I don't mind progress, and new standards and all that, and the idea of a "user-friendly scheduler" is really nice, but how hard would it be to make this work with just generic callable objects? it's not that hard to implement a closure in C, and it's been done for years for things like boost and libsigc++ (any signal/callback system that doesn't have upvalues is useless to me at this point). And it's not like these "blocks" are actually compiled and linked at run time, it's just a pointer to a static function with a bunch of extra data on it. If the API just took a callable object (which could be implemented as a "block" if the functionality was there), there'd be no need to wait for some committee to get together and approve an addition to a standard.
I'm outraged! where is the link to the blog post that talks about the news article that has a custom player embedded with the video (which doesn't work on linux)?!?!
I don't get it.. were criminal records anonymous before this? if they can look up your name and get your record, it's already linked to your identity, isn't it?
It seems to be more about the drivers than anything else. Porting to linux is very easy if it's working on the mac, and the "binary blob" drivers from nvidia are perfectly viable as a platform (in fact they have the best opengl3 support to date). These "paths that are not usually optimized" refer to the open source drivers that are being developed by the community ("nv" and whatever we use for ati), hence the comment about being stuck with the binary blobs (who cares? we all use ubuntu anyway, the binary drivers come installed and we love it).
If there's any sort of "political" meaning to this mail, it's about getting away with full open source support for nvidia and ati hardware, either from the companies themselves, or some community effort. But do we have any pull to persuade nvidia/ati to release open source drivers? Carmack himself is probably in a better position to do this than us.
really, that's what patents are for, people who think their "linked list" idea is so genius nobody else thought about it and they need to protect it from the evil programmers (who make a living out of coming out with stuff like that every day) who want to steal it.
When they bought the kindle, there was probably a clause on the EULA that said this (and more!) was possible.
I buy that more than "they got a refund so it's ok". In the "real world", if you buy, for example, a first edition of a rare book, they can't just say "we want it back, here's your money", because it's possible that its value will have increased since the time you purchased it (imagine it's an important book, first edition is rare, etc). I wonder how that argument would translate to this case tho..
nowadays, half of the pages I try to visit don't render at all without javascript. Somtimes the main content is missing (you just get the headline, the links that go on the sides, and the ads), somtimes it's just a blank page. It seems like all these traditional news organizations just _have_ to be "web 2.0" to appear relevant again.
Google needs to index the page, they don't have much choice.
your cellphone requires a working computer with an independent power source and some pretty complex software and the right environmental conditions to make a phone call
your landline is just 2 wires connected to speaker and a microphone
these are the guys who were trying to make a portable browser, so they used all the windows apis, and then they went "now we just port it to the other platforms.. no big deal, you just have to change this "compilor" thingy and press the "build" button again, right?"
of course they'll have trouble with a new platform, they don't know what they're doing.
First, there is such thing as "piracy rings", and thepiratebay is not one of them. I'm talking about groups that get copies of the media before it's released, rip them, package them, distribute them (usually underground FTP servers). There's also the people who profit from this (by mass-burning CDs/DVDs with pirated media). These guys are just hosting a bunch of torrent files.
Second, the media companies are using a business model where only they control the way information is copied. But on the internet, anyone can copy information everywhere. So the 2 options are: they drop the business model, or we give them control over all the information that is published, so that they can decide if it's valid or not. I'd rather break the law than having to ask permission to someone else every time I want to publish something on the internet. This is why I oppose their position.
but mine already has an argument for the size of the destination buffer, it's the third parameter. Why not just update the documentation? Are they really just adding a second size parameter, just to compare them? or will they use min(size1, size2) on the actual memcpy call, so that nobody knows exactly how much data is copied anymore? you don't want to read past your src buffer after all, right?
you knew the internet existed, and that the easiest thing to transmit over it is text, and you expect to get paid for each hard copy of a book?
I understand that it would have been nice to be able to write something and then get paid for doing nothing while it sells, but those times are over. information is everywhere. Either come up with a new business model (probably something that involves getting paid for doing work, and then when you're not working, you don't get paid) or get another job.
Slashdot Mirror
how is it related to Michael Jackson?
do the important jobs even get a "day"? "programmer's day" sounds like "secretary's day" to me (I better get some nice flowers tomorrow)
I don't mind progress, and new standards and all that, and the idea of a "user-friendly scheduler" is really nice, but how hard would it be to make this work with just generic callable objects? it's not that hard to implement a closure in C, and it's been done for years for things like boost and libsigc++ (any signal/callback system that doesn't have upvalues is useless to me at this point). And it's not like these "blocks" are actually compiled and linked at run time, it's just a pointer to a static function with a bunch of extra data on it. If the API just took a callable object (which could be implemented as a "block" if the functionality was there), there'd be no need to wait for some committee to get together and approve an addition to a standard.
