BDB isn't a database server, nor is it relational, nor does it involve SQL in any way. Its a lower level database, it could be used to create a backend for a database server (like mysql uses it for), but does not in any way compete with oracle, which is a relational database server.
Praying that a company is still relevant, much less dominant in a decade is no more "sustainable" than taking advantage of the ups and downs of dozens of companies over the same period of time, making many times more profit in the process. What is unsustainable about shorting companies that are going to perform poorly, and buying companies that are going to do well? There is no shortage of companies doing either.
What kind of company makes significant gains over a 10-20 year period? Almost none. What kind of company makes significant gains or losses over a period of months to a few years? Tons. Which one makes more sense, making bigger profits more often, or making smaller profits less often?
Make sure you tell all the mutual and hedge fund managers that investing intelligently is a waste of time, they all seem to be convinced that making money is good. If you want a long run safe investment, that's what a mutual fund is for. It lets someone else do the timing and buying and selling for you.
What kind of dumbass is investing in google stock for the "long run"? Or do you consider a year a long run? Those of us who are smart enough to disregard the ancient, obsolete long term stock investors lunacy get to make money on google when it goes up, when it goes down, and then again when it goes back up. Gee, aren't we dumbasses. BOOYEAH JIM!
Re:Uh, read then reply please.
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 1
In lots of cases how you handle the incoming type is the same. And lots of languages don't let you inherit base types because they aren't objects.
I never said you couldn't do everything in a statically typed language that you can in a dynamically typed one. I said that dynamically typed languages allow you to do more, in a more flexible way, with less code. If you don't want to make the trade off that's up to you, but pretending that dynamic typing doesn't offer anything is rediculous.
Quite nicely how? And I didn't say you should use a pure dynamically typed language, remember? I simply stated the obvious benefit: you can be more flexible with less code. Wether or not you want to make that trade off is up to you, but pretending dynamic typing has no benefits at all is just silly.
Uh, read then reply please.
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 1
Function overloading doesn't exist everywhere, and where it does, you are still writing two functions. Just because they have the same name doesn't mean its not a waste of time.
I didn't advocate dynamic typing, if you read the post you'll see I advocated a static language that gives you the best of both worlds:
int|float do_foo(int|float x) {...}
Re:Dynamic typing
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It lets you be more flexible at the cost of making it impossible for the compiler to catch certain bugs. As the most basic example, a single function can take either an int or a float with a dynamically typed language, instead of having to write multiple functions to deal with all the combinations of floats and ints.
For a nice tradeoff of static and dynamic typing, check out pike. Its statically typed, but lets you give up just as much of that staticness as you need when you need to. You can declare a function as taking float|int for its args for instance.
Maybe you should try playing it sober.
on
EQ2 Combining Servers
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Us Guild Wars players don't have a world at all, we just have a bunch of instanced 8 player or less zones, that we can't even rejoin if we're disconnected. The only place you run into other people is in the chat rooms, err cities.
Are you retarded? As I said already, using a modem doesn't do anything for you. Transferring plain text data over the phone network is just as stupid as transfering it over the internet. There is no excuse to do this, simply encrypt the keys with pgp and you can transfer them over whichever insecure network you like.
Which part of PUBLIC KEY CRYPTO is so difficult for you to grasp? Its perfectly ok for your public key to be intercepted. In fact, everyone on earth can have a copy, its all good. That's the point of public key cryptography dumbass.
No shit sending a floppy via courier is also retarded. The fact that other non-secure methods of transmitting keys exist, does not mean that its ok to use a non-secure method of transmitting keys.
"Read the posts again. The whole point is that you assume all your communications are being sniffed. That's why you use multiple distinct channels."
Right, its all being sniffed so splitting it up doesn't matter, since its all being sniffed. Duh?
Welcome to 1991, you can use PGP to encrypt the keys and send them via email or whatever other electronic means you desire. Huzzah! Imagine all the amazing uses we might have for public key cryptography by the year 2006! Maybe we won't have to send sensitive information via plaintext over public networks like complete morons!
No, using the telephone network gives you absolutely no assurance of anything. There's likely hundreds of places between you and them where people could be sniffing traffic.
I think its funny that you think the "major vendor" was stupid for sending you the keys in plain text, but yet you think giving them your phone number is going to help things in some way?
"I wonder if the open source projects you mention would be where they are if they were public domain?"
