Lisp is based on lambda calculus. It's not based on any other computer language.
> It has no syntax
Don't be daft. Every language has syntax, otherwise you wouldn't be able to type in programs. lisp syntax is, however, incredibly simple (and incredibly subtle and powerfull)
> Object-oriented programming is way, way overrated.
I'd vote this down if I had mod-points right now. (-1, uninformative).
An openly unpopular opinion without any reasons behind it is just a troll. We can't even tell if you are an old-school procedural coder or a functional programmer.
OOP may not work for you, but it works very well for me and many others. Perhaps your grasp of OOP (what it is, when to use it, and how to make the most of it) is what is overrated.
Both articles say data-aware widgets that provide automotive synchronization between the GUI and the underlying database\
Shouldn't that be Automatic? Is this some nuance of American English that I was unaware of, or are the widgets synchronised by little volvos? Or does no one in the place know how to use English.
> could you come up with a meg or so of bits that will always yield the exact same md5sum as if you had operated on aim.exe
In theory, yes, but if you'd read the article, that's not what they're doing.
They are reading a randomly chosen 16-byte segment and MD5ing that. You'd have to fake or store a MD5 for *each* possible 16 byte segment, ie about 1 million of them per Mb of exe. (or 1/16th of that if they always align the starting point by 16 bytes) Either way it is vastly less feasable.
> out that you'd need a couple of GB of fake-aim.exe
Er. Read the article. The server requests a MD5 sum of a randomly chosen 16-byte area. You'd need a fake for each possible one. I don't know how big the aim exe is, but in a 1 Mg exe there are over a million possibilities.
Horses for courses. However, for what I do, day to day, Delphi is the best yet.
What is needed to make delphi better? Kylix, more MPL'd components & functions a www.delphi-jedi-org, freeware VSS/CVS integration pluggins, etc... but that's getting off topic.
> Obviously, conserving bandwidth in our comms streams is very important.
The XML spec includes a statement that (if my memory serves me OK) "terseness is of minimal importance" Maybe thier problem domain is just different to yours.
If there is a way inclucde binary data in XML, then **please** send me or post a pointer.
compress your XML doc with zip or the like. You should get good compression what with all the redundancies in an XML doc.
Um no. 'preconceived notions' would be that it has to use water as a solvent, DNA as a genetic information storage, have 2 limbs for walking and 2 for grasping. These may sound stupid, but I've seen them (especially the DNA one) here on Slashdot before. If an ET lifeform is found that uses DNA in the same way that we do, it would strongly suggets that we share a common origin.
However if you suggest that "evolve and adapt" may not be universal features of anything even remotely worthy of the name life, I have nothing but derisive laughter for you. As I never tire of saying, go read Dawkins or Dennet. They are better thinkers than I am, and have spent a lot of time & effort on this topic. I agree with them on this.
Um, no How about: Make a sketch of the outlines & positions of the objects in the scene for 1/4 hour, then fill in the details for as long as you want.
> Just because one planet exhibits life in a certain way is NO indication that ALL life-bearing planets will exhibit the same features.
Right, so for now we have to extrapolate from a sample size of one, and some logic. As for the logic, note I'm not using any features of earthly life, aside from it's ability to evolve and adapt. If something evolves and adapts, it will therefor radiates and finds new habitats. If not then well, it's not life at all.
>If there were something recognizable as a bacteria found on Mars, and a bacteria is recognized as a living organism, then it's pretty safe to say we would have found life on Mars eh?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The new data from NASA is a step closer, but it not it yet. I'm trying to point out the claim of life on mars is a lot more extraordinary than most people seem to think.
> Oh wait, you're a troll
Yeah right, I research and maintain long writeups on E2 just to rile you (see the update BTW, I got some good feedback in this thread). Sheesh. Troll yerself.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. MARS IS BARREN
The full text is Here on everything2, but for those you who don't like to click, I will exerpt the most important part:
Dr James Lovelock was first to articulate the reasons why Mars is barren. Put simply, let us look at the only example that we have of a world where life exists: Earth. How could we devise a subtle test to determine the existence of life on earth's surface? We don't need to; it sticks out a million miles away. Green continents. Atmospheric composition.
Life radiates to all available niches, it diversifies, it takes over, it envelops and transforms. Life doesn't just keep a foothold on a planet. If it is present at all, expect it to be almost everywhere on or near the surface. Expect entire geological phenomena such as coal and chalk to be caused by living things. Expect the planetary atmosphere to have puzzling components, like 21% highly reactive oxygen and traces of methane.
