Copyright and patents give creators the freedom to earn money off their hard work. Who are you to deprive them of their rights? Common people are not the only people in the world who deserve freedoms you know.
If some creators (open sourcers, BSD devs etc) like giving their work for free (charity), it's their choice. But don't expect every creator to follow that path.
Pre-laptop student here. I took copious handwritten notes and found that they were a huge distraction from the lecture!
What if the lectures were videotaped and we could watch them over and over again? We would still take notes but only to summarize the important things in the lecture. Universities that offer MOOC style video lectures along with real classroom lectures will win.
I never liked it much, even though I did turn in successful code a few times, and I really have a problem with Ada for open source applications
Can you express what you didn't like and why? Perhaps it's a bit verbose and overly strict. But the strictness means you find many bugs during compilation and basic testing. Of course, compiler and runtime errors frustrate many programmers, which is why many prefer C -- fewer warnings and errors. Let the customers deal with the errors.
But as I think more about it, one of the problems revealed by Heartbleed is open sourcing the target code didn't result in a lot of properly trained eyes passing over that code.
But this class of bugs (buffer related) is extremely common in many software apps, (specifically C apps because C uses pointers for buffer management instead of creating a dedicated type). Why should you need many eyes to perform such a tedious task when the compiler/runtime can do it more efficiently?
This is a great idea. It also makes testing using Fuzzing methods easy.
1. Generate random test parameters 2. Feed parameters to variant program A and get results. 3. Feed parameters to variant program B and get results. 4. Both results should match.
I'm not sure you can auto-generate a C header file but you can create a library (.dll or.o) file from Ada source and call it from C. You have to hand generate the C header file.
If that really worked, there would be no QA dept. for software. Unless you can formally prove your software is correct, you should assume there are bugs. And no one has the time, money or ability to formally prove hundreds of millions of lines of code.
It's astonishing to me that somebody would put code into a production environment that asked for a certain length of response without bothering to do any validation.
And even more astonishing the head maintainer and merger did not review this change and ask the developer to fix it.
Don't use C and its variants like C++. C is an extremely unsafe, low-level language that is just one step above assembly language. This makes it great for low-level, performance sensitive programs like OSes, compilers, etc. but the low-levelness also increases bug count for general purpose applications.
Instead use safer languages like Pascal, Eiffel (design by contract), Ada, etc. These languages guard against buffer overflows and don't have the slowness and bloat associated with garbage collected languages like Java and.NET, but are much safer than C. The problem usually is, few people know these languages and they are not portable from one platform to another.
Terrorists have replaced communists. The laws you mention are old. One change enacted by the Patriot act was to track library check outs.
"The Patriot Act gives federal authorities virtually unchecked authority to search our customers' records and raises concern that government is monitoring what people are reading," said ABFFE President Chris Finan. "
And this:
Libraries in Santa Cruz, Calif., posted signs warning patrons that the FBI may access the records of what books they borrow.
The wholesale tracking of all books is suspicious. What business does the govt have knowing who read the latest Dr. Seuss books? The patriot act should have allowed tracking only those books related to terrorism -- weapon making books, books about extreme violence, etc.
Wish this law would be extended to other products and services like DVD purchases, retail purchases, library check outs, grocery purchases, restaurant orders etc.. This law is only a headache, if you're out to commit a crime (invasion of privacy).
The benefit is ease of use for people who have no idea what a URL is.
An URL is the equivalent to a mailing address and if these people don't know what a URL is they're too dumb to surf the web. This seems like the genius innovation by microsoft to hide file extensions in explorer, only much worse.
They should instead get rid of the google search textbox. There is no reason such a secondary control should be placed so prominently and consume so much space on the toolbar. Create a tiny button that pops up a "web search" dialog and the user can enter search terms there. Thanks to the google search box, Firefox, which collects tens of millions from google, has eliminated or minimized important buttons like "refresh" and "page forward."
Exactly, we shouldn't be tracked regardless of the do-no-track setting. Who wants to willingly be e-stalked and data mined? They are stealing our info without permission and without compensation.
Whether it's the message or the subject, they shouldn't do this.
If you leave it open, someone (email provider) will read it. Why was the email protocol designed as an open postcard service (no privacy) instead of a sealed envelope (some privacy) service?
Is the software, hardware and efficient delivery of money service worth tens of billions of dollars in total? Not, in my opinion. But in an age where an SMS mobile app is worth $18 billion, my valuation may be wrong.
As an aside, since the ledger entry is intrinsic to bitcoins and ledger entries depend on previous transactions of a user, doesn't bitcoins seem terribly big brotherish since the ledger tracks every single transaction you make using bitcoins?
