We are using new technology to benefit both artists and consumers by massively expanding the amount of music available securely online,"
This is not MP3's nor is it Ogg, and I am not going to buy anything that limits me in any way.
What the word "securely" means in this context is difficult to determine. It might mean the music itself is somehow secure (Digital Restrictions Management, etc.) or it might simply mean the purchasing itself is secure (SSL). I'm going to wait to hear the nuts & bolts of this thing before jumping to conclusions.
Though I'm not buying anything packaged in a closed format.
"Selling briskly" (per the link) is one thing, but the Newton was no iMac in terms of sales. Palm delivered a lightweight, Good Enough PDA at just the right time to match what consumers were looking for. I have no doubt Apple could've trimmed down their Newton to better compete, but Apple's PDA will likely always remain one of those "what if" products that never quite took off.
I'm saying that Palm needs to look back at what jumpstarted the industry
Before Palm, where wasn't much of a PDA industry. The Newton was a great piece of hardware, but Apple didn't stop production because they were selling too many of them.
(Sorry about the blank post, had a bit of a mouse slip-up)
I read on other slashdot stories that ogg vorbis is marginally better than MP3. But I cannot tell the difference.
The audio quality difference between Vorbis and MP3 is marginal, though not insignificant. The biggest differences are that Vorbis is an open specification, isn't patent encumbered, the reference encoder/decoder is open sourced so anyone can use them and it doesn't require hackish ID3 tags to store song metadata.
In short, vorbis is a little better quality-wise, but has plenty of other niceties to distinguish itself from the defacto-but-imperfect MP3 format.
Ogg Vorbis support is important to me, that's why I bought a Neuros. When other companies follow suit, I'll consider giving them my cash. But, in the meantime I have a player to replace my aging Rio 300 and I couldn't be happier.
The trickiest rebate offer I dealt with involved cutting off thick cardboard UPC stickers. Unfortunately the company in question had three different bar code stickers on the box -- all apparently different. Yet only one was acceptable for the rebate.
Why didn't you just send them all in? That way, $COMPANY can't possibly complain that they didn't get the right one.
I won't claim to understand it. It certainly doesn't do anything for the general populace. It ought to be enough to say that a language is Turing complete [wikipedia.org] to say it can be used "for real". For some reason, it just gives the CS crowd big warm fuzzies when they do stuff like that.
For compiled languages, implementing the language in itself serves a real purpose. For example, gcc is implemented in C which helps its portability. That is, the compiler can bootstrap itself into existence simply by compiling from an existing compiler on the system or cross-compiling itself from another system.
For interpreted languages, however, implementing the language in itself is largely an academic exercise used to demonstrate language maturity.
Re:A (hopefully) unbiased opinion on Perl v. Pytho
on
Python in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 1
the entire system needs to be scrutinized by security experts before any program written in Perl can be considered secure,
#/usr/bin/perl -T
Ridiculous. Taint checking doesn't guarantee security any more than Java's sandbox does. Security is a process that requires an entire system (of which the Perl interpreter is just a part) to be scrutinized on a continuing basis; security is not a product, compiler flag or interpreter argument.
Re:A (hopefully) unbiased opinion on Perl v. Pytho
on
Python in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
And that brings me to the biggest problem: Python doesn't really have a niche to fill.
In general, I've noticed Python makes writing programs very fast and very easy to modify later to add new features. It takes me a little longer to write equivilent programs in Perl, but the Perl programs probably run a little faster although they take a bit more effort to modify later. Finally, if I really need a program to run very fast, I can port it to C where it'll run extremely fast, but that will naturally take the longest to write and modify.
Having said all that, I use Python programs for those day-to-day administration duties where plenty of tweaks are required. Python works great for CGIs too, and should scale up to a reasonable load. But, if speed or extreme scalability are a requirement, porting a Python prototype over to C is often a good idea. Still, I have no shortage of tasks that require quick programming but don't require great speed - and Python fits those quite well.
But if I could compile it to native code, now that would be pretty sweet.
C++ also includes tail recursion, standard temples, function templates, and a few other object oriented goodies. Its still heavly based on C.