Sure, earthly life would have a tough time just keeping a foothold on Mars. But with Martian life, we would even expect like to not arise at all unless it did so in a form suitable to the prevalent conditions, and be further honed by hundreds of millions of years of adaptation.
It is likely that the concept of a planet having traces of life is not a valid one: there will be diversity and many filled niches, or nothing. Even if there are or were a few bacteria on mars, then it's not what we think of as life: there is no ecology, no biosphere, no diversity.
Looking for life on Mars is like the old story of the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost because there's more light there. We look for life on Mars because it's nearby, not because it is a good place to look.
So? Anyone can spin news. Try giving a *reason* why it's the oposite.
> After all, Darwin himself stated that his theory would be invalid if there were complexity found at the cellular level.
Is that relevant? Darwin wrote his theory in 1859, about 100 years before DNA was discovered. Very little was known about cells then, and the theory of evolution has well, evolved into somethigna lot stronger since then.
Try reading a modern neo-darwinist. such as Dawkins or Dennett. They don't take that approach.
>> > Complex carbon molecules and water,
>>> which are key ingredients for life
> Uhh, life on earth that is...
Talking about extraterestrial life is extrapolation from one data point. However, no other element, even silicon, has nearly as much potential as carbon. How many interesting complex molecules based on Silicon do you know of?
When life is found out there, we shouldn't expect to find DNA just like ours, but should be 99.9999% certain of finding that it is built out of complex cabon-based compounds.
> Zimmerman doesn't actually say that 7.0.3 doesn't have back doors
He does say that *as far as he can tell and as far as he could try*, it is good.
Come on dude, would you say flatly and point blank that your code is bug free, or would you rather say "if you looked at the source, I am confident that you won't find any bugs".
He also seems to be implying "I would like to make the source public, but the new bosses don't. So I am leaving to go make open systems" If that is so, Yay Phil!
> But isn't this the 'halting problem'? I mean, you can prove that a piece of code does something nasty, but you can't prove it doesn't do something nasty
I didn't consider the possibility of the message sent to the fab being anything other than dumb data: ie a complete CAD model of the item to be fabbed, which must of necessity list all the parts & how they fit together.
AFAIK, that is how it is done now & has no reason to change soon. Think of it as not the halting problem, but the MS-Outlook problem: When you allow your transmitted data to be run, this is open to abuse.
Even if it was a programatic description of the item to be made, then run it against a virtual fab to see the resulting model. It's like print vs. print preview: programatically, all that differs is the type of canvas the progam draws on.
>There will always, always be a need for commercial software. First of all, some software is DULL, and no one will want to code it for fun. Secondly, there will always be companies with deep pockets who can fund a very competent closed-source project. And what about apps like air traffic control?
Why do you assume that commerical software must be closed-source? You can be paid to write open-source. There are examples of how that would work in an open source world. Suppose you ran a hostpital, or an airport or something. Now you would not particularly care about computers, but you would need the benefits that a custom-built, complex (and dull) software system can bring.
You will need to pay someone to write software for you. But why does this imply that it must be closed source software? *It does not*.
You get several important benefits on demanding that the source for the software made for you be opened:
- You are not locked into a single provider of enhancements and fixes. You are not forced to pay a single provider whatever they want to charge.
- You can pool costs with other institutions with similar needs for the same or similar software.
Given time and effort (and a corporate sponsor, which is guaranteed in cases like this) open-sorce softaware can and often does suppass closed-source software for functionality, reliability and flexibility.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a loan-word that is now accepted as part of English.
If you wan't it defined, there are some good writeups on it on www.everything2.com. Yes, one of them is mine.
> Lisp is, it's not based off anything.
Lisp is based on lambda calculus. It's not based on any other computer language.
> It has no syntax
Don't be daft. Every language has syntax, otherwise you wouldn't be able to type in programs. lisp syntax is, however, incredibly simple (and incredibly subtle and powerfull)
> Object-oriented programming is way, way overrated.
I'd vote this down if I had mod-points right now. (-1, uninformative).
An openly unpopular opinion without any reasons behind it is just a troll. We can't even tell if you are an old-school procedural coder or a functional programmer.
OOP may not work for you, but it works very well for me and many others. Perhaps your grasp of OOP (what it is, when to use it, and how to make the most of it) is what is overrated.
