I just saw your sig, and I can't help wondering - have you considered the fact that it is saying that it's always women that find you overrated? And you want to brag about that? Weird...
You've never written a Sudoku solver, have you? If you do, you'll quickly discover that there is a point where you have filled in all of the squares for which there is only one unique value that is possible, and now you have to start looking at the squares that have two possibilities. Here's the basic algorithm:
1. Fill in all the squares for which a unique solution exists. 2. If a conflict is discovered, back up the binary search tree (see step 3) and take the next unexplored branch. 3. Take one of the squares that has only two possibilities, and guess what the value might be. 4. If Sudoku is complete, end. 5. Goto 1
When humans do this, we don't actually perceive it as trial and error, because we try to did it without writing down the guess at step 3 (and subsequent consequences at step 1). But it infact what we are doing. You'll recognise this when you remember thinking 'That square is either a 4 or a 6, but it can't be a 4, because that would force the square over there to be a 7, which isn't allowed, because there is already a 7 in that row'. You're just using the algorithm above, but doing it in your head rather than explicitly.
Anyway, as others have noticed, there's no point in solving Sudoku by computer, except as an exercise in discovering what the algorithm truly is. Once you figure out that it's just a binary search tree, it quickly becomes very boring.
Remember when you were in high school? Remember how there were 'popular' kids?
Anyway, it's highly unlikely that those kids were 'popular' outside their own year at their own school. And yet... popular. The GP's usage of 'popular' fits perfectly with this well-known usage of the word, no?
I'm relatively sure that Apple doesn't care if a few geeks want to use something other than iTunes to synch with their iPods. Most people wouldn't want to use anything other than iTunes - having to manually keep your iPod's firmware up to date, no synching of contacts/agenda, not having easy access to the iTunes Store, and for what? So that you can use another piece of software with only half the functionality.
Anyhow, this is a really dumb argument. If you have to go after Apple, why not try shooting at a real problem - like the NDA on the iPhone SDK for example. After all, at least that would be on topic...
What a load of nonsense you've written there. You complain about Apple tying the iPhone to iTunes. Well, sure, but here's the thing: iTunes is free, and if iTunes didn't exist, you'd still have to install some Apple-written piece of software on your system to synch it with the iPhone, so I really don't see what your point is - you're complaining because the piece of Apple software that you have to install does more than the bare minimum? Good grief, Evil Apple!
Especially when you think about the answer to the question 'what sort of artist is still selling their material 95 years after producing it?' The answer of course is those that were wildly successful, and have as a consequence already made a ton of money - if they were too stupid to invest it wisely, it's not the job of others to keep paying them. At some ^point, their work needs to become the property of all of humanity, as every great artist before them has done.
I'm assuming by this comment that you haven't read all of the Narnia books, have you? I'm thinking particularly of the prequel...wait, must google...The Magician's Nephew. Most of that book is a retelling of Genesis, with a couple of the proper nouns changed. And then there's the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, a retelling of the events in the New Testament. I mean, come on! Son of God, betrayed by one that is supposed to be faithful, sacrifices himself so that the sinner may be pardoned, gets resurrected, does that ring any bells, because it sure sounds familiar to me.
I make statement B, which is not in rebuttal to your statement A, or otherwise linked to it.
You respond by making statement C, as a direct rebuttal to my statement B.
I point out that Statement C is irrelevant to my statement B.
You respond by pointing out that your Statement C is in agreement with your Statement A.
I'm left wondering why you would think that: a) this would interest me, and b) how this demonstrates that your Statement C was neither irrelevant nor incorrect.
Do try to remain coherent in your logic... it helps the casual reader.
Of course you implied it. I said "...but a major release of an OS for me is when the underlying APIs have major changes."
To which (it was directly quoted in your reply) you rambled on about what you have done with gcc. Now, I was paying you the courtesy of assuming that your reply was actually, like, you know, relevant. Of course, if you are now trying to tell me that your previous post was just irrelevant rambling that should be ignored, hey, fair enough. Considered it duly ignored.
If on the other hand you were actually trying to make a point, it's that you feel that gcc should be compared by the same heuristics as I proposed to use for an OS, which is what drew my response. So, either your post two back was just irrelevant rambling, or your last post was incorrect.
I'm a sucker for punishment, and kind of curious: which one is it, irrelevant ramblings or incorrect?
Because you think that gcc is an OS? Weird. I mean, emacs maybe, but gcc???
I use "major changes to the API" as my heuristic for a major release of an OS because developers need a stable OS to code against. I would probably use a similar heuristic when talking about platforms in general (Java, or Flash, as examples). I make no claims about what should be considered a major release for other types of software, such as GCC, Microsoft Word, or GTA4.