I'm outraged! where is the link to the blog post that talks about the news article that has a custom player embedded with the video (which doesn't work on linux)?!?!
I don't get it.. were criminal records anonymous before this? if they can look up your name and get your record, it's already linked to your identity, isn't it?
someone needs to let them know you're not supposed to touch the football with your hands
It seems to be more about the drivers than anything else. Porting to linux is very easy if it's working on the mac, and the "binary blob" drivers from nvidia are perfectly viable as a platform (in fact they have the best opengl3 support to date). These "paths that are not usually optimized" refer to the open source drivers that are being developed by the community ("nv" and whatever we use for ati), hence the comment about being stuck with the binary blobs (who cares? we all use ubuntu anyway, the binary drivers come installed and we love it).
If there's any sort of "political" meaning to this mail, it's about getting away with full open source support for nvidia and ati hardware, either from the companies themselves, or some community effort. But do we have any pull to persuade nvidia/ati to release open source drivers? Carmack himself is probably in a better position to do this than us.
really, that's what patents are for, people who think their "linked list" idea is so genius nobody else thought about it and they need to protect it from the evil programmers (who make a living out of coming out with stuff like that every day) who want to steal it.
I was looking forward to a language called "cocks", to bring some fresh air to the old flamewars...
Newsflash: your magical language that makes everything secure is implemented in C/C++
Stop calling them toys -- they're my friends!
When they bought the kindle, there was probably a clause on the EULA that said this (and more!) was possible.
I buy that more than "they got a refund so it's ok". In the "real world", if you buy, for example, a first edition of a rare book, they can't just say "we want it back, here's your money", because it's possible that its value will have increased since the time you purchased it (imagine it's an important book, first edition is rare, etc). I wonder how that argument would translate to this case tho..
I find your ideas intriguing and would like you follow you on twitter.
how in the world they actually plan to get people to actually subscribe to those feeds
by sharing some of that $.1 they charge with them?
should be "Cloud computing facing a difficult battle for Relevance"
nowadays, half of the pages I try to visit don't render at all without javascript. Somtimes the main content is missing (you just get the headline, the links that go on the sides, and the ads), somtimes it's just a blank page. It seems like all these traditional news organizations just _have_ to be "web 2.0" to appear relevant again.
Google needs to index the page, they don't have much choice.
that's nothing, in the process of pulling off this scam, they lost $2 billion to piracy! nobody's safe!
or does "pinnacle" also apply for the lowest points too?
it's the original sale, that's their slice.
your cellphone requires a working computer with an independent power source and some pretty complex software and the right environmental conditions to make a phone call
your landline is just 2 wires connected to speaker and a microphone
which one do you trust to make a 911 call?
these are the guys who were trying to make a portable browser, so they used all the windows apis, and then they went "now we just port it to the other platforms.. no big deal, you just have to change this "compilor" thingy and press the "build" button again, right?"
of course they'll have trouble with a new platform, they don't know what they're doing.
First, there is such thing as "piracy rings", and thepiratebay is not one of them. I'm talking about groups that get copies of the media before it's released, rip them, package them, distribute them (usually underground FTP servers). There's also the people who profit from this (by mass-burning CDs/DVDs with pirated media). These guys are just hosting a bunch of torrent files.
Second, the media companies are using a business model where only they control the way information is copied. But on the internet, anyone can copy information everywhere. So the 2 options are: they drop the business model, or we give them control over all the information that is published, so that they can decide if it's valid or not. I'd rather break the law than having to ask permission to someone else every time I want to publish something on the internet. This is why I oppose their position.
but mine already has an argument for the size of the destination buffer, it's the third parameter. Why not just update the documentation? Are they really just adding a second size parameter, just to compare them? or will they use min(size1, size2) on the actual memcpy call, so that nobody knows exactly how much data is copied anymore? you don't want to read past your src buffer after all, right?
you knew the internet existed, and that the easiest thing to transmit over it is text, and you expect to get paid for each hard copy of a book?
I understand that it would have been nice to be able to write something and then get paid for doing nothing while it sells, but those times are over. information is everywhere. Either come up with a new business model (probably something that involves getting paid for doing work, and then when you're not working, you don't get paid) or get another job.
he probably just rolls around in them, and they're ready