Personally, I don't like advertisements tapdancing on the chest of my own free will...What do you think
If they're able to build advertising to get you to buy the product from this "technology" you really don't have free will do you? They're just abusing you of the idea that you have free will.
Hmmm. I thought it was the responsibility of the company in question to protect their trade secrets... i.e. to keep them secret. If someone they don't want to be informed gets the information, that should be their fault. In no way should that person be obliged to not share the secret with others.
I didn't mind those two, they certainly weren't what they could have been though, and had AI ended at least twenty minutes earlier than it did I would have much more respect for it.
Hmmm, that sounds more like the plot to Robots of Dawn to me. Wonder what the likelihood is that, as someone mentioned above, HW is attempting to cash in on the Asimov name by 1) writing a new movie 2) using a popular sci fi book as it's "source" and most importantly 3) being the total fuck up retards that they are, coming up with a plot that has allready been done in another book by the same author?
I really have difficulty seeing Will Smith fit into any Asimov world. I swear to god, if I hear the word yo, or jiggy, or he raps a song for the soundtrack I'll lose my mind. That's all well and good for MIB, but I really don't need to see his hip hop style applied to Asimov.
Yes, bars and restauraunts have to pay to have the sound on for certain events. I believe news and sports are exempt, but that may have changed since I first heard of this about two years ago, when my local bar began turning off the sound.
It's a crock of shit in my opinion, and should be flagrantly ignored. Ever listened to the statement made at the end of an NFL game? It goes something like this Any re-broadcast, description or accounts of this event are prohibited without the express written consent of the NFL. Accounts? Descriptions? Every time I hear that I want to call the NFL commissioner and tell him to go fuck himself.
This kind of crap is getting severely out of hand. It really makes me wonder what kind of souless retards we have working in management in these industries that think these things are a good idea.
Yes always. But first let me point out that this is a degenerate case, there are no real objects, and none of the benefits of the language are used.
Now back to always. You are technically correct, but fully qualify your statement. It should be: Not always... when a poor programmer is writing both versions. Write the fibonacci caculation as iteratively, like any decent programmer would when speed was the desired result. C now trounces Java. So when the code is written intelligently, native code will always be faster.
Furthermore, a good C coder WILL always be able to write a version of a java app that is faster, it's the nature of the languages, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Again this is not bashing Java, I use it all of the time, and actually prefer it for work coding.
Fortunately, even if they are saying Java is slow because Swing is slow they're still right, if for the wrong reasons... Java IS slow. Regardless of the JVM, native code is faster. However, I'm not saying that Java is bad. I used to loathe it, but for the xx% of the time when speed is not a major issue, Java is a valid choice.
For those thinking to develop with the free edition, then just buy a license when they're ready to deploy:
Can we use the Free Edition while developing our non-free application and then purchase commercial licenses when we start to sell it? No. The Free Edition license applies to the development phase - anything developed without Professional or Enterprise Edition licenses must be released as free/open source software.
Not to get to picky, but this is one of those things that I don't feel a company has a right to determine. It's not even enforcable. Prove that I developed with the Free Edition. I agree with you, there is no reason to lay the money out now, if you're not necessarily going to need to use your code commercially.
Especially since QT is essentially just an operation system extension. Technically, it's probably perfectly legal to develop the software with the free version, sell your code to the client and tell them that it will not run without QT installed. In the same way that, for instance, Apple did in the early days with some hardware related to their video out. I can't recall the details and it's far to early to look it up, but there was some piece that was necessary that had to be sold separately to avoid unecessary cost.
I would imagine it's because at the college level the primary users of macs, or at least the zealots (because they're professors tend to drill it into them) are the "artists". Who as a rule tend to be a little out there, some by nature, some because they think that that's how they have to act if they're "artists".
Bullshit. Just because YOU don't care what's under the hood doesn't mean that those that do are juvenile, immature, or have nothing better to think about. It's unlikely that the technology industry will change in that was, but even if it did, it still takes takes people who are interested in the inner workings of things (i.e. those of us who can do math) to make the world go 'round.
Who the fuck do you think you are to decide what matters? I've got new for you nothing MATTERS, nothing other than what each individual likes.
Re:and were the responsibility of trained personne
on
Electronic Life
·
· Score: 2
Or another guy who had to deal with a new hire who did and doesn't know jack. Pretty common actually. Though it's almost as big a problem as some college grads.
