I don't think yelling in German prevents one from being retarded...
Although, it would sort of fit. Hitler, and now this kid. For a good amount of time in my life, I lived in Germany. Germans can seem fairly blunt to those unfamiliar, but this guy tops all of them. Him murdering the keyboard was funny, though.
I suppose Clinton blames his infidelity and adultery on GTA now?
Someone please, for the love of GOD, please tell him to STFU.
Well, perhaps I would, but he hasn't said anything. Sen. Hilary Clinton is proposing this bill with Sen. Joe Leiberman. Who cares about Clinton's infidelity? It is not a public matter. So "for the love of GOD", please read the article and know your subject before proving the wise Mr. Samuel Clemens correct. "It is better to remain silent and appear stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
What he'd really like to see, is for the popular Linux distros to converge on a common core platform, according to the article.
I was taking a look at the Novell SUSE website the other day, and they seemed to answer to that idea that the Linux distros are incompatible. If you actually look at Linux and the greater Unix universe, everything is so modular that it is much easier to be compatible. It's sort of a myth that there is this incompatibility. Though Novell has a vested interest in promoting SUSE, their arguments against the "Get the Facts" campaign are very good. URL: Linux vs. Windows.
Unlike 1984, this reminds me of the line from "A New Hope" in which Princess Leia says to Grand Moff Tarkin, "the more you tighten your grip, the more sand will slip through your fingers..." I can't help thinking two thoughts: a) how will NJ enforce this, and b) how many people will register as "Mickey Mouse", "Elvis Presley", or "Albert Einstein"? Honestly, if the state wants to prohibit anonymous posting, I hope they have a way to pay for it, especially in light of budget deficits. I think things were better with Governor McGreevy laundering money to his boyfriend.
It's not exactly a coincidence: the media has the shortest attention span there is. Legitimate stories are shunned in favor of the ridiculous. See, the media seems to think that we want to hear the most shocking stories, yada yada. The truth is--and all aspects of "entertainment" can listen to this--the truth is that the media and the entertainment industry are in a business that is not predictable, therefore is not inherently profitable. Hence, media and entertainment attempt to change that aspect, but when one tries to mold what is unmoldable, he ends up making an ass of himself. I was watching the Academy Awards tonight, and was quite satisfied with Jon Stewart, until the president of the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences came out and said some shit about how the old days of movie-going should be preserved. This sad devotion to tradition, soley for the sake of those in power, is ridiculous. The media covers the most "shocking" stories, but they happen to be ridiculous. Case in point: the Dubai "incident." An old proverb quips, "there are no new ideas in Hollywood," and it isn't alluding to the 5 basic stories ever told. As a matter of history, the best art and progress are made when careful and meticulous work are conjugated with creative and interesting methods of delivery. In the days when Hollywood execs are sticking their heads between their knees--for more reasons than one--those devoted to creativity and progress are taking the day. We would hear more about these investigations and findings from them if the news was actually news rather than pursuit of leads that didn't make the cut for the "National Enquirer." The media has the ability to investigate legitimacy, but it would rather play it "safe" and cover the "shocking." There is a supposition that (at least in the US) "people are idiots." I disagree. Movie sales were at a major low last year. Mainstream media is waning further as internet media and blogging become more dominant. Indie and underground artists are making their way in the stead of homogenous recycled garbage from Hollywood. This gives me hope: I think people realize they are being "played" and hence are voting with their pocket-books.
I would also like to point out one thing: the modern political philosophy of special interests was originated in the New Deal, with legislation allowing for the formations of cartels. Today we are not in economic crisis and our system is much stronger than in the overindulgent 1920s. The world is explosively shrinking and it is the result of creativity, from Tim Berners-Lee to Shawn Fanning to Linus Torvalds, none of whom were "celebrities" before their creations. Today we are in the need of a new Progressive Era: not one in which government is the solution but one in which individuals and the increase in their freedoms are the solution. America and the West have moved out of their youth; now it is time for them both to stand up and become adults. This undertaking is a great one, but it can be accomplished. I hope that once again, like in the dreams and actions of America's founding fathers, people can truly stand for sacred ideals and pledge everything--lives, fortunes, and sacred honor--solely because of their beliefs in individual progress. Some of these men, including George Washington, believed that political parties were inherently a bad idea and led to corruption and spinelessness. I find myself agreeing with Mr. Washington more and more. People debate about the differences between Hilary and Dubya, but the simple fact is plain: there is no difference. Obviously one is "liberal" and the other "conservative," but honesty, what is the difference? Both favor big government, both have affairs with wealthy special interests, and both constantly limit the rights of Americans and Humans around the world. There is no difference. Hitler is only different from Moussilini in his attempted Genocide. Today our leaders are not Fascists or Nazis, but when will they be? When the individual exists solely for the State? The answer is simple: when Fear, the
I have high respect for you for two reasons: a) you are an informed California voter, and b) you make a brilliant argument. I actually respect you as much for part 'a' as for 'b', if not more, because voting in California is perhaps one of the most difficult propositions there is, no pun intended. Especially when 32 of the 48 ballot initiatives are written in legalese, 12 more are just special interest bills, with a remaining 4 being understandable and relevant. Thanks for the input. I'm just surprised that The Governator signed off on this...
