No they're not, they should lobby for a new law where everybody gets the obligation to buy 2 CD's per calendar month. If you can't find a nice CD, you should still pay the fee. Fear GNUtella!
Bet I was the first one to submit this story on Slashdot, but anyway, funny thing is that their license says you cannot use their trademark 'InterBase'. I'm pleased to see InterBase being Open Source, it probably 's got something to do with Kylix.
You cannot suppose DeCSS being 20MB in size as the critical part of this program merely is nothing more than a hardware driver. There are no DeCSS-look-a-likes which are 20Mb in size. Then there is another thing: free distribution depends on certain factors: (hardware/software) availability, content support, and (no) restrictions in use.
I fully agree on this while my first choice isn't BBC but public media in general. Like the BBC there are mulptiple media organizations, mostly in Europe, which are paid by tax-money rather than by commercial advertising. I'm not too sure how much public media are appreciated in the USA. I know who to trust here in Europe
Power to the status quo! Anarchism on the internet stops here - the animals didn't see the difference between the pigs and humans anymore (Orwell). If you have an opinion, eWatch will fire their PR on you, merge of big news companies is: you can't have an opinion anymore. Where analysists in the pre-internet era prospected social division into information-haves and information-have-nots, somewhere in Y2K, it became clear everybody had to become an information-have-not, and consume well-prepared information and products.
As we look at www.applesoup.com or www.applesoup.net we still don't know what it is. Other internet-it magazines (not in English available as far as I'm concerned) report that Holywood has invested mucho money into the applesoup project already.
Beats me what this is, they already have a service for new artists...
You cannot compare OO in this sequence - Functional and Imparitive are about algorithmns (i.e. how-to-program-certain-behaviour) while OO is about data. You can't compare data with algorithmns, out of the question.
In my opinion, functional languages are the future.
I've been developing a functional language myself for the past two years now, and for me the cause is clear. Imparitive languages like C have a problem with order. A language like Occam demonstrates nicely that order doesn't always apply. Same goes for Functional languages, illustrated by Haskell, Amanda, Miranda, Lisp, Kleisly etc. The key problem with pure functional languages is that they are descriptive. Like Mathematics, you can develop a function ( F->X = aX^2 + bX + c), but mathematics does not tell you that you can actually use it. The same thing applies for pure functional languages, you describe a function, but you can't evaluate a functional with language features, you need an interpreter which you give the command to evaluate a function.
A pure functional language is not practical or is it? Developing a functional language with the ability to perform an action, means that you need a scheme in which you implement such features without contradicting the language itself (i.e. a F.L does not have an assignment operator, this means you cannot store information in any way). Ofcourse you can provide a lot of system-functions, or keywords, or whatever. Doing this you will get a dirty language, and it will never be widely accepted - keywords and system functions are limited perse, and never really are atomic features.
The absolute characteristic propperty of functional languages is the fact that it is suitable for multi-processor environments. You can split any combination of function evaluations into multiple processes, a functional language is therefore only interesting in multi-processor environments. In the present, we still get processors to become faster and faster, while this does not stop, a functional language seems to be obsolete. Another fact making F.L.'s obsolete is that compilers/interpreters rarely take advantage of the multi-processing feature.
For the language I'm developing, I've found solutions to all problems mentioned above. I'm implementing an F.L. in which one can store information while not contradicting the language, doing the multi-processing thing etcetera. Thanks to an O.S. called Linux, I can do a thing like this...
20 seconds to run? Did you use hugs? You know, Haskell isn't the only functional language, So are Miranda, Amanda and Kleisly. Miranda even is a compiler while HUGS defenitly is not
Re:I know exactly what it means
on
The CPO Cometh
·
· Score: 1
Right! CPO-statement: what you can't do is gather irrelevant info for your CRM DB. what you can do is buy the information from a company without a CPO.
It's a bit easier in holland. To be anonymous: sign up on a free ISP using an internet pillar in the street, or the amusement hall. Suppress display of your number when calling. And if you really would like to do bad things, buy a cheap pre-pay mobile phone, pay for it in cash, use a lap-top to connect to the internet, turn it on at a the scene of the crime, connect to the internet and do your thing, throw phone away. You won't be traced
you can tie an ip-number to an adress or city. you can calculate critical net points and estimate ratio's in the amount of people you'll target - marketing!
Trust nobody elses benchmarks. You know, I actually liked the idea of an 'Open Benchmark' which was organized to safe Mindcraft's face last year. Benchmarks and lies... Maybe the 'Open Benchmark' thing should be developed by different experts on different OS's, developing some formal specifications on the methodology of testing different services/OS-features. The Open Benchmark was a kind of collaboration, so is Kerberos, CORBA, and Open source surely is.
