By your definition, the latest feature films are "open" as well.
Yes, just like I would say that a new restaurant is now open for the public. As opposed to e.g. Scientology's videos and teachings, which are not open for the public but are distributed regardless.
I think Open Source Movement is doing itself a disservice by trying to usurp the definitions of very common words like open and free with esoteric and counterintuitive meanings.
But the school (assuming it is public), is an agent of the government. So the school punishing the minor for being lewd is government censorship. So if free speech is about freedom from government censorship, then it is/should be a right for minors to be lewd.
The school's job is to teach. Teaching that slander has consequences should be commended and the lesson could have been learned with little lasting damages. Or would you prefer some of the alternatives: a lawsuit costing the kid's parents money and possibly the kid's higher education or the kid throwing away his life in one fit of Internet douchebaggery down the line?
The average everyday human being don't do programming, bud.
If you tell a bartender what kind of a drink you want, is that programming? If you tell a robot bartender what kind of a drink you want, is that programming?
As someone already pointed out before, the normal person also thinks of algorithms in terms of definitions; that's where functional really shines. And as I already pointed out, functional *can* represent algorithms in steps.
Because, every day, people encounter algorithms, and they are invariably expressed as a sequence of linear steps. Recipes, instruction books, knitting patterns, you name it.
How about "you can have dessert after you've eaten your greens"? Or "let's put socks on, then shoes".
In this case, the moral of the story is that this wouldn't have happened with Exchange or IIS, because there is no middle-man that could mess with their code.
And if people don't believe it when they hear it, or if they don't even care enough to look for or ask about your side of the story, then why care about their opinion?
Because sometimes you are forced to interact with people. Maybe they are the one deciding whether you get your dream job. Maybe they are someone you love. Or maybe you meet them in a dark alley.
On average, the Internet debunks more BS than it promotes, so, I say let it do its thing.
[Citation needed] <-- that's me doing some BS debunking on the Internet.
Another loss is the lack of link time optimizations. Two identical static functions can not be identified and merged.
Sure they can. The JVM can calculate a hash of each method's code as it loads classes, then change constant pool entries to point to the canonical version of the merged method.
Nor can the functions be reordered to avoid page switching.
Sure they can. The code is just data and the JVM already does heap compacting.
Nor can virtual address mapping be done ahead of time (like SGI's requickstart and Linux' simpler prelink).
Why would you want to do that? As I understand, the more choices you can defer until you have "boots on the ground", the better.
These are basic, *basic* coding guidelines. If you find you need language to force that discipline on you, you're part of the problem.
Yes, I'm part of the problem, so if choosing a suitable language allows me to mitigate the problem, I'd be a fool not to take advantage of it. Would you rather have your language force its discipline on you or your manager force his particular brand of discipline on you? Hint: there are more managers than languages.
Which raises the question: if making invisible character visible is needed to understand a Python program, why wasn't visible characters chosen for the job in the first place?
The lack of functionality in the new replacement app was blamed on, I kid you not, perl, for being inherently difficult to port to java.
Perl's purported "write once, read never" nature would make it difficult to port to anything. If they had nobody who could maintain the original perl program then a rewrite in any language would be the only option.
Todays programs are more complex than 3 source files and a makefile. Why waste time managing a file structure, lets abstract it and let the IDE do it. We are past the vi days.
Java and Eclipse from year 2005 called and said they have what you want.
You can point that out, but you'd be wrong. JavaScript hasn't recently "become" anything. The last major revision that all browsers supported was in November 2000.
Try reading the OP's post with some thought. He isn't saying that Javascript has changed, rather it has become the development platform for Web 2.0.
As for beauty, well, there's lot less ways to do method dispatching using immutable arrays than mutable hashmaps. Simplicity and transparency are closely linked with beauty as well.
Seriously. Vista still lacks any compelling reason for someone to upgrade to it.
If you turn your monitor to portrait mode, you don't get the horrendous screen tearing when scrolling web pages that you get in XP, at least not in Aero.
