"Personally, snap-to-content makes a hell of a lot of sense to me, when it works (depends on the quality of app: MS products are notoriously bad at this, e.g.). You know you're really using a Mac to good effect when you're moving stuff effortlessly from window to window, app to app, and treating windows like children of parent applications."
Snap to content only makes sense if your window only displays one kind of content at a time. In an application like safari or firefox where there are tabs each of which is displaying different content it makes no sense at all. In that context the window should change it's size every time I change tabs to snap to the new context. Well that would be annoying of course, almost as annoying as snapping to the context on Tab A while the content on all other tabs is messed up.
"What, you mean they were peachy keen with us the FIRST time they tried to blow up the World Trade Center?"
I hate to break it to you but they were not iraqis.
"And when they blew up two of our embassies in Africa"
They were not iraqis either.
"And they hit the USS Cole with a missile named Studied Indifference?"
Still not the iraqis. Oh and it wasn't a missile either, it was a boat.
I know facts are kind of annoying but you should still try to place one or two in your post.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
"Why isn't Lisp popular if it's so 1337?"
I think because it's hard.
LISP also has some other drawbacks but that's the main one I think. LISP is great if one person can keep the entire program in his head at all times, it's not so great when you have 30 people working on the code at the same time. Oddly enough although java and c# are both bondage languages and can help in team development they are not ideal either because they lack real contracts.
C# is going to get them soon and is fast becoming a garbage dump of a programming language trying to evolve itself into being java, eiffel, vb, and haskell all at the same time. God only knows where that's going to end up.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The problem is that MS concentrates on the part of the software lifecycle that is the easiest and shortest. They make is easy to CREATE applications. Alas the rest of the software lifecycle (debugging, refactoring, maintenance, deployment etc) suffers horribly due to VB encouraging spaghetti code.
In the long run VB is a hinderance and not a help. It's better to have a clean separation then a flashy IDE if you intent to keep your application alive for more then a few days.
"Or his potential employeer will see that he is the famous Star Wars Kid, and employ him on the spot, hoping that some customers will recognize him. Which is just as likely."
No it's not just as likely. Businesses tend to be extremely conservative. Any doubt at all and they won't do it.
"Or his potential employer won't recognize him. Because he is at least 5 years older, has different clothes, a new haircut, and doesn't try to dance around with a long stick. Which is the most likely thing to happen."
Certainly most won't. But that won't mean much if the one that did recognize it was the job he really wanted.
"But then again, it's only our generation who cares about this. When the kids of today grows up, everybody will have access to nude/embarassing/whatever pictures/movies/whatever of everyone else."
If we let it and if everybody feels like you do. You seem to have no problems at all about humiliating others and yourself, odd attitude that.
You might think so but it ain't true. He will be denied jobs because the his potential employer will think that some customer will recognize him and they will lose some business.
"Well, not really. While some money goes to fund consumer debt, I think you'll find that a great deal more goes to promote capital investment."
I have never seen any numbers that would indicate that.
"f this were all some vicious cycle in which banks skim ever greater amounts off the capital of the proletariat, surely they should have all of it by now."
LOL. They pretty much do. In most economies of the world financial services are the the biggest or definately in the top five.
"If you'd like to switch back to a barter economy, I'm sure there's a tribe in the Amazon that won't kill you."
I appreciate your false dichotomy. That's real cute. I might suggest you look into the fastest growing financial sector in the world which is islamic banking. Islam forbids charging of interest (actually christianity also calls it a sin but the xtians don't really pay attention to that one so much) so the banks act more like venture capitalists.
It's great that you see nothing shameful or embarrassing about that video. The problem is that the vast majority of the people on this planet don't share your view and they will mock this person for the rest of his life. Whats worse is that there is a real chance he will be denied a job because of it.
"Really? Nike, Shell Oil, McDondald's, Tobacco companies, Haliburton.... all of these are companies which are (arguably) not good global citizens. "
I didn't say that nobody invests in them or that they are not evil, I simply stated that I am amazed that it happens. In a country in which 90% of the people believe in god and over 70% profess to be xtians no less.
"Doing good, or doing good for yourself have frequently been viewed as opposing goals. They don't need to be, they're just perceived as such."
