This is a lot like opening the bottom of old style software packaging to avoid breaking the seal "and agreeing". You cannot circumvent these conditions and somehow create a right to use the software that differs from the license.
Legally, the software is copyrighted by someone. The license gives you specified rights to the copyrighted software that you would not normally have.
You have to agree to the license terms or not use the software. Whether you press some button or break a seal is not important. Your use consitutes acceptance since non-acceptance leaves you with no legal right to use the software.
This is exactly how the GPL works, btw. GPL is a license that grants you certain rights and requires certain obligations. But the software "work" is still copyrighted to whoever developed it. You may accept or reject the terms of the license, but accepting the license is the only thing that will give you a legal right to use the software.
The rendering isn't as interesting to me as the generation of the content. Another article I read said that the system simulates every single person/thing/it on the battle field as discrete entities with their own limited form a intelligence in order to create a more realistic battlefield.
The funny thing was that their first attempts were spectacular failures because they attempted to model things as realistically as possible and the good guys fled the field.
So in the end they reduced the effective intelligence of the good guys until they wouldn't run and then they got what we see now.
The implications of quantum encryption are not a strong as you suggest. The basic idea is that no eavesdropper can get between to points that are trying to communicate and successfully listen in without being detected. But this applies to anything that might be between those two points like a switched network. This means that you are not going to use this technique for something general purpose like normal internet connections. To do this, the two points must create a direct physical connection, for instance a laser.
Also a basic tenet of security is that the attacker will attack the weakest link. I'm sure a government would have a far easier time compromising a person on either side of the connection.
Re:New and Elegant "foreach" ?
on
A Taste of Qt 4
·
· Score: 1
I'm still looking for one with static types.
Look at Haskell.
With the Boost smart pointers memory leaks are no more (probably less) of an issue than leaks in Java. I would make the argument that the lack of a deterministic destructor in Java is a far bigger liability. I think this is the biggest reason that serious resource leaks are so common in Java projects. Using static scoping for grabbing and releasing of shared resources is an almost idiot proof technique for using (and not) leaking a resource.
Another thing I miss a lot in Java is the templates. It is hard to live without type safe containers and generics once you are used to them. Yes, you can simulate aspects of this with inheritance and interfaces but it is a poor substitute.
It seems like a lot of hoop-jumping to no good end
The "end" in my opinion is whether the additional abstraction due to the language design creates a simpler, more bug-free program. In the past, people have been willing to use low level languages like C in order to get the best performance from a program, but as programs have become increasingly complex, the quantity of bugs is becoming unacceptable.
Is it worth trading some runtime efficiency if it would make your program higher quality? I think this is an even easier question to answer when you think of how many programs spend most of their time idle waiting for user input.
I am not a one language fits all type of person. A language is not a silver bullet. A bad programmer will find ingenious ways to write bad code in any language. But I do think there are certain problem domains that are well suited to functional languages. I am a particular fan of Haskell.
You are criticizing Lisp's syntax and not its design. I don't like seeing long sequences of parentheses in code but it is a fine language.
The Algol-family of languages are imperative languages which means that you are at some level giving the computer a discrete sequence of instructions to execute. From this perspective all of these languages tend to look like high-level assembly code.
But this is not the only way to design a language and it isn't the best way for many different problems. Functional languages (like Lisp or Haskell) are a compelling alternative.
Most colleges do not do a good job of presenting functional languages. I had several Lisp courses, but they were taught using what I now understand was a very imperative style that completely missed the point of using a functional language.
The puppeteers were the inspiration for a race in the game Star Control. I thought the game captured the humor of this race very well. I even liked details like the ship's guns shooting from the rear so that you fight by running away while being chased, etc.
Halo was also influenced heavily by Iain "M." Banks series of "Culture" novels which are influenced by the Ringworld books.
The ships names are a popular fixture in his novels. The ships are sentient and choose their own names. "I Blame The Parents" and "Ethics Gradiant" were always my favorite ship names.
Try reading Practical Cryptography by Niels Ferguson and Bruce Schneier.
Good security is much more about implementation than number theory. A good cypher is very hard to break. Will a smart attacker, attack the cypher which is very hard to break or some implementation mistake which is probably much easier to exploit?
I tried to install the first patch last night and found that I had to apply office SP2 first. Ok. So, I ran office SP2 and it required the install CDs.
I travel extensively for work and I don't carry around all my install CDs for my laptop. So, I cannot even install the critical security patch because I cannot install office SP2.