C++'s syntax is based on C, and it has (limited) backwards compatibility with C, but the design of the two languages are very different. C emphasizes a low-level yet (usually) portable approach that places the programmer very close to the bare metal. C++, OTOH, is a smorgasbord of object-oriented programming paradigms with C underpinnings resulting in a less-than-ideal language design. Sortof the unholy child of C and Simula. C++ lacks the cleanliness of C, Java or other languages, but it's here now and it does work. Though I think a successor to C would be better to retain its predecessor's minimalist goals.
Am I the only C and C++ programmer who finds the "C/C++" label annoying as hell?
You're not the only one. I think folks buy a C/C++ compiler package, develop something with it, and label themselves C/C++ developers - or something. Considering the vast design differences between Thompson's minimalist C language and Stroustrup's maximalist C++ language, the notion of lumping the two together grates on my nerves.
If you're going to use Microsoft software, you should do so without paying. Less money for Microsoft to spend doing harm. That's not to say illegally copying Windows or Office is right, but it is less wrong than paying for it.
Pirating Microsoft software is much like stealing from your crack dealer. It might make you feel better for a little while, but you're still giving them market share, you're still using their tools to get your tasks done, you're still likely saving your data in their formats and you're not going to put them out of business, ever.
If you don't want to buy an OS, get an OS you don't have to buy. I think that's the best way to go.
If a game doesn't have amazing graphics then it usually gets bad review. The best video games ever all had terrible graphics. Mega Man 2, Zelda 1, Mario 3, River City Ransom, Combat, Breakout, Galaga, Missile Command, Pac-Man, Tetris. All these games had terrible graphics, but they are some of the best video games ever created.
For their time, each of those games (with the exceptions of Tetris, Combat and Breakout) had some of the best graphics around. Really. Mega Man 2 and Zelda 1 were early NES titles and hold up quite well, even compared to later titles like Super Mario Bros. 3 (whose own graphic goodness was rarely exceeded on the NES). Heck, even Pac Man offered an impressive amount of fluidity and animation compared to other offerings at the time.
Graphics aren't everything, naturally, but few "classic" titles didn't offer impressive (or at least acceptable) graphics alongside excellent gameplay.
You're right... Last year Readhat issued nearly twice as many security bulletins as Microsoft.
Which tells us nothing. Is it because Red Hat ships their OS with more software than Microsoft? Is it because more people are looking for bugs? Is it because Microsoft has more bugs unreported? The quantity of bugs reports is a meaningless statistic, regardless of what any zealot might say. OTOH, the speed of bug fixes is far more useful. In that regard, Microsoft has improved quite a bit in recent years.
I'm increasingly convinced that Linux is dying off.
If believing that makes you happy, go right ahead. Though there's no shortage of people continuing to work on Linux's development, and that's all it'll take for it to keep going forever.
Slashdot Mirror
What the word "securely" means in this context is difficult to determine. It might mean the music itself is somehow secure (Digital Restrictions Management, etc.) or it might simply mean the purchasing itself is secure (SSL). I'm going to wait to hear the nuts & bolts of this thing before jumping to conclusions.
Though I'm not buying anything packaged in a closed format.
"Selling briskly" (per the link) is one thing, but the Newton was no iMac in terms of sales. Palm delivered a lightweight, Good Enough PDA at just the right time to match what consumers were looking for. I have no doubt Apple could've trimmed down their Newton to better compete, but Apple's PDA will likely always remain one of those "what if" products that never quite took off.
Before Palm, where wasn't much of a PDA industry. The Newton was a great piece of hardware, but Apple didn't stop production because they were selling too many of them.
(Sorry about the blank post, had a bit of a mouse slip-up)
Give the playable demo a try and see for yourself. Though most of my Linux gaming involves xmame or zsnes, when I'm not doing actual work.
Orwell, or Atwood, either way we're all screwed.
The audio quality difference between Vorbis and MP3 is marginal, though not insignificant. The biggest differences are that Vorbis is an open specification, isn't patent encumbered, the reference encoder/decoder is open sourced so anyone can use them and it doesn't require hackish ID3 tags to store song metadata.
In short, vorbis is a little better quality-wise, but has plenty of other niceties to distinguish itself from the defacto-but-imperfect MP3 format.