That's what I said wasn't it? The day before it opened, we happend to get our movies in the evening every week, I'm sure others got them earlier in the day. I've never heard of any other theatre getting them earlier than that (although there is a reply above this that claims two weeks). I find it hard to believe that a studio would be so stupid as to allow a movie in the hands of anyone prior to it's release,... well intentionally anyway.
at some basic level you value it because you are willing to give your time and effort into obtaining and consuming it.
Ok I've just paid everything I'm willing to pay then, the VALUE of that product (and I use the term loosely) has been met as far as I'm concerned.
The only difference is that the product here is digital, and thus easily reproducable
That is certainly not the only difference, but even if it were it is an important one. I have not, by downloading a movie, removed the ability of a media company to make money from it. I have not lowered the amount of inventory they have. I have not taken ANY money out of their pockets. I have NOT stolen.
It's not an insane argument, it is a completely logical one. By the definition of the word theft, I have not stolen. That doesn't make it right (or wrong I could care less) but it is not theft.
Yeah, things may have changed but I doubt it, I worked in a theatre years ago, we had to put together all the new movies on wed nights for the following day. It kinda sucked, but at least we got to snatch a few scenes off of the reel when we were splicing them together.
Actually, not true, most movie theatres get the movie the night before the day it premiers, and the movie is usually put together that night, late, after the theatre closes.
Re:A car handles slippery roads better
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 2
I don't think we're going to agree on this one (though I'm happy you didn't turn to flaming instead of discussing it). What it boils down to is that I feel that a bike isn't as unsafe as it's made out to be. And an inherent problem for either side is quantifying the concept of safety. It's true that in certain circumstances a car is safer, but it's also true that in others a bike is. It's a pet peeve of mine when I get lectured about how unsafe my bike is (not that I'm accusing you of that).
And I certainly won't argue that it takes more skill and education to operate a bike safely, I would be all for more stringent license tests for bikes (I'd like them for SUV's too). I've been on huge group rides with guys that have ridden for a long time and still don't know how to operate their bikes.
And of course you don't get to pick which one goes, but it's still not a foregone conclusion that you will fall regardless of the wheel that slips. It's also unlikely that you will slip while not under power, you would correct for slippage in a car, and the same on a bike.
It also comes down to personal comfort, I feel much safer and in control on a bike at speed than I do in a car. Especially around turns, others, I'm sure, feel different.
Not that I'd give up the bike in any case. If it didn't involve skill and an element of danger it's possible I wouldn't be riding at all.
Re:A car handles slippery roads better
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 2
That's not true, one brief slip does not mean that you lay the bike down. You can slide your rear tire around turns safely, professional racers do it all the time, and some of us on the street do it as well, yes you are in slightly more trouble if if you break the front. In addition the forces are aligned when turning a bike that it's much less likely that you will break the tires free at speed than in a car.
I've slid through gravel, front and rear, lost traction on a cold road with cold tires, locked up both rear and front brakes (together and independently) stopping too fast. Bikes are no more inherently unsafe than a car. And in the situation I was describing when the bike went off a ~10 foot embankment into some trees and I didn't I would have much rather been on the bike than a car. I would have likely been seriously injured on in a car, on the bike I was able to get away from the vehicle and slide safely to a stop.
Breaking one or both tires free is no guarantee of a crash on a bike, any more than it is in a car. The conception that motorcycles are inherently more unsafe to operate than cars is tenuous at best. You may feel safer in a car but that's not necessarily the truth.
Re:I'm your token skeptic
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 2
Yeah unfortunately I don't buy the safety argument. It's all relative to the situation. I can stop quicker on my bike, I can turn faster, and I can out accelerate any car on the road. I can avoid danger much easier than a car driver can.
However in most cases of actual accidents I am the one more at risk. Of course on the other hand, I've wrecked my bike at about 60 through a sharp curve, and was laughing and grinning in the pictures immesiately after with nothing more than road rash. I also patched the bike up and road off. Try that with a car. I'm not knocking cars I love them too, but they don't compare to the performance of a bike.
Re:I'm your token skeptic
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 2
Uh no. One word. Gixxer. There isn't a vette in production that comes close, so you're numbers aren't exactly representing the state of the art in speed.
Re:200 mph? In their dreams!