By the great moral thinkers of our time. People like Jesus, Budha, as well as all the great moral philosophers of the western world. For a couple of thousand years western world has evolved a set of ethics and morals and adam smith single handedly destroyed all of it by elevating greed and profit to be the highest virtues of mankind.
"Well, to quote a source that eludes me at the moment... "the smartest thing the devil ever did was convincing the world he doesn't exist""
The Usual Suspects.
"Altruism is a nice goal, and certainly an admirable one. But, the world isn't really set up in such a way as those doing altruistic acts always come out ahead."
That's right. It's set up in a capitalistic manner.
"Don't let all of that dissuade you from trying to do ethical things. Just don't expect that those will always be the route to prosperity or maximizing return on investment. Do your good things, and don't look for a reward in this lifetime. The rest, well, that will have to sort itsself out over time. =)"
I think you miss my point. My point is that capitalism, the accumulation of wealth, greed, covetousness, pride etc are all inherently immoral and that no good can come out of them. Capitalism has destroyed and laid to waste all of our great moral philosophers. I am sure all those great moral thinkers are now spinning in their graves.
He was high up in the enlisted pecking order why would he trade that for a LT position. Besides as an ex-enlisted he probably would not get much respect from the officers anyway.
The money does not go to job creators. It goes mostly to people who borrow to pay for a car, house or credit cards. Those people are charged interest so the bank makes money and the bank owners can get a new place on lake como so they can rub shoulders with george clooney.
In other words the vast majority of that money is being used to further squeeze blood out of that stone.
What you don't understand is that the military was designed to harvest people like you who had no other choice. When I was in the military the vast majority of the people I "served" with were there either to get money for education, to get out of their rinky dink town, or because they just could not cut it in the real world.
You say you "worked your way up". In the military this simply means you hung around and re-enlisted and generally didn't fuck up too bad.
Anyway the military is a special case. I am sure the US would love it right now if the only way to get from the poor classes to the middle classes was by joining the military.
It's amazing to me that there are companies "making fertilizer out of 3rd world babies" (not literally of course) and that there are people willing to invest in them. Two thousand years of christian and moral advancement was completely undone by capitalism. All of our moral concepts and upbringing are thrown out the window as soon as we are forced to earn money to earn a living.
If there is a god and there is a satan then satan is winning this war. All he had to do was to invent money and capitalism and let mankind do the rest. Capitalism is simply the codification of the seven deadly sins into a way of life. Where would we all be without greed, gluttony, envy lust and the rest?
"So in other words, what you're saying is that developers can look at the mysql drivers and as long as they don't actually use them in any way they're OK. "
Did you even read the post you are replying to? Go read it again. I said you can USE them without any problems. If you derive from them, if you link to them, if you modify them AND you distribute your code then you have to gpl your code.
In order to do any of the above you will need access to the source code of those drivers so if are able to accomplish your task with the binaries you get from mysql you are safe.
""If you are not writing drivers you are fine" and "If you are writing code and you are using a library you did not write then you are not violating the GPL"
Both of those statements are true.
Mysql has certain code under a GPL license. That includes drivers they have written (including the odbc and jdbc drivers they have written). If you link to, derive from, or modify their source code AND (AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND) distribute the binaries or source code then you must also GPL your code.
That's it. Those are the only conditions. Merely USING the code does not force you to GPL your code. Never. Ever. No matter what anybody says.
"If you participate in an "or later" project, then you are ceding control to the FSF which, for all we know, may well come down to anything Stallman says goes. For instance, GPL v4 could say that the only people that may enjoy the modifications to this code are people that have signed the "Anti-Ownership Pledge" or some other craziness."
It could say that. It could also say the you have rape nine year old girls in the ass. Both are equally possible.
If it does say that and you don't want to rape nine year old girls in the ass then you keep using under the V2 license. See how simple that is? It gives the user the choice.
"Not according to some open source zealots who believe that any GPL project, especially Linux, was automatically "or later" even though it said no such thing."
Some? Name three with links please.
"No, the FSF and only the FSF can re-write the GPL. The only limits they place on themselves are vague at best and any anyone that places their code under such vague terms is taking considerable risk."
Anybody can write any license they want and release their code under that license. If the FSF re-writes the license then you can continue to use the GPL2 code you already have. They can't effect your rights retroactively.
