Look. The word "terrorist" has a rather specific meaning. Raiding a mink farm and freeing the mink doesn't qualify as terrorism. Sabotage, economic warfare, street theater, whatever, but it isn't terrorism.
Even if they killed the mink farmer, that's just murder. (My point is not to minimize how horrible murder is!) But it's not terrorism.
The real problem is that "terrorism" is getting stretched to mean "anything law enforcement wants to have an easier time checking into". This trivialization of the word "terrorism" means that pretty soon, we're going to need a new word for the real thing...
That's fine, as far as it goes. If I don't like broadcast TV, I can pay for satellite or cable. If I want more than regular air travel, I can buy a first-class ticket.
But what we have here seems to be more a matter of the ISPs saying, "Pay us more or we'll give you worse service. Pay more to get what you already had; pay what you used to pay to get service that has been deliberately sabotaged." That's not fine.
Microsoft has announced an intention to kill Google. (All right, Ballmer said so to a guy who was leaving to go to Google. Same difference.) Microsoft has made some announcements of stuff to compete with Google. Microsoft also controls the most-used browser.
Add it all up, and I can sure see why Google might want to have a (better, but less popular) browser under their control...
I'm not the one who decreased the American workforce by half in just 5 years.
Dude, you are smoking some seriously twisted stuff if you believe that. (Or, more likely, you are reading some seriously twisted "information" sources that are feeding you some serious lies.)
How to have a disaster of a project
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Pick a language based on what is "hip". Actually, any technology - it doesn't have to just be a language.
(Digression: "hip"? Who says "hip" any more? It's so 1960s...)
Not updated in nine months? That's the same as never updated. You have to treat it as if the machine has never been online before.
The machine will have a lot shorter lifetime than an American soldier in Iraq...
We look forward to having you back, by the way! While there are those here on/. who opposed the war, politically, I think we all wished you (and all the other soldiers there) nothing but the best. Our thanks for a difficult job.
If I was female and famous and on a topless beach and there was a boat out there a mile away with somebody taking my picture, are they a peeping tom? (How can you be a peeping tom to someone on a topless beach?) Or am I an idiot for being topless in public and thinking I'm safe just because I don't see anybody with a camera?
If I was indoors and topless with the drapes open, and somebody was not on my property, and looked in the window, are they a peeping tom? Or am I an idiot for not closing the drapes?
If I was a business, and somebody was not on my property, but was taking a picture of my property, could I stop them legally? This has come up with things like refineries, IIRC, and the answer is no, the business cannot stop someone from taking a picture. Once the photons leave your property, they are fair game. You don't want people to take the picture? Don't let the photons leave your property - put up a fence, plant a hedge, or whatever. (Now, if the photographer comes onto your property, that's tresspassing, and you can stop them or have them arrested.)
If somebody sneeks a skin pic of somebody famous because they're being stupid, I don't think that means that they should be able to publish it in some tabloid rag. I'm with Jennifer Anniston on this one - she should be able to block publication.
But if you're a business, and you think that you can get the corporate secrets back - forget it. You may be able to keep them from being published in a publication. You'll never be able to get it off of the net.
I solved it in high school, but not in closed form, so for a lot of people, that doesn't count.
I saw a proof here on/. that it couldn't be solved in closed form, but I don't remember what it was. Something like x^x = e^(x ln(x)), and for e^(f(x)) to be integrable, f has to have certain properties.
Digression: if you really think about it, functions like sin(x) and ln(x) are really not closed form either - they are infinite series. But they are infinite series that we have given names to, and which we can place specific meanings on what they evaluate to.
Actually, they do dress professionally. So do mechanics. "Professionally" means "dressed for the work". So a professional football player dresses a certain way for his job. The job requires those clothes. A mechanic dresses for his/her job, too - that is, they dress as the job requires. But as a programmer, I don't have to wear a particular set of clothes to protect me from the environment, other than steel-toed shoes in the lab. Nope, don't need a dress code for that reason.
