Because compiler compilers exist and you could roll your own compiler that turns Pythonesque commands into proper nftables rules if you really wished to.
The fact that you think 'boxen' is a stupid term shows you're a neophyte who has no business judging computer expertise. When I hear people using good old hacker speak, I know I'm dealing with someone who has probably accumulated some digital wisdom. Also, boxen is a useful term when encompassing everything from my photo frame to a server in one term where 'computer' is too narrowly interpreted.
For everyone else:
"Boxen: An alternative pluralization of boxes. In 60-80s hacker lingo (when hacker [meant] something very different, btw), it originated from vax/vaxen (the, at the time, correct way to [refer] to two or more vax computers). Because of this unusual pluralization, it because common to use -en instead of -es or whatever else was correct for all words ending in x or with an x sound, such as soxen or socksen for more then one sock. Box was/is usually referring to a computer (pc, server, workstation, whatever)."
The GPL applies at all times, and requires source with any binary redistribution.
Sure, within a company, this only means making the source code available to the servers its used on, but any engineer, any developer, any QA person who uses that software has every *right* to that modified source code.
Actually according to recent revelations, the NSA may not care about what's legal in the US either... but they certainly don't care about Canadian legalities, despite being allies, so long as they don't get caught.
I keep seeing people say this, and I see no logical justification for it.
Yes, it would be *nice* if everyone was polite, but for people with specific personality types, its really not worth the additional energy wasted on trying not to hurt someone's feelings. For some people, it really does require a lot of effort.
In fact, at a logical level, wouldn't it make more sense to embrace our genius developers and let them be rude and obnoxious to benefit from their abilities rather than make them change to suit us?
Obviously you've never written code for a Windows system. Shared memory pages for libraries is so incredibly rare it isn't funny. Also, because the Windows DLL interface isn't intelligent enough, most people end up having to distribute their own copy of any libraries they use anyway so they can't be shared with other applications.
The most important bit here is the server-side. The actual thermostat is well-manufactured hardware (and I've never been as impressed with someone's packaging and included documentation as I am with Nest's) and worth more than average -- but the real cost to Nest.com is building and administering the servers on the back-end.
That's a poor question. The question is, how much damage could someone do to your life by taking over your home electronics via an Internet-connected black box *if* they hacked it?
Agreed, although I own a Nest -- and I wish it supported direct communications with my phone/tablet instead of needing the Internet. I'd even be okay with having to run a management service on my Linux box that it talks to as an intermediary.
Correction to my statement: using voice commands on someone else's device in public is funny and acceptable... although the xkcd wasn't that funny personally;-)
If you have to specify implementation-specific special codes within your data stream then your language doesn't support the thing, your code is doing it.
C++ doesn't understand Unicode strings (which Python now does for instance) and doesn't understand screen resolutions, emulations or graphics either. Do these belong in the standard library? If they're used as frequently as I think they are, I'd say yes.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be impressed that C# uses retarded names for its types or if you're just trying to point out that Java has no unsigned types (likely the latter, sadly).
In private, using voice to search on my Android device is much much faster than typing it out. I also find myself dictating notes to my device and watching it type out my words instead of jotting my thoughts down manually.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean non-experts who have a high tolerance for research and and paper-writing -- high IQs are not required to get PhDs, just dedication.
Because compiler compilers exist and you could roll your own compiler that turns Pythonesque commands into proper nftables rules if you really wished to.
The fact that you think 'boxen' is a stupid term shows you're a neophyte who has no business judging computer expertise. When I hear people using good old hacker speak, I know I'm dealing with someone who has probably accumulated some digital wisdom. Also, boxen is a useful term when encompassing everything from my photo frame to a server in one term where 'computer' is too narrowly interpreted.
For everyone else:
"Boxen: An alternative pluralization of boxes. In 60-80s hacker lingo (when hacker [meant] something very different, btw), it originated from vax/vaxen (the, at the time, correct way to [refer] to two or more vax computers). Because of this unusual pluralization, it because common to use -en instead of -es or whatever else was correct for all words ending in x or with an x sound, such as soxen or socksen for more then one sock. Box was/is usually referring to a computer (pc, server, workstation, whatever)."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boxen
I think you phrased that wrong.
The GPL applies at all times, and requires source with any binary redistribution.
Sure, within a company, this only means making the source code available to the servers its used on, but any engineer, any developer, any QA person who uses that software has every *right* to that modified source code.
Actually according to recent revelations, the NSA may not care about what's legal in the US either ... but they certainly don't care about Canadian legalities, despite being allies, so long as they don't get caught.
I don't care if developers are dicks. Why do you?
I use his software, I like his software, and somewhere, somehow, his personality is partly to blame, so I tolerate it even when not embracing it.
I suspect that in reality, being surrounded by polite morons would be loathsome.
Tell us how you really feel.
I keep seeing people say this, and I see no logical justification for it.
Yes, it would be *nice* if everyone was polite, but for people with specific personality types, its really not worth the additional energy wasted on trying not to hurt someone's feelings. For some people, it really does require a lot of effort.
In fact, at a logical level, wouldn't it make more sense to embrace our genius developers and let them be rude and obnoxious to benefit from their abilities rather than make them change to suit us?
In security software, shipping nothing is preferable to shipping bugs, especially when shipping a product does not net you any more revenues.
For those who want to know numbers: http://www.ontario-hydro.com/index.php?page=electricity_rates_by_province
We're all vampires up here, there's no sunlight most of the year :)
Obviously you've never written code for a Windows system. Shared memory pages for libraries is so incredibly rare it isn't funny. Also, because the Windows DLL interface isn't intelligent enough, most people end up having to distribute their own copy of any libraries they use anyway so they can't be shared with other applications.
The most important bit here is the server-side. The actual thermostat is well-manufactured hardware (and I've never been as impressed with someone's packaging and included documentation as I am with Nest's) and worth more than average -- but the real cost to Nest.com is building and administering the servers on the back-end.
That's a poor question. The question is, how much damage could someone do to your life by taking over your home electronics via an Internet-connected black box *if* they hacked it?
Agreed, although I own a Nest -- and I wish it supported direct communications with my phone/tablet instead of needing the Internet. I'd even be okay with having to run a management service on my Linux box that it talks to as an intermediary.
Correction to my statement: using voice commands on someone else's device in public is funny and acceptable ... although the xkcd wasn't that funny personally ;-)
If you have to specify implementation-specific special codes within your data stream then your language doesn't support the thing, your code is doing it.
std::cout http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/NCURSES-Programming-HOWTO/attrib.html
C++ doesn't understand Unicode strings (which Python now does for instance) and doesn't understand screen resolutions, emulations or graphics either. Do these belong in the standard library? If they're used as frequently as I think they are, I'd say yes.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be impressed that C# uses retarded names for its types or if you're just trying to point out that Java has no unsigned types (likely the latter, sadly).
For a more complete list, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java
Especially fun when the guy at the bus stop clutches his chest and the lady next to him tries to dial 911.
A theatre half an hour away does that too but the keep the house lights on dim until the main feature, at which point they go completely dark.
That's almost never true.
In private, using voice to search on my Android device is much much faster than typing it out. I also find myself dictating notes to my device and watching it type out my words instead of jotting my thoughts down manually.
In public, nobody should use voice commands.
My local theatres displays the "please turn off your phones" banner *after* the previews and before the main feature just to reinforce this point.
I'm betting they also have a fantastic profit margin.
I loved the sarcasm, it was not immediately obvious -- which is absolutely the best kind.
Granted, on a tech site full of Sheldons, it might be a good idea to throw in a [/sarcasm] at the end of the post ... just in case someone missed it.