Hey, I don't know about you, but a major release of an OS for me is when the underlying APIs have major changes. If you really want to insist that major releases are when the marketting drones decide to change the first number in the release version number, knock your socks off. Unfortunately you will have lost any useful meaning in the term "major release", but if it makes you feel any better, go right ahead, I'm certainly not going to waste my time further arguing with you about it.
Windows Server 2003 is a different line of product, as is Mac OS X server on the Apple side. Why bring it up? As for XP/Windows 2000, How many apps written for XP didn't run under 2000. I personally never came across any. That's because there were hardly any changes to the API, and the few major changes were backported to Windows 2000 anyway.
On the other hand, just try running software written for Leopard on Tiger. Under the bonnet, these two version of Mac OS X are massively different, with the introduction of Core Animation, the Time Machine APIs, the Objective C 2.0 runtime, with it's garbage collector, the Scripting Bridge so that Ruby and Python programmers get to be first class citizens. There really wasn't a corresponding change between Windows 2000 and XP.
No, the previous post was correct. The 10 in Mac OS X 10.5.3 is most definately NOT equivalent to the 5/6/7 in Windows. Think of it in terms of the names. Windows 5 = XP, Windows 6 = Vista, Windows 7 =... Mac: 10.3 = Panther, 10.4 = Tiger, 10.5 = Leopard.
The fact that the name changes should be a big indicator for you that this is a major release, not just a 'point' release.
If you don't like the marketting way of looking at things, think of it from the software management side of things - APIs don't change for point releases, but they do for major releases. In which case, the change from 10.4 to 10.5 is most definately a major release.
Sheesh, I don't know why we still have to explain this to people. Maybe I should have just responded with a great big fat 'TROLL'
The justification for preserving species is not because we feel guilty, but because biodiversity has tangible benefits for us. Large species, such as the panda, are excellent indicators for the health of an entire eco-system. As others have noted, animals such as the banji or the panda, or the orangutan go instinct not because of direct human action, but because they no longer have an ecosystem in which to live. That ecosystem may have plants in it that contain the genes that produce a protein that cures MS, or protects rice from a mutated fungus, etc.
It's not guilt, but self-interest that is the main justification for current conservation efforts.
No, the issue has been resolved - and the answer is Linux.
Microsoft has discovered that it's really really hard to compete against free. There's a reason they are sucking back large losses on hardware projects such as XBox 360 and Zune - they want out of the software-only business, because they forsee a day when Linux is able to truly compete head-on, feature for feature with Windows. On the other hand, you can't open-source hardware manufacturing.
Apple have also seen this, which is why they won't be putting themselves in the position of having to compete solely on software. Hence, no clones, because Apple wants hardware revenues. they simply use their great software as a way of enticing you to buy the hardware.
What a load of rubbish. I write libs explicitly to be deployed on STBs as a day job. Although the high end boxes that are starting to hit the market certainly are running linux, it's far from the majority. I see a lot running things like OS21- mostly because ST seems to supply a huge percentage of CPUs for the STB market. To date I have integrated the libs on linux exactly twice, and one of those was for a product that never came to market.
That said, I'm sure that in the years to come, Linux is going to take an evergrowing slice of the pie. But I wouldn't expect it to have a majority for at least another 3-4 years. And with the advent of Media Server PCs, XBox360/Playstation, AppleTV, I rather expect the traditional STB to disappear before Linux ever becomes dominant.
Sigh. No, actually, it isn't. this is the same problem faced by DRM. Just as you can't have uncrackable DRM, you can't have uncompomiseable botnets, and for exactly the same reason: the botnet client has to run on the machine of a potential enemy, who can reverse engineer it to his heart's content. About the best you can do its run some sort of obfuscation, and then update the botnet client rapidly - if the enemy can get inside your botnet client update loop, he takes control.
Sure, you can make it so all of this is difficult, but a dedicated/well-funded enemy is capable of pulling off such an attack. Especially if said enemy has got spies infiltrated in your organisation, leaking the source code of your botnet.
On a public system, you cannot know that the Firefox you are running does not have some unique modification. Such an approach is way easier than trying to use a keylogger. These days I am very suspicious of public systems that ONLY provide Firefox/other open source browsers. It's probably one of the rare situations where I prefer to use IE. That said, if you use anything other than a throwaway password from a public terminal, you are extremely foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
I just saw your sig, and I can't help wondering - have you considered the fact that it is saying that it's always women that find you overrated? And you want to brag about that? Weird...
Lol. A valid point!
Because the smart ones can only be men?