If we'd use the moon for gaining resources, we'll have to build large structures where people live and work. Even a robotic implementation of a site is big enough for us to see on earth with the naked eye (eventually). I think this is quite an unethical thing as a lot of people have a religious association with the moon, which we'll then destruct, or alter anyway. But who cares about unknown/undiscovered African or south-American tribes who will panic when they see the moon change... as long as it makes the big bucks right...
Lease application usage to your customers in a C/S system over the net (dot-net economy). Make client application open source, keep server-side closed or just-about-opened. Keep potential patentable techniques on server side (as much as possible).
somebody has gotta find out that the advocacy-institutions weren't really independant, I think it's very understandable that the competition does this. Didn't Microsoft support a plan to cut budget on the juristic department in the past? I mean they'll use any trick to burden their antitrust case.
Don't say that Larry has done proper things, but I can forgive him...
Just because it's our mascot we should save penguins? How narrow-minded! Ofcourse it's a good cause! but there are worse problems. Personally, I think this whole topic is sick, it's a kind of internet-sensation-hype story, I'd prefer either no topics on environment, or a broad range of items on environment, not just our little bit, it's too exagerated.
There are 'formal specs' and there is 'implementation'. You can have a good 'math-proven' formal spec for authorisation / security / encryption etc. The way it's implemented can be the weakest point - like the Xing DVD player. There's another issue: a burgular designing a lock uses his own expertise to build a better lock than those made by other manufactors. Third thing is that 'formal specs' are specs made by people with a lot of expertise, their expertise can be outdated, there expertise can be limited. My guess is that 500 burgulars implementing a lock can build locks more secure than 10 burgular veterans designing a lock far into their burgular-retirement days. Ofcourse, with everybody with their eyes into the lock design prevents the assholes for building in a back-door, or an auto-connect-send-some-customer-information-to-Mat tel component. The guy forgets one thing in my opinion: those formal specs are made by people!
There's a good point here, the actual problem in this system is that I cannot figure out is how to tell the receiver which random pads to use for decryption... does this system work with a 'trusted-courier' in any way?
On the other hand, random data encryption, where keys/pads are used only once is mathematically the best encryption form, been proved in the 1920's. But a practical implementation seems very tough to me.
coded pulses of light, for example, in a fiber-optic cable that is infiltrated by a spy -- leaves an unalterable trace that immediately betrays the presence of an eavesdropper.
This means:
1. The end of routers
2. A new form of hacking (lezz disturb some info traffic)
3. A lot of stress for developers if they want that 2010 deadline
Slashdot Mirror
No they're not, they should lobby for a new law where everybody gets the obligation to buy 2 CD's per calendar month. If you can't find a nice CD, you should still pay the fee.
Fear GNUtella!
Bet I was the first one to submit this story on Slashdot, but anyway, funny thing is that their license says you cannot use their trademark 'InterBase'.
I'm pleased to see InterBase being Open Source, it probably 's got something to do with Kylix.
Enemies of the USA will support the FBI action as their digging their own grave.
You cannot suppose DeCSS being 20MB in size as the critical part of this program merely is nothing more than a hardware driver. There are no DeCSS-look-a-likes which are 20Mb in size. Then there is another thing: free distribution depends on certain factors: (hardware/software) availability, content support, and (no) restrictions in use.
This is hell of a great story, very clear!
I fully agree on this while my first choice isn't BBC but public media in general. Like the BBC there are mulptiple media organizations, mostly in Europe, which are paid by tax-money rather than by commercial advertising. I'm not too sure how much public media are appreciated in the USA. I know who to trust here in Europe
If you have an opinion, eWatch will fire their PR on you, merge of big news companies is: you can't have an opinion anymore.
Where analysists in the pre-internet era prospected social division into information-haves and information-have-nots, somewhere in Y2K, it became clear everybody had to become an information-have-not, and consume well-prepared information and products.
I don't like this :(
Beats me what this is, they already have a service for new artists...
You cannot compare OO in this sequence - Functional and Imparitive are about algorithmns (i.e. how-to-program-certain-behaviour) while OO is about data. You can't compare data with algorithmns, out of the question.
I've been developing a functional language myself for the past two years now, and for me the cause is clear. Imparitive languages like C have a problem with order. A language like Occam demonstrates nicely that order doesn't always apply. Same goes for Functional languages, illustrated by Haskell, Amanda, Miranda, Lisp, Kleisly etc.
The key problem with pure functional languages is that they are descriptive. Like Mathematics, you can develop a function ( F->X = aX^2 + bX + c), but mathematics does not tell you that you can actually use it. The same thing applies for pure functional languages, you describe a function, but you can't evaluate a functional with language features, you need an interpreter which you give the command to evaluate a function.