That judge may get upset when someone starts sending emails from his email address. Of course, I don't know what kind of information is in the emails, but it is entirely possible to send false emails, even fraudulent ones. Just login to an insecure SMTP server and you're set. Not that I recommend anyone do this, by the way. It can both be unethical and illegal, unless you have permission to use the server and the permission of the owner of the address. Still, emails are highly suspect to problems, and email should always be considered an "insecure medium."
Re:int antiTrust(company plaintiff, company other)
on
AMD Subpoenas Skype
·
· Score: 1
Next thing I'll know, HTML will be called a Turing-complete programming language. I returned 0 because the return type was an integer. When "int main(void)" is written, it means that "main() will take no arguments and return an integer". I think you're thinking of "void main()" (which isn't ANSI C++). Also, I didn't include the std thing, because, well, basically, it isn't required. If I put in the preprocessor #include it would work. It's sort of assumed that is included, so I didn't feel like putting it. You can put in the whole "using namespace std;" thing underneath that, but it doesn't matter for small programs. For trivial programs like this, the compiler can figure out what's going on. So it isn't pointless and the std namespace isn't required.
int antiTrust(company plaintiff, company other)
on
AMD Subpoenas Skype
·
· Score: 1
{
if (plaintiff<-filedSuit(other))
{
cout << plaintiff->getName() << " is smart" << endl;
}
return 0;
}
...
int main(void)
{
company AMD, Intel; ...
Lawsuit::antiTrust(AMD, Intel);
cout << "Thank you for playing!" << endl;
return 0;
}
Since when is plagarism supposed to be protected? Why are we posting this on YRO? Every rational and reasonable person out there reallizes that Dan Brown's book is utter bunk, and those who disagree have some vested interest. First of all, the Priori of Sion was founded in France during the 1950s as a hoax. Also, portions of the book were plagarized from Leigh's and Baigent's work. What he did was take ownership of their work. This is a big no-no. On top of that, the book is biased against Christians, and extremely biased against Catholics in particular. Any book using simply "Da Vinci" without Leonardo is immediately a red flag in my book, especially when it claims to be a scholarly and rigorously researched work. On top of that, Brown uses every corny and stupid cliche ever invented. I've heard about this for a while; the suit has been going on for a while, it just hasn't been covered by the media. This brings my opinion of Brown even lower; he not only wrote a shitty book, but he couldn't even be original in his shitty book. It is bad to make up shit and pass it as fact. It is worse to copy other people's made-up shit and pass it as your own fact. Worse still is naming one of your characters after the original authors (Leigh Teibing). I have no patience for this untalented loser.
So which is worse: allowing elections to be rigged (very serious implications for very large numbers of people) or divulging "trade secrets" (very serious implications for the Diebold wealthy upper-management). The idea that clients' information must be kept confidential is a bunch of garbage. Say that a "client" was a serious mafia boss, and a lawyer discovered this. The honest and truthful action to take is to report the guy to the proper authorities. The term "whistleblower" is not some sort of technocratic jargon; it describes a person who discovers an unethical or illegal practice and then reports the action. In the early 1900s, "muckrakers" were considered whistleblowers, and they were reporters or writers who were sick of the corruption. In the words of Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
What do we do with stale bread? We chop it up and make crutons!!! Oh, wait, that's not a good thing. Maybe M$ is like a bad infection: the bacteria can run, but they can't hide! Or perhaps in the movie "The Matrix" Agent Smith was talking allegorically about M$ when he was speaking about humanity (i.e. a virus spreading everywhere without bound and ruining everything). I'm kind of disappointed that they came out at this time, however. When the current Administration took office, the charges were all but ignored and M$ got away with a pin-prick of a settlement. Maybe the "Federal" Government will claim a "national security risk" about M$ if it is convicted again. If they do, I vote for "civil disobedience".
Before being called a Troll, I accidentally clicked the "submit" when I meant "preview" and a mal-formed paragraph tag prevented my message from being displayed. I apologize for the inconvenience this causes to/. mods...
BACK TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMS
Hehe... Actually, I think I did write some sort of fascecious rant as her some time ago... Thanks for bringing that up: I have been inspired to create a new blog (which I have never been compelled to do ever before). This new blog will be entitled... Tool of the Week. However, I don't want to be sued for copyright infringement, though, so I might have to change the "of the Week" part...
