Good point. Now we can add the broadcast TV industry to the same category as the recording and movie industries -- trying to use legislation to protect their obsolete business models.
No. KDE without Konq would be like Windows 95, sans the file manager (Explorer). Not usable the way it was intended, but usable nonetheless... as long as you don't need to browse the Web, use a GUI file manager, or any of that.
The original Unreal Tournament used modules (Scream Tracker III and Impulse Tracker) for music. Playing these consumes roughly the same CPU as decoding Ogg Vorbis. Both are pretty nice to the CPU.
Actually, by doing that, no human would recognize that you are the person in the photo, either. Thus you'll be assumed to be trying to use an obviously fake ID, get arrested, and, shortly thereafter, your rectum will have a sperm count, courtesy of Bubba, if you know what I mean.
So, Google limits automated queries, but allows unlimited interactive queries, even though the automated queries consume vastly less bandwidth and CPU than the interactive queries? Does this seem just a tad stupid to anyone else?
Also, the limit on results per query severely limits the usefulness of this API.
Finally, the requirement for a license key sounds a little Microsoftish to me. Since Google is not Microsoft, this is unlikely to work in their favor.
For these reasons, I suspect that the release of this API may hurt Google more than it helps them.
That's really pretty unenforceable. How is Google supposed to know if a query is automated? How is a query defined to be "automated"?
For the latter, we have the following scenarios which could be interpreted as being automated:
You are using a computer to query Google. You're not actually twiddling the electrons in Google's servers with your fingers to perform the search.
If your browser has a built-in "Web Search" or "Google Search" function, the browser is automatically sending the query to Google and parsing the results before displaying them to you. You might also be using some standalone program that does this.
Some IRC bots (particularly infobot) have a Google search function, wherein someone (on a channel or in private) asks the bot to do a Google search. The bot does the search and displays the results to the user.
A user instructs their computer to do a Google search and save the results when a (dialup) Internet connection is established. Thus, a delayed search is performed. (This could be very useful for those who have to pay per minute for phone time to connect, and get lower rates during evenings or such. The connection would be established at a time when rates are low, the search performed, and the connection broken.)
That doesn't negate his point. After all it would take a monkey fifteen minutes to create those wrapper classes. But you can't add two float wrappers to each other or do a "++" on an integer wrapper can you? So eventually you need to deal with wrapping and unwrapping. That's just plain silly and the only excuse for it is performance. If.NET gets similar performance without the primitive type hack then Java has no excuse.
It's called memory consumption. Object wrappers consume way more memory than primitive types. That's why Java has primitive types.
As for adding two float wrappers to each other or such crap, you don't need to. Unwrap the wrappers, do your math, and (if necessary) re-wrap. Object wrappers are only used in Java for when one needs to pass a primitive type to a method that expects an object. (This allows the storage of primitive types in Java collections, for instance.) In most cases, a Java programmer will be using primitive types, and not object wrappers.
Why is it so important that primitive types behave like objects, anyway?
In particular, Java could use a strong dose of syntactic sugar. C# is a little better, but just a little. For starters, I'd suggest you look at Python handles iterators, indexers, generators, and dictionary and list initializers. There is nothing I hate more than switching from Python to Java and realizing that I could write half as much code and it could be clearer. Even ignoring the static type checking system, Java seems to go out of its way be verbose. That iterator class crap is just unbelievably ugly.
Could you provide some Java and Python code, for comparison, to prove this point?
The above comments how that you've somehow confused object oriented with Java which unfortunately are not the same thing. An object oriented system has 3 main qualities i) encapsulation or information hiding ii) inheritance and iii) polymporhism. All three of which can be done with C# structs (or value types).
Because the purpose of structs is, by definition, not object-oriented. Structs are not supposed to have inheritance or information hiding; they're just supposed to be a collection of data.
If C#'s structs do allow inheritance and other such OO features, they are essentially the same thing as classes, and therefore have no purpose of their own. In this case, the fact that they are there is testament to why C# is a language designed by idiots.
Secondl, I am immensely confused what the existence of an explicit pointer type has to do with whether a language is OO or not.
I know it's not an OO issue, but the use of explicit pointers in a high-level language is idiotic beyond belief. The purpose of a high-level language is supposed to be to rid oneself of pointers and other such low-level notions. Also, this means that C# will never be secure like Java, since, with pointers, the program can access any location on the heap. Finally, pointers are not portable since their size is dependent on the local machine's CPU. Therefore, C# code is not "write once, run anywhere", either. Given that, why not just write your code in C++?