Marketing people, lawyers, and such dress professionally, too. They dress to impress people. It's a job requirement. If I had customer contact, that would actually be a valid reason to dress that way. I mean, look, I like coding, but entertaining myself doesn't pay the bills. If I dress in a way that drives off customers, my boss is either going to fire me or go out of business. But I don't have customer contact, so I don't need to dress up for that reason. (Though customers do come to my building, so there is a certain amount of reasonableness in requiring attire that is appropriate.) But no, I don't have to dress to impress people.
That leaves the machine. The compiler doesn't even care what species I am; it cares even less what I wear. I sure don't need a dress code to impress my PC. But, though I am a programmer rather than a support person, I sometimes wind up moving machines - juat as part of getting on with my job. And they're usually not all that clean. Jeans and t-shirts take that better than white shirts and dress pants. At that time, dress clothes actually can be a hindrance to doing my job.
Not quite. The C++ program should delete (not free) the object (block of memory), which calls the object's destructor, which (in a well-behaved object) would close the file descriptor.
The problem with Java is that it uses garbage collection, which handles the 90% of the problem that is memory, but it takes away destructors, which hurts when you have to deal with the 10% of the problem that is non-memory resources (file handles are a good example, but there are others).
An asteroid is likely to be loosely packed material, so tugging on it too hard could break it into unmanageable pieces.
This seems backward to me... If we have an asteroid that's big enough to do major damage, that's unmanageable. Breaking it apart into pieces, even if some of the pieces hit the earth, is far better. First, most of the pieces won't hit us (if the asteroid is broken up reasonably far away), and second, the ones that do will be a lot smaller. So they'll do a lot less damage, and the damage that they do will be spread out, rather than packed in one killer punch. What's so bad about that scenario?
No, not laws contradicting each other, court decisions contradicting laws. Given that the law that the court (indirectly) contradicted is the DMCA, that's a good thing.
This is what Adobe did with PostScript fonts. IIRC, there was something about fonts were just shapes, and couldn't be copyrighted, or some such, so Adobe made the font into a program that drew the shapes, and then it was covered by copyright.
Maybe somebody else remembers the details better...
Claiming that you can sell something does not automatically give you the right to sell it, even under capitalism.
You kind of gave it away in your third paragraph. "Assigning ownership to chunks of land"? Yeah, well, who assigns ownership? Dennis Hope? And who assigned ownership to him?
In the real world, what it comes down to is that there has to be a government in control of the land, and then that government assigns (initial) ownership - either to the squatters who were there already, or to itself. Then capitalism takes over. But first there has to be the government to assign ownership. Before that, all there is, is possession.
So: Is there a government in control of the moon? No? Well, we could be at the pre-government stage. Is Dennis Hope in possession of some part of the moon? Also no? Well, there you go. He's not a "capitalist" who is "in the right" but oppressed by "land barons far larger than he". He's just a scam artist.
I don't think that this can be right. What you are talking about is clocking/modulation frequency. But if I can't handle optical data at 10 GHz, I should just have the transmitter modulate it at 5 GHz, or 1 GHz, or whatever frequency I can handle. I don't need to slow down light to solve that problem.
I think it's because of the text you didn't bold: "without the overhead of hardware-enforced protection domains."
So here's what I think is going on: They create these separate "spaces". Each space is a separate.Net virtual machine (yeah, that sounds like it's low-overhead to create), and therefore has its own GC. Each has its own separate runtime, because that's what was loaded into the.Net virtual machine. But all these VMs are running in ring 0, and are only protected from each other by the VM's restrictions, not by any hardware (or even kernel!) mechanisms.
Conclusion: If one of the "spaces" has unmanaged code, that unmanaged code can stomp all over the other spaces.
The article (or the EFF article it linked, I forget which) said that this bill was brought before a House committee. Well, what I want to know is, did it pass?
And who brought it before the committee? Did a Representative actually introduce/sponsor this? If so, which representative(s)? Let's see... all representatives are elected every 2 years, next one in November 2006, exactly one year from now... An opponent could fry the person responsible, if they could just communicate to the public what this scoundrel tried to get passed...
