Losing an acquaintance (river, and perhaps others) to addiction, do you have any feel for that fine point in a friendship where not confronting them ("you have a problem and need help") would be practically criminal, and forcing the issue would not also drive them away?
(/serious) I'd also like your opinion on Debbie Gibson, and what you were thinking in that picture:)
It levels the playing field. Students coming into the class already knowing C++ or Java or even Basic no longer have as much of an advantage over students that come into the class knowing little or nothing about programming.
Of course those who learned Scheme in high school will have that advantage.. (no, I didn't. I'm from the Pascal era.)
This is much better than Java, for instance, which more or less forces you into OO design.
Since my skills in Scheme are, shall we say, not up to snuff, I will put this next bit in the form of a question:
How does Scheme, as a lisp (successor? derivative? argh) not force you to design more recursively and/or functionally (ie, functional programming)? Certainly straight-up procedural programming is not encouraged except as a speed "hack"?
First off, nice comment. Only part I disagreed w/ was:
Also, unlike Israel or Iran, the only US criterion for an Afghan govt is peacefulness, stability, and cooperation with US intelligence.
Cooperation: oh yes.
Peacefullness/stability? We arguably had that before with the Taliban. (In comparison to Afghanistan's civil war anyway).. I believe that as long as Afghanistan isn't supporting anti-US efforts (like bin Laden) the US government just isn't going to give a damn. Even if they did, it might not matter. "Afghanistan" is composed of various tribes who basically hate each other. They have fundamental problems that no installed government is going to solve for decades. Barring that, it would still be interesting to see us actually building dams to alleviate their current drought problems and other industry on the scale of our post-WWII restoration efforts, instead of just shooting food at them. Is it worth it?
Right. Let's find life Out There so.. we can go kill it.
Seriously,
We've a lot more in common with each other than we do with "them", and it may make our petty differences seem insignificant.
People just have to fight. If it's over who gets to be the head of your local P.T.A. (parent-teachers' association for non-USians) you're just lucky. If our aliens actually turn out to be "friendly" we will continue to fight amongst ourselves since we can't find conflict elsewhere. As long as we're mentioning afghans, I'll make an example of them. Once they had expelled the russians they decided to plunge themselves into civil war. Great.
When something goes wrong this gas disperses
(whippin' out my bullshit science..)
To elaborate on that, the pressure decreases rapidly to 1 atm and this action causes the temperature of said gas to decrease rapidly. I forget what law or equation is responsible for this (been awhile since I've had physics), but the opposite situation (compressing a gas increases its heat) is responsible for starting fusion in the first place in proto-stars.
People also use this principle everyday in their refrigerators and air conditioners.
Vietnam. Please. Now you can go ahead and say "we weren't actually at WAR" but this would conflict with your earlier interpretation of this term, since you say "WE ARE AT WAR!" without us currently being at war.
Come on, people! It's only by the grace of the US Government that you have those "rights" to begin with.
They don't think so.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Damn idealists.
Well, if it's "critical" to the public, then it must be even more critical to terrorists, who will use it against us.
There are many things the public should know (that the government would prefer us not to), that terrorists have absolutely no interest in. Does "Tuskeegee syphillis study" ring a bell? Less seriously, when the hell are we going to find out who shot JFK?:-)
The licenses are compatible (meaning no conflicting terms between them)
Of course if you get really pedantic, you'll notice the MPL is on the list of
GPL-incompatible licenses, but the MPL allows a module to be licensed under other licenses (including GPL), so...
The only reason you can run non-GPL applications under Linux, is that Linus had the foresight to include an exception to the GPL in the kernel license.
Well, he's explaining his interpretation of the GPL. My, err, interpretation of his little clause is that he's saying "even if the GPL says you have to, I say you don't".. which I don't think implies that "the GPL says you have to". One thing he didn't make explicit that he probably should have was his interpretation for binary-only kernel modules.
Disclaimer: I don't plan to release any code under GPL either (I don't agree w/ its philosophy); if/when I do it will probably be LGPL w/ X-licensed main modules. I have contributed to GPL projects.
1) A lot of your post seems to be just flaming the GPL, with arguments we've heard before. I might even agree with some of them. Congratulations on starting another flame fest.
2) I am interested in one thing you do say,
(This only reinforces)...my decision to stop using the GPL for any of my own code; I've relicensed everything under a libpng/zlib-style agreement, thus distancing myself from the extreme opinions of GPL's adherents.
So, how does it reinforce your decision? Does his spelling and grammar make you cringe? Are you criticizing some bit of his legal strategy? Or are you just upset at him for enforcing the GPL?
By refusing to accept the terms of the GPL, you are also refusing not to hold the authors of the software liable for any failures, leaving the authors open to potential lawsuit.
I believe it's a non-issue. The warranty terms of the program are not defined by the GPL (except the default no warranty); rather the GPL forces the author and redistributors to explicitly publish your warranty (or lack thereof). Under GPL terms and conditions:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; (...)
(The copyright notice is separate from the warranty.) And indeed the notice suggested by the GPL is:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation (...) This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE (...)
