Firstly, this is not about simply attacking PJ. Where did you get that idea? It's about PJ's privacy and her right to remain private. Secondly, I recommend you read up on what an ad hominim attack is.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.
SCO is trying to attack PJ, based not on what she writes, but who she is (or might be). To the best of my knowledge, this is all they've ever done to PJ. They've *never* responded to her statements or queries. SCO and their cronnies (MOG, Enderle, Lyons) have only attacked PJ by claiming she is somehow connected to IBM, and even trying to find out her real identity. I don't think it really matters. Even if she did turn out to be connected with IBM (even working for them), it would certainly change my view of PJ, but it won't change what she's written. But I highly doubt she's linked with IBM. If she's connected, why has she only shown information that's publically available? Maureen O'Gara released information from a sealed document, undoubtedly revealing her connection to someone in the SCOG vs IBM case (take a guess which side). And if PJ is an IBM'er out to attack SCOG, why is she also covering ODF vs OOXML, the MS/Novell deal, the Comes vs Microsoft case, software patents, and general FOSS topics?
And my calling the GP mod an idiot is also not an ad-hominim attack. How can I make an ad hominim attack when the person is *completely* anonymous? I called them an idiot based on the fact that they modded down an important observation, even if it was a little inflamatory.
Whoever modded this down is an idiot. The fact is, Daniel Lyons at Forbes has a long history of attacking Groklaw and Pamela Jones. I believe he even once published the address from a 'whois' lookup on groklaw.net, believing that it was Pamela's address. Luckily she'd used a P.O box (or something) in a different state to register the domain. But that gives you indication of the ad hominim attacks that SCO and its supporters indulge in.
Just do a Google search. Sadly, many of these articles have been linked from here on Slashdot, giving Forbes and Daniel the page hits they desire.
...I connect to a mail server using SSL, and the server is not operated by my ISP. Are they going to log some unintelligible bits?
No, but if you're on this list they'll just assume you're doing something wrong. They'll summon the FBI, who will take away your computer(s) for analysis and question you. Hello police state!
Duh, it's deception, pure and simple. When USB 2.0 came out all the vendors were afraid of being left with shitloads of old USB 1.1 gear that people didn't want. This way they could label them "full speed", consumers would *think* they were getting something that they weren't, and the vendors got rid of old stock while they slowly got around to making USB 2.0 versions of their hardware. If they used something like you're suggesting, consumers would steer clear of "slow" stuff, even if it was for something that didn't need it, like keyboards and most mice.
...unless the chip is capable of understanding the container format too
The specs say it "implements USB Mass Storage Device" and has a "default player application in firmware", so I'm guessing it not only understand the Ogg container format but probably also the FAT filesystem for storage. It even supports Replay Gain to normalise the volume level! This sounds like a pretty complete solution. Just add some flash memory and audio hardware, and you have a portable Ogg Vorbis player.
These graphs show the different calling models of C++ and C.
That is *all* they show.
No they don't. They show *system calls*, into the kernel, not method or function calls within the user-space program. The language shouldn't make much difference at that level.
"but I think it's important to point out that it's the right-wing nutjobs who hate France, not a majority of Americans."
Because you have to be a fascist to hate pretension?
No, but I have it on good authority that it's pretty much just the residents of Paris that deserve the reputation of being pretentious. Apparently even most other French don't like Parisians. Seriously, you're pandering to stereotypes.
"They've given the world culture,"
But not in English.
40% of the words in the English lanuage are of French origin. And an awful lot of phrases as well.
Forget the U.S. with its backward mix of cellphone networks. Most of the rest of the world uses GSM, often with easy roaming. Put a SIM card into this phone and it will work almost anywhere across Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America, or the Pacific.
The many standards for web browsers (of which HTML is just one) is laid out by the World Wide Web Consortium, not by a lofty group of "some academics". And guess what, Microsoft is a member of the consortium. So why has MS done such a horrible job at supporting the standards that they had (or at least could have had) a hand in developing?
