I'm aware of that but you missed the point and that's partly my fault since I wasn't clear about it. You can't test communism in theory and all empirical evidence shows it's simply not working, then one could come to conclusion that it doesn't matter a bit if it ever works in theory because it sure does not work in practice.
This conversation, as entertaining it is, is a little bit futile. First I've understood that there was a lot of arguing about if these theories can be tested at all or should they be announce as pseudo-science or something. I think even Marx finally acknowledged that you can't test communism (or capitalism) on paper.
Which brings me to my second point, which is pretty much derived from the first point. Now if you can't test communism anywhere but in practice, and all the tests (USSR, Cuba, what else is there?) shows that it's failing miserably, then one could (should?) come to the conclusion that communism simply does not work. Empirical proof, well, proves it. USSR even had to enforce communism by force and that's why they had big weapon manufacturing going on which pretty much ruined their economy.
I have plenty of other opinions against communism but my English isn't so good that I could express them clearly. But I think that my second point above incorporates them all nicely together:)
I have a program, actually a large system, that sends boxes to different areas in warehouse depending from various aspects. Sending/transfer is done by conveyor belts and sometimes even with robots. Boxes are actual physical boxes containing food items.
It has a little defect though which I've been unable to track down. Sometimes when it tries to send box to place A the box is actually found in place B but the UI tells that it is located in places C and D, which of course is impossibility.
Unfortunately it is not written in C. Otherwise it could a clear winner with couple of minor modifications.
Let's give every passenger combat shotgun where they enter the plane. Let's also give them permission to shoot everyone they think is a terrorist trying to blow up the plane. That way we'll be all safe in heaven.
Whan an earth are you talking about? You don't open videos in.NET just like you don't open videos in C standard library. You use same library/plugin/frontend/whatever to do that. And of course if it's proprietary codec you need download and/or buy support for it.
MS has a way to simplify this and it's called DirectX. You can open video stream to DirectX component but then again, it's up to what DirectX codecs you have installed to the system. There is bunch of codecs, free and not-free, installed by default and you can use those quite fine through DirectX.NET library.
I can't play OGG files on my computer; I don't have codec for them. I tried to play them using software written in PHP. So I guess PHP is not free or open after all...
I'd expect MS to be suing the pants off the third party contractor if they had been maliciously included GPL code and representing it as their own proprietary code.
Well they certainly could and should but so should the actual copyright holder too. His/her rights were violated by this third party contractor for not including GPL license in the package that went to Microsoft. Microsoft's case against the third party wouldn't be about copyrights but possible contract violation(s). That's a pretty tricky area of law so maybe Microsoft doesn't like to go to the court unprepared. At least I wouldn't:)
When you download something with IE it is marked that it came from the internet. When you execute it Windows asks if you are alright running this executable which might or might not contain malware. If user clicks "Yes, yes, I want viruses and stuff" maybe they should sue themselves from stupidity. Well, maybe some computer fraud thingy could come to picture if executable is presented as non-malware software. I'm not familiar with US laws.
But I find the whole GP's statement suspicious. I just visited ESPN and NFL websites and got zero viruses or any other type of malware. I use Windows Vista, IE8 and Avast. UAC turned on (or left on, as is set on as default). I'm not sure if I should have clicked those banners or something to get infected or maybe GP turned every security setting off to get his/her Windows infected or something but no viruses here.
Just curious... Do you happen to know if this is possible in Windows Vista and IE with UAC turned on? Shouldn't the lower privileges of the browser and UAC stop any add-on from accessing, or at least modifying, system resources?
This is why I scratched my head when I read from the summary even Firefox. Shouldn't it say, in this particular case, even IE?
Virii often using administrative functions and/or OS bugs to spread and hide.
Care to tell us what administrative functions you need to spread a file? Normal users can open sockets to outside world without administrative rights or UAC prompt. Firewall could stop that though. But anyway, I can't come up with any administrative function I would need to spread files across the internet/intranet and I have sure tinkered with something like this before (not with viruses though).
Exactly what market area they dominated back in 1990 when Windows 3.0 came out? Or 1993 when NT 3.1 was released? I belevie these two was the corner stone of MS and Windows 95 and NT4 swept the floor with everything else. But, again, what was the market they dominated and used to leverage their dominance to Operating Systems back then?
Symbian exceptions predated the introduction of exceptions to C++.