Ogg Vorbis support is important to me, that's why I bought a Neuros. When other companies follow suit, I'll consider giving them my cash. But, in the meantime I have a player to replace my aging Rio 300 and I couldn't be happier.
Why didn't you just send them all in? That way, $COMPANY can't possibly complain that they didn't get the right one.
For compiled languages, implementing the language in itself serves a real purpose. For example, gcc is implemented in C which helps its portability. That is, the compiler can bootstrap itself into existence simply by compiling from an existing compiler on the system or cross-compiling itself from another system.
For interpreted languages, however, implementing the language in itself is largely an academic exercise used to demonstrate language maturity.
Ridiculous. Taint checking doesn't guarantee security any more than Java's sandbox does. Security is a process that requires an entire system (of which the Perl interpreter is just a part) to be scrutinized on a continuing basis; security is not a product, compiler flag or interpreter argument.
In general, I've noticed Python makes writing programs very fast and very easy to modify later to add new features. It takes me a little longer to write equivilent programs in Perl, but the Perl programs probably run a little faster although they take a bit more effort to modify later. Finally, if I really need a program to run very fast, I can port it to C where it'll run extremely fast, but that will naturally take the longest to write and modify.
Having said all that, I use Python programs for those day-to-day administration duties where plenty of tweaks are required. Python works great for CGIs too, and should scale up to a reasonable load. But, if speed or extreme scalability are a requirement, porting a Python prototype over to C is often a good idea. Still, I have no shortage of tasks that require quick programming but don't require great speed - and Python fits those quite well.
But if I could compile it to native code, now that would be pretty sweet.
C++'s syntax is based on C, and it has (limited) backwards compatibility with C, but the design of the two languages are very different. C emphasizes a low-level yet (usually) portable approach that places the programmer very close to the bare metal. C++, OTOH, is a smorgasbord of object-oriented programming paradigms with C underpinnings resulting in a less-than-ideal language design. Sortof the unholy child of C and Simula. C++ lacks the cleanliness of C, Java or other languages, but it's here now and it does work. Though I think a successor to C would be better to retain its predecessor's minimalist goals.
You're not the only one. I think folks buy a C/C++ compiler package, develop something with it, and label themselves C/C++ developers - or something. Considering the vast design differences between Thompson's minimalist C language and Stroustrup's maximalist C++ language, the notion of lumping the two together grates on my nerves.
Intel is simply branching out into new technologies.
Sorry, had to say it :)
I guess Don Ho is cool after all...
Pirating Microsoft software is much like stealing from your crack dealer. It might make you feel better for a little while, but you're still giving them market share, you're still using their tools to get your tasks done, you're still likely saving your data in their formats and you're not going to put them out of business, ever.
If you don't want to buy an OS, get an OS you don't have to buy. I think that's the best way to go.
For their time, each of those games (with the exceptions of Tetris, Combat and Breakout) had some of the best graphics around. Really. Mega Man 2 and Zelda 1 were early NES titles and hold up quite well, even compared to later titles like Super Mario Bros. 3 (whose own graphic goodness was rarely exceeded on the NES). Heck, even Pac Man offered an impressive amount of fluidity and animation compared to other offerings at the time.
Graphics aren't everything, naturally, but few "classic" titles didn't offer impressive (or at least acceptable) graphics alongside excellent gameplay.
Which tells us nothing. Is it because Red Hat ships their OS with more software than Microsoft? Is it because more people are looking for bugs? Is it because Microsoft has more bugs unreported? The quantity of bugs reports is a meaningless statistic, regardless of what any zealot might say. OTOH, the speed of bug fixes is far more useful. In that regard, Microsoft has improved quite a bit in recent years.
If believing that makes you happy, go right ahead. Though there's no shortage of people continuing to work on Linux's development, and that's all it'll take for it to keep going forever.
It sounds french, therefore it is french, therefore it is bad. Just like french fries.
Judging by the voter turnout, the general population voted to sit on the couch and watch the results on TV, as usual.
Heck, Nethack didn't have *any* room descriptions, since it's traditionally all ASCII art.
You should've seen all the typos I had *before* I did the preview...heh.
We've had that covered for years. Heck, even Quake 1 and 2 have been available for a long time. But 3D Realms is slow, as always.