I think this is a problem when people that would want to install this 'critical' security patch are not able to. Why can't this patch be stand-alone (not require install CDs) like the ones available from the windows update site?
This sounds like a small part of vmware. With vmware you can install multiple different OSes and run them concurrently. Also you have the ability to pause a vm (save the running vm state to disk) and also snapshot/restore. This later feature is great if you are testing. Being able to back up to a known machine state at a press of a button is very handy.
Of course then Java will need to stop for 10 mins and garbage collect!
Seriously though, the base language and VM are not what cause the performance problems. It is the style of code where a large number of short lived objects are created and destroyed on the heap. This is too expensive.
I find it strange that scientists 'believe' in dark matter.... I think dark matter doesn't exist.
Dark matter does not necessarily mean exotic matter. There have already been detections of white dwarf stars at the edges of a galaxy. These are just very very dim stars. This discovery means that a significant part of the mass attributed to dark matter could be ordinary matter in dead stars that are no longer radiating at currently detectable levels.
The NASA submission explains why the GPL and other existing licenses do not meet their needs.
They list five reasons:
1. NASA legal counsel requires that all NASA releases of software include indemnification of the U.S. Government from any third party liability arising from use or distribution of the software.
2. Federal Statute mandates that the U.S. Government can only be held subject to United States federal law.
3. NASA policy requires an effort to accurately track usage of released software for documentation and benefits realized?purposes.
4. Federal Statutes and NASA regulations requires a prohibition in NASA contracts against representations by others that may be deemed to be an endorsement by NASA.
5. Because it is important that each of the aforementioned clauses be a part of each open source agreement relating to NASA released software, the proposed agreement must mandate that distribution and redistribution of the software be done under the aegis of NOSA (mandatory domination similar to GPL).
Is item 3 the sticking point? The license text says:
F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following website: . Recipient's name and personal information shall be used for statistical purposes only. Once a Recipient makes a Modification available, it is requested that the Recipient inform NASA at the web site provided above how to access the Modification.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you doing... Dave?
This is a lot like opening the bottom of old style software packaging to avoid breaking the seal "and agreeing". You cannot circumvent these conditions and somehow create a right to use the software that differs from the license.
Legally, the software is copyrighted by someone. The license gives you specified rights to the copyrighted software that you would not normally have.
You have to agree to the license terms or not use the software. Whether you press some button or break a seal is not important. Your use consitutes acceptance since non-acceptance leaves you with no legal right to use the software.
This is exactly how the GPL works, btw. GPL is a license that grants you certain rights and requires certain obligations. But the software "work" is still copyrighted to whoever developed it. You may accept or reject the terms of the license, but accepting the license is the only thing that will give you a legal right to use the software.
The rendering isn't as interesting to me as the generation of the content. Another article I read said that the system simulates every single person/thing/it on the battle field as discrete entities with their own limited form a intelligence in order to create a more realistic battlefield.
The funny thing was that their first attempts were spectacular failures because they attempted to model things as realistically as possible and the good guys fled the field.
So in the end they reduced the effective intelligence of the good guys until they wouldn't run and then they got what we see now.
The implications of quantum encryption are not a strong as you suggest. The basic idea is that no eavesdropper can get between to points that are trying to communicate and successfully listen in without being detected. But this applies to anything that might be between those two points like a switched network. This means that you are not going to use this technique for something general purpose like normal internet connections. To do this, the two points must create a direct physical connection, for instance a laser.
Also a basic tenet of security is that the attacker will attack the weakest link. I'm sure a government would have a far easier time compromising a person on either side of the connection.
I'm still looking for one with static types. Look at Haskell.
With the Boost smart pointers memory leaks are no more (probably less) of an issue than leaks in Java. I would make the argument that the lack of a deterministic destructor in Java is a far bigger liability. I think this is the biggest reason that serious resource leaks are so common in Java projects. Using static scoping for grabbing and releasing of shared resources is an almost idiot proof technique for using (and not) leaking a resource.
Another thing I miss a lot in Java is the templates. It is hard to live without type safe containers and generics once you are used to them. Yes, you can simulate aspects of this with inheritance and interfaces but it is a poor substitute.
The platform independence argument is a red herring. C/C++ can be just as portable as Java. Look at all the platforms that are able to run GNU/Linux.
Java doesn't require a recompile for its platform independence, but outside of applets that really doesn't matter.
