What right does an English citizen who wants to make video games have to move to the US or Canada?
The absolute right. England is not a prison, you can't hold people against their will.
The US and Canada have a say, too. I doubt I would be allowed by the US or Canada to move there to work (unless I won the green card lottery) so no, I don't have the right.
The rules are pretty strict, but as Baigent and Lee discovered they don't extend to (supposed) facts. Had they used his actual words he would have a case but they don't seem to have done that. And anyway, the academic rules are not the law. A failure to attribute that might get you into trouble on a term paper would probably still be entirely legal.
It's not an arrogant assumption of computer nerds -- I make security blunders too. It's a recognition that there's a fundamental mismatch between what the computer is capable of and the fact that it's a consumer durable. If there were no driving test then I bet road fatalities would be higher, but pretty much nothing you could do to the user interface of the automobile whilst still retaining the functionality would fix that. The only solution is to make it so that only those trained and shown to be at least basically competent are allowed behind the wheel. That probably couldn't be enforced for home computers, so the only answers would be to cripple functionality (would work for a lot of users, actually) or take security out of their hands (another current story on/.). The power users wouldn't be happy, though.
Microsoft's operating system architecture allowed users to have admin privileges, among other architectural mistakes.
On home systems they have to let potentially inexperienced users have access to admin privileges. Vista took them away by default, but whenever some tempting piece of software says it needs someone to type the admin password most users will do it so it barely slows down the spread of trojans. The same attach would work just as well as any OS with a large home-user userbase. The weakness is not so much the OS, it's PEBKAC.
Yes, I did bother, and found out that indeed, the title is a summary of what is achieved but the actual content of the patent is a specific approach to achieving it.
Sure your classes have methods. But good OO design says that your classes correspond to groups of real-world objects: bank accounts, people, widgets, whatever. Why? Because that is the data that needs to be processed.
That seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of OO. The focus on real-world objects is because they have self-contained properties and behaviour. "Because that is the data that needs to be processed" is no more (and no less the case) than Because that is the behaviour that needs to be produced.
The methods are tied to the classes, meaning that their very definitions depend on the data modelling you have done.
Or (and just as valid), the members are tied to the classes, meaning that their very definitions depend on the use cases (ie, actions) you have identified.
Working this way is suitable when you are dealing with complex data and comparatively simple algorithms; get the data model right, and your problem is half solved.
You do realise that data model != object model, don't you?
The other situation is where you have complex algorithms, but simple data. Signal processing, control software, scientific programming, etc.. Take a radar as an example: the data is just a continuous stream of numbers coming in off the radar dish; but the algorithms that extract meaning from those numbers are very sophisticated. Using an OO language for problems like this is like trying to loosen a screw using a wrench - maybe you can make it work, but it's basically a really bad fit for the problem.
Radar data was a bad example. A modern radar processing system takes data from many sources such as primary radar heads, secondary radar heads, ADS-B, ADS-C, WAM, neighbouring radar processing systems and so on. These behave the same in most ways but differently in some, and OO turns out to be an excellent way of dealing with that.
Yes, in some applications OO doesn't offer you anything significant. They are typically the cases in which you end up effectively with one class because the data and the processing are so simple. But in this context "simple" processing doesn't mean mathematically or computationally simple, it means that you only do one thing with the data (in the case of the radar front-end, for instance, the one thing will be extracting distinct decluttered returns into distinct objects for passing to the next processing stage). OO design still doesn't get in the way, though: if that's the only thing going on in that process you simply end up with a design with only one class having only one significant method (so if your language supports it you might just as well write the lot as a single routine with no class packaging).
For what it's worth, I have no problem with OO not being taught from the outset on a computer science course. It's a decompositional/compositional approach and is not a lot of use until you understand what you are decomposing and composing.
Maybe the way that you do it. Personally I find that quite a lot of my classes have methods.
If CMU really wanted to concentrate on the theory, they would have eliminated imperative programming from the introductory semesters, because it is very difficult to model mathematically.
Imperative programming isn't really any more difficult to model mathematically than functional programming. They just use different branches of mathematics. Check out David Gries's The Science of Computer Programming for example, which shows how to do it, and Object-Z which actually does it. The main difficulty is with side effects, but functional programming has the same issues as soon as you try to interact with the external world.
I find the concept grossly offensive and am quite disgusted that it is believed to be socially acceptable. It is accepted by those who have no understanding of human history and the damage to society that those beliefs cause. Nature (and God) made us to be one way and one way only and I am totally sick and tired of those that say that moral absolutes are intolerance. You can believe whatever you want but, don't push those beliefs on the rest of us that understand right and wrong. I am not a bigot or a "homophobe". I have a strong disgust for deviancy and that is something very different.