Wait!!! I've been hit again! Tools, Hacks, and Quacks! Maybe even a rating system where users could select whether the given person is a tool, a hack, or a quack. I hold high esteem for all hackers out there, so keep in mind that you are not "hacks". I think I'm having too much fun with this already::rubs hands together::...mwuhahaha...
Wait!!! I've been hit again! Tools, Hacks, and Quacks! Maybe even a rating system where users could select whether the given person is a tool, a hack, or a quack. I hold high esteem for all hackers out there, so keep in mind that you are not "hacks". I think I'm having too much fun with this already::rubs hands together::...mwuhahaha...
Instead of those semi-legitimate ads about supporting terror with drugs...we opted for stupid and illegitimate ads equating content "piracy" with terrorism. Now we'll have ill-conceived ads about supporting terror with electronics. Here goes (feel free to add/subtract anything from here):
"If you buy hardware from Japan, you::hint ambiguity:: may be supporting terrorists on the black market. So now you will be stealing money from those hard-working hardware manufacturers [who are compensated duly in sweat-shops] and will be helping those second-hand dealers who are enemies of the state! What's next? Stealing music and "content" from the corporations publishing music? Please don't take level the playing field with corporations; they're meant to take advantage of you."
I would like to say that I never made any speculation on SCO and that I simply meant they should have their day in court. I stand by those statements. Linux lunatics are simply outrageous in their claims against corporations like Microsoft, so they should just submit brokeback. I got an email from a guy, whom I assume was truthful, telling me how he received 300 letters of hate mail from Linux zealots for backing up SCO in a groklaw article. This is just lunacy! When some infantesimally small percentage of loyal users just can't take the rational way out, that tells me to never use the product they support. I simply want to level the playing field, to show that Microsoft and Linux are equal. The executives at Microsoft are good people. Bill donates his personal time and money to stopping worldwide disease. Executives who do this are good people, regardless of whether they turn their offices into WWE wrestling rings, forget to wear antiperspirant, or use death threats when intoxicated. SCO simply is the little guy and should win. Well, it should win because it defends the almighty intellectual property laws. Let's forget any interpretation from some Constitution drafted 230 years ago that IP laws should be for the "progress of arts and sciences." This is 2006, not 1787. If they had computers back then, they would certainly have stood for free market and the protection of that value via software copyrights and patents. The fact that IBM is winning this case so far only goes to show how much they have bribed the courts and are using their influence unfairly. I think both sides have made mistakes, but I'd much rather be controversial to get more site-hits, so I'll only point out the fact that IBM is just a big-bad big-business called big-blue, so they must die and roll over to the freedom fighters at SCO. McBride is a Mormon, and mormons are all good people, so that argument is just outrageous, that he would be unethical. The business machine at IBM is only interested in profit and wishes to milk everyone for everything in order to attain that goal. So, despite the judge remarking on the utter lack of evidence presented by SCO, and the fact that IBM is supporting Linux, which I hate only because I instigated a flame war with Linus Torvalds, which he won, and which I should have not picked at the time. He was 20 and I was much older, but he had made some crack about software patents being mathematical constructs. I just couldn't let him and his Linux fringe lunatics attack me with their inflated rhetoric. So I flamed him. I was right though, because now I get hate mail daily from Linux zealots, so despite the fact that I call Apple a company led by and used by fruits, and despite the fact that I write anti-Linux messages all the time with the premise of being "fair and balanced," I was ultimately right about Linux zealots, so I will be right about SCO. Please excuse me from the office for a few weeks: I am organizing a fund raiser to provide SCO all the legal support they need.
Amen. My issue with databases and all that is that they are not abstract enough. Either one must create a new table when one wishes to implement a new feature, or one must develop some extremely generic database that is hard to search. I don't think that moving toward Java is necessarily the answer.
This will be off-topic
(Six dozen of one, half of the other.)
Hahaha. That was priceless. I assume you meant, "six of one, half-dozen of the other"? It is fairly humorous, however, to say, "72 of one thing,.5 of the other..."
In America business methods and software can be patented. Software can also be copyrighted. The issue with prior art comes up because of the patenting of software. Many people argue that because software is a manifestation of mathematical constructs, it is hard to patent it, because that would require no previous work on the subject. This story is confusing, however, because it seems to use "copyright" and "patent" interchangably.
I was going to file my Warp Drive patent tomorrow. Now I guess I'll have to file my patent for the Varon-T Disruptor. Or even better, a phasing cloak. If they asked for a proof-of-concept, I'd simply say, "it's invisible!"
I'd like to point something out to this guy: language is meant to evolve. I hate when people write ambiguous, redundant, and meaningless sentences, but if I can clearly understand what a sentence is saying without too much analysis, I'm OK with it. Some of these ivory-tower "writers" think that language should be static, or rather partially static. They'd like to be the sole ones to wield the tools that bend and extend language. '2 bad 4 them' that they aren't the only modifiers. People must either change or be changed. Sorry!