The Java VM was designed to run Java while the CLR was designed to be language agnostic. The fact that C++ can run on the CLR is a testament to this fact.
C++ without multiple inheritance is not C++. Nice testament.
Also, did you happen to read parent's list of languages other than Java that run on the Java Virtual Machine? Or are you just talking out of your ass as I suspect?
C# forces explicit Method Overriding (via the virtual/override or new keywords).
One of the worst flaws of C++'s OO system was adopted by C#. What a laugh. Java gets it right with this one -- all methods should be virtual.
C# supports namespaces. Unlike Java's packages, namespaces do not rely on a file/folder structure.
Java classes and packages do not rely on a file/folder structure either. That's just the way the bootstrap class loader in a typical JVM defines its packages and classes. A class loader (bootstrap or otherwise) is allowed to define packages and classes with whatever name it pleases. For instance, an embedded JVM might have its entire class library burned into ROM in a flat format, with no notion of files or directories at all.
The C# Abstract or "Virtual Machine" (CLR) is not designed for C#, rather for language neutrality (to an extent). Java and the JVM, however, are closely tied.
Wrong. Several languages other than Java have been implemented to run on the JVM, such as ML (and, I believe, Python).
The JVM is not closely tied to Java. It is Java that is closely tied to the JVM. Big difference.
Suing your customers whom you've screwed over with shoddy service sure isn't the way I'd go about building a successful business. But then again, the RIAA/MPAA are still in buisness... and they're the kings of alienating customers...
The difference is that the {RI,MP}AA alienate 10% of their customers. Mr. Novak alienates 100% of his customers.
Besides, suing people is a lot more profitable than selling aquatic plants. I agree with the others here who've said that he's 'lawsuit trolling' -- that is, he delivers extremely crappy service, waits for someone to complain, and then sues everything that moves until it stops moving. Not that I agree with his actions, but I do understand why he's doing this.
I also seem to remember AOL instituting a policy some time ago restricting AOL-hosted websites and chat rooms from having any anti-AOL sentiments published.
They don't want to host/relay anti-AOL content; if you want to do that, you'll have to do it somewhere else (different hosting provider, IRC, etc). This is a condition on which AOL provides service to its customers, no different from other ToS conditions like "you may not spam people". What's wrong with that?
Anyone with an MBA and a brain in their head would come to the same conclusion.
Since when did MBAs have brains in their heads?
Seriously, though, I sincerely doubt that this decision was made by anyone other than some ignorant executive making a futile and self-destructive attempt to increase personal dick^Wwallet size. I'd actually have liked to have been a fly on the wall in Sony Music marketing when they got wind of this idea...
Ugh. GNOME and KDE are both vastly better than Windows anything in user interface quality. Linux's plug-and-play code is also vastly better than Windows anything in PnP support.
If you disagree on the former, it's really a matter of preference, so I can't change your mind.
If you disagree on the latter, however, I guess you've never tried to replace your motherboard without reformatting your disks.;)
By the way, the MS-DOS 6.x (forget which one) source was leaked in its entirety. It even has the "Microsoft Confidential" stuff at the beginning of each source file. I think they won't release it officially because of how much fun it is to grep through it for "FIXME" or "BUG"...
The trouble is, the Win32 API is (and I quote Microsoft) an "open API". So are the rest of the APIs that you'll find on Windows -- DirectX, etc. However, Microsoft doesn't implement these APIs exactly to spec; there are those wonderful undocumented calls and that "update" you mention.
However, though these undocumented calls are not published, my understanding is that MS won't intervene if you try to figure out what they do and re-implement them. That's why the WINE project hasn't been drowned in MS' ocean of lawyers.
Personally, Java makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and borders on giving me a woody, too. (Only language to ever do that.) That's my opinion as to why Java coders are such, er, "stallions".
Of course not. If they were, Junkbuster and the like would be able to automatically filter them out. Of course, not marking them clearly as advertisements is sure to annoy a large percentage of the/. readership, or at least cause them to ignore the slashvertisements out of distaste for the advertising practices. Ever notice how unprofitable popunder ads are? A lot of Web advertisers don't seem to understand that making ads big and annoying will not coerce people into giving in and buying the product; they will coerce people into giving in and leaving the site permanently.
The only problem would be if the editors modded down such posts in order to unfairly present the impression that slashdotters all love the product being advertised.