Ok, so that's your view, and you're entitled to it. But not to impose it on others, as this (slightly dated) video explains.
If people with a vendetta against you mod you down it will be picked up by the metamoderation system. If you find that you are consistently modded down, bad luck, it means that your contributions really are crap.
DC is actually more dangerous than AC. If you accidentally touch a high voltage AC source it will tend to throw you off. If you accidentally touch a high voltage DC source it can lock your muscles so you can't escape. In which case you'd better hope there's not much power available.
Homosex is as natural as heterosex in that it is widely seen across species as a bonding behavior, but is condemned by religious morons because they don't allow pleasure that does not directly result in reproduction.
It looks that way in the West, but hostility to homosexuality is common in socially conservative atheist cultures such as China too. It looks more as if cultural hostility to homosexuality leads to the religious taboo rather than the other way around. Which is what you'd expect if religion is invented to support prejudices. Don't blame religion for the prejudice, blame the prejudice for (that bit of) religion.
Well, good luck (to your descendants) when the sun turns into a red giant then. Although where the OP plans to send humanity at the heat-death of the universe I'm not sure.
You're thinking of it entirely wrong. The monopoly that copyright grants you isn't control of the work you created - you can do anything you want with it regardless of copyright. The monopoly is a ban on any other individual's right to make a copy. So it's actually a restriction on rights, rather than protection of them.
No, it isn't simply a ban. I can choose to charge you. Just like the pool: I could ban you or I could choose to charge you.
Slashdot Mirror
What right does an English citizen who wants to make video games have to move to the US or Canada?
The absolute right. England is not a prison, you can't hold people against their will.
The US and Canada have a say, too. I doubt I would be allowed by the US or Canada to move there to work (unless I won the green card lottery) so no, I don't have the right.
I'm betting that by 2012 we'll have videos of cats on here.
Or photos of CAT 5s, at least.
I see no evidence someone didn't do the research them-self (except for maybe that they later changed it).
And his server records, which show that they accessed his blog just before they published the article.
It's hardly impossible data to find, and they didn't [lift] anything the guy actually wrote.
And that's the important point.
I can't see that -- which paragraph did they copy word-for-word? I can't see the paragraph they edited out in the blog post.
The rules are pretty strict, but as Baigent and Lee discovered they don't extend to (supposed) facts. Had they used his actual words he would have a case but they don't seem to have done that. And anyway, the academic rules are not the law. A failure to attribute that might get you into trouble on a term paper would probably still be entirely legal.
It's not an arrogant assumption of computer nerds -- I make security blunders too. It's a recognition that there's a fundamental mismatch between what the computer is capable of and the fact that it's a consumer durable. If there were no driving test then I bet road fatalities would be higher, but pretty much nothing you could do to the user interface of the automobile whilst still retaining the functionality would fix that. The only solution is to make it so that only those trained and shown to be at least basically competent are allowed behind the wheel. That probably couldn't be enforced for home computers, so the only answers would be to cripple functionality (would work for a lot of users, actually) or take security out of their hands (another current story on /.). The power users wouldn't be happy, though.
MS, Apple and some of the Linux distros aren't helping anybody by discouraging people from experimenting and looking to get better at it.
Yeah, sure, that's why MS give away express editions of Visual Studio for free.
Microsoft's operating system architecture allowed users to have admin privileges, among other architectural mistakes.
On home systems they have to let potentially inexperienced users have access to admin privileges. Vista took them away by default, but whenever some tempting piece of software says it needs someone to type the admin password most users will do it so it barely slows down the spread of trojans. The same attach would work just as well as any OS with a large home-user userbase. The weakness is not so much the OS, it's PEBKAC.
In the UK it's the humour line, so we can push things 20% further.
In the case of imperative programming you can deal with them in a principled way too, for example with sequences.
Yes, I did bother, and found out that indeed, the title is a summary of what is achieved but the actual content of the patent is a specific approach to achieving it.
Try actually reading the patent to find out what is actually patented. The title doesn't tell the whole story. Ever.
That's only prior art if you did it in the way that Kodak patented.
No, because the patent isn't for taking digital photos.
Sure your classes have methods. But good OO design says that your classes correspond to groups of real-world objects: bank accounts, people, widgets, whatever. Why? Because that is the data that needs to be processed.
That seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of OO. The focus on real-world objects is because they have self-contained properties and behaviour. "Because that is the data that needs to be processed" is no more (and no less the case) than Because that is the behaviour that needs to be produced.
The methods are tied to the classes, meaning that their very definitions depend on the data modelling you have done.
Or (and just as valid), the members are tied to the classes, meaning that their very definitions depend on the use cases (ie, actions) you have identified.
Working this way is suitable when you are dealing with complex data and comparatively simple algorithms; get the data model right, and your problem is half solved.
You do realise that data model != object model, don't you?
The other situation is where you have complex algorithms, but simple data. Signal processing, control software, scientific programming, etc.. Take a radar as an example: the data is just a continuous stream of numbers coming in off the radar dish; but the algorithms that extract meaning from those numbers are very sophisticated. Using an OO language for problems like this is like trying to loosen a screw using a wrench - maybe you can make it work, but it's basically a really bad fit for the problem.
Radar data was a bad example. A modern radar processing system takes data from many sources such as primary radar heads, secondary radar heads, ADS-B, ADS-C, WAM, neighbouring radar processing systems and so on. These behave the same in most ways but differently in some, and OO turns out to be an excellent way of dealing with that.
Yes, in some applications OO doesn't offer you anything significant. They are typically the cases in which you end up effectively with one class because the data and the processing are so simple. But in this context "simple" processing doesn't mean mathematically or computationally simple, it means that you only do one thing with the data (in the case of the radar front-end, for instance, the one thing will be extracting distinct decluttered returns into distinct objects for passing to the next processing stage). OO design still doesn't get in the way, though: if that's the only thing going on in that process you simply end up with a design with only one class having only one significant method (so if your language supports it you might just as well write the lot as a single routine with no class packaging).
For what it's worth, I have no problem with OO not being taught from the outset on a computer science course. It's a decompositional/compositional approach and is not a lot of use until you understand what you are decomposing and composing.
OO is fundamentally data-centric
Maybe the way that you do it. Personally I find that quite a lot of my classes have methods.
If CMU really wanted to concentrate on the theory, they would have eliminated imperative programming from the introductory semesters, because it is very difficult to model mathematically.
Imperative programming isn't really any more difficult to model mathematically than functional programming. They just use different branches of mathematics. Check out David Gries's The Science of Computer Programming for example, which shows how to do it, and Object-Z which actually does it. The main difficulty is with side effects, but functional programming has the same issues as soon as you try to interact with the external world.
Oh, the liar there is whoever named the department, not those who work there!
I find the concept grossly offensive and am quite disgusted that it is believed to be socially acceptable. It is accepted by those who have no understanding of human history and the damage to society that those beliefs cause. Nature (and God) made us to be one way and one way only and I am totally sick and tired of those that say that moral absolutes are intolerance. You can believe whatever you want but, don't push those beliefs on the rest of us that understand right and wrong. I am not a bigot or a "homophobe". I have a strong disgust for deviancy and that is something very different.
Ok, so that's your view, and you're entitled to it. But not to impose it on others, as this (slightly dated) video explains.
If people with a vendetta against you mod you down it will be picked up by the metamoderation system. If you find that you are consistently modded down, bad luck, it means that your contributions really are crap.
DC is actually more dangerous than AC. If you accidentally touch a high voltage AC source it will tend to throw you off. If you accidentally touch a high voltage DC source it can lock your muscles so you can't escape. In which case you'd better hope there's not much power available.
Homosex is as natural as heterosex in that it is widely seen across species as a bonding behavior, but is condemned by religious morons because they don't allow pleasure that does not directly result in reproduction.
It looks that way in the West, but hostility to homosexuality is common in socially conservative atheist cultures such as China too. It looks more as if cultural hostility to homosexuality leads to the religious taboo rather than the other way around. Which is what you'd expect if religion is invented to support prejudices. Don't blame religion for the prejudice, blame the prejudice for (that bit of) religion.
Well, good luck (to your descendants) when the sun turns into a red giant then. Although where the OP plans to send humanity at the heat-death of the universe I'm not sure.
0.00004 people?
im sorry, I did not realize I was on the association of anal retentive english majors page
You must be new here.
You're thinking of it entirely wrong. The monopoly that copyright grants you isn't control of the work you created - you can do anything you want with it regardless of copyright. The monopoly is a ban on any other individual's right to make a copy. So it's actually a restriction on rights, rather than protection of them.
No, it isn't simply a ban. I can choose to charge you. Just like the pool: I could ban you or I could choose to charge you.