I agree about the morality question, but have questions as to whether DRM and copyright are morally correct. It is only fair that the engineers and coders as well as executives be paid for the fruits of their labor. But they want something both ways. They want to brag about how they are the best for this that and the other reason, and then legally limit the measure of how they are the best. You see, a true capitalist system abhors monopoly, but copyright provides such a monopoly. Never before has there been a medium such as the internet to freely distribute anything. True capitalism is like the world of biology: it obeys the laws of evolution and natural selection. I own both a Mac and a couple PCs. I love my Mac always and I love my PCs when they run Linux. Now Linux distros obviously are a bit stunted in the world of hardware compatability and interoperability. But guess what: they work. The number of drivers is increasing, leading to much better compatability and interoperability.
Apple doesn't have the ultimate choice here. They sell their product for money. Then they say, "you can only use this product if you a) run it on Apple hardware b) paid for the software and c) agree to a litany of EULA terms, foregoing all of your rights to object you paid for." I don't have a problem with paying for the software. I do have a problem with not being allowed to use my software as I please. If I come up with some way to install OS X on my PC, I should be able to do it without penalty. Right now, Apple isn't providing much choice for those of us who want to use what we paid for in our own way. Apple is crying foul, but they don't reallize a key fact: if they removed their restrictions, the code would be cheaper to produce and they would sell OS X more than before. If they removed the stupid DRM on their boards, they would find more people purchasing Apples. I don't have much patience for these corporate whiners. I'm sure if you analyzed their tax records, you'd see less-than-ethical filings. Is that fair or morally correct?
Hmmm... I'm from the camp who says, "Let's try and find cures or at least treatments for any diseases we can." That makes me a bad man? I go on/. to have a decent debate... Well I should have known about some loser whose fucking name is redundant. You're acting like there is some limited quantity of money AND that the treatment of disease is some sort of profitable endeavor. Good luck with that one! You're also saying that some people deserve to live over others because the "cost curve" is more favorable for them. We're talking about human beings here. They all deserve to live! Your logic is on par with that of George W. Bush ("Your either with me or against me...") and your compassion that of Dr. Strangelove. People like you make me sick, because people like you are the ones who don't fight malaria. Though you advocate fighting disease, the eventuality of your argument is the ignorance of the human race. The eventuality of your argument is the disregard of those starving in countries because of greedy and heavily armed war lords or religious and ethnic conflicts or abuse of political power. Saving lives is not some sort of "optimization" problem. There simply aren't enough resources to help those who need help. Instead of preaching about how money should be spent, why not do something about it? You'll feel better and maybe take that pair of chopsticks out of your ass.
Mistshadow, I agree with you. I feel like walking up to PMF and telling him (or her), "You have cancer. There is a cure, but it costs too much to manufacture. Have a nice day!"
Polio is almost as uncommon as ebola and far less deadly. Today only about 1000 new cases of polio occur each year, and the WHO is working to eliminate the virus completely, despite civil war in Sudan and a boost in cases in Nigeria, which claimed the West was tainting the vaccine with sterility substances and HIV to destroy Islam. After a 10-month ban, the muslim clerics recanted, since a massive resurgence of the virus had occured across Nigeria and in several neighboring states, a few of which had never seen the Virus. I doubt that the polio vaccination is terribly "cost-effective", but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it. With viruses like polio out of the way, other, even more dangerous diseases can be stopped, like Ebola and HIV.
To the user who posted about TB, keep in mind that TB is a bacterial infection, and thus quite different from a viral one. Bacteria are able to live outside of a host, given a "food" supply, while viruses often are dormant or destroyed (as with AIDS). That said, TB is estmated to infect 2 billion people worldwide, and is thus an extremely serious pathogen.
In constrast with some of the jerkoffs who post on/., I actually think that a backboneless internet is the future. Backboneless internet is, in my mind, a much more logical proposition. Let's consider that anomolies such as blackouts still occur. The backbone could become severed or could degrade in quality over the years. With such a huge bottleneck, the backbone is crucial to national security, and in fact the internet backbone is a well-kept secret. A guy a few years ago actually mapped it for his doctorate, and the feds showed up to classify his work. Of course, the feds would also hate a widely distributed internet; it would make their dirty work harder (though in some ways it would be much easier, and these ways would be conducive to civil liberties). A distributed global network would handle routing very similarly to how routing is handled currently. Machines could have a cache of neighbors and voila. Mathematically the number of hops would actually be quite small in a DGN. Contrary to other/. posters, who resort to calling people "FOOLS", a distributed internet is a dream of mine. It, I believe, would be a major step toward machine intelligence, though I believe machine intelligence is within striking distance. Either way, massively parallel systems and problems could be run and solved easily with a distributed global network, rerouting data through the "path of least resistance." The most important development would be a "protocol-less protocol", i.e. an intelligent machine capable of discerning the information it recieves. Ah, dreaming about the future....
