What does "compute" mean here? It is supposed to be a verb, but here seems to be a noun. I have recently started seeing it apparently mean "computational capacity" but here it seems to mean "an instance of a virtualized computer installation." All this verbing is confusing. Excuse me, I have an eat.
As an emacs user since the mid-80s, I do note this functionality would be nice as a Major Mode, if one were an avid Lisp programmer.
As a Perl Monger since 1994, and as a developer who has used and extended Org::Parser from CPAN, I am happy to see support in any other language, as you have done with Go here. I wonder whether you plan to extend your parser to fairly complete support of all/most of what Org offers.
The original IBM PC could be purchased either with 160KB/180KB single-sided floppy drives, or the 320KB/360KB double-sided. Some early IBM PC users still needed the "flippy" trick!
"...whenever 'a software' doesn't...." Ugh. "A software package" or "a piece of software" or perhaps "a program" but you don't have "one software" any more than you can have "one hardware" or "one information." Grammar, please!
My company "Lindley Systems" did all this from 1980 (when I was 14) until the mid 90s, in the Heathkit (later Heath/Zenith) arena. I still have master diskettes and original manuals ready for taking to the Xerox shop, and only a few years ago tossed boxes full of registration cards (with 13 cent stamps on them).
We made the transition from Heathkit HDOS to CP/M and MS-DOS but never shipped a product for MS Windows. We almost had a product ready in 1996 but then MS "upgraded" VB 3 to VB 4 and we started a rewrite, almost completed just in time for the "upgrade" to VB 5 - by which time our market had moved on.
It was a fun time to build custom and specialized hardware and software.
> We made the transition from Heathkit HDOS to CP/M
A very unusual case of a company explicitly deprecating its own proprietary OS, and shifting to an external standard, on the same hardware. Tandy giving existing Model 16 customers Xenix and shipping it with new units is the only other case I can think of offhand.
IBM did give up on marketing OS/2 by the late 1990s (and the PC division arguably did so around the time Windows 95 came out), but I am not aware of IBM explicitly telling new and existing customers that Windows is the way forward for existing systems.
A slightly different way of answering your question is that sometime after the PS/2's launch, IBM began explicitly noting that its software and peripherals were compatible with non-IBM computers. PC DOS 5.0 might have been the first. <https://np.reddit.com/r/vintagecomputing/comments/1jleun5/ni...>
Listed is "HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide (6th ed.)" by Chuck Musciano and Bill Kennedy from 2006.
However there was a 7th edition, ISBN 9781449302597, published 2011. Yet nowhere online can I find a copy to purchase. Does anyone have a clue what happened to the 7th edition or where it might be found?
It never came out. Its page on their website can be tracked through time with the publication date slipping repeatedly. The canceled 7th edition’s author went on to update CSS: The Definitive Guide alongside Eric Meyer.
I’m partway through writing a proposal to O’Reilly to do an updated edition. :-)
Garbage in, garbage out. Code spewed by a random generator that has not the slightest understanding of what it is doing, whacked at by a hammer until it seems to be working.
What is this supposed to produce other than a mass of bugs and vulnerabilities? "A.I." is utter garbage and always will be, it is foolish to think otherwise.
Outlawing installing a program ("app" being short for "application program") on your computer (even if it is called a "telephone" it is obviously a computer)? Surely there cannot be laws against running whatever program you want on your computer.
Outlawing access of such a program to the Internet? Obviously that cannot be possible, that would be a "Bill of Attainder" (a law against a specific person or group) which is illegal.
Outlawing access to the servers to which that program communicates? Likewise a Bill of Attainder, and illegal.
So what exactly is being done here? No-one is explaining
>Surely there cannot be laws against running whatever program you want on your computer.
Why can't there be? Obviously laws against running whatever program you want on your computer already exist.
>Outlawing access of such a program to the Internet? Obviously that cannot be possible, that would be a "Bill of Attainder" (a law against a specific person or group) which is illegal.
"The internet" is neither a person nor a group of people.
>Outlawing access to the servers to which that program communicates? Likewise a Bill of Attainder, and illegal.
"Servers" are neither persons nor groups of people.
Also a bill of attainder is a law intended to punish a person or group of people for crime without due process, which doesn't apply here, as neither "the internet" nor "servers" have been accused of a crime, nor denied due process for conviction of a crime.
>So what exactly is being done here? No-one is explaining
When faced with the two possible options of "everyone involved must be too stupid not to have considered this one obvious and simple solution, despite them being experts in their field" and "this one obvious and simple solution must not mean what I, an amateur think it does," you can safely assume the latter.
As far as explanations, you can read the Supreme Court's decision, you can read any of the multitudinous articles written about the decision, or you can read any of the HN threads discussing it. Explanations abound.
"FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— (A) any of— (i) ByteDance, Ltd.; (ii) TikTok;…"
How is that not a Bill of Attainder? Although it does not explicitly say that these companies are guilty of a crime, since when is it legal to make a law against a specific person, group of persons, or a specific company? That cannot possibly be Constitutional.