"That, however, does not mean that anything they do with those rights is good for society or even good for their stated aims."
That's your opinion and frankly by now it's clear to me that it's not worth a shit.
"The GPL appeals to people to reject the hording of source code and rights in favor of the open source concept of community, that everyone works towards the same goal of code sharing and a reasonably well understood set of rules. The zealots in the community, a relative minority, have changed those terms several times on people who have already adopted and made contributions, without the contributors and end-users appreciating that they can pull the rug out from under them like that."
No they have not. It's clear that you have no idea what has been done, why it's been done and what the consequences are.
I repeat. Anybody who is using any code under the V2 license is allowed to continue using that code for ever under the V2 license.
"It may be their legal right (although co-opting code without permission is definitely not),"
Who has co opted whose code without permission. I want you to name a specific person and specific code base including the version.
Put up or shut up time.
"What Stallman and his zealots are doing isn't that dissimilar."
It's very dissimilar. But if you are so freaked about it then I would reccomed you WRITE YOUR OWN DAMNED CODE.
"I do. Please point me to where I can find your GPL'd code. OH, you don't have any? No surprise there."
If you don't use the GPLed code then why are you whining?
"Because you've never heard of Google or all of the free utilities that can do this?"
Yes I know of them, I have used them. It's just that I don't like being made a criminal because my main board died and I chose to buy a new mac instead of getting the old one fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
"Personally, snap-to-content makes a hell of a lot of sense to me, when it works (depends on the quality of app: MS products are notoriously bad at this, e.g.). You know you're really using a Mac to good effect when you're moving stuff effortlessly from window to window, app to app, and treating windows like children of parent applications."
Snap to content only makes sense if your window only displays one kind of content at a time. In an application like safari or firefox where there are tabs each of which is displaying different content it makes no sense at all. In that context the window should change it's size every time I change tabs to snap to the new context. Well that would be annoying of course, almost as annoying as snapping to the context on Tab A while the content on all other tabs is messed up.
"Can you please cite some examples of Microsoft using submarine patents. "
MS has already sued for the use of FAT using their patents as a weapon.
MS has threatened many companies with threats of suits and had them back down because they can't afford to fight MS.
Steve Ballmer recently promised to sue people who use linux unless they use Novell Linux.
Rome wasn't built in a day. These things happen slowly over time and the time to speak up is when they are small and easily fixed.
"What, you mean they were peachy keen with us the FIRST time they tried to blow up the World Trade Center?"
I hate to break it to you but they were not iraqis.
"And when they blew up two of our embassies in Africa"
They were not iraqis either.
"And they hit the USS Cole with a missile named Studied Indifference?"
Still not the iraqis. Oh and it wasn't a missile either, it was a boat.
I know facts are kind of annoying but you should still try to place one or two in your post.
"Why isn't Lisp popular if it's so 1337?"
I think because it's hard.
LISP also has some other drawbacks but that's the main one I think. LISP is great if one person can keep the entire program in his head at all times, it's not so great when you have 30 people working on the code at the same time. Oddly enough although java and c# are both bondage languages and can help in team development they are not ideal either because they lack real contracts.
C# is going to get them soon and is fast becoming a garbage dump of a programming language trying to evolve itself into being java, eiffel, vb, and haskell all at the same time. God only knows where that's going to end up.
The problem is that MS concentrates on the part of the software lifecycle that is the easiest and shortest. They make is easy to CREATE applications. Alas the rest of the software lifecycle (debugging, refactoring, maintenance, deployment etc) suffers horribly due to VB encouraging spaghetti code.
In the long run VB is a hinderance and not a help. It's better to have a clean separation then a flashy IDE if you intent to keep your application alive for more then a few days.
"Not smart, but allowed by the license, and 100% legal. The only caveat is that somewhere I would have to state that I'm using BSD copyrighted code."
Why isn't it smart? Presuming you can add some value it's always smart to profit from free labor.
IIRC they also took the advertising clause away so you don't even have to tell anybody about it.
"Or his potential employeer will see that he is the famous Star Wars Kid, and employ him on the spot, hoping that some customers will recognize him. Which is just as likely."
No it's not just as likely. Businesses tend to be extremely conservative. Any doubt at all and they won't do it.