No. Everyone shortens the expansion of ODF to "Open Doc Format". As you note, there was an "OpenDoc" long before OpenOffice.org and the OpenDocument Format, but they have nothing to do with one another. ODF is based on the StarOffice format that has been around a while, that much is true. Just a sad case of mixing up names...
While I would like to believe your hypothesis, it simply doesn't hold up to logic. Do you understand what you're suggesting? Much of the entertainment industry (movie, tv, and even music copyright holders) has spent rather large amounts of time and money fighting what is a threat to their long-standing business model. They've lobbied heavily for draconian new copyright laws and put lame "please don't download this movie from the intarweb" messages before movies. They just spent a few years and probably countless millions of dollars developing this AACS content protection system in conjunction with many hardware manufacturers in several countries. And you think that only several months after the release of this new medium they've just said "ah, fuck it"? Like I said, I'd like to think they've done this. But I don't think the odds are high.
Care must be taken in choosing an electrolyte, since an anion from the electrolyte is in competition with the hydroxide ions to give up an electron. An electrolyte anion with less standard electrode potential than hydroxide will be oxidized instead of the hydroxide, and no oxygen gas will be produced. A cation with a greater standard electrode potential than a hydrogen ion will be reduced in its stead, and no hydrogen gas will be produced.
The following cations have lower electrode potential than H+ and are therefore suitable for use as electrolyte cations: Li+, Rb+, K+, Cs+, Ba2+, Sr2+, Ca2+, Na+, and Mg2+. Sodium and lithium are frequently used, as they form inexpensive, soluble salts.
So you at least won't have sodium and potassium metal forming at your cathode. Don't know about the chlorine gas part though.
But you don't need clean drinking water for electrolysis. In fact, having salts dissolved in the water increases the conductivity and hence speeds up the process. Save the fresh water for plants, animals, and us humans.
Does PHP now handle Unicode (UTF-8) text transparently in all its built-in functions? You know, like Perl 5.8, coincidentally released in 2002.
Yup.
Quote:
When you manipulate (trim, split, splice, etc.) strings encoded in a multibyte encoding, you need to use special functions...
mbstring is a non-default extension...
It is not recommended to use the function overloading option in the per-directory context, because it's not confirmed yet to be stable enough in a production environment and may lead to undefined behaviour.
Yeah, that sounds like something I want to use.
For comparison, here is my experience using Perl. I'm currently coding my own Wiki engine using a Perl framework called Catalyst. Everything's going pretty well. I recently wondered about unicode content. I thought I would at least need to load the 'utf8' module in some places. Nope. I didn't have to do a thing. I copied the list of languages at the bottom of the English Wikipedia's main page and pasted it into a test page. It just worked. I did not need to do anything to be able to use UTF-8 encoded Unicode text. No extra modules to load (it turns out the 'utf8' module is for including UTF-8 text in the Perl code itself) and certainly no recompiling of the interpreter. It displayed correctly, my wiki formatter full of regular expressions worked correctly, the 'diff' display using a third-party module worked correctly.
That's what I call "handling Unicode (UTF-8) text transparently in all its built-in functions". PHP's clumsy solutions simply don't compare.
Ah yes, a lot of features are supposedly coming in PHP 6. But as I mentioned, I understand that many hosts are still using PHP 4 because of compatibility problems. If PHP 5 is being adopted so slowly, the new features promised in PHP 6 might as well not exist, since most developers won't be able to use it.
Has PHP been separated into a programming language and a templating language? Embedding code in HTML is so 90's. The MVC pattern is much more manageable, especially for a group of developers.
Yes. Alot of people don't use it, but that's not the fault of PHP.
That would be a 'No' then. The PHP language is still fundamentally based on embedding code. And I bet the vast majority of PHP tutorials still use embedding as an example of how "simple" writing PHP can be. That simplicity comes back to bite you as your web app grows.
