While you are right that Anonymous Coward should not be using those little phrases if he does not understand them (he surely meant "de facto", which is, in a way, the exact opposite of "de jure"...), it is not French.
So what they 'invented' is pretty much the same as the Keep functionality (ie, what you get from having "xdvi.keepPosition: True" in your ~/.xdvirc)
that's been in xdvi for the last age?
But go ahead, link to a case where someone has been sucessfully sued for infringing on a software patent where the methods of implementation in question were independently developed. I'd love to see it.
There is absolutely no need for someone t have successfully done that for absurd patents to become problematic. Essentially no one can afford to be sued by, say, MS, even if your implementation of Page Down is provably different to theirs.
Indeed. And the much more literary style that was deemed acceptable before resulted not only in inaccuracy but in gross errors.
Bourbaki's work is an amazing feat, which nowadays can be appreciated maybe only with a considerable amount of historical perspective---mostly because it was extremely successful: it set (maybe by using an elaborate, laborious, hyperbole that is, among many other things, a display of love for the subjects treated) standards against which mathematical writing was (and is!) compared, if not jugded, and the student of today has the false impression that the textbooks he reads today are of the same kind as those that were read at all times, simply because he does not know history.
The effort spent in coming up with clear, precise definitions, detailed proofs, even with usable notation, is easy to disparage once one can enjoy its benefits.
If you really think there is no value in Bourbaki's texts, you know nothing of the history of mathematics, and probably you have not had to study that many textbooks from before their time...
For someone to earn your trust, does he need to uphold an opinion despite new information that indicates that opinion is wrong? Is consistency more important that correctness?
One of the most amazing things I've heard in a presidential debate was John Kerry's response to some comments by Bush in which he sais that he was certain about something: he said something along the lines of "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong". The depth of that epistemological statement, in the context of a presidential debate, simply stunned me.
Did you know that South America has a gallon of gas priced under $1 USD? They're not losing money on it, and it's not subsidized. How are they doing it? Simple, they're turning coal into oil products. South Africa also buys most of their coal from the US.
Huh? You must be talking about some other South America, one different from the one I am in...
since the licenses, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, disclaim liability or suitability of the software for purpose...
As someone who has used MS products for not much more than 30 hours in the last 10 years: can you tell me what software does not disclaim such liabilities and suitabilities? I mean, regular software that does not cost millions of dollars per KLoC, of course?
Personally, I have the same thing to say about Shakespeare; the man couldn't even spell his own name correctly
Heh. Hopefully, you are just joking. But, anyways, this is quite characteristic of people who appreciate the 'points' being made in that kind of texts: a deeply ingrained anhistorical perspective. There lies, also, the greatest flaw in those 'points'.
What features are you talking about? ``Reproducing the behaviour of the Windows windowing systemÂÂ, while potentially useful, is not exactly a sine-qua-non condition for not sucking, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
While you are right that Anonymous Coward should not be using those little phrases if he does not understand them (he surely meant "de facto", which is, in a way, the exact opposite of "de jure"...), it is not French.
Well, I do not know about you, but I prefer quiter games than Russian roulette.
Well, the problem is the patent system, not the specific patents. So your reading is not that far off.
So what they 'invented' is pretty much the same as the Keep functionality (ie, what you get from having "xdvi.keepPosition: True" in your ~/.xdvirc) that's been in xdvi for the last age?
or xdvi, for that matter...
But go ahead, link to a case where someone has been sucessfully sued for infringing on a software patent where the methods of implementation in question were independently developed. I'd love to see it.
There is absolutely no need for someone t have successfully done that for absurd patents to become problematic. Essentially no one can afford to be sued by, say, MS, even if your implementation of Page Down is provably different to theirs.
Indeed. And the much more literary style that was deemed acceptable before resulted not only in inaccuracy but in gross errors.
Bourbaki's work is an amazing feat, which nowadays can be appreciated maybe only with a considerable amount of historical perspective---mostly because it was extremely successful: it set (maybe by using an elaborate, laborious, hyperbole that is, among many other things, a display of love for the subjects treated) standards against which mathematical writing was (and is!) compared, if not jugded, and the student of today has the false impression that the textbooks he reads today are of the same kind as those that were read at all times, simply because he does not know history.
The effort spent in coming up with clear, precise definitions, detailed proofs, even with usable notation, is easy to disparage once one can enjoy its benefits.
If you really think there is no value in Bourbaki's texts, you know nothing of the history of mathematics, and probably you have not had to study that many textbooks from before their time...
You are very mistaken if you think that strict adherence to the web standards implies rendering in the same way.
Universities are often managed as businesses. Let them act like ones and help their customers.
That's mostly an US-ism only (although, as it happends, US-isms rub on others... ) The very concept of "education industry" makes me hurt.
Set up a foundation, financed by Universities, to pay knowledgable people to write the books. Then have the foundation release the results openly.
If you cannot see how that can be good for education, you need to consider the question better.
fugly and confusing.
Don't you mean it is different from what you know?
For someone to earn your trust, does he need to uphold an opinion despite new information that indicates that opinion is wrong? Is consistency more important that correctness?
One of the most amazing things I've heard in a presidential debate was John Kerry's response to some comments by Bush in which he sais that he was certain about something: he said something along the lines of "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong". The depth of that epistemological statement, in the context of a presidential debate, simply stunned me.
I guess you voted for Bush, for he was certain...
Did you know that South America has a gallon of gas priced under $1 USD? They're not losing money on it, and it's not subsidized. How are they doing it? Simple, they're turning coal into oil products. South Africa also buys most of their coal from the US.
Huh? You must be talking about some other South America, one different from the one I am in...
That you can consider the US's economy as "today's socialist economy" really puts everything you say in perspective...
since the licenses, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, disclaim liability or suitability of the software for purpose...
As someone who has used MS products for not much more than 30 hours in the last 10 years: can you tell me what software does not disclaim such liabilities and suitabilities? I mean, regular software that does not cost millions of dollars per KLoC, of course?
Personally, I have the same thing to say about Shakespeare; the man couldn't even spell his own name correctly
Heh. Hopefully, you are just joking. But, anyways, this is quite characteristic of people who appreciate the 'points' being made in that kind of texts: a deeply ingrained anhistorical perspective. There lies, also, the greatest flaw in those 'points'.
Sigh. People quote Atlas Shrugged now as the revelation. At least the Bible is pretty good literature, if you skip the bad parts...
Oh, that's what you read...
At least, there is no need for a [Citation needed] tag on the statement that you do not know what you are talking abut then.
What features are you talking about? ``Reproducing the behaviour of the Windows windowing systemÂÂ, while potentially useful, is not exactly a sine-qua-non condition for not sucking, you know.
Being different, in this case, is worse. It's not as full-featured a model, and those features have value to developers.
Being different is worse surely if what you want is to replicate behaviour. For that, the ideal would be to be exactly the same.
So you are answering yes to my question.
the issues left are primarily issues with the X Window System model (which sucks, and don't even try to deny it)
By `sucks' I guess you mean is different from Windoww's?
Leave the desktop cube (which is rather useless, really) out. I seem to have forgotten how to change desktops in good 'ol 2D in Vista!
What's wrong (or, at least, morally dubious) is that they fail to recognize what they did with the OSS-originated network stack...