and you could be sued for making a Robertson screwdriver and/or screws without a proper product licence.
The end-user could do whatever he wanted, including suicide with one of their screws and/or screwdrivers, but he'd be liable for the misuse of the product.
Anybody remember when Apple used Torq wrenches on Macintosh cases? Is the same principle. As long as its not something commonly available, Apple's covered.
Personally, I'd sooner Real didn't exist and QuickTime was wider spread, but that's just me.
I think that Apple has every right to restrict its use to what it was designed to do. Its designed to play iTunes and MP3s (and a few other formats, but not OGG:-)
And given the prepondrance of Walkman work alikes, which cost Sony their monopoly after a certain number of years, they have evey right to do so.
Now Sony did not 'control' the content, they did not want to, back then they weren't yet a media company, but if they had been, they would have sued the pants off (and beyond) of anyone who'd infringed.
If Real was smart they would start a competing player and run their own scam (copy protection) and stop trying to ride on Apple's iPod coat tails.
In breaking the iPod DRM (reverse engineering with the purpose of breaking it) they are no better than the cracker's who slash at Microsoft's Windows. (DMCA politics makes STRANGE bedfellows.)
for 25 years but I only realized it, or make that formalized it, three years ago.
There is no real performance problem since you only deal with the relationships and connections that are relevant, and you safely ignore the rest.
Its is also a good solution to a caching and cache invalidation problem that vexed me about fifteen or twenty years ago (man I've been at this crap a lo-ong time.)
Send me your email address and we can discuss this further. My email address is charles@artdogs.org
The pointers are carried in the tuples. These are of the following variety (ObjectClass,Version,Release[->table] [&ObjectID] : relationshipNameOrAdverb : ObjectClass,Version,Release[->table] [&ObjectID]). This meane that they are unaffected by changes in, of, or to the individual objects.
Its a DB table containing only the ObjectIDs and therefore the pointer to an object existing in a DB table containing them.
This means that the objects themselves are not affected by any change and that, since the information contained in those tuples is all meta information it is inherently stable.
The change is an addition to the standard SQL table definition protocol by the addition of Relationships to define Connections.
In addition these connections may themselves be 'valued' when an object itself may be defined but its existence is totally defined by the connection. Also additionally a Relationship, and by extension the Connections which instantiate it, may re between an Object and a Relationship.
Its might seem obscure and useless but it does have its uses and it means that the implementation is actually simpler by the implied recursiveness of the definition.
Its all overseen by a schema which is a repository for the Objects (but not their instances) their Class (instantiation) and instance methods (what makes the instances do what they do) and the Relationships (but not their instances.)
In the programming world world it means this:
You are now dealing with a large pool of objects, all unique, and a large pool of connections all of which respond to a simple set of messages.
Relationships respond to "find:[object, [version[release]]]" and "create: [contextObjects]"
ConnectionSets respond to "first, next, prior, last and count"
and Connections respond to "delete" (which may cascade depending on the schema.)
Objects have an added method "delete" (which may cascade depending on the schema.)
It impacts far beyong this to enable a post-VonNeuman architecture. Think 'Occam' with some finesse.
It was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property."
Before then, all property was assumed to be the king's. After, the declaration of independence all that changed was that it no longer assumed to belong to the kind. Who it was assumed to belong to was left 'up in the air.'
The next paradigm shift (I hate that expresion) is one where we stop embedding references to an object in another object and start using relationships between objects.
Most of your objects are simple objects (as are their real world analogues.) The perceived complexity is because we continue to embed pointers to other objects. That costs a great deal in maintainance and gives our software a great deal of inertia.
A brick doesn't have any pointers to the brick it participates in a wall with. A wall is composed of the relationships of the bricks to each other.
One database I worked on held about 750 objects and 'implied' about 1,200 relationships. If we had treated these imlpied relationships as first-class objects, maintainance would have been almost free.
As it was there were big meetings over embedding pointers and long, expensive data base conversions required over things that culd have been easily adn cheqaply handled by relationships and their instances: connections.
There are other advantages too. You can express N:M relationships naturally since 1:1, 1:N and N;1 relationships are just subsets (existential cases) of N:M relationships.
But if they could help who they are, and pay for testing that would disqualify you BEFORE they hired you, whould you bitch about it?