"Or his potential employer won't recognize him. Because he is at least 5 years older, has different clothes, a new haircut, and doesn't try to dance around with a long stick. Which is the most likely thing to happen."
Certainly most won't. But that won't mean much if the one that did recognize it was the job he really wanted.
"But then again, it's only our generation who cares about this. When the kids of today grows up, everybody will have access to nude/embarassing/whatever pictures/movies/whatever of everyone else."
If we let it and if everybody feels like you do. You seem to have no problems at all about humiliating others and yourself, odd attitude that.
You might think so but it ain't true. He will be denied jobs because the his potential employer will think that some customer will recognize him and they will lose some business.
That's the way business people think.
"Well, not really. While some money goes to fund consumer debt, I think you'll find that a great deal more goes to promote capital investment."
I have never seen any numbers that would indicate that.
"f this were all some vicious cycle in which banks skim ever greater amounts off the capital of the proletariat, surely they should have all of it by now."
LOL. They pretty much do. In most economies of the world financial services are the the biggest or definately in the top five.
"If you'd like to switch back to a barter economy, I'm sure there's a tribe in the Amazon that won't kill you."
I appreciate your false dichotomy. That's real cute. I might suggest you look into the fastest growing financial sector in the world which is islamic banking. Islam forbids charging of interest (actually christianity also calls it a sin but the xtians don't really pay attention to that one so much) so the banks act more like venture capitalists.
It's great that you see nothing shameful or embarrassing about that video. The problem is that the vast majority of the people on this planet don't share your view and they will mock this person for the rest of his life. Whats worse is that there is a real chance he will be denied a job because of it.
"Really? Nike, Shell Oil, McDondald's, Tobacco companies, Haliburton .... all of these are companies which are (arguably) not good global citizens. "
... "the smartest thing the devil ever did was convincing the world he doesn't exist""
I didn't say that nobody invests in them or that they are not evil, I simply stated that I am amazed that it happens. In a country in which 90% of the people believe in god and over 70% profess to be xtians no less.
"Doing good, or doing good for yourself have frequently been viewed as opposing goals. They don't need to be, they're just perceived as such."
By the great moral thinkers of our time. People like Jesus, Budha, as well as all the great moral philosophers of the western world. For a couple of thousand years western world has evolved a set of ethics and morals and adam smith single handedly destroyed all of it by elevating greed and profit to be the highest virtues of mankind.
"Well, to quote a source that eludes me at the moment
The Usual Suspects.
"Altruism is a nice goal, and certainly an admirable one. But, the world isn't really set up in such a way as those doing altruistic acts always come out ahead."
That's right. It's set up in a capitalistic manner.
"Don't let all of that dissuade you from trying to do ethical things. Just don't expect that those will always be the route to prosperity or maximizing return on investment. Do your good things, and don't look for a reward in this lifetime. The rest, well, that will have to sort itsself out over time. =)"
I think you miss my point. My point is that capitalism, the accumulation of wealth, greed, covetousness, pride etc are all inherently immoral and that no good can come out of them. Capitalism has destroyed and laid to waste all of our great moral philosophers. I am sure all those great moral thinkers are now spinning in their graves.
He was high up in the enlisted pecking order why would he trade that for a LT position. Besides as an ex-enlisted he probably would not get much respect from the officers anyway.
Redo the numbers. This time give the 1% to the bottom 1.5%.
The money does not go to job creators. It goes mostly to people who borrow to pay for a car, house or credit cards. Those people are charged interest so the bank makes money and the bank owners can get a new place on lake como so they can rub shoulders with george clooney.
In other words the vast majority of that money is being used to further squeeze blood out of that stone.
What you don't understand is that the military was designed to harvest people like you who had no other choice. When I was in the military the vast majority of the people I "served" with were there either to get money for education, to get out of their rinky dink town, or because they just could not cut it in the real world.
You say you "worked your way up". In the military this simply means you hung around and re-enlisted and generally didn't fuck up too bad.
Anyway the military is a special case. I am sure the US would love it right now if the only way to get from the poor classes to the middle classes was by joining the military.
It's amazing to me that there are companies "making fertilizer out of 3rd world babies" (not literally of course) and that there are people willing to invest in them. Two thousand years of christian and moral advancement was completely undone by capitalism. All of our moral concepts and upbringing are thrown out the window as soon as we are forced to earn money to earn a living.