Then SCO would be under new management (a trustee). The new management has to decide whether to continue the case or not. The new management cannot decide whether to dismiss IBM's counterclaims or not; only IBM can decide that. So if the trustee wants the suit to go away, he/she has to settle with IBM. Given the lack of urgency IBM has shown so far toward settling, any settlement would have to be on IBM's terms. This would probably include, at a minimum, SCO publicly stating that the entire case has been BS from the beginning, that IBM and Linux are both totally clear of any wrongdoing or infringement.
I'm not sure even that would be enough to satisfy IBM, but if it was, it wouldn't be so bad...
The December 22 deadline was set by court order. SCO's desire for maximum publicity has nothing to do with it. (Though it occurs to me that the court might have factored that in when choosing the exact schedule...)
Slashdot Mirror
(I worked for Symantec for 4.5 years. The money was really nice, but I didn't feel like I sold out to get it...)
Look. The word "terrorist" has a rather specific meaning. Raiding a mink farm and freeing the mink doesn't qualify as terrorism. Sabotage, economic warfare, street theater, whatever, but it isn't terrorism.
Even if they killed the mink farmer, that's just murder. (My point is not to minimize how horrible murder is!) But it's not terrorism.
The real problem is that "terrorism" is getting stretched to mean "anything law enforcement wants to have an easier time checking into". This trivialization of the word "terrorism" means that pretty soon, we're going to need a new word for the real thing...
"We're not terribly interested in telling people what they can't do."
But what we have here seems to be more a matter of the ISPs saying, "Pay us more or we'll give you worse service. Pay more to get what you already had; pay what you used to pay to get service that has been deliberately sabotaged." That's not fine.
You can't? I can...
Microsoft has announced an intention to kill Google. (All right, Ballmer said so to a guy who was leaving to go to Google. Same difference.) Microsoft has made some announcements of stuff to compete with Google. Microsoft also controls the most-used browser.
Add it all up, and I can sure see why Google might want to have a (better, but less popular) browser under their control...
Dude, you are smoking some seriously twisted stuff if you believe that. (Or, more likely, you are reading some seriously twisted "information" sources that are feeding you some serious lies.)
Pick a language based on what is "hip". Actually, any technology - it doesn't have to just be a language.
(Digression: "hip"? Who says "hip" any more? It's so 1960s...)
The machine will have a lot shorter lifetime than an American soldier in Iraq...
We look forward to having you back, by the way! While there are those here on /. who opposed the war, politically, I think we all wished you (and all the other soldiers there) nothing but the best. Our thanks for a difficult job.
If I was female and famous and on a topless beach and there was a boat out there a mile away with somebody taking my picture, are they a peeping tom? (How can you be a peeping tom to someone on a topless beach?) Or am I an idiot for being topless in public and thinking I'm safe just because I don't see anybody with a camera?
If I was indoors and topless with the drapes open, and somebody was not on my property, and looked in the window, are they a peeping tom? Or am I an idiot for not closing the drapes?
If I was a business, and somebody was not on my property, but was taking a picture of my property, could I stop them legally? This has come up with things like refineries, IIRC, and the answer is no, the business cannot stop someone from taking a picture. Once the photons leave your property, they are fair game. You don't want people to take the picture? Don't let the photons leave your property - put up a fence, plant a hedge, or whatever. (Now, if the photographer comes onto your property, that's tresspassing, and you can stop them or have them arrested.)
If somebody sneeks a skin pic of somebody famous because they're being stupid, I don't think that means that they should be able to publish it in some tabloid rag. I'm with Jennifer Anniston on this one - she should be able to block publication.
But if you're a business, and you think that you can get the corporate secrets back - forget it. You may be able to keep them from being published in a publication. You'll never be able to get it off of the net.
I solved it in high school, but not in closed form, so for a lot of people, that doesn't count.
/. that it couldn't be solved in closed form, but I don't remember what it was. Something like x^x = e^(x ln(x)), and for e^(f(x)) to be integrable, f has to have certain properties.
I saw a proof here on
Digression: if you really think about it, functions like sin(x) and ln(x) are really not closed form either - they are infinite series. But they are infinite series that we have given names to, and which we can place specific meanings on what they evaluate to.