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 2
Modded informative my ass, bikes can go well in excess of 200 mph. There is a current agreement among bike manufactures to limit top speeds to 188, but bikes will easily top that. And for the record, bigger does not necessarily equate to faster.
No it doesn't. The TCO for Linux is cheaper in my experience. It still remains to be proved that Winodwsw is cheaper in that respect, every argument I've seen takes it as a given and that's not proof.
No more than I spend installing, configuring, and maintaining windows. Less in fact. I never say, "how do you do x in *nix". But have said "how do you do x" in windows a good bit.
Additionally, if you want to restrict this to the business world, Linux saves us wads of cash. Developers are more efficient with it, the MIS department doesn't need to support it (of course if sales people were running it they'd need to), and it works.
The argument was never that ToC of Linux is 0. The original poster claimed that you have to shell out a couple of hundred dollars every few months versus much less when you use Windows. He was implicitly arguing that the Linux distros themselves cost more than Windows, which is patently untrue. Total cost of ownership wasn't even the subject of the original post, however Linux has Windows beat in that aspect as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I don't like advertisements tapdancing on the chest of my own free will...What do you think
If they're able to build advertising to get you to buy the product from this "technology" you really don't have free will do you? They're just abusing you of the idea that you have free will.
Hmmm. I thought it was the responsibility of the company in question to protect their trade secrets... i.e. to keep them secret. If someone they don't want to be informed gets the information, that should be their fault. In no way should that person be obliged to not share the secret with others.
I didn't mind those two, they certainly weren't what they could have been though, and had AI ended at least twenty minutes earlier than it did I would have much more respect for it.
I really have difficulty seeing Will Smith fit into any Asimov world. I swear to god, if I hear the word yo, or jiggy, or he raps a song for the soundtrack I'll lose my mind. That's all well and good for MIB, but I really don't need to see his hip hop style applied to Asimov.
I hope it's not made into a comedy, I'll be pretty damn pissed, as I'm sure most fans would be as well.
It's a crock of shit in my opinion, and should be flagrantly ignored. Ever listened to the statement made at the end of an NFL game? It goes something like this Any re-broadcast, description or accounts of this event are prohibited without the express written consent of the NFL. Accounts? Descriptions? Every time I hear that I want to call the NFL commissioner and tell him to go fuck himself.
This kind of crap is getting severely out of hand. It really makes me wonder what kind of souless retards we have working in management in these industries that think these things are a good idea.
Now back to always. You are technically correct, but fully qualify your statement. It should be: Not always
Furthermore, a good C coder WILL always be able to write a version of a java app that is faster, it's the nature of the languages, and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Again this is not bashing Java, I use it all of the time, and actually prefer it for work coding.
Fortunately, even if they are saying Java is slow because Swing is slow they're still right, if for the wrong reasons... Java IS slow. Regardless of the JVM, native code is faster. However, I'm not saying that Java is bad. I used to loathe it, but for the xx% of the time when speed is not a major issue, Java is a valid choice.
For those thinking to develop with the free edition, then just buy a license when they're ready to deploy:
Can we use the Free Edition while developing our non-free application and then purchase commercial licenses when we start to sell it?
No. The Free Edition license applies to the development phase - anything developed without Professional or Enterprise Edition licenses must be released as free/open source software.
Not to get to picky, but this is one of those things that I don't feel a company has a right to determine. It's not even enforcable. Prove that I developed with the Free Edition. I agree with you, there is no reason to lay the money out now, if you're not necessarily going to need to use your code commercially.
Especially since QT is essentially just an operation system extension. Technically, it's probably perfectly legal to develop the software with the free version, sell your code to the client and tell them that it will not run without QT installed. In the same way that, for instance, Apple did in the early days with some hardware related to their video out. I can't recall the details and it's far to early to look it up, but there was some piece that was necessary that had to be sold separately to avoid unecessary cost.
I would imagine it's because at the college level the primary users of macs, or at least the zealots (because they're professors tend to drill it into them) are the "artists". Who as a rule tend to be a little out there, some by nature, some because they think that that's how they have to act if they're "artists".
Who the fuck do you think you are to decide what matters? I've got new for you nothing MATTERS, nothing other than what each individual likes.
Or another guy who had to deal with a new hire who did and doesn't know jack. Pretty common actually. Though it's almost as big a problem as some college grads.