Is "eyes off the screen" a huge problem? You have to take your eyes off the road to change the radio channel or adjust the heat/air conditioning. Similarly, you can make a call to someone with a single tap on a smartphone -- very little time spent looking away from the road. So, my assumption is eyes off the road is not the main cause of accidents but being absent minded while talking is.
Imagine playing a game that requires attention and quick reflexes, like an FPS or racing game. First play the game and note down your score. Then play it again, but this time talk to someone on the phone using a hands-free headset while playing. Is your game score lowered because of talking on the phone?
OO (C++) promotes data hiding (of fields in a struct/class) and using member functions to manipulate the data in a safe manner. So the above file operations in C++ would be something like:
f = new File("test.txt", "rb");// create file object // f = fopen("test.txt", "rb");// C code
f->write(dataArr, 1024);// write array to file // File::write(f, dataArr, 1024);// C++ compiler gen code // fwrite(dataArr, 1024, f);// C code
f->close(); // File::close(f)// C++ compiler gen code // fclose(f)// C code
delete f;
Note: I've skipped the "size" parameter in fread(), fwrite() for simplicity.
The C "FILE*" type is object oriented in that a) The programmer has no idea what's inside the struct (same as OO data encapsulation) b) You have to use fxxx() functions to access anything about the file (continuation of data encapsulation) c) C programmers pass an "fp" variable to the fxxx() functions whereas C++ programmers pass an invisible "this" pointer to similar file member functions.
As you can see, under the hood, the code generated by the C++ compiler is very similar to the C code you are familiar with when using fxxx file functions because C FILE objects use many of the concepts used commonly in C++.
because now the idiot who was going to make a call (or was in the middle of a call) is going to be looking at his phone to check signal strength, redialing, getting frustated, etc.
Yes, but his mind will now be concentrating inside the car instead of being in some other place while talking on the phone thereby avoiding accidents.
Re:tabs on bottom have been removed
on
Firefox 29: Redesign
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well agenda to force tabs on top (next to title bar) upon all users has won... you no longer even have option to move them between address bar and web content.
If a private corp did this, it would be okay since the boss calls the shots and if you don't like it, move to a competitor's product.
But a so-called community product like Firefox should be controlled by the public. Who are the secret little fascists that are deciding what should be added or changed without the approval of users? All Firefox changes (new features/changing existing features), except bug fixes, should go through a community vote before being implemented. Is this a fair request?
So if in two years cable and dsl rates go up because of this merger, blame the govt for reducing competition and promoting price gouging. This merger should not be approved.
What would happen to the exploits if these apps and services were reimplemented using safer languages like Java and.Net (i.e. replace C/C++) that don't allow buffer overflow/underflow? Sure, the hacker would still be able to crash the program, but it's highly unlikely he can gain control of the system or do any kind of crazy damage to important data.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright and patents give creators the freedom to earn money off their hard work. Who are you to deprive them of their rights? Common people are not the only people in the world who deserve freedoms you know.
If some creators (open sourcers, BSD devs etc) like giving their work for free (charity), it's their choice. But don't expect every creator to follow that path.
What if the lectures were videotaped and we could watch them over and over again? We would still take notes but only to summarize the important things in the lecture. Universities that offer MOOC style video lectures along with real classroom lectures will win.
Can you express what you didn't like and why? Perhaps it's a bit verbose and overly strict. But the strictness means you find many bugs during compilation and basic testing. Of course, compiler and runtime errors frustrate many programmers, which is why many prefer C -- fewer warnings and errors. Let the customers deal with the errors.
But this class of bugs (buffer related) is extremely common in many software apps, (specifically C apps because C uses pointers for buffer management instead of creating a dedicated type). Why should you need many eyes to perform such a tedious task when the compiler/runtime can do it more efficiently?
This is a great idea. It also makes testing using Fuzzing methods easy.
1. Generate random test parameters
2. Feed parameters to variant program A and get results.
3. Feed parameters to variant program B and get results.
4. Both results should match.
I'm not sure you can auto-generate a C header file but you can create a library (.dll or .o) file from Ada source and call it from C. You have to hand generate the C header file.
Create DLL library in Ada
If that really worked, there would be no QA dept. for software. Unless you can formally prove your software is correct, you should assume there are bugs. And no one has the time, money or ability to formally prove hundreds of millions of lines of code.
And even more astonishing the head maintainer and merger did not review this change and ask the developer to fix it.
Don't use C and its variants like C++. C is an extremely unsafe, low-level language that is just one step above assembly language. This makes it great for low-level, performance sensitive programs like OSes, compilers, etc. but the low-levelness also increases bug count for general purpose applications.