> Trolltech is in Norway. I don't think it is fair to pick on English,
OK, I forgive them. I don't forgive the journalists who cut&pasted thier press-release without proofreading it.
Shouldn't that be Automatic? Is this some nuance of American English that I was unaware of, or are the widgets synchronised by little volvos? Or does no one in the place know how to use English.
> could you come up with a meg or so of bits that will always yield the exact same md5sum as if you had operated on aim.exe
In theory, yes, but if you'd read the article, that's not what they're doing.
They are reading a randomly chosen 16-byte segment and MD5ing that. You'd have to fake or store a MD5 for *each* possible 16 byte segment, ie about 1 million of them per Mb of exe. (or 1/16th of that if they always align the starting point by 16 bytes) Either way it is vastly less feasable.
> out that you'd need a couple of GB of fake-aim.exe
Er. Read the article. The server requests a MD5 sum of a randomly chosen 16-byte area. You'd need a fake for each possible one. I don't know how big the aim exe is, but in a 1 Mg exe there are over a million possibilities.
Horses for courses. However, for what I do, day to day, Delphi is the best yet.
... but that's getting off topic.
What is needed to make delphi better? Kylix, more MPL'd components & functions a www.delphi-jedi-org, freeware VSS/CVS integration pluggins, etc
> Visual SourceSafe is much more reliable
... reliable ... bwhahahaha!! That would be so funny if it didn't bring back painful memories.
Visual SourceSafe
> Delphi ... files ... are binary
.pas and .dpr files are text.
.dfm files from Delphi 4 onwards if you turn that option on (ie if you have any sense).
Nope, they aren't.
So are
This is on the NT codebase.
No longer will we have to, after writing our apps under the stable-by-comparison Win2K, have to test, debug and tune under the P.O.S. 95/98/ME OS.
> Where, exactly, is Office storing the activation code?
On MS's server. Read the article. When you try to install on a different PC using the same CD-key, MS's server will veto it.
> My take on XML is that it's all text.
Yup.
> Obviously, conserving bandwidth in our comms streams is very important.
The XML spec includes a statement that (if my memory serves me OK) "terseness is of minimal importance" Maybe thier problem domain is just different to yours.
If there is a way inclucde binary data in XML, then **please** send me or post a pointer.
compress your XML doc with zip or the like. You should get good compression what with all the redundancies in an XML doc.
> preconceived notions as to what life is,
Um no. 'preconceived notions' would be that it has to use water as a solvent, DNA as a genetic information storage, have 2 limbs for walking and 2 for grasping. These may sound stupid, but I've seen them (especially the DNA one) here on Slashdot before. If an ET lifeform is found that uses DNA in the same way that we do, it would strongly suggets that we share a common origin.
However if you suggest that "evolve and adapt" may not be universal features of anything even remotely worthy of the name life, I have nothing but derisive laughter for you. As I never tire of saying, go read Dawkins or Dennet. They are better thinkers than I am, and have spent a lot of time & effort on this topic. I agree with them on this.
> That whole canvas in an hour.
Um, no How about: Make a sketch of the outlines & positions of the objects in the scene for 1/4 hour, then fill in the details for as long as you want.
> Just because one planet exhibits life in a certain way is NO indication that ALL life-bearing planets will exhibit the same features.
Right, so for now we have to extrapolate from a sample size of one, and some logic. As for the logic, note I'm not using any features of earthly life, aside from it's ability to evolve and adapt. If something evolves and adapts, it will therefor radiates and finds new habitats. If not then well, it's not life at all.
>If there were something recognizable as a bacteria found on Mars, and a bacteria is recognized as a living organism, then it's pretty safe to say we would have found life on Mars eh?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The new data from NASA is a step closer, but it not it yet. I'm trying to point out the claim of life on mars is a lot more extraordinary than most people seem to think.
> Oh wait, you're a troll
Yeah right, I research and maintain long writeups on E2 just to rile you (see the update BTW, I got some good feedback in this thread). Sheesh. Troll yerself.
> Mars WAS JUST LIKE THE EARTH
:)
:)
Uh, not exactly. Please dont shout either, it makes you seem juvenile. Try using facts or references instead.
> life in this solar system originated on MARS and was carried here to this planet
Possible, not probable.
>my meteorites
Not from around here, are you
>In a few more years it will all be much clearer.
Yup
> If life was present on Mars it is not totally implausible that it remains in some areas.