(again) You're supposed to separate the warranty notice from the GPL notice.
Trying to sue based on that would be akin to sueing for banging your knee on the bottom of a swimming pool when all the signs say "no lifeguard, swim at your own risk".. it'd make for a hard court case. (I hate analogies, but oh well)
I'm certain there are other potentially less dangerous ways of immobilizing everyone in the back if it came to it. How about flooding the cabin with some kind of gas?
Were pilots trained to hole up in the cockpit and land at the nearest airport (And possibly lower the cabin pressure to the point where everyone in the back passes out)
That's a very interesting suggestion but it has some weaknesses.
1) At low altitude it won't work, because the external air pressure is high enough. So as you try to land you're going to be dealing with some really ticked off terrorists.
2) Wouldn't the oxygen masks drop? (maybe it's controlled by the pilots..) The terrorists could just work their way up the aisle stabbing anyone who resisted.
I guess an example would be if Torvalds decided to sell Linux to Microsoft under the BSD license.
Even if this was permissible (which I do not believe), it would be better for linus to use a very rigid license rather than bsd. Otherwise MS could turn around and release their bsd version of linux, forking it, and cutting into linus's little side business.
We can begin with Afghanistan, then proceed with Iran, Sudan, and Yemen, assuming those regimes are not toppled by their own people when they witness the destruction we inflict upon the Taliban.
Logically this would make sense, but religious fanaticism is not based on logic but something more like brainwashing and indoctrination.
It doesn't even make logical sense. It's akin to assuming that U.S. citizens would rise against their own government once we witnessed the wanton destruction inflicted upon us. Hell no. It entrenched the iraqis and it will entrench whomever we attack.
The indian invented it. The idea travelled from east to western though the middle-east.
This is the historic thruth.
Whoops. Thanks for the correction. (Was) also a bit confused which 'indians' you were referring to (the mayans I think also had 0, but then again, I think they used a base 60 numbering system. Feel free to correct me on these as well.)
Nation and religion are evil, old ideas. Why do we keep them?
Because people believe in them; and the whole 'nation' concept tends to bring order to society, even when it's boring, mediocre or oppressive.
Ironically while we watched, we discussed how vulnerable the Pentagon was to that kind of attack since it was right on the flight path to National Airport (although the plane that hit turned out to have come from Dulles.)
What I read from a news report (sorry I can't remember which one, I've read a lot of 'em!) was that this actually was a liability since the Pentagon (in theory) had the defenses -- Stinger missles -- to take out that jet before it hit them.
But, they couldn't tell whether it was headed for them or the airport until it was too late.
Think, if they (whoever is behing this) hijacked planes in Chicago, San Fransico, Los Angeles, etc, a whole lot more people would be dead today.
Right. And now they can't really hit buildings with planes, because if I was on a plane tomorrow and somebody hijacked it I'd know I was dead anyway and would resist. Not that I'm getting on a plane anytime soon...
And there could be more victims tomorrow if the crazies decide to try more conventional methods. (and somehow succeed despite the heightened alert)
Slashdot Mirror
Losing an acquaintance (river, and perhaps others) to addiction, do you have any feel for that fine point in a friendship where not confronting them ("you have a problem and need help") would be practically criminal, and forcing the issue would not also drive them away?
(/serious) I'd also like your opinion on Debbie Gibson, and what you were thinking in that picture :)
Of course those who learned Scheme in high school will have that advantage.. (no, I didn't. I'm from the Pascal era.)
This is much better than Java, for instance, which more or less forces you into OO design.
Since my skills in Scheme are, shall we say, not up to snuff, I will put this next bit in the form of a question:
How does Scheme, as a lisp (successor? derivative? argh) not force you to design more recursively and/or functionally (ie, functional programming)? Certainly straight-up procedural programming is not encouraged except as a speed "hack"?
1) The transmission analogy sucks (but I hate analogies)
2) I would find technical details meaningful (in addition to the general optimize-best-case vs. optimize-worst-case philosophy you lay out)
3) Your experience is, as you say, years old and therefore not really relevant to your parent's question.. certainly not the part you're quoting.
Also, unlike Israel or Iran, the only US criterion for an Afghan govt is peacefulness, stability, and cooperation with US intelligence.
Cooperation: oh yes.
Peacefullness/stability? We arguably had that before with the Taliban. (In comparison to Afghanistan's civil war anyway) .. I believe that as long as Afghanistan isn't supporting anti-US efforts (like bin Laden) the US government just isn't going to give a damn. Even if they did, it might not matter. "Afghanistan" is composed of various tribes who basically hate each other. They have fundamental problems that no installed government is going to solve for decades. Barring that, it would still be interesting to see us actually building dams to alleviate their current drought problems and other industry on the scale of our post-WWII restoration efforts, instead of just shooting food at them. Is it worth it?
Right. Let's find life Out There so.. we can go kill it.
Seriously,
We've a lot more in common with each other than we do with "them", and it may make our petty differences seem insignificant.