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think yelling in German prevents one from being retarded...
Although, it would sort of fit. Hitler, and now this kid. For a good amount of time in my life, I lived in Germany. Germans can seem fairly blunt to those unfamiliar, but this guy tops all of them. Him murdering the keyboard was funny, though.
I suppose Clinton blames his infidelity and adultery on GTA now?
Someone please, for the love of GOD, please tell him to STFU.
Well, perhaps I would, but he hasn't said anything. Sen. Hilary Clinton is proposing this bill with Sen. Joe Leiberman. Who cares about Clinton's infidelity? It is not a public matter. So "for the love of GOD", please read the article and know your subject before proving the wise Mr. Samuel Clemens correct. "It is better to remain silent and appear stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
What he'd really like to see, is for the popular Linux distros to converge on a common core platform, according to the article.
I was taking a look at the Novell SUSE website the other day, and they seemed to answer to that idea that the Linux distros are incompatible. If you actually look at Linux and the greater Unix universe, everything is so modular that it is much easier to be compatible. It's sort of a myth that there is this incompatibility. Though Novell has a vested interest in promoting SUSE, their arguments against the "Get the Facts" campaign are very good. URL: Linux vs. Windows.
Ah, Tankko, you are correct. I shall bow to you in my loud yellow jacket to recieve my medal. :-)
Unlike 1984, this reminds me of the line from "A New Hope" in which Princess Leia says to Grand Moff Tarkin, "the more you tighten your grip, the more sand will slip through your fingers..." I can't help thinking two thoughts: a) how will NJ enforce this, and b) how many people will register as "Mickey Mouse", "Elvis Presley", or "Albert Einstein"? Honestly, if the state wants to prohibit anonymous posting, I hope they have a way to pay for it, especially in light of budget deficits. I think things were better with Governor McGreevy laundering money to his boyfriend.
It's not exactly a coincidence: the media has the shortest attention span there is. Legitimate stories are shunned in favor of the ridiculous. See, the media seems to think that we want to hear the most shocking stories, yada yada. The truth is--and all aspects of "entertainment" can listen to this--the truth is that the media and the entertainment industry are in a business that is not predictable, therefore is not inherently profitable. Hence, media and entertainment attempt to change that aspect, but when one tries to mold what is unmoldable, he ends up making an ass of himself. I was watching the Academy Awards tonight, and was quite satisfied with Jon Stewart, until the president of the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences came out and said some shit about how the old days of movie-going should be preserved. This sad devotion to tradition, soley for the sake of those in power, is ridiculous. The media covers the most "shocking" stories, but they happen to be ridiculous. Case in point: the Dubai "incident." An old proverb quips, "there are no new ideas in Hollywood," and it isn't alluding to the 5 basic stories ever told. As a matter of history, the best art and progress are made when careful and meticulous work are conjugated with creative and interesting methods of delivery. In the days when Hollywood execs are sticking their heads between their knees--for more reasons than one--those devoted to creativity and progress are taking the day. We would hear more about these investigations and findings from them if the news was actually news rather than pursuit of leads that didn't make the cut for the "National Enquirer." The media has the ability to investigate legitimacy, but it would rather play it "safe" and cover the "shocking." There is a supposition that (at least in the US) "people are idiots." I disagree. Movie sales were at a major low last year. Mainstream media is waning further as internet media and blogging become more dominant. Indie and underground artists are making their way in the stead of homogenous recycled garbage from Hollywood. This gives me hope: I think people realize they are being "played" and hence are voting with their pocket-books.
I would also like to point out one thing: the modern political philosophy of special interests was originated in the New Deal, with legislation allowing for the formations of cartels. Today we are not in economic crisis and our system is much stronger than in the overindulgent 1920s. The world is explosively shrinking and it is the result of creativity, from Tim Berners-Lee to Shawn Fanning to Linus Torvalds, none of whom were "celebrities" before their creations. Today we are in the need of a new Progressive Era: not one in which government is the solution but one in which individuals and the increase in their freedoms are the solution. America and the West have moved out of their youth; now it is time for them both to stand up and become adults. This undertaking is a great one, but it can be accomplished. I hope that once again, like in the dreams and actions of America's founding fathers, people can truly stand for sacred ideals and pledge everything--lives, fortunes, and sacred honor--solely because of their beliefs in individual progress. Some of these men, including George Washington, believed that political parties were inherently a bad idea and led to corruption and spinelessness. I find myself agreeing with Mr. Washington more and more. People debate about the differences between Hilary and Dubya, but the simple fact is plain: there is no difference. Obviously one is "liberal" and the other "conservative," but honesty, what is the difference? Both favor big government, both have affairs with wealthy special interests, and both constantly limit the rights of Americans and Humans around the world. There is no difference. Hitler is only different from Moussilini in his attempted Genocide. Today our leaders are not Fascists or Nazis, but when will they be? When the individual exists solely for the State? The answer is simple: when Fear, the
I have high respect for you for two reasons: a) you are an informed California voter, and b) you make a brilliant argument. I actually respect you as much for part 'a' as for 'b', if not more, because voting in California is perhaps one of the most difficult propositions there is, no pun intended. Especially when 32 of the 48 ballot initiatives are written in legalese, 12 more are just special interest bills, with a remaining 4 being understandable and relevant. Thanks for the input. I'm just surprised that The Governator signed off on this...