That's my problem with PHP - it's a very simple language but it has been extended with little change to the core language. And it's now used by so many web sites that the major changes required to "fix" the language would break most of them. PHP is fundamentally broken, IMNSHO. Better to just drop PHP. Pick a proper language (Perl, Python, Ruby, Java) and a proper MVC framework with a separate templating language. It'll take a little time to learn but it's not so hard and is worth it in the long run.
the article you link to is from 2002, pre dating many things in PHP
Ok, I know I'm being trolled by a self-styled fanboy, but what things exactly?
Does PHP now have namespaces avoiding all the nonsense with naming variables and functions?
Has PHP been separated into a programming language and a templating language? Embedding code in HTML is so 90's. The MVC pattern is much more manageable, especially for a group of developers.
Has PHP done away with the configuration file, a major source of headaches in deploying applications on shared hosting?
Has PHP done away with "magic quotes"? Prepared statements. That's all I'm going to say.
Does PHP now handle Unicode (UTF-8) text transparently in all its built-in functions? You know, like Perl 5.8, coincidentally released in 2002.
No it has not. PHP is still fundamentally the same language it was all the way back in 2002.
And if you're going to argue about versions of PHP, might I also point out that PHP has broken forward compatibility twice . Version 4.4 changed the behaviour of references in an incompatible way, and PHP 5.0 makes many more changes to the core language. This places shared hosting providers in a very difficult position and many simply choose to run the old version 4.3, for which most PHP code was written for.
No, it wasn't. PHP was made for writing quick little bits of code in Personal Home Pages. And for that it was perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately it became very popular (probably because it was easy to install on Windows) and since then it has been extended and had all sorts of modules added with little or no change to the core language. Many people are now discovering just how bad it is to use PHP on large projects. It's just a mess.
Ok, so both the Itanium and Cell have simplified but highly parallel hardware. But where is the complexity in the Cell compiler? Everything I've read about the Cell says that programmers have to break up their code themselves for the SPE's, not the compiler.
Are you seriously trying to compare the Cell with the Itanium? The problem with Itanium (and probably all IA64) is that the CPU core can not adapt to changing conditions. Everything's encoded into the instructions by the compiler and AFAIK, can not be rescheduled by the CPU. So scientific and engineering workloads written in FORTRAN run great, but nothing else does. It's pretty mediocre at common server tasks e.g web, email, etc.
Now, the Cell is basically an under-performing PowerPC G5 core with 7 or 8 SPE vector coprocessors. Nobody is seriously suggesting that you drive the coprocessors with compiler magic. Auto-vectorising compilers have been around for a while and AFAIK they haven't achieved much. IBM offers a number of models for scheduling code to run on the SPE's (e.g fixed, dynamic, etc), but it always involves writing code especially for the SPE's.
The Cell is certainly facing a steep learning and development curve, but it's not because of compilers. Programmers simply have to learn how to identify the parts of their codebase that would run well on the vector units and break them out into little routines. Now, other development tools and a good framework for dealing with these SPE routines would help, and I believe IBM and others have already put quite a bit of work into those sorts of things, but the compiler is not the weak point.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO is trying to attack PJ, based not on what she writes, but who she is (or might be). To the best of my knowledge, this is all they've ever done to PJ. They've *never* responded to her statements or queries. SCO and their cronnies (MOG, Enderle, Lyons) have only attacked PJ by claiming she is somehow connected to IBM, and even trying to find out her real identity. I don't think it really matters. Even if she did turn out to be connected with IBM (even working for them), it would certainly change my view of PJ, but it won't change what she's written. But I highly doubt she's linked with IBM. If she's connected, why has she only shown information that's publically available? Maureen O'Gara released information from a sealed document, undoubtedly revealing her connection to someone in the SCOG vs IBM case (take a guess which side). And if PJ is an IBM'er out to attack SCOG, why is she also covering ODF vs OOXML, the MS/Novell deal, the Comes vs Microsoft case, software patents, and general FOSS topics?
And my calling the GP mod an idiot is also not an ad-hominim attack. How can I make an ad hominim attack when the person is *completely* anonymous? I called them an idiot based on the fact that they modded down an important observation, even if it was a little inflamatory.
