I love this guy: 'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?'. I don't know Mr. Henderson, but Pandora is apparently willing to do so, so maybe you should ease off the royalties a bit and that way you will get some money for "your" music. Instead, without services like Pandora people have limited venues for listening to music and as you said they will just take the path of least resistance and get their music for free. Didn't you learn anything from the past decade's battle over digital music distribution.You aren't in a position to negotiate. People already have access to free music. The only thing you can do is provide them with a legal and more convenient alternative.
I disagree with your notion that people will want to pay for other peoples opinions. This may have once been the case, but now the internet is awash with blogs and such that are almost exclusively other people's opinions. The way I see it it will only become more and more difficult for the NYT or any one else to convince readers that their columnists are so much "better" than the average blogger. The strength of the newspapers is that they can publish research intensive articles because their reporters are dedicated to this sort of thing. These sort of articles are what I enjoy reading in a paper. Problem is I think it is hard to convince people to read this sort of article rather than simply reading the summary from news aggregate (unless the reader has a very deep rooted interest in the subject).
I have a sneaking suspicion that the mpaa or riaa are going to get an amendment into this bill that will "stop piracy". I mean, a bill that pertains to p2p and doesn't include such an amendment, what's the chances of that?
Doctored photos are good for the health of models. If a photo can be doctored to look like it is of an anorexic model it would save the actual model a lot of trouble. I know I know, this will ultimately lead to the unemployment of thousand of girls who have no talent but that of regurgitating every ounce of there lunch and walking short distances. Oh well, all good things must come to an end.
"The article also mentions coming Lego Stores, a Lego board game, how Lego now allows sets with violence (like a gun for Indiana Jones)..."
Um, Legos has had guns for years. They commonly appeared in there pirate themed sets. Heck, I probably wouldn't have played legos half as much as I did if it wasn't for the firearms.
Would the same principle apply then to electronic hardware? Transistor radios, Xeon processors, flat screen TV sets? They're just taking voltages of certain characteristics and transforming them into voltages with other characteristics. Sure, we hook up the transistor radio to a speaker, but that's not the core of the patented design.
yes but that wouldn't be math then but rather electricity. I think , then, being a physical device, would be classified as a machine and perfectly patentable.
Math is an abstract formal system.Electrons are quite concrete.
Where does this assumption , Windows Just Works, come from? I switch to linux because Linux Just Works. I was tired of unexplainable crash, lack of useful tools (such as gcc,bash etc.), insane slow downs caused by malware and resource leach cause by anti-malware. Yes linux has problems, more hardware support would be nice, but remember, hardware support is not something that M$ engineers built into windows, it comes from 3rd parties. It takes time to build a user base and market share that will convince hardware venders to release drives/specs/code for their products. That being said Linux still supports far more hardware then windows.
Somethings stated in that article aren't even desirable or available on windows:
A cross the board GUI configuration. Windows doesn't have this.A lot of stuff must be done in the windows registery etc. Could you imagine the size of this GUI would be, what with all the features and options of a text file or cmdline program. What is unfortunate about Windows is the lack of alternative.In,say Ubuntu, I can configure the network in a GUI or drop to a console and enter a few lines in a text file or enter a few commands to accomplish the same. This is exactly what I find so intriguing about Linux.
I'm not going to try explain all the problems I had with windows and all the benefits I found with linux.
I agree,I became disillusioned when Negreponte agreed to offer a modified versions of xp on it.The way I see it,it's only a matter of time before M$ lobbies countries into choosing their os.It's to bad,I was really hoping this would a project of much use in the developing word and even domestically,and a project the FOSS community could throw their weight behind.Plus it would've really boosted the adoption of linux.
Ah,but mp3 and mpeg decoders/encoders are hindered by patents and the nvidia drivers are closed source binary blobs (read not free).Where as firefox is FLOSS.So your post rather misses the point.
