I've been curious about the practical applications of LISP as well. Pure functional programming, as I understand it, means no side effects. The issue with this is that procedural & OO programming lives off of side effects: screen displays, file writes, etc. How would you build a GUI application in something that shouldn't give you anything but an answer? I'm aware that it is done, of course (web servers, games, etc), but how you would do something like that escapes me.
You're absolutely right that many practical applications require side effects. What happens in Lisp is that the programmer tries to write as much purely functional code as possible and only resort to side effects when completely necessary. This approach greatly aids in code debugging and maintenance.
I didn't have any of those problems, actually. The video played fine and I had controls the whole way through. FF 3.6 on an outdated Ubuntu distro here, which I would have expected to have its share of problems if normal systems did.
Uniform already handles this theme. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and there are three pre-made Uniform themes listed: "Uniform Default," "Aristo," and "Agent."
That's what I meant. With Uniform already styling forms element in Aristo style and JQuery UI now with a matching look, I don't have to waste too much effort on intranet apps...
But Uniform only styles selects (drop downs), checkboxes, radio buttons, and file upload inputs. jQuery UI could nicely compliment Uniform by styling everything else.
Only if you're okay with breaking the law* and standing on ethically questionable ground* just to use an app that you bought.
If your ISP gets a DMCA notice because you were downloading a cracked version of an app that you already own, do you think they're going to accept the explanation that 'it's okay, I already own it'? What about in the context of some of the proposed 'three strikes' laws? Nasty potential minefield.
Your ISP will only get a DMCA notice if you were UPLOADING a cracked version of an app -- which you would be via most current p2p, but the vast majority of App Store piracy is hosted on Rapidshare clones via HTTP.
Hmm, well, this is different I think. Most jailbreakers aren't doing it so that they can violate copyright and use apps without the consent of the rights holder, most jailbreak so that they can install apps from non-approved sources, use the phone on non-approved networks, and gain extra leverage over the device (SSH, etc.).
To me, that just sounds like doing what you want with a device you own, and telling Apple that you appreciate the sentiment but don't need their babysitting.
When you download a movie or a game from an unauthorized source, that's copyright infringement. When you download an exploit that lets you use your phone in the ways you want, that's just downloading an exploit; it doesn't transmit any substantial intellectual property owned by any other party, so I don't understand your complaint or comparison, really.
The one provision which jailbreaking may violate is the DMCA's restriction on circumvention of "copy protection". Technically, sharing any mechanism to circumvent "copy protection" is illegal in the United States. I don't think that jailbreaking qualifies as a circumvention of copy protection on balance, though, because most people aren't doing it to make copies, but of course that depends on the judge.
Do we actually have any statistics on what 'most people' are jailbreaking their iPhones for, or is this just guesswork? I am quite prepares to believe that most of the hackers who actually create the jailbreaks are doing so for ideological reasons, or for technical satisfaction, but what about all the people who just install the jailbreaks?
I'm glad this article actually presents both sides. The latter paragraphs talk about another study in which THC did nothing to cell growth, and makes it pretty clear that the entire affair's still really uncertain. I don't think this shows up in many of the pro-marijuana (pseudo-)scientific articles on the web.
It would be great if I could read something like this without running into a comment in which someone describes it in terms of "sides".
This is not a debate. There are no sides.
There are just studies: one that found that particular chemicals assisted new cell growth in some parts of rat brains, and another that found that a different set of chemicals did not assist new cell growth in the brains of different rats.
It's interesting stuff. Trying to frame it in the limited context of a social debate really diminishes its value.
...The way the client talks to other clients has had to be completely re-built. As a side effect, because the new protocol so different, it is practically invisible to some of the nasty traffic shaping techniques that some ISPs have been using.
They're not even going to pretend other client will be able to support it in a timely fashion. Backwards compatibility is out the window if they really did implement everything documented in the article.