The problem with the inevitable testing, (and if you think its not inevitable, you fooling yourself,) is that they are trying to apply it retroactively to their current employees.
I'm not as extreme as one opinion I heard which stated that you should be able to carry out an abortion until they're old enough to vote. (They can shoot back and are usually faster on the draw.)
Besides, you're making assumptions one way or another about the sort of life this undifferentiated mass of cells, that is what we're talking about, would have lived.
As an older worker, I have a pre-existing condition, multiple sclerosis.
My mobility is affected and I certainly can't dance anymore. (The cane was getting to be a hazard to the others on the dance floor. I know because I danced at a XMas party a couple or jobs ago.:-)
Trouble is that I am probably working on the last job I will ever be able to get. I'm not that old, 50, so what am I supposed to do what that job 'goes away' as all consulting tech jobs that I ever worked on over the past 25 years have done.
I'm too handicapped and I may be too old for retraining, despite the Associate's in Business that I am currently getting (at week's end thank you.)
I am just getting tossed out. Its nothing personal but that's just the way it goes. The software I was working on (a CRM system written in Smalltalk,) has been end-of-lifed.
What am I supposed to do for money? I don't want a free ride but odds are that, if I wouldn't hire someone disabled like me, nobody else will either.
I'm not dead yet, but some days, I sort of get the feeling that everybody else wishes that I was. so they wouldn't have to be bothered.
I have two books, both on HR bought a semester apart (I had to repeat the course) @ $150.00 each.
I wonder why? The US laws covering employment had not changed, the codes covering fair employment practices on hiring, compensation, employee motivation and the like hadn't changed.
It just that the examples and the questions (#6 on page P becoming #3 on a slightly shifted page P+2) had been shuffled around just enough to screw up the text.
Text books should never be written this way. They stop becoming a text book, a guide to learning the relevant data, and instead become the scripts of an adventure game where you grade is the prize.
I used to own a 20MB drive, in 1985-86 that was huge.
Along with the local storage to each PC (4+15+15+40+80GB) I own a 160GB and I recently had to clear come files off of it.
I am thinking of installing a NAS with a 1TB drive from LaCie.
That shows me the amount of storage required in a 'digital home' can't be predicted with any certainty. As storage grows to encompass everything we used to store, we store something else which takes up a lot more space.
Not hearing/seeing anything you don't disagree with because you have put blinders on your searches might lead to the kind of world described in "Fareignheight 411" (that's 411 not 911) By Ray Bradbury.
"Books make people unhappy, Montag. They contain ideas."
If you're solipsistic in your reading, regardless on the medium, you do so in order to become a "contented consumer" and it costs you your humanity.
You have a fabulous imagination. I would have liked to have you as a friend when I was in school.
I can just imagine pulling that stuff on some of the bullies I suffered under. (I was a small kid and high school was hell [even the girls used to pick on me] until I was sixteen when I grew a foot in a year and bulked up my frame with swimming and lifting weights. [I went from 'Lets pick on Chuck, he's so tiny', to being every mother's worst nightmare and every high school girl's wettest dream.] I live Grace Slick's comment "We have become the people our parent's warbed us about.:-)
Now I know that you'll be sitting in a poorly lit office with your technical staff, of one, at an old WWII vintage desk and bemoaning your fate, ending up in a strip mall without even a MacDonald's.
You won't be the first OS maker, (Remember Keronics? How about Data General?) to do so and you won't be the last either.
were toys. They held to a tradition of honour. It cost them the world at the time.
As for who paid for the revolver (Colt), the rifle (Remington), invented mass production (Ford) the answer is WE did. And we've been getting shot at and sold crap ever since.
Slashdot Mirror
and you could be sued for making a Robertson screwdriver and/or screws without a proper product licence.
The end-user could do whatever he wanted, including suicide with one of their screws and/or screwdrivers, but he'd be liable for the misuse of the product.
Anybody remember when Apple used Torq wrenches on Macintosh cases? Is the same principle. As long as its not something commonly available, Apple's covered.
Personally, I'd sooner Real didn't exist and QuickTime was wider spread, but that's just me.
I think that Apple has every right to restrict its use to what it was designed to do. Its designed to play iTunes and MP3s (and a few other formats, but not OGG :-)
And given the prepondrance of Walkman work alikes, which cost Sony their monopoly after a certain number of years, they have evey right to do so.