If I recall correctly C++ had some implementations of exception already when Symbian was spawned from the depths of heck. Standard didn't have them yet. So if Symbian would have waited a bit it would have standard exception mechanism. When I was writing stuff for Symbian (2002 - 2004) I recall that the awkward exception paradigm was what I hated the most.
Other thing was that awful two-state object construction or whatever it was called. I remember that it was because of constructors were forbidden to throw exceptions. I'm not sure what's with that. Throwing exception is a standard way to tell something exceptional happened.
And so what if Symbian was pioneering? We don't drive T model Fords anymore. Maybe Symbian has nice kernel but writing C++ applications for it is a huge pain in the ass. I mean, it really beats me why the heck you have to have Perl to build C++ applications!?
Another (horror) story was the API documentation. You really couldn't trust it a bit. It felt like the documentation and header files was constantly out of sync. I finally got so frustrated with it that I learned C# and.NET, changed employer and haven't regretted a day.
No. Basically he says that he doesn't like Vista, Windows and/or Microsoft, no matter what, and likes to troll around Slashdot. Every point he tries to make is a non-existing one.
Same bitching is going on with couple of friends of mine. They whine how Vista consumes a heck load of memory, crashes all the time and whatever. None of them has actually used Vista, at least not more than a minute or two. And the funny thing is that one of them has a Linux box which crashes daily.
But hey! People need to have things to do in their life or they get bored, and bitching about Vista is just as good hobby as me bitching about Linux:) Just kidding. I really don't care what OS people are using nowadays.
I don't know much about real-time systems but what I've understood is that some embedded real-time kernels (I think QNX is one) even tells in their programmer's manuals that "function X takes Y clock cycles to execute" so you can take this into account when designing your code.
First I thought that I add sarcastic smiley to my post but it turned out that my joke was much more fun this way (and possibly more informative), at least for me:)
Slashdot Mirror
It would be really quiet here in Slashdot too.
I'm aware of that but you missed the point and that's partly my fault since I wasn't clear about it. You can't test communism in theory and all empirical evidence shows it's simply not working, then one could come to conclusion that it doesn't matter a bit if it ever works in theory because it sure does not work in practice.
This conversation, as entertaining it is, is a little bit futile. First I've understood that there was a lot of arguing about if these theories can be tested at all or should they be announce as pseudo-science or something. I think even Marx finally acknowledged that you can't test communism (or capitalism) on paper.
Which brings me to my second point, which is pretty much derived from the first point. Now if you can't test communism anywhere but in practice, and all the tests (USSR, Cuba, what else is there?) shows that it's failing miserably, then one could (should?) come to the conclusion that communism simply does not work. Empirical proof, well, proves it. USSR even had to enforce communism by force and that's why they had big weapon manufacturing going on which pretty much ruined their economy.
I have plenty of other opinions against communism but my English isn't so good that I could express them clearly. But I think that my second point above incorporates them all nicely together :)
Possibly yes, but it would duplicate as C and D. And before you know it world would be full of Cs and Ds!
I have a program, actually a large system, that sends boxes to different areas in warehouse depending from various aspects. Sending/transfer is done by conveyor belts and sometimes even with robots. Boxes are actual physical boxes containing food items.
It has a little defect though which I've been unable to track down. Sometimes when it tries to send box to place A the box is actually found in place B but the UI tells that it is located in places C and D, which of course is impossibility.
Unfortunately it is not written in C. Otherwise it could a clear winner with couple of minor modifications.
Let's give every passenger combat shotgun where they enter the plane. Let's also give them permission to shoot everyone they think is a terrorist trying to blow up the plane. That way we'll be all safe in heaven.
If you get my meaning.
Here in Finland Linus van Pelt = Eppu Peltonen
Ninja wouldn't even need a weapon. He/She is a weapon ;)
BTW do they allow Chuck Norris on the flight? And if not, I feel pity for the poor man's soul whose job it is to stop him :(
You mean like DEC helped to write the first computer virus in the world?
Why not store shared data under the %ALLUSERSPROFILE% folder and user's data under the %LOCALAPPDATA% folder?
Wow! Where you live? It's 1,309 per liter at the nearest gas station here in Finland and it's about the cheapest there is.
So no need to panic?
Whan an earth are you talking about? You don't open videos in .NET just like you don't open videos in C standard library. You use same library/plugin/frontend/whatever to do that. And of course if it's proprietary codec you need download and/or buy support for it.