Actually, a quick read says "Despite persistent rumors to the contrary, however, Mosaic was never released as open source software during its brief reign as a major browser; there were always constraints on permissible uses without payment." And in any case, Microsoft licenced the code from Spyglass which had licenced it from Mosaic. Presumably, there was payment.
The jar-file is obfuscated, bringing its size down to 270KB from 485KB. The source code archive contains a file verification.txt with this text:
For those who wish to verify that the class files downloaded when accessing Hushmail are genuine, they can be compared against class files compiled from source using the following tools.
Sun JDK 1.5.0_05 for Windows Microsoft Java SDK 4.0 Proguard 3.5 (http://proguard.sourceforge.net)
Usage of these tools can be determined from the included Makefile and proguard.conf. Note that the signing steps in the Makefile cannot be accomplished, and so the class files must be compared individually. You cannot compare the entire archive.
The Bouncy Castle Lightweight API Version 1.31 can be downloaded here:
"We know that that device is never going to be supported on that OS, so we'll never power it up to spin there uselessly drawing power." Sounds like the most elegant solution to me.
I think the fact that ACPI even has a mechanism that allows the o/s to say "Hello, I'm Windows" is very suspicious. Ideally, this shouldn't be necessary if everyone just conformed to ACPI.
That mechanism makes it possible for the BIOS to disable a device that is not going to be supported on, say, Windows 98. Matthew Garrett's blog explains it well.
I am right now as I type downloading "stuff" from the alt.binaries.* which is still carried by premium newsgroup service providers. Yea I have to pay
Yeah, you are paying for a glorified warez ftp server with a subpar user interface and gosh darn, that's just dandy for USENET seeing how warez ftp servers are a lucrative business.
Slashdot Mirror
By your definition, the latest feature films are "open" as well.
Yes, just like I would say that a new restaurant is now open for the public. As opposed to e.g. Scientology's videos and teachings, which are not open for the public but are distributed regardless.
I think Open Source Movement is doing itself a disservice by trying to usurp the definitions of very common words like open and free with esoteric and counterintuitive meanings.
But the school (assuming it is public), is an agent of the government. So the school punishing the minor for being lewd is government censorship. So if free speech is about freedom from government censorship, then it is/should be a right for minors to be lewd.
The school's job is to teach. Teaching that slander has consequences should be commended and the lesson could have been learned with little lasting damages. Or would you prefer some of the alternatives: a lawsuit costing the kid's parents money and possibly the kid's higher education or the kid throwing away his life in one fit of Internet douchebaggery down the line?
Plus they're a good way to read content without having to deal with anyone's choice of fonts, colors and animations.
Wouldn't using your own CSS file take care of that?
If your age is 19, you're a 19-year-old, if your age is 20, you're a 20-yead-old, and so on and so on?
The average everyday human being don't do programming, bud.
If you tell a bartender what kind of a drink you want, is that programming? If you tell a robot bartender what kind of a drink you want, is that programming?
As someone already pointed out before, the normal person also thinks of algorithms in terms of definitions; that's where functional really shines. And as I already pointed out, functional *can* represent algorithms in steps.
Ok, so how would a functional algorithm to cooking oven baked salmon look like?
Because, every day, people encounter algorithms, and they are invariably expressed as a sequence of linear steps. Recipes, instruction books, knitting patterns, you name it.
How about "you can have dessert after you've eaten your greens"? Or "let's put socks on, then shoes".
Java version might look something like this:
import java.util.*;
class Node {
Map<String, Node> map = new HashMap<String, Node>();
static Node asNodes(List<List<String>> input) {
Node nodes = new Node();
for(List<String> row : input) {
Node node = nodes;
for(String column : row) {
if(node.map.containsKey(column) == false) {
node.map.put(column, new Node());
}
node = node.map.get(column);
}
}
return nodes;
}
}
In this case, the moral of the story is that this wouldn't have happened with Exchange or IIS, because there is no middle-man that could mess with their code.
And if people don't believe it when they hear it, or if they don't even care enough to look for or ask about your side of the story, then why care about their opinion?
Because sometimes you are forced to interact with people. Maybe they are the one deciding whether you get your dream job. Maybe they are someone you love. Or maybe you meet them in a dark alley.