A pure functional language is not practical or is it? Developing a functional language with the ability to perform an action, means that you need a scheme in which you implement such features without contradicting the language itself (i.e. a F.L does not have an assignment operator, this means you cannot store information in any way). Ofcourse you can provide a lot of system-functions, or keywords, or whatever. Doing this you will get a dirty language, and it will never be widely accepted - keywords and system functions are limited perse, and never really are atomic features.
The absolute characteristic propperty of functional languages is the fact that it is suitable for multi-processor environments. You can split any combination of function evaluations into multiple processes, a functional language is therefore only interesting in multi-processor environments. In the present, we still get processors to become faster and faster, while this does not stop, a functional language seems to be obsolete. Another fact making F.L.'s obsolete is that compilers/interpreters rarely take advantage of the multi-processing feature.
For the language I'm developing, I've found solutions to all problems mentioned above. I'm implementing an F.L. in which one can store information while not contradicting the language, doing the multi-processing thing etcetera. Thanks to an O.S. called Linux, I can do a thing like this...
20 seconds to run?
Did you use hugs? You know, Haskell isn't the only functional language, So are Miranda, Amanda and Kleisly.
Miranda even is a compiler while HUGS defenitly is not
Right! CPO-statement: what you can't do is gather irrelevant info for your CRM DB. what you can do is buy the information from a company without a CPO.
It's a bit easier in holland. To be anonymous: sign up on a free ISP using an internet pillar in the street, or the amusement hall.
Suppress display of your number when calling.
And if you really would like to do bad things, buy a cheap pre-pay mobile phone, pay for it in cash, use a lap-top to connect to the internet, turn it on at a the scene of the crime, connect to the internet and do your thing, throw phone away. You won't be traced
you can tie an ip-number to an adress or city. you can calculate critical net points and estimate ratio's in the amount of people you'll target - marketing!
Trust nobody elses benchmarks.
You know, I actually liked the idea of an 'Open Benchmark' which was organized to safe Mindcraft's face last year.
Benchmarks and lies... Maybe the 'Open Benchmark' thing should be developed by different experts on different OS's, developing some formal specifications on the methodology of testing different services/OS-features.
The Open Benchmark was a kind of collaboration, so is Kerberos, CORBA, and Open source surely is.
If we'd use the moon for gaining resources, we'll have to build large structures where people live and work. Even a robotic implementation of a site is big enough for us to see on earth with the naked eye (eventually).
I think this is quite an unethical thing as a lot of people have a religious association with the moon, which we'll then destruct, or alter anyway. But who cares about unknown/undiscovered African or south-American tribes who will panic when they see the moon change... as long as it makes the big bucks right...
Lease application usage to your customers in a C/S system over the net (dot-net economy). Make client application open source, keep server-side closed or just-about-opened.
Keep potential patentable techniques on server side (as much as possible).
I'm sure that the OS, running my applications, was found in Microsoft's office trash! ...it must be... I'm positive!...
I mean they'll use any trick to burden their antitrust case.
Don't say that Larry has done proper things, but I can forgive him...
Thanx, I was a bit sceptic on the article's truthness, errr not anymore. *jeeezz*
Just because it's our mascot we should save penguins? How narrow-minded!
Ofcourse it's a good cause! but there are worse problems.
Personally, I think this whole topic is sick, it's a kind of internet-sensation-hype story, I'd prefer either no topics on environment, or a broad range of items on environment, not just our little bit, it's too exagerated.
There are 'formal specs' and there is 'implementation'. You can have a good 'math-proven' formal spec for authorisation / security / encryption etc. The way it's implemented can be the weakest point - like the Xing DVD player.t tel component.
There's another issue: a burgular designing a lock uses his own expertise to build a better lock than those made by other manufactors.
Third thing is that 'formal specs' are specs made by people with a lot of expertise, their expertise can be outdated, there expertise can be limited. My guess is that 500 burgulars implementing a lock can build locks more secure than 10 burgular veterans designing a lock far into their burgular-retirement days.
Ofcourse, with everybody with their eyes into the lock design prevents the assholes for building in a back-door, or an auto-connect-send-some-customer-information-to-Ma
The guy forgets one thing in my opinion: those formal specs are made by people!
Think this is a very welcome discovery!
On the other hand, random data encryption, where keys/pads are used only once is mathematically the best encryption form, been proved in the 1920's. But a practical implementation seems very tough to me.
This means:
1. The end of routers
2. A new form of hacking (lezz disturb some info traffic)
3. A lot of stress for developers if they want that 2010 deadline