I'd assume so. ISC and minimalist BSD style licenses (not ugly old 3 or 4 clause ones) basically give you everything public domain would, except that you have to keep the copyright statement/warrenty disclaimer comment in the files. The only reason to use a license like this is getting credit for your work. You could argue that its just vanity. Given that, I can't see how it would make any difference to the success of the project.
"Following your earlier logic, PD would be even better than BSD wouldn't it?"
No, I am not making statements like "better". Public domain is free, and BSD is not, yes. ISC type licenses are probably the least restrictive licensing you can have, but it is still imposing restriction.
Quality is a whole other matter. Personally, I use an ISC type license because I want to keep my copyright notice on the code, so everyone knows how awesome I am;) But for small trivial stuff I make it public domain. And if I wrote something that I thought I could get money for from selling it to companies, then I would GPL it so they would have to buy a non-GPL licensed copy from me. Which option is better? It depends on your needs/desires. But the public domain option is the only one that actually results in freedom.
But that wouldn't happen. Take apache for instance, several companies have made closed source forks of it. And yet somehow apache has gone on to be better than them, and outlive them. This "evil companies will make it closed" story is a common piece of FUD, even though there's tons of software under BSD/MIT/ISC licenses that proves it wrong.
Major open source projects get more people working on them than commercial projects, so the open source versions will naturally be better than closed source forks. And minor open source projects don't matter enough for anyone to bother trying to make closed forks of.
Yes, anyone can do anything with public domain software, this is the very definition of freedom. Distributing a changed version under a restrictive license does not deprive people of the original. It is long term freedom, it will always be public domain, and anyone can always do whatever they want with it, forever. The question is wether you want freedom, or you want to impose restrictions in order to further those same restrictions onto other software. I never said the latter is wrong, just that it is not freedom. The best intentioned restrictions are still restrictions.
And certainly disagreeing doesn't make anyone dishonest, its lying that makes people dishonest. Saying "this software is FREE as in FREEDOM" when referring to software that comes under a long and restrictive pile of legalese is dishonest. I don't want RMS to stop pushing the GPL, I just want him to stop trying to redefine the word freedom, that's all. If he can insist that people call linux GNU/Linux, then I can insist that he call the GPL's "freedom" GNU/Freedom;)
"The GPL is trying (for better or worse) to maximize freedom by granting users almost unlimited freedom up to the point that they start to try to limit the freedom of others."
No, that's the rhetoric they want you to believe. The GPL is only good for people who are also willing to tow the GNU/commie line, it doesn't help anyone else. So clearly it has always been only for certain people. Now they are simply narrowing down the "certain people" a little more. Not suprising at all.
The GPL locks out people who use equally free licenses simply because they are not the GPL. Its not about freedom, its about control. RMS wants to live in his perfect communist utopia where everything is under HIS IDEA of freedom. Not someone else's idea of free, not actual freedom kinda free, but GNU/free. I work on an open source project that is locked out by the GPL, because RMS doesn't like us since we aren't pushing his GPL agenda. This is not altruistic "my code is free to help the world", this is "my code is free to spread my agenda". That's fine if you admit it, but its wrong to pretend the GPL is altrustic when it isn't.
Your analogy is very flawed btw, as stores don't actually do that. You don't know if someone is going to rob you in advance. Robbers are breaking the law, and so the police arrest them, the shopkeeper isn't involved. Maximizing freedom is simple: public domain. Everything else is restricting my freedom. Restricting my freedom to try to meet your goals is just pushing an agenda. Wether or not you, or anyone else thinks your goals are altruistic doesn't matter, its restricting freedom plain and simple. You can certainly go ahead and do that, and so can RMS and his followers. But pretending that your agenda is freedom, and actual freedom is bad is just dishonest.
"You know the GPL (v2 anyway) doesn't disallow anyone from using a piece of software, right?"
Uh huh, did you read my post:
"It used to only exclude people who want to distribute their code under a license of their choosing."
Notice the word distribute.
"What exactly is the freedom that is granted to users they like, and withheld from users they don't like?"
The freedom to link to their code and distribute it is granted to users who are willing to license their code under the GPL too. This freedom is not granted to users who wish to license their code under other licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
BDB isn't a database server, nor is it relational, nor does it involve SQL in any way. Its a lower level database, it could be used to create a backend for a database server (like mysql uses it for), but does not in any way compete with oracle, which is a relational database server.