On average, the Internet debunks more BS than it promotes, so, I say let it do its thing.
[Citation needed] <-- that's me doing some BS debunking on the Internet.
Another loss is the lack of link time optimizations. Two identical static functions can not be identified and merged.
Sure they can. The JVM can calculate a hash of each method's code as it loads classes, then change constant pool entries to point to the canonical version of the merged method.
Nor can the functions be reordered to avoid page switching.
Sure they can. The code is just data and the JVM already does heap compacting.
Nor can virtual address mapping be done ahead of time (like SGI's requickstart and Linux' simpler prelink).
Why would you want to do that? As I understand, the more choices you can defer until you have "boots on the ground", the better.
List strings = new ArrayList();
I count only two, where does the third come from?
These are basic, *basic* coding guidelines. If you find you need language to force that discipline on you, you're part of the problem.
Yes, I'm part of the problem, so if choosing a suitable language allows me to mitigate the problem, I'd be a fool not to take advantage of it. Would you rather have your language force its discipline on you or your manager force his particular brand of discipline on you? Hint: there are more managers than languages.
Which raises the question: if making invisible character visible is needed to understand a Python program, why wasn't visible characters chosen for the job in the first place?
The lack of functionality in the new replacement app was blamed on, I kid you not, perl, for being inherently difficult to port to java.
Perl's purported "write once, read never" nature would make it difficult to port to anything. If they had nobody who could maintain the original perl program then a rewrite in any language would be the only option.
Todays programs are more complex than 3 source files and a makefile. Why waste time managing a file structure, lets abstract it and let the IDE do it. We are past the vi days.
Java and Eclipse from year 2005 called and said they have what you want.
You can point that out, but you'd be wrong. JavaScript hasn't recently "become" anything. The last major revision that all browsers supported was in November 2000.
Try reading the OP's post with some thought. He isn't saying that Javascript has changed, rather it has become the development platform for Web 2.0.
As for beauty, well, there's lot less ways to do method dispatching using immutable arrays than mutable hashmaps. Simplicity and transparency are closely linked with beauty as well.
Yes, but you don't have to provide correct answers. You could mix the answers or use a normal password.
Seriously. Vista still lacks any compelling reason for someone to upgrade to it.
If you turn your monitor to portrait mode, you don't get the horrendous screen tearing when scrolling web pages that you get in XP, at least not in Aero.
Why is this moderated overrated and not informative? iBrowse had tabbed browsing in 1999 and is not open source. Mosaic was not open source athough the source code could be obtained for viewing fairly easily. The IP stack was licenced from Spider Systems which was not open source although it contained BSD code.
Mods, are you on crack?
A quick read of the web's history, such as the Tim Berners-Lee book Weaving the Web, and you'd *learn* that the first web browser was, in fact, open-source.
Actually, a quick read says "Despite persistent rumors to the contrary, however, Mosaic was never released as open source software during its brief reign as a major browser; there were always constraints on permissible uses without payment." And in any case, Microsoft licenced the code from Spyglass which had licenced it from Mosaic. Presumably, there was payment.
I haven't done this verification, but neither has the cryptome author, so I suspect this is a non-story.
"We know that that device is never going to be supported on that OS, so we'll never power it up to spin there uselessly drawing power." Sounds like the most elegant solution to me.
I think the fact that ACPI even has a mechanism that allows the o/s to say "Hello, I'm Windows" is very suspicious. Ideally, this shouldn't be necessary if everyone just conformed to ACPI.
That mechanism makes it possible for the BIOS to disable a device that is not going to be supported on, say, Windows 98. Matthew Garrett's blog explains it well.
I am right now as I type downloading "stuff" from the alt.binaries.* which is still carried by premium newsgroup service providers. Yea I have to pay
Yeah, you are paying for a glorified warez ftp server with a subpar user interface and gosh darn, that's just dandy for USENET seeing how warez ftp servers are a lucrative business.
Yet here we are, on a web forum, and not on USENET. Makes you wonder whether those features were just a crutch to get around USENET's design flaws.