The "end" in my opinion is whether the additional abstraction due to the language design creates a simpler, more bug-free program. In the past, people have been willing to use low level languages like C in order to get the best performance from a program, but as programs have become increasingly complex, the quantity of bugs is becoming unacceptable.
Is it worth trading some runtime efficiency if it would make your program higher quality? I think this is an even easier question to answer when you think of how many programs spend most of their time idle waiting for user input.
I am not a one language fits all type of person. A language is not a silver bullet. A bad programmer will find ingenious ways to write bad code in any language. But I do think there are certain problem domains that are well suited to functional languages. I am a particular fan of Haskell.
You are criticizing Lisp's syntax and not its design. I don't like seeing long sequences of parentheses in code but it is a fine language.
The Algol-family of languages are imperative languages which means that you are at some level giving the computer a discrete sequence of instructions to execute. From this perspective all of these languages tend to look like high-level assembly code.
But this is not the only way to design a language and it isn't the best way for many different problems. Functional languages (like Lisp or Haskell) are a compelling alternative.
Most colleges do not do a good job of presenting functional languages. I had several Lisp courses, but they were taught using what I now understand was a very imperative style that completely missed the point of using a functional language.
I would second that. I run XP, 2000, Gentoo, FreeBSD 4.8 and FreeBSD 5.2 concurrently with no troubles.
One person's ripoff is another person's homage.
The puppeteers were the inspiration for a race in the game Star Control. I thought the game captured the humor of this race very well. I even liked details like the ship's guns shooting from the rear so that you fight by running away while being chased, etc.
Halo was also influenced heavily by Iain "M." Banks series of "Culture" novels which are influenced by the Ringworld books.
The ships names are a popular fixture in his novels. The ships are sentient and choose their own names. "I Blame The Parents" and "Ethics Gradiant" were always my favorite ship names.
The rings in Banks' books are called orbitals.
Try reading Practical Cryptography by Niels Ferguson and Bruce Schneier.
Good security is much more about implementation than number theory. A good cypher is very hard to break. Will a smart attacker, attack the cypher which is very hard to break or some implementation mistake which is probably much easier to exploit?
I tried to install the first patch last night and found that I had to apply office SP2 first. Ok. So, I ran office SP2 and it required the install CDs.
I travel extensively for work and I don't carry around all my install CDs for my laptop. So, I cannot even install the critical security patch because I cannot install office SP2.
I think this is a problem when people that would want to install this 'critical' security patch are not able to. Why can't this patch be stand-alone (not require install CDs) like the ones available from the windows update site?
This sounds like a small part of vmware. With vmware you can install multiple different OSes and run them concurrently. Also you have the ability to pause a vm (save the running vm state to disk) and also snapshot/restore. This later feature is great if you are testing. Being able to back up to a known machine state at a press of a button is very handy.
Actually, for a long time I have been trying to understand how Sun intends on making money from Java.
They spend money developing the JRE/JDK packages, improving the language, running the JCP, etc. Where do they make money?
That's twice as fast as the C code!
Of course then Java will need to stop for 10 mins and garbage collect!
Seriously though, the base language and VM are not what cause the performance problems. It is the style of code where a large number of short lived objects are created and destroyed on the heap. This is too expensive.
I find it strange that scientists 'believe' in dark matter. ... I think dark matter doesn't exist.
Dark matter does not necessarily mean exotic matter. There have already been detections of white dwarf stars at the edges of a galaxy. These are just very very dim stars. This discovery means that a significant part of the mass attributed to dark matter could be ordinary matter in dead stars that are no longer radiating at currently detectable levels.
The NASA submission explains why the GPL and other existing licenses do not meet their needs.
They list five reasons:
1. NASA legal counsel requires that all NASA releases of software include indemnification of the U.S. Government from any third party liability arising from use or distribution of the software.
2. Federal Statute mandates that the U.S. Government can only be held subject to United States federal law.
3. NASA policy requires an effort to accurately track usage of released software for documentation and benefits realized?purposes.
4. Federal Statutes and NASA regulations requires a prohibition in NASA contracts against representations by others that may be deemed to be an endorsement by NASA.
5. Because it is important that each of the aforementioned clauses be a part of each open source agreement relating to NASA released software, the proposed agreement must mandate that distribution and redistribution of the software be done under the aegis of NOSA (mandatory domination similar to GPL).
Is item 3 the sticking point? The license text says:
F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following website: . Recipient's name and personal information shall be used for statistical purposes only. Once a Recipient makes a Modification available, it is requested that the Recipient inform NASA at the web site provided above how to access the Modification.