That judge may get upset when someone starts sending emails from his email address. Of course, I don't know what kind of information is in the emails, but it is entirely possible to send false emails, even fraudulent ones. Just login to an insecure SMTP server and you're set. Not that I recommend anyone do this, by the way. It can both be unethical and illegal, unless you have permission to use the server and the permission of the owner of the address. Still, emails are highly suspect to problems, and email should always be considered an "insecure medium."
Next thing I'll know, HTML will be called a Turing-complete programming language. I returned 0 because the return type was an integer. When "int main(void)" is written, it means that "main() will take no arguments and return an integer". I think you're thinking of "void main()" (which isn't ANSI C++). Also, I didn't include the std thing, because, well, basically, it isn't required. If I put in the preprocessor #include it would work. It's sort of assumed that is included, so I didn't feel like putting it. You can put in the whole "using namespace std;" thing underneath that, but it doesn't matter for small programs. For trivial programs like this, the compiler can figure out what's going on. So it isn't pointless and the std namespace isn't required.
{
...
...
if (plaintiff<-filedSuit(other))
{
cout << plaintiff->getName() << " is smart" << endl;
}
return 0;
}
int main(void)
{
company AMD, Intel;
Lawsuit::antiTrust(AMD, Intel);
cout << "Thank you for playing!" << endl;
return 0;
}
Since when is plagarism supposed to be protected? Why are we posting this on YRO? Every rational and reasonable person out there reallizes that Dan Brown's book is utter bunk, and those who disagree have some vested interest. First of all, the Priori of Sion was founded in France during the 1950s as a hoax. Also, portions of the book were plagarized from Leigh's and Baigent's work. What he did was take ownership of their work. This is a big no-no. On top of that, the book is biased against Christians, and extremely biased against Catholics in particular. Any book using simply "Da Vinci" without Leonardo is immediately a red flag in my book, especially when it claims to be a scholarly and rigorously researched work. On top of that, Brown uses every corny and stupid cliche ever invented. I've heard about this for a while; the suit has been going on for a while, it just hasn't been covered by the media. This brings my opinion of Brown even lower; he not only wrote a shitty book, but he couldn't even be original in his shitty book. It is bad to make up shit and pass it as fact. It is worse to copy other people's made-up shit and pass it as your own fact. Worse still is naming one of your characters after the original authors (Leigh Teibing). I have no patience for this untalented loser.
So which is worse: allowing elections to be rigged (very serious implications for very large numbers of people) or divulging "trade secrets" (very serious implications for the Diebold wealthy upper-management). The idea that clients' information must be kept confidential is a bunch of garbage. Say that a "client" was a serious mafia boss, and a lawyer discovered this. The honest and truthful action to take is to report the guy to the proper authorities. The term "whistleblower" is not some sort of technocratic jargon; it describes a person who discovers an unethical or illegal practice and then reports the action. In the early 1900s, "muckrakers" were considered whistleblowers, and they were reporters or writers who were sick of the corruption. In the words of Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
What do we do with stale bread? We chop it up and make crutons!!! Oh, wait, that's not a good thing. Maybe M$ is like a bad infection: the bacteria can run, but they can't hide! Or perhaps in the movie "The Matrix" Agent Smith was talking allegorically about M$ when he was speaking about humanity (i.e. a virus spreading everywhere without bound and ruining everything). I'm kind of disappointed that they came out at this time, however. When the current Administration took office, the charges were all but ignored and M$ got away with a pin-prick of a settlement. Maybe the "Federal" Government will claim a "national security risk" about M$ if it is convicted again. If they do, I vote for "civil disobedience".
Before being called a Troll, I accidentally clicked the "submit" when I meant "preview" and a mal-formed paragraph tag prevented my message from being displayed. I apologize for the inconvenience this causes to /. mods...
BACK TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMSHehe... Actually, I think I did write some sort of fascecious rant as her some time ago... Thanks for bringing that up: I have been inspired to create a new blog (which I have never been compelled to do ever before). This new blog will be entitled... Tool of the Week. However, I don't want to be sued for copyright infringement, though, so I might have to change the "of the Week" part...
Wait!!! I've been hit again! Tools, Hacks, and Quacks! Maybe even a rating system where users could select whether the given person is a tool, a hack, or a quack. I hold high esteem for all hackers out there, so keep in mind that you are not "hacks". I think I'm having too much fun with this already ::rubs hands together:: ...mwuhahaha...