Whoever modded this down is an idiot. The fact is, Daniel Lyons at Forbes has a long history of attacking Groklaw and Pamela Jones. I believe he even once published the address from a 'whois' lookup on groklaw.net, believing that it was Pamela's address. Luckily she'd used a P.O box (or something) in a different state to register the domain. But that gives you indication of the ad hominim attacks that SCO and its supporters indulge in.
Just do a Google search. Sadly, many of these articles have been linked from here on Slashdot, giving Forbes and Daniel the page hits they desire.
No, but if you're on this list they'll just assume you're doing something wrong. They'll summon the FBI, who will take away your computer(s) for analysis and question you. Hello police state!
Duh, it's deception, pure and simple. When USB 2.0 came out all the vendors were afraid of being left with shitloads of old USB 1.1 gear that people didn't want. This way they could label them "full speed", consumers would *think* they were getting something that they weren't, and the vendors got rid of old stock while they slowly got around to making USB 2.0 versions of their hardware. If they used something like you're suggesting, consumers would steer clear of "slow" stuff, even if it was for something that didn't need it, like keyboards and most mice.
The specs say it "implements USB Mass Storage Device" and has a "default player application in firmware", so I'm guessing it not only understand the Ogg container format but probably also the FAT filesystem for storage. It even supports Replay Gain to normalise the volume level! This sounds like a pretty complete solution. Just add some flash memory and audio hardware, and you have a portable Ogg Vorbis player.
No they don't. They show *system calls*, into the kernel, not method or function calls within the user-space program. The language shouldn't make much difference at that level.
No, but I have it on good authority that it's pretty much just the residents of Paris that deserve the reputation of being pretentious. Apparently even most other French don't like Parisians. Seriously, you're pandering to stereotypes.
40% of the words in the English lanuage are of French origin. And an awful lot of phrases as well.
What It Editing for Slashdot is Really Like
Get your act together guys...
Look mum, there's an American!
Google only caches HTML and possibly other formats that they can index (PDF, Word DOC, Powerpoint, etc). They don't cache images.
Forget the U.S. with its backward mix of cellphone networks. Most of the rest of the world uses GSM, often with easy roaming. Put a SIM card into this phone and it will work almost anywhere across Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America, or the Pacific.
Oh but this isn't an iPhone article... in any meaningful sense.
The many standards for web browsers (of which HTML is just one) is laid out by the World Wide Web Consortium, not by a lofty group of "some academics". And guess what, Microsoft is a member of the consortium. So why has MS done such a horrible job at supporting the standards that they had (or at least could have had) a hand in developing?
No. Everyone shortens the expansion of ODF to "Open Doc Format". As you note, there was an "OpenDoc" long before OpenOffice.org and the OpenDocument Format, but they have nothing to do with one another. ODF is based on the StarOffice format that has been around a while, that much is true. Just a sad case of mixing up names...
While I would like to believe your hypothesis, it simply doesn't hold up to logic. Do you understand what you're suggesting? Much of the entertainment industry (movie, tv, and even music copyright holders) has spent rather large amounts of time and money fighting what is a threat to their long-standing business model. They've lobbied heavily for draconian new copyright laws and put lame "please don't download this movie from the intarweb" messages before movies. They just spent a few years and probably countless millions of dollars developing this AACS content protection system in conjunction with many hardware manufacturers in several countries. And you think that only several months after the release of this new medium they've just said "ah, fuck it"? Like I said, I'd like to think they've done this. But I don't think the odds are high.
I know you're only joking, but you might be surprised to see what the 'perl hippies' are working on now.
These salts will also be electrolysed, leading to e.g. chlorine gaz. Maybe not something you want.
Probably not. But good news from the Wikipedia article on Electrolysis of water:
So you at least won't have sodium and potassium metal forming at your cathode. Don't know about the chlorine gas part though.
But you don't need clean drinking water for electrolysis. In fact, having salts dissolved in the water increases the conductivity and hence speeds up the process. Save the fresh water for plants, animals, and us humans.
Quote:
When you manipulate (trim, split, splice, etc.) strings encoded in a multibyte encoding, you need to use special functions...
mbstring is a non-default extension...