Rygar huh? Got a link I liked that game, well except for the fact that you couldn't save.
That's what I said wasn't it? The day before it opened, we happend to get our movies in the evening every week, I'm sure others got them earlier in the day. I've never heard of any other theatre getting them earlier than that (although there is a reply above this that claims two weeks). I find it hard to believe that a studio would be so stupid as to allow a movie in the hands of anyone prior to it's release, ... well intentionally anyway.
at some basic level you value it because you are willing to give your time and effort into obtaining and consuming it.
Ok I've just paid everything I'm willing to pay then, the VALUE of that product (and I use the term loosely) has been met as far as I'm concerned.
The only difference is that the product here is digital, and thus easily reproducable
That is certainly not the only difference, but even if it were it is an important one. I have not, by downloading a movie, removed the ability of a media company to make money from it. I have not lowered the amount of inventory they have. I have not taken ANY money out of their pockets. I have NOT stolen.
It's not an insane argument, it is a completely logical one. By the definition of the word theft, I have not stolen. That doesn't make it right (or wrong I could care less) but it is not theft.
Yeah, things may have changed but I doubt it, I worked in a theatre years ago, we had to put together all the new movies on wed nights for the following day. It kinda sucked, but at least we got to snatch a few scenes off of the reel when we were splicing them together.
Actually, not true, most movie theatres get the movie the night before the day it premiers, and the movie is usually put together that night, late, after the theatre closes.
And I certainly won't argue that it takes more skill and education to operate a bike safely, I would be all for more stringent license tests for bikes (I'd like them for SUV's too). I've been on huge group rides with guys that have ridden for a long time and still don't know how to operate their bikes.
And of course you don't get to pick which one goes, but it's still not a foregone conclusion that you will fall regardless of the wheel that slips. It's also unlikely that you will slip while not under power, you would correct for slippage in a car, and the same on a bike.
It also comes down to personal comfort, I feel much safer and in control on a bike at speed than I do in a car. Especially around turns, others, I'm sure, feel different.
Not that I'd give up the bike in any case. If it didn't involve skill and an element of danger it's possible I wouldn't be riding at all.
I've slid through gravel, front and rear, lost traction on a cold road with cold tires, locked up both rear and front brakes (together and independently) stopping too fast. Bikes are no more inherently unsafe than a car. And in the situation I was describing when the bike went off a ~10 foot embankment into some trees and I didn't I would have much rather been on the bike than a car. I would have likely been seriously injured on in a car, on the bike I was able to get away from the vehicle and slide safely to a stop.
Breaking one or both tires free is no guarantee of a crash on a bike, any more than it is in a car. The conception that motorcycles are inherently more unsafe to operate than cars is tenuous at best. You may feel safer in a car but that's not necessarily the truth.
However in most cases of actual accidents I am the one more at risk. Of course on the other hand, I've wrecked my bike at about 60 through a sharp curve, and was laughing and grinning in the pictures immesiately after with nothing more than road rash. I also patched the bike up and road off. Try that with a car. I'm not knocking cars I love them too, but they don't compare to the performance of a bike.
Uh no. One word. Gixxer. There isn't a vette in production that comes close, so you're numbers aren't exactly representing the state of the art in speed.
Modded informative my ass, bikes can go well in excess of 200 mph. There is a current agreement among bike manufactures to limit top speeds to 188, but bikes will easily top that. And for the record, bigger does not necessarily equate to faster.
it could eventually be marketed like the current SUV market. people will buy them just because
Lovely more vehicles for people that take the Sport part of the name seriously and think they have a performance vehicle.
No it doesn't. The TCO for Linux is cheaper in my experience. It still remains to be proved that Winodwsw is cheaper in that respect, every argument I've seen takes it as a given and that's not proof.
Additionally, if you want to restrict this to the business world, Linux saves us wads of cash. Developers are more efficient with it, the MIS department doesn't need to support it (of course if sales people were running it they'd need to), and it works.
The argument was never that ToC of Linux is 0. The original poster claimed that you have to shell out a couple of hundred dollars every few months versus much less when you use Windows. He was implicitly arguing that the Linux distros themselves cost more than Windows, which is patently untrue. Total cost of ownership wasn't even the subject of the original post, however Linux has Windows beat in that aspect as well.