Marketing people, lawyers, and such dress professionally, too. They dress to impress people. It's a job requirement. If I had customer contact, that would actually be a valid reason to dress that way. I mean, look, I like coding, but entertaining myself doesn't pay the bills. If I dress in a way that drives off customers, my boss is either going to fire me or go out of business. But I don't have customer contact, so I don't need to dress up for that reason. (Though customers do come to my building, so there is a certain amount of reasonableness in requiring attire that is appropriate.) But no, I don't have to dress to impress people.
That leaves the machine. The compiler doesn't even care what species I am; it cares even less what I wear. I sure don't need a dress code to impress my PC. But, though I am a programmer rather than a support person, I sometimes wind up moving machines - juat as part of getting on with my job. And they're usually not all that clean. Jeans and t-shirts take that better than white shirts and dress pants. At that time, dress clothes actually can be a hindrance to doing my job.
The problem with Java is that it uses garbage collection, which handles the 90% of the problem that is memory, but it takes away destructors, which hurts when you have to deal with the 10% of the problem that is non-memory resources (file handles are a good example, but there are others).
Nothing solves the problem of bad coders.
This seems backward to me... If we have an asteroid that's big enough to do major damage, that's unmanageable. Breaking it apart into pieces, even if some of the pieces hit the earth, is far better. First, most of the pieces won't hit us (if the asteroid is broken up reasonably far away), and second, the ones that do will be a lot smaller. So they'll do a lot less damage, and the damage that they do will be spread out, rather than packed in one killer punch. What's so bad about that scenario?
No, not laws contradicting each other, court decisions contradicting laws. Given that the law that the court (indirectly) contradicted is the DMCA, that's a good thing.
This is what Adobe did with PostScript fonts. IIRC, there was something about fonts were just shapes, and couldn't be copyrighted, or some such, so Adobe made the font into a program that drew the shapes, and then it was covered by copyright.
Maybe somebody else remembers the details better...
Claiming that you can sell something does not automatically give you the right to sell it, even under capitalism.
You kind of gave it away in your third paragraph. "Assigning ownership to chunks of land"? Yeah, well, who assigns ownership? Dennis Hope? And who assigned ownership to him?
In the real world, what it comes down to is that there has to be a government in control of the land, and then that government assigns (initial) ownership - either to the squatters who were there already, or to itself. Then capitalism takes over. But first there has to be the government to assign ownership. Before that, all there is, is possession.
So: Is there a government in control of the moon? No? Well, we could be at the pre-government stage. Is Dennis Hope in possession of some part of the moon? Also no? Well, there you go. He's not a "capitalist" who is "in the right" but oppressed by "land barons far larger than he". He's just a scam artist.
This is really MSSQL 2003?
I don't think that this can be right. What you are talking about is clocking/modulation frequency. But if I can't handle optical data at 10 GHz, I should just have the transmitter modulate it at 5 GHz, or 1 GHz, or whatever frequency I can handle. I don't need to slow down light to solve that problem.
So here's what I think is going on: They create these separate "spaces". Each space is a separate .Net virtual machine (yeah, that sounds like it's low-overhead to create), and therefore has its own GC. Each has its own separate runtime, because that's what was loaded into the .Net virtual machine. But all these VMs are running in ring 0, and are only protected from each other by the VM's restrictions, not by any hardware (or even kernel!) mechanisms.
Conclusion: If one of the "spaces" has unmanaged code, that unmanaged code can stomp all over the other spaces.
That's my interpretation, anyway...
If I'm using light in a CPU, why do I want to slow it down? Is there some reason why I really want to decrease bandwidth and/or increase latency?
And who brought it before the committee? Did a Representative actually introduce/sponsor this? If so, which representative(s)? Let's see... all representatives are elected every 2 years, next one in November 2006, exactly one year from now... An opponent could fry the person responsible, if they could just communicate to the public what this scoundrel tried to get passed...
Or should I just label you as a troll and ignore you?
I'm not sure even that would be enough to satisfy IBM, but if it was, it wouldn't be so bad...
The December 22 deadline was set by court order. SCO's desire for maximum publicity has nothing to do with it. (Though it occurs to me that the court might have factored that in when choosing the exact schedule...)