Illusion, not impression. If advertisers were deluded into thinking that/.ers loved their products, then they would advertise more, thus causing large profits for/. in the short term. In the long term, once the advertisers realize that they're getting a really poor ROI on their advertising despite how much everyone seems to love their products, they will start getting suspicious, and cease to use slashvertisements.
In other words, that's a dumb idea. I'm not sure if Rob Malda & Co would be able to figure it out, though.
I have to say, I'm not going to miss the anonymous cowards. The only thing that troubles me, though, is that they are not being banned to make slashdot better. They are being banned because the advertisers want to see - probably - who is saying what, so they can market to them better.
I was thinking more along the lines of suing them... Companies seem to like to use lawsuits to silence criticism these days.
Not only is this a PR move, but Gateway also stands to make Microsoft suffer. Gateway is saying this stuff in court, you will remember. It may be hoping that this testimony will bring down the Wrath of God on M$ for strong-arming OEMs.
If M$ is prevented from strong-arming OEMs, then Gateway can widen its market because it can now sell Windows to those who desire it, and some other OS to those who don't. Bottom line: more customers, which means more money.
In other words, it's a business risk. The risk exposure is only moderate (since it's improbable that their testimony won't be acted upon by the courts), and the payoff for taking the risk is good, because then they can reach a wider market.
How pretty you can make the GUI. (God forbid there be no GUI...)
How many meaningless high numbers you can rattle off about the software (eg, lines of code).
to make the brainless PHBs buy it and force it down engineering's collective throats (because, of course, engineers lack the ability to make decisions regarding their own specialty without being told how to do their jobs by a PHB who doesn't even know what their jobs are).
I believe the cumulative tally of deaths due to cars and deaths due to guns and bombs. I would imagine that traffic fatalities have killed a lot more people since the invention of the automobile than guns and bombs have since their invention.
I'm 18. I've been in front of a computer since I was somewhere around 10. I've enjoyed (almost) every minute of it. I've also made some (unpaid, voluntary) contributions to businesses.
Oh yeah, and might I remind you, kids zachlipton's age generally go around committing vandalism, theft, assault, and so forth when they're out and/or sit in front of a TV and degenerate all day. This is what you think kids like that should be spending their time doing?
Please do the world a favor and don't reproduce until you've obtained a clue. Thanks.
By Napsterian "logic", the photons being selectively bounced off a sheet of paper constitute a copy of said sheet of paper.
As for being essential, have you ever tried to run a program with your Ln caches disabled? How about not copying the code into main memory, and just reading and executing the bytes directly off the disk? The software would be completely unusable, because then your computer would be slower than the Mark I.
Remember, the EULA is not required to make it illegal to make copies of software for friends -- copyright does that all by itself. The only reasonable purposes for EULAs that I've ever heard of are warranty disclaimers, limitation of liability, and no-reverse-engineering clauses. Copyright law gives the publisher everything else they need.
If the license allows the licensee to redistribute the copyrighted work (as with free, Free, shareware, etc licenses), then the license is good for that, too.
Also, are you saying that the no-reverse-engineering clauses actually carry any real weight? I was under the impression that they're on pretty shaky ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Now we can add the broadcast TV industry to the same category as the recording and movie industries -- trying to use legislation to protect their obsolete business models.
No. KDE without Konq would be like Windows 95, sans the file manager (Explorer). Not usable the way it was intended, but usable nonetheless... as long as you don't need to browse the Web, use a GUI file manager, or any of that.
The original Unreal Tournament used modules (Scream Tracker III and Impulse Tracker) for music. Playing these consumes roughly the same CPU as decoding Ogg Vorbis. Both are pretty nice to the CPU.
Rob Malda is trolling in the damn stories again. This time trying to start an editor war.
Actually, by doing that, no human would recognize that you are the person in the photo, either. Thus you'll be assumed to be trying to use an obviously fake ID, get arrested, and, shortly thereafter, your rectum will have a sperm count, courtesy of Bubba, if you know what I mean.
Also, the limit on results per query severely limits the usefulness of this API.
Finally, the requirement for a license key sounds a little Microsoftish to me. Since Google is not Microsoft, this is unlikely to work in their favor.
For these reasons, I suspect that the release of this API may hurt Google more than it helps them.