You've never written a Sudoku solver, have you? If you do, you'll quickly discover that there is a point where you have filled in all of the squares for which there is only one unique value that is possible, and now you have to start looking at the squares that have two possibilities. Here's the basic algorithm:
1. Fill in all the squares for which a unique solution exists.
2. If a conflict is discovered, back up the binary search tree (see step 3) and take the next unexplored branch.
3. Take one of the squares that has only two possibilities, and guess what the value might be.
4. If Sudoku is complete, end.
5. Goto 1
When humans do this, we don't actually perceive it as trial and error, because we try to did it without writing down the guess at step 3 (and subsequent consequences at step 1). But it infact what we are doing. You'll recognise this when you remember thinking 'That square is either a 4 or a 6, but it can't be a 4, because that would force the square over there to be a 7, which isn't allowed, because there is already a 7 in that row'. You're just using the algorithm above, but doing it in your head rather than explicitly.
Anyway, as others have noticed, there's no point in solving Sudoku by computer, except as an exercise in discovering what the algorithm truly is. Once you figure out that it's just a binary search tree, it quickly becomes very boring.
Geez, who's the moderator that lacks a sense of humour? I for one chuckled...
Ha! I'm going to comment, just because I can!
Remember when you were in high school? Remember how there were 'popular' kids?
Anyway, it's highly unlikely that those kids were 'popular' outside their own year at their own school. And yet... popular. The GP's usage of 'popular' fits perfectly with this well-known usage of the word, no?
I'm relatively sure that Apple doesn't care if a few geeks want to use something other than iTunes to synch with their iPods. Most people wouldn't want to use anything other than iTunes - having to manually keep your iPod's firmware up to date, no synching of contacts/agenda, not having easy access to the iTunes Store, and for what? So that you can use another piece of software with only half the functionality.
Anyhow, this is a really dumb argument. If you have to go after Apple, why not try shooting at a real problem - like the NDA on the iPhone SDK for example. After all, at least that would be on topic...
Uh huh, that'll work really well for synching your contacts, emails, calendar items. It's not just media files that need synching, you know?
What a load of nonsense you've written there. You complain about Apple tying the iPhone to iTunes. Well, sure, but here's the thing: iTunes is free, and if iTunes didn't exist, you'd still have to install some Apple-written piece of software on your system to synch it with the iPhone, so I really don't see what your point is - you're complaining because the piece of Apple software that you have to install does more than the bare minimum? Good grief, Evil Apple!
Especially when you think about the answer to the question 'what sort of artist is still selling their material 95 years after producing it?' The answer of course is those that were wildly successful, and have as a consequence already made a ton of money - if they were too stupid to invest it wisely, it's not the job of others to keep paying them. At some ^point, their work needs to become the property of all of humanity, as every great artist before them has done.
I'm assuming by this comment that you haven't read all of the Narnia books, have you? I'm thinking particularly of the prequel...wait, must google...The Magician's Nephew. Most of that book is a retelling of Genesis, with a couple of the proper nouns changed. And then there's the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, a retelling of the events in the New Testament. I mean, come on! Son of God, betrayed by one that is supposed to be faithful, sacrifices himself so that the sinner may be pardoned, gets resurrected, does that ring any bells, because it sure sounds familiar to me.
If I had mod points, I'd give you some
So, let me get this straight:
You make statement A:
I make statement B, which is not in rebuttal to your statement A, or otherwise linked to it.
You respond by making statement C, as a direct rebuttal to my statement B.
I point out that Statement C is irrelevant to my statement B.
You respond by pointing out that your Statement C is in agreement with your Statement A.
I'm left wondering why you would think that:
a) this would interest me, and
b) how this demonstrates that your Statement C was neither irrelevant nor incorrect.
Do try to remain coherent in your logic... it helps the casual reader.
Of course you implied it. I said "...but a major release of an OS for me is when the underlying APIs have major changes."
To which (it was directly quoted in your reply) you rambled on about what you have done with gcc. Now, I was paying you the courtesy of assuming that your reply was actually, like, you know, relevant. Of course, if you are now trying to tell me that your previous post was just irrelevant rambling that should be ignored, hey, fair enough. Considered it duly ignored.
If on the other hand you were actually trying to make a point, it's that you feel that gcc should be compared by the same heuristics as I proposed to use for an OS, which is what drew my response. So, either your post two back was just irrelevant rambling, or your last post was incorrect.
I'm a sucker for punishment, and kind of curious: which one is it, irrelevant ramblings or incorrect?
Because you think that gcc is an OS? Weird. I mean, emacs maybe, but gcc???
I use "major changes to the API" as my heuristic for a major release of an OS because developers need a stable OS to code against. I would probably use a similar heuristic when talking about platforms in general (Java, or Flash, as examples). I make no claims about what should be considered a major release for other types of software, such as GCC, Microsoft Word, or GTA4.