Now Sony did not 'control' the content, they did not want to, back then they weren't yet a media company, but if they had been, they would have sued the pants off (and beyond) of anyone who'd infringed.
If Real was smart they would start a competing player and run their own scam (copy protection) and stop trying to ride on Apple's iPod coat tails.
In breaking the iPod DRM (reverse engineering with the purpose of breaking it) they are no better than the cracker's who slash at Microsoft's Windows. (DMCA politics makes STRANGE bedfellows.)
implementations that this is a ridiculous waste of money (some lawyer was paid for this!) and time.
Somebody should be ashamed of himself!
for 25 years but I only realized it, or make that formalized it, three years ago.
There is no real performance problem since you only deal with the relationships and connections that are relevant, and you safely ignore the rest.
Its is also a good solution to a caching and cache invalidation problem that vexed me about fifteen or twenty years ago (man I've been at this crap a lo-ong time.)
Send me your email address and we can discuss this further. My email address is charles@artdogs.org
Yes. You got it in one.
In the data base world it means this:
The pointers are carried in the tuples. These are of the following variety (ObjectClass,Version,Release[->table] [&ObjectID] : relationshipNameOrAdverb : ObjectClass,Version,Release[->table] [&ObjectID]). This meane that they are unaffected by changes in, of, or to the individual objects.
Its a DB table containing only the ObjectIDs and therefore the pointer to an object existing in a DB table containing them.
This means that the objects themselves are not affected by any change and that, since the information contained in those tuples is all meta information it is inherently stable.
The change is an addition to the standard SQL table definition protocol by the addition of Relationships to define Connections.
In addition these connections may themselves be 'valued' when an object itself may be defined but its existence is totally defined by the connection. Also additionally a Relationship, and by extension the Connections which instantiate it, may re between an Object and a Relationship.
Its might seem obscure and useless but it does have its uses and it means that the implementation is actually simpler by the implied recursiveness of the definition.
Its all overseen by a schema which is a repository for the Objects (but not their instances) their Class (instantiation) and instance methods (what makes the instances do what they do) and the Relationships (but not their instances.)
In the programming world world it means this:
You are now dealing with a large pool of objects, all unique, and a large pool of connections all of which respond to a simple set of messages.
Relationships respond to "find:[object, [version[release]]]" and "create: [contextObjects]"
ConnectionSets respond to "first, next, prior, last and count"
and Connections respond to "delete" (which may cascade depending on the schema.)
Objects have an added method "delete" (which may cascade depending on the schema.)
It impacts far beyong this to enable a post-VonNeuman architecture. Think 'Occam' with some finesse.
implement a change because they don't see a need to. Of course they don't see any need to. They're not in your business, so they get in your face.
And your product goes begging.
Closed source has probably killed as many good ideas as PHBs.
It was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property."
Before then, all property was assumed to be the king's. After, the declaration of independence all that changed was that it no longer assumed to belong to the kind. Who it was assumed to belong to was left 'up in the air.'
The next paradigm shift (I hate that expresion) is one where we stop embedding references to an object in another object and start using relationships between objects.
Most of your objects are simple objects (as are their real world analogues.) The perceived complexity is because we continue to embed pointers to other objects. That costs a great deal in maintainance and gives our software a great deal of inertia.
A brick doesn't have any pointers to the brick it participates in a wall with. A wall is composed of the relationships of the bricks to each other.
One database I worked on held about 750 objects and 'implied' about 1,200 relationships. If we had treated these imlpied relationships as first-class objects, maintainance would have been almost free.
As it was there were big meetings over embedding pointers and long, expensive data base conversions required over things that culd have been easily adn cheqaply handled by relationships and their instances: connections.
There are other advantages too. You can express N:M relationships naturally since 1:1, 1:N and N;1 relationships are just subsets (existential cases) of N:M relationships.
Its the office brown-noser who says wether you stay or go.
So you're faced with a dilemma. Do you become the brown-noser's brown-noser?
But if they could help who they are, and pay for testing that would disqualify you BEFORE they hired you, whould you bitch about it?
The problem with the inevitable testing, (and if you think its not inevitable, you fooling yourself,) is that they are trying to apply it retroactively to their current employees.
THAT stinks.
You cab always find money for the newest way to injure people. You just can't find a dime to put them back together again.