Wait!!! I've been hit again! Tools, Hacks, and Quacks! Maybe even a rating system where users could select whether the given person is a tool, a hack, or a quack. I hold high esteem for all hackers out there, so keep in mind that you are not "hacks". I think I'm having too much fun with this already ::rubs hands together:: ...mwuhahaha...
Instead of those semi-legitimate ads about supporting terror with drugs...we opted for stupid and illegitimate ads equating content "piracy" with terrorism. Now we'll have ill-conceived ads about supporting terror with electronics. Here goes (feel free to add/subtract anything from here):
"If you buy hardware from Japan, you ::hint ambiguity:: may be supporting terrorists on the black market. So now you will be stealing money from those hard-working hardware manufacturers [who are compensated duly in sweat-shops] and will be helping those second-hand dealers who are enemies of the state! What's next? Stealing music and "content" from the corporations publishing music? Please don't take level the playing field with corporations; they're meant to take advantage of you."
Auto-reply from Robert Enderle:
I would like to say that I never made any speculation on SCO and that I simply meant they should have their day in court. I stand by those statements. Linux lunatics are simply outrageous in their claims against corporations like Microsoft, so they should just submit brokeback. I got an email from a guy, whom I assume was truthful, telling me how he received 300 letters of hate mail from Linux zealots for backing up SCO in a groklaw article. This is just lunacy! When some infantesimally small percentage of loyal users just can't take the rational way out, that tells me to never use the product they support. I simply want to level the playing field, to show that Microsoft and Linux are equal. The executives at Microsoft are good people. Bill donates his personal time and money to stopping worldwide disease. Executives who do this are good people, regardless of whether they turn their offices into WWE wrestling rings, forget to wear antiperspirant, or use death threats when intoxicated. SCO simply is the little guy and should win. Well, it should win because it defends the almighty intellectual property laws. Let's forget any interpretation from some Constitution drafted 230 years ago that IP laws should be for the "progress of arts and sciences." This is 2006, not 1787. If they had computers back then, they would certainly have stood for free market and the protection of that value via software copyrights and patents. The fact that IBM is winning this case so far only goes to show how much they have bribed the courts and are using their influence unfairly. I think both sides have made mistakes, but I'd much rather be controversial to get more site-hits, so I'll only point out the fact that IBM is just a big-bad big-business called big-blue, so they must die and roll over to the freedom fighters at SCO. McBride is a Mormon, and mormons are all good people, so that argument is just outrageous, that he would be unethical. The business machine at IBM is only interested in profit and wishes to milk everyone for everything in order to attain that goal. So, despite the judge remarking on the utter lack of evidence presented by SCO, and the fact that IBM is supporting Linux, which I hate only because I instigated a flame war with Linus Torvalds, which he won, and which I should have not picked at the time. He was 20 and I was much older, but he had made some crack about software patents being mathematical constructs. I just couldn't let him and his Linux fringe lunatics attack me with their inflated rhetoric. So I flamed him. I was right though, because now I get hate mail daily from Linux zealots, so despite the fact that I call Apple a company led by and used by fruits, and despite the fact that I write anti-Linux messages all the time with the premise of being "fair and balanced," I was ultimately right about Linux zealots, so I will be right about SCO. Please excuse me from the office for a few weeks: I am organizing a fund raiser to provide SCO all the legal support they need.
Sincerely,
Rob Enderle
Amen. My issue with databases and all that is that they are not abstract enough. Either one must create a new table when one wishes to implement a new feature, or one must develop some extremely generic database that is hard to search. I don't think that moving toward Java is necessarily the answer.
This will be off-topic
(Six dozen of one, half of the other.)
Hahaha. That was priceless. I assume you meant, "six of one, half-dozen of the other"? It is fairly humorous, however, to say, "72 of one thing, .5 of the other..."
In America business methods and software can be patented. Software can also be copyrighted. The issue with prior art comes up because of the patenting of software. Many people argue that because software is a manifestation of mathematical constructs, it is hard to patent it, because that would require no previous work on the subject. This story is confusing, however, because it seems to use "copyright" and "patent" interchangably.
I was going to file my Warp Drive patent tomorrow. Now I guess I'll have to file my patent for the Varon-T Disruptor. Or even better, a phasing cloak. If they asked for a proof-of-concept, I'd simply say, "it's invisible!"
I'd like to point something out to this guy: language is meant to evolve. I hate when people write ambiguous, redundant, and meaningless sentences, but if I can clearly understand what a sentence is saying without too much analysis, I'm OK with it. Some of these ivory-tower "writers" think that language should be static, or rather partially static. They'd like to be the sole ones to wield the tools that bend and extend language. '2 bad 4 them' that they aren't the only modifiers. People must either change or be changed. Sorry!