People just have to fight. If it's over who gets to be the head of your local P.T.A. (parent-teachers' association for non-USians) you're just lucky. If our aliens actually turn out to be "friendly" we will continue to fight amongst ourselves since we can't find conflict elsewhere. As long as we're mentioning afghans, I'll make an example of them. Once they had expelled the russians they decided to plunge themselves into civil war. Great.
Technically, that's called a "pump"...
Microsoft reinvents everything.
To elaborate on that, the pressure decreases rapidly to 1 atm and this action causes the temperature of said gas to decrease rapidly. I forget what law or equation is responsible for this (been awhile since I've had physics), but the opposite situation (compressing a gas increases its heat) is responsible for starting fusion in the first place in proto-stars.
People also use this principle everyday in their refrigerators and air conditioners.
Except for the uninstalling part :-), it's been done. Try a google search for "cheese worm".
damn. I guess I just fell for a troll.
Vietnam. Please. Now you can go ahead and say "we weren't actually at WAR" but this would conflict with your earlier interpretation of this term, since you say "WE ARE AT WAR!" without us currently being at war.
They don't think so.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Damn idealists.
There are many things the public should know (that the government would prefer us not to), that terrorists have absolutely no interest in. Does "Tuskeegee syphillis study" ring a bell? Less seriously, when the hell are we going to find out who shot JFK? :-)
Of course if you get really pedantic, you'll notice the MPL is on the list of GPL-incompatible licenses, but the MPL allows a module to be licensed under other licenses (including GPL), so...
Well, he's explaining his interpretation of the GPL. My, err, interpretation of his little clause is that he's saying "even if the GPL says you have to, I say you don't".. which I don't think implies that "the GPL says you have to". One thing he didn't make explicit that he probably should have was his interpretation for binary-only kernel modules.
1) A lot of your post seems to be just flaming the GPL, with arguments we've heard before. I might even agree with some of them. Congratulations on starting another flame fest.
2) I am interested in one thing you do say,
(This only reinforces)...my decision to stop using the GPL for any of my own code; I've relicensed everything under a libpng/zlib-style agreement, thus distancing myself from the extreme opinions of GPL's adherents.
So, how does it reinforce your decision? Does his spelling and grammar make you cringe? Are you criticizing some bit of his legal strategy? Or are you just upset at him for enforcing the GPL?
I believe it's a non-issue. The warranty terms of the program are not defined by the GPL (except the default no warranty); rather the GPL forces the author and redistributors to explicitly publish your warranty (or lack thereof). Under GPL terms and conditions:
(The copyright notice is separate from the warranty.) And indeed the notice suggested by the GPL is:
(again) You're supposed to separate the warranty notice from the GPL notice.
Trying to sue based on that would be akin to sueing for banging your knee on the bottom of a swimming pool when all the signs say "no lifeguard, swim at your own risk" .. it'd make for a hard court case. (I hate analogies, but oh well)
Laughing gas. That's it...
That's a very interesting suggestion but it has some weaknesses.
1) At low altitude it won't work, because the external air pressure is high enough. So as you try to land you're going to be dealing with some really ticked off terrorists.
2) Wouldn't the oxygen masks drop? (maybe it's controlled by the pilots..) The terrorists could just work their way up the aisle stabbing anyone who resisted.
Even if this was permissible (which I do not believe), it would be better for linus to use a very rigid license rather than bsd. Otherwise MS could turn around and release their bsd version of linux, forking it, and cutting into linus's little side business.
One reason this specific example won't work well is that JPG is a lossy format and picture quality is sacrificed.
Logically this would make sense, but religious fanaticism is not based on logic but something more like brainwashing and indoctrination.
It doesn't even make logical sense. It's akin to assuming that U.S. citizens would rise against their own government once we witnessed the wanton destruction inflicted upon us. Hell no. It entrenched the iraqis and it will entrench whomever we attack.
Whoops. Thanks for the correction. (Was) also a bit confused which 'indians' you were referring to (the mayans I think also had 0, but then again, I think they used a base 60 numbering system. Feel free to correct me on these as well.)
Nation and religion are evil, old ideas. Why do we keep them?
Because people believe in them; and the whole 'nation' concept tends to bring order to society, even when it's boring, mediocre or oppressive.
Actually it's arabic. (Perhaps the indians invented it independently.)
What I read from a news report (sorry I can't remember which one, I've read a lot of 'em!) was that this actually was a liability since the Pentagon (in theory) had the defenses -- Stinger missles -- to take out that jet before it hit them.
But, they couldn't tell whether it was headed for them or the airport until it was too late.
Right. And now they can't really hit buildings with planes, because if I was on a plane tomorrow and somebody hijacked it I'd know I was dead anyway and would resist. Not that I'm getting on a plane anytime soon...
And there could be more victims tomorrow if the crazies decide to try more conventional methods. (and somehow succeed despite the heightened alert)
My heart goes out to those of you in pain.
You sure? I mean these things are designed to survive .. fiery plane crashes, are they not?
Now of course it might be months before they're *found*...