It is not recommended to use the function overloading option in the per-directory context, because it's not confirmed yet to be stable enough in a production environment and may lead to undefined behaviour.
Yeah, that sounds like something I want to use.
For comparison, here is my experience using Perl. I'm currently coding my own Wiki engine using a Perl framework called Catalyst. Everything's going pretty well. I recently wondered about unicode content. I thought I would at least need to load the 'utf8' module in some places. Nope. I didn't have to do a thing. I copied the list of languages at the bottom of the English Wikipedia's main page and pasted it into a test page. It just worked. I did not need to do anything to be able to use UTF-8 encoded Unicode text. No extra modules to load (it turns out the 'utf8' module is for including UTF-8 text in the Perl code itself) and certainly no recompiling of the interpreter. It displayed correctly, my wiki formatter full of regular expressions worked correctly, the 'diff' display using a third-party module worked correctly.
That's what I call "handling Unicode (UTF-8) text transparently in all its built-in functions". PHP's clumsy solutions simply don't compare.
Ah yes, a lot of features are supposedly coming in PHP 6. But as I mentioned, I understand that many hosts are still using PHP 4 because of compatibility problems. If PHP 5 is being adopted so slowly, the new features promised in PHP 6 might as well not exist, since most developers won't be able to use it.
That would be a 'No' then. The PHP language is still fundamentally based on embedding code. And I bet the vast majority of PHP tutorials still use embedding as an example of how "simple" writing PHP can be. That simplicity comes back to bite you as your web app grows.
That's my problem with PHP - it's a very simple language but it has been extended with little change to the core language. And it's now used by so many web sites that the major changes required to "fix" the language would break most of them. PHP is fundamentally broken, IMNSHO. Better to just drop PHP. Pick a proper language (Perl, Python, Ruby, Java) and a proper MVC framework with a separate templating language. It'll take a little time to learn but it's not so hard and is worth it in the long run.
Ok, I know I'm being trolled by a self-styled fanboy, but what things exactly?
No it has not. PHP is still fundamentally the same language it was all the way back in 2002.
And if you're going to argue about versions of PHP, might I also point out that PHP has broken forward compatibility twice . Version 4.4 changed the behaviour of references in an incompatible way, and PHP 5.0 makes many more changes to the core language. This places shared hosting providers in a very difficult position and many simply choose to run the old version 4.3, for which most PHP code was written for.
No, it wasn't. PHP was made for writing quick little bits of code in Personal Home Pages. And for that it was perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately it became very popular (probably because it was easy to install on Windows) and since then it has been extended and had all sorts of modules added with little or no change to the core language. Many people are now discovering just how bad it is to use PHP on large projects. It's just a mess.
Neither can I.
Ok, so both the Itanium and Cell have simplified but highly parallel hardware. But where is the complexity in the Cell compiler? Everything I've read about the Cell says that programmers have to break up their code themselves for the SPE's, not the compiler.
Are you seriously trying to compare the Cell with the Itanium? The problem with Itanium (and probably all IA64) is that the CPU core can not adapt to changing conditions. Everything's encoded into the instructions by the compiler and AFAIK, can not be rescheduled by the CPU. So scientific and engineering workloads written in FORTRAN run great, but nothing else does. It's pretty mediocre at common server tasks e.g web, email, etc.
Now, the Cell is basically an under-performing PowerPC G5 core with 7 or 8 SPE vector coprocessors. Nobody is seriously suggesting that you drive the coprocessors with compiler magic. Auto-vectorising compilers have been around for a while and AFAIK they haven't achieved much. IBM offers a number of models for scheduling code to run on the SPE's (e.g fixed, dynamic, etc), but it always involves writing code especially for the SPE's.
The Cell is certainly facing a steep learning and development curve, but it's not because of compilers. Programmers simply have to learn how to identify the parts of their codebase that would run well on the vector units and break them out into little routines. Now, other development tools and a good framework for dealing with these SPE routines would help, and I believe IBM and others have already put quite a bit of work into those sorts of things, but the compiler is not the weak point.