I agree about the morality question, but have questions as to whether DRM and copyright are morally correct. It is only fair that the engineers and coders as well as executives be paid for the fruits of their labor. But they want something both ways. They want to brag about how they are the best for this that and the other reason, and then legally limit the measure of how they are the best. You see, a true capitalist system abhors monopoly, but copyright provides such a monopoly. Never before has there been a medium such as the internet to freely distribute anything. True capitalism is like the world of biology: it obeys the laws of evolution and natural selection. I own both a Mac and a couple PCs. I love my Mac always and I love my PCs when they run Linux. Now Linux distros obviously are a bit stunted in the world of hardware compatability and interoperability. But guess what: they work. The number of drivers is increasing, leading to much better compatability and interoperability.
Apple doesn't have the ultimate choice here. They sell their product for money. Then they say, "you can only use this product if you a) run it on Apple hardware b) paid for the software and c) agree to a litany of EULA terms, foregoing all of your rights to object you paid for." I don't have a problem with paying for the software. I do have a problem with not being allowed to use my software as I please. If I come up with some way to install OS X on my PC, I should be able to do it without penalty. Right now, Apple isn't providing much choice for those of us who want to use what we paid for in our own way. Apple is crying foul, but they don't reallize a key fact: if they removed their restrictions, the code would be cheaper to produce and they would sell OS X more than before. If they removed the stupid DRM on their boards, they would find more people purchasing Apples. I don't have much patience for these corporate whiners. I'm sure if you analyzed their tax records, you'd see less-than-ethical filings. Is that fair or morally correct?
Hmmm... I'm from the camp who says, "Let's try and find cures or at least treatments for any diseases we can." That makes me a bad man? I go on /. to have a decent debate... Well I should have known about some loser whose fucking name is redundant. You're acting like there is some limited quantity of money AND that the treatment of disease is some sort of profitable endeavor. Good luck with that one! You're also saying that some people deserve to live over others because the "cost curve" is more favorable for them. We're talking about human beings here. They all deserve to live! Your logic is on par with that of George W. Bush ("Your either with me or against me...") and your compassion that of Dr. Strangelove. People like you make me sick, because people like you are the ones who don't fight malaria. Though you advocate fighting disease, the eventuality of your argument is the ignorance of the human race. The eventuality of your argument is the disregard of those starving in countries because of greedy and heavily armed war lords or religious and ethnic conflicts or abuse of political power. Saving lives is not some sort of "optimization" problem. There simply aren't enough resources to help those who need help. Instead of preaching about how money should be spent, why not do something about it? You'll feel better and maybe take that pair of chopsticks out of your ass.
Mistshadow, I agree with you. I feel like walking up to PMF and telling him (or her), "You have cancer. There is a cure, but it costs too much to manufacture. Have a nice day!"
Polio is almost as uncommon as ebola and far less deadly. Today only about 1000 new cases of polio occur each year, and the WHO is working to eliminate the virus completely, despite civil war in Sudan and a boost in cases in Nigeria, which claimed the West was tainting the vaccine with sterility substances and HIV to destroy Islam. After a 10-month ban, the muslim clerics recanted, since a massive resurgence of the virus had occured across Nigeria and in several neighboring states, a few of which had never seen the Virus. I doubt that the polio vaccination is terribly "cost-effective", but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it. With viruses like polio out of the way, other, even more dangerous diseases can be stopped, like Ebola and HIV.
To the user who posted about TB, keep in mind that TB is a bacterial infection, and thus quite different from a viral one. Bacteria are able to live outside of a host, given a "food" supply, while viruses often are dormant or destroyed (as with AIDS). That said, TB is estmated to infect 2 billion people worldwide, and is thus an extremely serious pathogen.
In constrast with some of the jerkoffs who post on /., I actually think that a backboneless internet is the future. Backboneless internet is, in my mind, a much more logical proposition. Let's consider that anomolies such as blackouts still occur. The backbone could become severed or could degrade in quality over the years. With such a huge bottleneck, the backbone is crucial to national security, and in fact the internet backbone is a well-kept secret. A guy a few years ago actually mapped it for his doctorate, and the feds showed up to classify his work. Of course, the feds would also hate a widely distributed internet; it would make their dirty work harder (though in some ways it would be much easier, and these ways would be conducive to civil liberties). A distributed global network would handle routing very similarly to how routing is handled currently. Machines could have a cache of neighbors and voila. Mathematically the number of hops would actually be quite small in a DGN. Contrary to other /. posters, who resort to calling people "FOOLS", a distributed internet is a dream of mine. It, I believe, would be a major step toward machine intelligence, though I believe machine intelligence is within striking distance. Either way, massively parallel systems and problems could be run and solved easily with a distributed global network, rerouting data through the "path of least resistance." The most important development would be a "protocol-less protocol", i.e. an intelligent machine capable of discerning the information it recieves. Ah, dreaming about the future....