Instead use safer languages like Pascal, Eiffel (design by contract), Ada, etc. These languages guard against buffer overflows and don't have the slowness and bloat associated with garbage collected languages like Java and .NET, but are much safer than C. The problem usually is, few people know these languages and they are not portable from one platform to another.
Terrorists have replaced communists. The laws you mention are old. One change enacted by the Patriot act was to track library check outs.
And this:
From fox news
The wholesale tracking of all books is suspicious. What business does the govt have knowing who read the latest Dr. Seuss books? The patriot act should have allowed tracking only those books related to terrorism -- weapon making books, books about extreme violence, etc.
Open source is not different from communism... Open source is principles of communism applied to software.
Wish this law would be extended to other products and services like DVD purchases, retail purchases, library check outs, grocery purchases, restaurant orders etc.. This law is only a headache, if you're out to commit a crime (invasion of privacy).
An URL is the equivalent to a mailing address and if these people don't know what a URL is they're too dumb to surf the web. This seems like the genius innovation by microsoft to hide file extensions in explorer, only much worse.
They should instead get rid of the google search textbox. There is no reason such a secondary control should be placed so prominently and consume so much space on the toolbar. Create a tiny button that pops up a "web search" dialog and the user can enter search terms there. Thanks to the google search box, Firefox, which collects tens of millions from google, has eliminated or minimized important buttons like "refresh" and "page forward."
Exactly, we shouldn't be tracked regardless of the do-no-track setting. Who wants to willingly be e-stalked and data mined? They are stealing our info without permission and without compensation.
If it is patented, his university will get most of the licensing fees and he'll get a plaque...
If you leave it open, someone (email provider) will read it. Why was the email protocol designed as an open postcard service (no privacy) instead of a sealed envelope (some privacy) service?
Is the software, hardware and efficient delivery of money service worth tens of billions of dollars in total? Not, in my opinion. But in an age where an SMS mobile app is worth $18 billion, my valuation may be wrong.
As an aside, since the ledger entry is intrinsic to bitcoins and ledger entries depend on previous transactions of a user, doesn't bitcoins seem terribly big brotherish since the ledger tracks every single transaction you make using bitcoins?
Is "eyes off the screen" a huge problem? You have to take your eyes off the road to change the radio channel or adjust the heat/air conditioning. Similarly, you can make a call to someone with a single tap on a smartphone -- very little time spent looking away from the road. So, my assumption is eyes off the road is not the main cause of accidents but being absent minded while talking is.
They don't run mail, they just pay USPS for advertising to you, just like OTA free TV and radio. Do advertisers own TV and radio stations?
Imagine playing a game that requires attention and quick reflexes, like an FPS or racing game. First play the game and note down your score. Then play it again, but this time talk to someone on the phone using a hands-free headset while playing. Is your game score lowered because of talking on the phone?
OO (C++) promotes data hiding (of fields in a struct/class) and using member functions to manipulate the data in a safe manner. So the above file operations in C++ would be something like:
Note: I've skipped the "size" parameter in fread(), fwrite() for simplicity.
The C "FILE*" type is object oriented in that
a) The programmer has no idea what's inside the struct (same as OO data encapsulation)
b) You have to use fxxx() functions to access anything about the file (continuation of data encapsulation)
c) C programmers pass an "fp" variable to the fxxx() functions whereas C++ programmers pass an invisible "this" pointer to similar file member functions.
As you can see, under the hood, the code generated by the C++ compiler is very similar to the C code you are familiar with when using fxxx file functions because C FILE objects use many of the concepts used commonly in C++.
Yes, but his mind will now be concentrating inside the car instead of being in some other place while talking on the phone thereby avoiding accidents.
If a private corp did this, it would be okay since the boss calls the shots and if you don't like it, move to a competitor's product.
But a so-called community product like Firefox should be controlled by the public. Who are the secret little fascists that are deciding what should be added or changed without the approval of users? All Firefox changes (new features/changing existing features), except bug fixes, should go through a community vote before being implemented. Is this a fair request?
Or, "it's okay if it's broken, as long as it's not connected to the internet."
So if in two years cable and dsl rates go up because of this merger, blame the govt for reducing competition and promoting price gouging. This merger should not be approved.
If you use fopen(), fread(), fclose() etc., you're already doing object oriented programming in C.
What would happen to the exploits if these apps and services were reimplemented using safer languages like Java and .Net (i.e. replace C/C++) that don't allow buffer overflow/underflow? Sure, the hacker would still be able to crash the program, but it's highly unlikely he can gain control of the system or do any kind of crazy damage to important data.