I'm not as extreme as one opinion I heard which stated that you should be able to carry out an abortion until they're old enough to vote. (They can shoot back and are usually faster on the draw.)
Besides, you're making assumptions one way or another about the sort of life this undifferentiated mass of cells, that is what we're talking about, would have lived.
As an older worker, I have a pre-existing condition, multiple sclerosis.
:-)
My mobility is affected and I certainly can't dance anymore. (The cane was getting to be a hazard to the others on the dance floor. I know because I danced at a XMas party a couple or jobs ago.
Trouble is that I am probably working on the last job I will ever be able to get. I'm not that old, 50, so what am I supposed to do what that job 'goes away' as all consulting tech jobs that I ever worked on over the past 25 years have done.
I'm too handicapped and I may be too old for retraining, despite the Associate's in Business that I am currently getting (at week's end thank you.)
I am just getting tossed out. Its nothing personal but that's just the way it goes. The software I was working on (a CRM system written in Smalltalk,) has been end-of-lifed.
What am I supposed to do for money? I don't want a free ride but odds are that, if I wouldn't hire someone disabled like me, nobody else will either.
I'm not dead yet, but some days, I sort of get the feeling that everybody else wishes that I was. so they wouldn't have to be bothered.
If you are always going to be the named source, you're not likely to try anything unethical.
I have two books, both on HR bought a semester apart (I had to repeat the course) @ $150.00 each.
I wonder why? The US laws covering employment had not changed, the codes covering fair employment practices on hiring, compensation, employee motivation and the like hadn't changed.
It just that the examples and the questions (#6 on page P becoming #3 on a slightly shifted page P+2) had been shuffled around just enough to screw up the text.
Text books should never be written this way. They stop becoming a text book, a guide to learning the relevant data, and instead become the scripts of an adventure game where you grade is the prize.
I used to own a 20MB drive, in 1985-86 that was huge.
Along with the local storage to each PC (4+15+15+40+80GB) I own a 160GB and I recently had to clear come files off of it.
I am thinking of installing a NAS with a 1TB drive from LaCie.
That shows me the amount of storage required in a 'digital home' can't be predicted with any certainty. As storage grows to encompass everything we used to store, we store something else which takes up a lot more space.
Not hearing/seeing anything you don't disagree with because you have put blinders on your searches might lead to the kind of world described in "Fareignheight 411" (that's 411 not 911) By Ray Bradbury.
"Books make people unhappy, Montag. They contain ideas."
If you're solipsistic in your reading, regardless on the medium, you do so in order to become a "contented consumer" and it costs you your humanity.
You have a fabulous imagination. I would have liked to have you as a friend when I was in school.
:-)
I can just imagine pulling that stuff on some of the bullies I suffered under. (I was a small kid and high school was hell [even the girls used to pick on me] until I was sixteen when I grew a foot in a year and bulked up my frame with swimming and lifting weights. [I went from 'Lets pick on Chuck, he's so tiny', to being every mother's worst nightmare and every high school girl's wettest dream.] I live Grace Slick's comment "We have become the people our parent's warbed us about.
In four words, NO.
There is nothing like the programming model of the VIC-20 around now.
I might take a look aroung the Squeak! community since programming for and by children (the small in Smalltalk) is what Squeak! is all about.
My hat's off to you. (And I'd like to know what the substance of your discussion on "what's acceptable")
even if I was a realy bad man, I know I'm not going to go to hell 'cause I've got my potato. ("The Truth" Terry Pratchett)
And they don'ty listen to any arguments, pro or con. Maybe we should listen to the cows and not Bush.
the "twelve o'clock" flashers. And they don't care enough about the problem anyway.
The rest will wake up or go to sleep when the TV tell's 'em to.
This is a non-issue.
Now I know that you'll be sitting in a poorly lit office with your technical staff, of one, at an old WWII vintage desk and bemoaning your fate, ending up in a strip mall without even a MacDonald's.
You won't be the first OS maker, (Remember Keronics? How about Data General?) to do so and you won't be the last either.
Hurry up and get to your fate.
were toys. They held to a tradition of honour. It cost them the world at the time.
As for who paid for the revolver (Colt), the rifle (Remington), invented mass production (Ford) the answer is WE did. And we've been getting shot at and sold crap ever since.