MS has a way to simplify this and it's called DirectX. You can open video stream to DirectX component but then again, it's up to what DirectX codecs you have installed to the system. There is bunch of codecs, free and not-free, installed by default and you can use those quite fine through DirectX .NET library.
I can't play OGG files on my computer; I don't have codec for them. I tried to play them using software written in PHP. So I guess PHP is not free or open after all...
Well they certainly could and should but so should the actual copyright holder too. His/her rights were violated by this third party contractor for not including GPL license in the package that went to Microsoft. Microsoft's case against the third party wouldn't be about copyrights but possible contract violation(s). That's a pretty tricky area of law so maybe Microsoft doesn't like to go to the court unprepared. At least I wouldn't :)
Are you talking about C or C++? Those are the two languages Windows mostly consist of...
When you download something with IE it is marked that it came from the internet. When you execute it Windows asks if you are alright running this executable which might or might not contain malware. If user clicks "Yes, yes, I want viruses and stuff" maybe they should sue themselves from stupidity. Well, maybe some computer fraud thingy could come to picture if executable is presented as non-malware software. I'm not familiar with US laws.
But I find the whole GP's statement suspicious. I just visited ESPN and NFL websites and got zero viruses or any other type of malware. I use Windows Vista, IE8 and Avast. UAC turned on (or left on, as is set on as default). I'm not sure if I should have clicked those banners or something to get infected or maybe GP turned every security setting off to get his/her Windows infected or something but no viruses here.
Just curious... Do you happen to know if this is possible in Windows Vista and IE with UAC turned on? Shouldn't the lower privileges of the browser and UAC stop any add-on from accessing, or at least modifying, system resources?
This is why I scratched my head when I read from the summary even Firefox. Shouldn't it say, in this particular case, even IE?
Care to tell us what administrative functions you need to spread a file? Normal users can open sockets to outside world without administrative rights or UAC prompt. Firewall could stop that though. But anyway, I can't come up with any administrative function I would need to spread files across the internet/intranet and I have sure tinkered with something like this before (not with viruses though).
Exactly what market area they dominated back in 1990 when Windows 3.0 came out? Or 1993 when NT 3.1 was released? I belevie these two was the corner stone of MS and Windows 95 and NT4 swept the floor with everything else. But, again, what was the market they dominated and used to leverage their dominance to Operating Systems back then?
No, no. Article is right to the point. I'm still running Linux from year 2001 and waiting for all the bugs to be fixed.
If I recall correctly C++ had some implementations of exception already when Symbian was spawned from the depths of heck. Standard didn't have them yet. So if Symbian would have waited a bit it would have standard exception mechanism. When I was writing stuff for Symbian (2002 - 2004) I recall that the awkward exception paradigm was what I hated the most.
Other thing was that awful two-state object construction or whatever it was called. I remember that it was because of constructors were forbidden to throw exceptions. I'm not sure what's with that. Throwing exception is a standard way to tell something exceptional happened.
And so what if Symbian was pioneering? We don't drive T model Fords anymore. Maybe Symbian has nice kernel but writing C++ applications for it is a huge pain in the ass. I mean, it really beats me why the heck you have to have Perl to build C++ applications!?
Another (horror) story was the API documentation. You really couldn't trust it a bit. It felt like the documentation and header files was constantly out of sync. I finally got so frustrated with it that I learned C# and .NET, changed employer and haven't regretted a day.
No. Basically he says that he doesn't like Vista, Windows and/or Microsoft, no matter what, and likes to troll around Slashdot. Every point he tries to make is a non-existing one.
Same bitching is going on with couple of friends of mine. They whine how Vista consumes a heck load of memory, crashes all the time and whatever. None of them has actually used Vista, at least not more than a minute or two. And the funny thing is that one of them has a Linux box which crashes daily.
But hey! People need to have things to do in their life or they get bored, and bitching about Vista is just as good hobby as me bitching about Linux :) Just kidding. I really don't care what OS people are using nowadays.
I don't know much about real-time systems but what I've understood is that some embedded real-time kernels (I think QNX is one) even tells in their programmer's manuals that "function X takes Y clock cycles to execute" so you can take this into account when designing your code.
First I thought that I add sarcastic smiley to my post but it turned out that my joke was much more fun this way (and possibly more informative), at least for me :)
So ... We need to blow up a nuclear reactor to test this hypothesis?