,
-- Rich
There is another, more tangible resource. Contributing also get you reputation, which is becoming more and more a valuable commodity. One of the biggest problems in hiring programmers is that you never *really* know how skilled they are. Someone who has contributed to an Open Source project has credentials that are very difficult to get otherwise... A prospective employer can actually look at what they've done. Don't underestimate this kind of capital.
-- Rich
BillG & Co are making so much noise, and the logic of their comments is so random and confusing and random, that it may actually be pushing some journalists to find out what the deal really is.
I have a hard time believing that they don't know what the deal is. This is FUD, pure and simple. BillG's statements are NOT intended for us, they are intended for our bosses; if they can scare people into thinking that they can't use GPL'ed systems, then they will win in the commercial world. Fortunately, though, this seems to be a last ditch effort, they have run out of other means with which to attack the Free Software world.
-- Rich
It's the same reason that drug testing is perfectly legal. If they don't want to hire someone who does drugs, then they don't have to.
This is the perfect analogy, because it points out the problem; if its what employers want to do, fine, its their money, their workplace, and their stuff. However, many employers don't want to do drug testing, but do anyway Why you ask ? Easy, insurance. I know a guy who owned a small business. Several of his employees used drugs on their off-time, he knew this, but was of the opinion that if it didn't affect their performance at work, they could do whatever they wanted. Unfortunately, his insurance company raised his rates, and then told him that they would lower them IFF he instituted a drug testing policy and submitted the results to the insurance company. He ended up losing some of his best people, and his company was never the same afterwards. So much for caring only about your employees doing their job.
-- Rich