BDB doesn't compete with oracle in any way.
If they let me use a keyboard and mouse to play FPS and RTS games on it, then I don't need a wintendo anymore.
All the features firefox has were in opera before they were in firefox. Why would this be any different?
Exoskeletons are what insects have. Endoskeletons are what Terminators and mammals have.
That you care more about the MM than you do about the G.
World of Warcraft is like running in a hamster wheel, not like shooting fish in a barrel or any other soon to be Ted Nugent TV show.
Praying that a company is still relevant, much less dominant in a decade is no more "sustainable" than taking advantage of the ups and downs of dozens of companies over the same period of time, making many times more profit in the process. What is unsustainable about shorting companies that are going to perform poorly, and buying companies that are going to do well? There is no shortage of companies doing either.
What kind of company makes significant gains over a 10-20 year period? Almost none. What kind of company makes significant gains or losses over a period of months to a few years? Tons. Which one makes more sense, making bigger profits more often, or making smaller profits less often?
Make sure you tell all the mutual and hedge fund managers that investing intelligently is a waste of time, they all seem to be convinced that making money is good. If you want a long run safe investment, that's what a mutual fund is for. It lets someone else do the timing and buying and selling for you.
What kind of dumbass is investing in google stock for the "long run"? Or do you consider a year a long run? Those of us who are smart enough to disregard the ancient, obsolete long term stock investors lunacy get to make money on google when it goes up, when it goes down, and then again when it goes back up. Gee, aren't we dumbasses. BOOYEAH JIM!
In lots of cases how you handle the incoming type is the same. And lots of languages don't let you inherit base types because they aren't objects.
I never said you couldn't do everything in a statically typed language that you can in a dynamically typed one. I said that dynamically typed languages allow you to do more, in a more flexible way, with less code. If you don't want to make the trade off that's up to you, but pretending that dynamic typing doesn't offer anything is rediculous.
Quite nicely how? And I didn't say you should use a pure dynamically typed language, remember? I simply stated the obvious benefit: you can be more flexible with less code. Wether or not you want to make that trade off is up to you, but pretending dynamic typing has no benefits at all is just silly.
Function overloading doesn't exist everywhere, and where it does, you are still writing two functions. Just because they have the same name doesn't mean its not a waste of time.
I didn't advocate dynamic typing, if you read the post you'll see I advocated a static language that gives you the best of both worlds:
int|float do_foo(int|float x) {...}
It lets you be more flexible at the cost of making it impossible for the compiler to catch certain bugs. As the most basic example, a single function can take either an int or a float with a dynamically typed language, instead of having to write multiple functions to deal with all the combinations of floats and ints.
For a nice tradeoff of static and dynamic typing, check out pike. Its statically typed, but lets you give up just as much of that staticness as you need when you need to. You can declare a function as taking float|int for its args for instance.
Us Guild Wars players don't have a world at all, we just have a bunch of instanced 8 player or less zones, that we can't even rejoin if we're disconnected. The only place you run into other people is in the chat rooms, err cities.
Are you retarded? As I said already, using a modem doesn't do anything for you. Transferring plain text data over the phone network is just as stupid as transfering it over the internet. There is no excuse to do this, simply encrypt the keys with pgp and you can transfer them over whichever insecure network you like.
Which part of PUBLIC KEY CRYPTO is so difficult for you to grasp? Its perfectly ok for your public key to be intercepted. In fact, everyone on earth can have a copy, its all good. That's the point of public key cryptography dumbass.
No shit sending a floppy via courier is also retarded. The fact that other non-secure methods of transmitting keys exist, does not mean that its ok to use a non-secure method of transmitting keys.
"Read the posts again. The whole point is that you assume all your communications are being sniffed. That's why you use multiple distinct channels."
Right, its all being sniffed so splitting it up doesn't matter, since its all being sniffed. Duh?
Welcome to 1991, you can use PGP to encrypt the keys and send them via email or whatever other electronic means you desire. Huzzah! Imagine all the amazing uses we might have for public key cryptography by the year 2006! Maybe we won't have to send sensitive information via plaintext over public networks like complete morons!
No, using the telephone network gives you absolutely no assurance of anything. There's likely hundreds of places between you and them where people could be sniffing traffic.