If there is a god and there is a satan then satan is winning this war. All he had to do was to invent money and capitalism and let mankind do the rest. Capitalism is simply the codification of the seven deadly sins into a way of life. Where would we all be without greed, gluttony, envy lust and the rest?
"So in other words, what you're saying is that developers can look at the mysql drivers and as long as they don't actually use them in any way they're OK. "
Did you even read the post you are replying to? Go read it again. I said you can USE them without any problems. If you derive from them, if you link to them, if you modify them AND you distribute your code then you have to gpl your code.
In order to do any of the above you will need access to the source code of those drivers so if are able to accomplish your task with the binaries you get from mysql you are safe.
You can USE the mysql drivers as long as you don't modify them, link to them or derive from them.
Period, end of sentence. Anybody who says otherwise is lying (hey that's you!!!)
""If you are not writing drivers you are fine" and "If you are writing code and you are using a library you did not write then you are not violating the GPL"
Both of those statements are true.
Mysql has certain code under a GPL license. That includes drivers they have written (including the odbc and jdbc drivers they have written). If you link to, derive from, or modify their source code AND (AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND AND) distribute the binaries or source code then you must also GPL your code.
That's it. Those are the only conditions. Merely USING the code does not force you to GPL your code. Never. Ever. No matter what anybody says.
"Sigh. You are as wrong as you are ignorant. MySQL converted their client-library licenses to GPLv2 (from LGPL) several years ago."
That's right. But here let me repeat myself.
If you are not distributing code you are not violating the GPL.
Let's stop there and save me some time responding to each one of your incredibly stupid, uninformed and ignorant post.
If you are a user of mysql and you are not distributing a binary or source code to others then it's impossible for your to be violating the GPL.
"If you participate in an "or later" project, then you are ceding control to the FSF which, for all we know, may well come down to anything Stallman says goes. For instance, GPL v4 could say that the only people that may enjoy the modifications to this code are people that have signed the "Anti-Ownership Pledge" or some other craziness."
It could say that. It could also say the you have rape nine year old girls in the ass. Both are equally possible.
If it does say that and you don't want to rape nine year old girls in the ass then you keep using under the V2 license. See how simple that is? It gives the user the choice.
"Not according to some open source zealots who believe that any GPL project, especially Linux, was automatically "or later" even though it said no such thing."
Some? Name three with links please.
"No, the FSF and only the FSF can re-write the GPL. The only limits they place on themselves are vague at best and any anyone that places their code under such vague terms is taking considerable risk."
Anybody can write any license they want and release their code under that license. If the FSF re-writes the license then you can continue to use the GPL2 code you already have. They can't effect your rights retroactively.
"That, however, does not mean that anything they do with those rights is good for society or even good for their stated aims."
That's your opinion and frankly by now it's clear to me that it's not worth a shit.
"The GPL appeals to people to reject the hording of source code and rights in favor of the open source concept of community, that everyone works towards the same goal of code sharing and a reasonably well understood set of rules. The zealots in the community, a relative minority, have changed those terms several times on people who have already adopted and made contributions, without the contributors and end-users appreciating that they can pull the rug out from under them like that."
No they have not. It's clear that you have no idea what has been done, why it's been done and what the consequences are.
I repeat. Anybody who is using any code under the V2 license is allowed to continue using that code for ever under the V2 license.
"It may be their legal right (although co-opting code without permission is definitely not),"
Who has co opted whose code without permission. I want you to name a specific person and specific code base including the version.
Put up or shut up time.
"What Stallman and his zealots are doing isn't that dissimilar."
It's very dissimilar. But if you are so freaked about it then I would reccomed you WRITE YOUR OWN DAMNED CODE.
"I do. Please point me to where I can find your GPL'd code. OH, you don't have any? No surprise there."
If you don't use the GPLed code then why are you whining?
Impeachment would work for me.
Does it transfer songs I didn't buy from itunes?
"Because you've never heard of Google or all of the free utilities that can do this?"
Yes I know of them, I have used them. It's just that I don't like being made a criminal because my main board died and I chose to buy a new mac instead of getting the old one fixed.