For the latter, we have the following scenarios which could be interpreted as being automated:
As for adding two float wrappers to each other or such crap, you don't need to. Unwrap the wrappers, do your math, and (if necessary) re-wrap. Object wrappers are only used in Java for when one needs to pass a primitive type to a method that expects an object. (This allows the storage of primitive types in Java collections, for instance.) In most cases, a Java programmer will be using primitive types, and not object wrappers.
Why is it so important that primitive types behave like objects, anyway?
Could you provide some Java and Python code, for comparison, to prove this point?If C#'s structs do allow inheritance and other such OO features, they are essentially the same thing as classes, and therefore have no purpose of their own. In this case, the fact that they are there is testament to why C# is a language designed by idiots.
I know it's not an OO issue, but the use of explicit pointers in a high-level language is idiotic beyond belief. The purpose of a high-level language is supposed to be to rid oneself of pointers and other such low-level notions. Also, this means that C# will never be secure like Java, since, with pointers, the program can access any location on the heap. Finally, pointers are not portable since their size is dependent on the local machine's CPU. Therefore, C# code is not "write once, run anywhere", either. Given that, why not just write your code in C++? In Java, it's Is it really that much harder? C++ without multiple inheritance is not C++. Nice testament.Also, did you happen to read parent's list of languages other than Java that run on the Java Virtual Machine? Or are you just talking out of your ass as I suspect?
The JVM is not closely tied to Java. It is Java that is closely tied to the JVM. Big difference.
Besides, suing people is a lot more profitable than selling aquatic plants. I agree with the others here who've said that he's 'lawsuit trolling' -- that is, he delivers extremely crappy service, waits for someone to complain, and then sues everything that moves until it stops moving. Not that I agree with his actions, but I do understand why he's doing this.
Seriously, though, I sincerely doubt that this decision was made by anyone other than some ignorant executive making a futile and self-destructive attempt to increase personal dick^Wwallet size. I'd actually have liked to have been a fly on the wall in Sony Music marketing when they got wind of this idea...
If you disagree on the former, it's really a matter of preference, so I can't change your mind.
If you disagree on the latter, however, I guess you've never tried to replace your motherboard without reformatting your disks. ;)
By the way, the MS-DOS 6.x (forget which one) source was leaked in its entirety. It even has the "Microsoft Confidential" stuff at the beginning of each source file. I think they won't release it officially because of how much fun it is to grep through it for "FIXME" or "BUG"...
However, though these undocumented calls are not published, my understanding is that MS won't intervene if you try to figure out what they do and re-implement them. That's why the WINE project hasn't been drowned in MS' ocean of lawyers.
Personally, Java makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and borders on giving me a woody, too. (Only language to ever do that.) That's my opinion as to why Java coders are such, er, "stallions".
In other words, that's a dumb idea. I'm not sure if Rob Malda & Co would be able to figure it out, though.
I was thinking more along the lines of suing them... Companies seem to like to use lawsuits to silence criticism these days.I take it you didn't see her "bountiful bosom" pic? Kathleen applying pressure isn't why he's not QAing Sandra anymore...
If M$ is prevented from strong-arming OEMs, then Gateway can widen its market because it can now sell Windows to those who desire it, and some other OS to those who don't. Bottom line: more customers, which means more money.
In other words, it's a business risk. The risk exposure is only moderate (since it's improbable that their testimony won't be acted upon by the courts), and the payoff for taking the risk is good, because then they can reach a wider market.
You forgot
- How pretty you can make the GUI. (God forbid there be no GUI...)
- How many meaningless high numbers you can rattle off about the software (eg, lines of code).
to make the brainless PHBs buy it and force it down engineering's collective throats (because, of course, engineers lack the ability to make decisions regarding their own specialty without being told how to do their jobs by a PHB who doesn't even know what their jobs are).</cynicism>
I believe the cumulative tally of deaths due to cars and deaths due to guns and bombs. I would imagine that traffic fatalities have killed a lot more people since the invention of the automobile than guns and bombs have since their invention.
Oh yeah, and might I remind you, kids zachlipton's age generally go around committing vandalism, theft, assault, and so forth when they're out and/or sit in front of a TV and degenerate all day. This is what you think kids like that should be spending their time doing?
Please do the world a favor and don't reproduce until you've obtained a clue. Thanks.
As for being essential, have you ever tried to run a program with your Ln caches disabled? How about not copying the code into main memory, and just reading and executing the bytes directly off the disk? The software would be completely unusable, because then your computer would be slower than the Mark I.
Also, are you saying that the no-reverse-engineering clauses actually carry any real weight? I was under the impression that they're on pretty shaky ground.