I think its funny that you think the "major vendor" was stupid for sending you the keys in plain text, but yet you think giving them your phone number is going to help things in some way?
"I wonder if the open source projects you mention would be where they are if they were public domain?"
;) But for small trivial stuff I make it public domain. And if I wrote something that I thought I could get money for from selling it to companies, then I would GPL it so they would have to buy a non-GPL licensed copy from me. Which option is better? It depends on your needs/desires. But the public domain option is the only one that actually results in freedom.
I'd assume so. ISC and minimalist BSD style licenses (not ugly old 3 or 4 clause ones) basically give you everything public domain would, except that you have to keep the copyright statement/warrenty disclaimer comment in the files. The only reason to use a license like this is getting credit for your work. You could argue that its just vanity. Given that, I can't see how it would make any difference to the success of the project.
"Following your earlier logic, PD would be even better than BSD wouldn't it?"
No, I am not making statements like "better". Public domain is free, and BSD is not, yes. ISC type licenses are probably the least restrictive licensing you can have, but it is still imposing restriction.
Quality is a whole other matter. Personally, I use an ISC type license because I want to keep my copyright notice on the code, so everyone knows how awesome I am
But that wouldn't happen. Take apache for instance, several companies have made closed source forks of it. And yet somehow apache has gone on to be better than them, and outlive them. This "evil companies will make it closed" story is a common piece of FUD, even though there's tons of software under BSD/MIT/ISC licenses that proves it wrong.
Major open source projects get more people working on them than commercial projects, so the open source versions will naturally be better than closed source forks. And minor open source projects don't matter enough for anyone to bother trying to make closed forks of.
Yes, anyone can do anything with public domain software, this is the very definition of freedom. Distributing a changed version under a restrictive license does not deprive people of the original. It is long term freedom, it will always be public domain, and anyone can always do whatever they want with it, forever. The question is wether you want freedom, or you want to impose restrictions in order to further those same restrictions onto other software. I never said the latter is wrong, just that it is not freedom. The best intentioned restrictions are still restrictions.
;)
And certainly disagreeing doesn't make anyone dishonest, its lying that makes people dishonest. Saying "this software is FREE as in FREEDOM" when referring to software that comes under a long and restrictive pile of legalese is dishonest. I don't want RMS to stop pushing the GPL, I just want him to stop trying to redefine the word freedom, that's all. If he can insist that people call linux GNU/Linux, then I can insist that he call the GPL's "freedom" GNU/Freedom
"The GPL is trying (for better or worse) to maximize freedom by granting users almost unlimited freedom up to the point that they start to try to limit the freedom of others."
No, that's the rhetoric they want you to believe. The GPL is only good for people who are also willing to tow the GNU/commie line, it doesn't help anyone else. So clearly it has always been only for certain people. Now they are simply narrowing down the "certain people" a little more. Not suprising at all.
The GPL locks out people who use equally free licenses simply because they are not the GPL. Its not about freedom, its about control. RMS wants to live in his perfect communist utopia where everything is under HIS IDEA of freedom. Not someone else's idea of free, not actual freedom kinda free, but GNU/free. I work on an open source project that is locked out by the GPL, because RMS doesn't like us since we aren't pushing his GPL agenda. This is not altruistic "my code is free to help the world", this is "my code is free to spread my agenda". That's fine if you admit it, but its wrong to pretend the GPL is altrustic when it isn't.
Your analogy is very flawed btw, as stores don't actually do that. You don't know if someone is going to rob you in advance. Robbers are breaking the law, and so the police arrest them, the shopkeeper isn't involved. Maximizing freedom is simple: public domain. Everything else is restricting my freedom. Restricting my freedom to try to meet your goals is just pushing an agenda. Wether or not you, or anyone else thinks your goals are altruistic doesn't matter, its restricting freedom plain and simple. You can certainly go ahead and do that, and so can RMS and his followers. But pretending that your agenda is freedom, and actual freedom is bad is just dishonest.
"You know the GPL (v2 anyway) doesn't disallow anyone from using a piece of software, right?"
Uh huh, did you read my post:
"It used to only exclude people who want to distribute their code under a license of their choosing."
Notice the word distribute.
"What exactly is the freedom that is granted to users they like, and withheld from users they don't like?"
The freedom to link to their code and distribute it is granted to users who are willing to license their code under the GPL too. This freedom is not granted to users who wish to license their code under other licenses.