Yes it is actually. Not impossible, just implausible. Read the full text of the writeup on E2 - link form my first post.
OK, so Mars was possibly once upon a time not barren, but now Mars is definitely barren. I will modify the writeup accordingly
The full text is Here on everything2, but for those you who don't like to click, I will exerpt the most important part:
Dr James Lovelock was first to articulate the reasons why Mars is barren. Put simply, let us look at the only example that we have of a world where life exists: Earth. How could we devise a subtle test to determine the existence of life on earth's surface? We don't need to; it sticks out a million miles away. Green continents. Atmospheric composition.
Life radiates to all available niches, it diversifies, it takes over, it envelops and transforms. Life doesn't just keep a foothold on a planet. If it is present at all, expect it to be almost everywhere on or near the surface. Expect entire geological phenomena such as coal and chalk to be caused by living things. Expect the planetary atmosphere to have puzzling components, like 21% highly reactive oxygen and traces of methane.
Sure, earthly life would have a tough time just keeping a foothold on Mars. But with Martian life, we would even expect like to not arise at all unless it did so in a form suitable to the prevalent conditions, and be further honed by hundreds of millions of years of adaptation.
It is likely that the concept of a planet having traces of life is not a valid one: there will be diversity and many filled niches, or nothing. Even if there are or were a few bacteria on mars, then it's not what we think of as life: there is no ecology, no biosphere, no diversity.
Looking for life on Mars is like the old story of the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost because there's more light there. We look for life on Mars because it's nearby, not because it is a good place to look.
> This says exactly the opposite.
So? Anyone can spin news. Try giving a *reason* why it's the oposite.
> After all, Darwin himself stated that his theory would be invalid if there were complexity found at the cellular level.
Is that relevant? Darwin wrote his theory in 1859, about 100 years before DNA was discovered. Very little was known about cells then, and the theory of evolution has well, evolved into somethigna lot stronger since then.
Try reading a modern neo-darwinist. such as Dawkins or Dennett. They don't take that approach.
>> > Complex carbon molecules and water,
>>> which are key ingredients for life
> Uhh, life on earth that is...
Talking about extraterestrial life is extrapolation from one data point. However, no other element, even silicon, has nearly as much potential as carbon. How many interesting complex molecules based on Silicon do you know of?
When life is found out there, we shouldn't expect to find DNA just like ours, but should be 99.9999% certain of finding that it is built out of complex cabon-based compounds.
> Zimmerman doesn't actually say that 7.0.3 doesn't have back doors
He does say that *as far as he can tell and as far as he could try*, it is good.
Come on dude, would you say flatly and point blank that your code is bug free, or would you rather say "if you looked at the source, I am confident that you won't find any bugs".
He also seems to be implying "I would like to make the source public, but the new bosses don't. So I am leaving to go make open systems" If that is so, Yay Phil!
> But isn't this the 'halting problem'? I mean, you can prove that a piece of code does something nasty, but you can't prove it doesn't do something nasty
I didn't consider the possibility of the message sent to the fab being anything other than dumb data: ie a complete CAD model of the item to be fabbed, which must of necessity list all the parts & how they fit together.
AFAIK, that is how it is done now & has no reason to change soon. Think of it as not the halting problem, but the MS-Outlook problem: When you allow your transmitted data to be run, this is open to abuse.
Even if it was a programatic description of the item to be made, then run it against a virtual fab to see the resulting model. It's like print vs. print preview: programatically, all that differs is the type of canvas the progam draws on.
>There will always, always be a need for commercial software. First of all, some software is DULL, and no one will want to code it for fun. Secondly, there will always be companies with deep pockets who can fund a very competent closed-source project. And what about apps like air traffic control?
Why do you assume that commerical software must be closed-source? You can be paid to write open-source. There are examples of how that would work in an open source world. Suppose you ran a hostpital, or an airport or something. Now you would not particularly care about computers, but you would need the benefits that a custom-built, complex (and dull) software system can bring.
You will need to pay someone to write software for you. But why does this imply that it must be closed source software? *It does not*.
You get several important benefits on demanding that the source for the software made for you be opened:
- You are not locked into a single provider of enhancements and fixes. You are not forced to pay a single provider whatever they want to charge.
- You can pool costs with other institutions with similar needs for the same or similar software.
Given time and effort (and a corporate sponsor, which is guaranteed in cases like this) open-sorce softaware can and often does suppass closed-source software for functionality, reliability and flexibility.