Hey, I don't know about you, but a major release of an OS for me is when the underlying APIs have major changes. If you really want to insist that major releases are when the marketting drones decide to change the first number in the release version number, knock your socks off. Unfortunately you will have lost any useful meaning in the term "major release", but if it makes you feel any better, go right ahead, I'm certainly not going to waste my time further arguing with you about it.
Windows Server 2003 is a different line of product, as is Mac OS X server on the Apple side. Why bring it up? As for XP/Windows 2000, How many apps written for XP didn't run under 2000. I personally never came across any. That's because there were hardly any changes to the API, and the few major changes were backported to Windows 2000 anyway.
On the other hand, just try running software written for Leopard on Tiger. Under the bonnet, these two version of Mac OS X are massively different, with the introduction of Core Animation, the Time Machine APIs, the Objective C 2.0 runtime, with it's garbage collector, the Scripting Bridge so that Ruby and Python programmers get to be first class citizens. There really wasn't a corresponding change between Windows 2000 and XP.
Yes, and maybe you might want to explain why two applications with no common code should nevertheless share a common numbering system???
No, the previous post was correct. The 10 in Mac OS X 10.5.3 is most definately NOT equivalent to the 5/6/7 in Windows. Think of it in terms of the names. Windows 5 = XP, Windows 6 = Vista, Windows 7 = ...
Mac:
10.3 = Panther, 10.4 = Tiger, 10.5 = Leopard.
The fact that the name changes should be a big indicator for you that this is a major release, not just a 'point' release.
If you don't like the marketting way of looking at things, think of it from the software management side of things - APIs don't change for point releases, but they do for major releases. In which case, the change from 10.4 to 10.5 is most definately a major release.
Sheesh, I don't know why we still have to explain this to people. Maybe I should have just responded with a great big fat 'TROLL'
The justification for preserving species is not because we feel guilty, but because biodiversity has tangible benefits for us. Large species, such as the panda, are excellent indicators for the health of an entire eco-system. As others have noted, animals such as the banji or the panda, or the orangutan go instinct not because of direct human action, but because they no longer have an ecosystem in which to live. That ecosystem may have plants in it that contain the genes that produce a protein that cures MS, or protects rice from a mutated fungus, etc.
It's not guilt, but self-interest that is the main justification for current conservation efforts.
Well I wouldn't reboot it either if all it gave me as a UI was the damned command line!
No, the issue has been resolved - and the answer is Linux.
Microsoft has discovered that it's really really hard to compete against free. There's a reason they are sucking back large losses on hardware projects such as XBox 360 and Zune - they want out of the software-only business, because they forsee a day when Linux is able to truly compete head-on, feature for feature with Windows. On the other hand, you can't open-source hardware manufacturing.
Apple have also seen this, which is why they won't be putting themselves in the position of having to compete solely on software. Hence, no clones, because Apple wants hardware revenues. they simply use their great software as a way of enticing you to buy the hardware.
What a load of rubbish. I write libs explicitly to be deployed on STBs as a day job. Although the high end boxes that are starting to hit the market certainly are running linux, it's far from the majority. I see a lot running things like OS21- mostly because ST seems to supply a huge percentage of CPUs for the STB market. To date I have integrated the libs on linux exactly twice, and one of those was for a product that never came to market.
That said, I'm sure that in the years to come, Linux is going to take an evergrowing slice of the pie. But I wouldn't expect it to have a majority for at least another 3-4 years. And with the advent of Media Server PCs, XBox360/Playstation, AppleTV, I rather expect the traditional STB to disappear before Linux ever becomes dominant.
Sigh. No, actually, it isn't. this is the same problem faced by DRM. Just as you can't have uncrackable DRM, you can't have uncompomiseable botnets, and for exactly the same reason: the botnet client has to run on the machine of a potential enemy, who can reverse engineer it to his heart's content. About the best you can do its run some sort of obfuscation, and then update the botnet client rapidly - if the enemy can get inside your botnet client update loop, he takes control.
Sure, you can make it so all of this is difficult, but a dedicated/well-funded enemy is capable of pulling off such an attack. Especially if said enemy has got spies infiltrated in your organisation, leaking the source code of your botnet.
On a public system, you cannot know that the Firefox you are running does not have some unique modification. Such an approach is way easier than trying to use a keylogger. These days I am very suspicious of public systems that ONLY provide Firefox/other open source browsers. It's probably one of the rare situations where I prefer to use IE. That said, if you use anything other than a throwaway password from a public terminal, you are extremely foolish.