sorry the diff sould've looked like this: 1c1 I've used both POSIX threads (Pthreads) and Windows threads APIs, and I believe that Windows has the better programming model of the two. While each threading method can create threads, destroy threads, and coordinate interactions between threads, the reason I make this claim is the simplicity of use and elegance of design of the Windows threads API. This is all from the perspective of multithreaded code developers or maintainers. Let me illustrate with a few examples. 3c3
Simplicity of data types. In Pthreads, each object has its own data type (pthread_t, pthread_mutex_t, pthread_cond_t, etc.) while, in Windows threads, there is pretty much just the one type: HANDLE. For Pthreads this means different functions are used for working with each object type. Reading and understanding Pthreads code written by someone else can be straightforward. However, this does mean that the programmer must know the number, order, and type of parameters for all the different functions. On the other hand, because of the use of the same type for different objects, there is a Create* function for each different object and a corresponding Release* function for most. 5c5
Perhaps the biggest advantage of a single object data type is that there is only the one function needed to make a thread block while waiting for an object: WaitForSingleObject. Thus, only one set of parameters needs to be known regardless of whether the code is waiting on a thread, a mutex, a semaphore, or an event. The related function, WaitForMultipleObjects, is just as simple to use and easily overcomes the problem of needing to wait for multiple thread terminations one function call at a time (pthread_join) that Pthreads requires. While some may say that using a single data type for many different objects can lead to confusion when used in WaitFor* calls, programmers should set the name of the handle such that it is readily apparent whether the code is expecting a thread termination, an event to be signaled, or a mutex to be released. 7c7
WaitForMultipleObjects functionality. Besides being able to block a thread waiting for multiple thread terminations in a single call, the programmer can actually wait for any out of a set of threads to terminate. That is, even when only one thread has completed, the WaitForMultipleObjects function can be set to return and indicate which thread triggered the return. If there is specific "clean up" processing that depends on the identity of the thread that finished, this can be done before returning to wait on the remaining threads. This clean up processing will be done in the most efficient order possible, soon after each thread terminates, no matter in what order this happens. Pthreads can perform similar post-processing, but will need to wait for the threads to terminate is some fixed order. So, even if the last thread finishes first, it must wait for all the post-processing of the previous threads to be completed. 9c9,15
Because different objects all use the HANDLE type, a call to WaitForMultipleObjects can be set to wait for any combination of threads, mutexes, semaphores, and/or events. This feature can give the programmer a flexibility that cannot be easily (if at all) duplicated in Pthreads. As an example, I've written Windows code that used an array to hold both thread and event handles to support a threaded search through data. The ideas was to signal the blocking thread if the item being looked for was found and when the searching thread terminated; if the object was not found, the searching thread terminated without setting the event. By waiting for either handle to cause WaitForMultipleObjects to return, a simple switch statement could determine if the item had been found (and process the data) plus perform some post-processing computation upon the termination of the searching thread (regardless of whether the search was successful). > > Persistence of signals. To paraphrase a classic conundrum in terms of
I ran both articles through diff and here's what it looks like:
1c1
I've used both POSIX threads (Pthreads) and Windows threads APIs, and I believe that Windows has the better programming model of the two. While each threading method can create threads, destroy threads, and coordinate interactions between threads, the reason I make this claim is the simplicity of use and elegance of design of the Windows threads API. This is all from the perspective of multithreaded code developers or maintainers. Let me illustrate with a few examples.
3c3
Simplicity of data types. In Pthreads, each object has its own data type (pthread_t, pthread_mutex_t, pthread_cond_t, etc.) while, in Windows threads, there is pretty much just the one type: HANDLE. For Pthreads this means different functions are used for working with each object type. Reading and understanding Pthreads code written by someone else can be straightforward. However, this does mean that the programmer must know the number, order, and type of parameters for all the different functions. On the other hand, because of the use of the same type for different objects, there is a Create* function for each different object and a corresponding Release* function for most.
5c5
Perhaps the biggest advantage of a single object data type is that there is only the one function needed to make a thread block while waiting for an object: WaitForSingleObject. Thus, only one set of parameters needs to be known regardless of whether the code is waiting on a thread, a mutex, a semaphore, or an event. The related function, WaitForMultipleObjects, is just as simple to use and easily overcomes the problem of needing to wait for multiple thread terminations one function call at a time (pthread_join) that Pthreads requires. While some may say that using a single data type for many different objects can lead to confusion when used in WaitFor* calls, programmers should set the name of the handle such that it is readily apparent whether the code is expecting a thread termination, an event to be signaled, or a mutex to be released.
7c7
WaitForMultipleObjects functionality. Besides being able to block a thread waiting for multiple thread terminations in a single call, the programmer can actually wait for any out of a set of threads to terminate. That is, even when only one thread has completed, the WaitForMultipleObjects function can be set to return and indicate which thread triggered the return. If there is specific "clean up" processing that depends on the identity of the thread that finished, this can be done before returning to wait on the remaining threads. This clean up processing will be done in the most efficient order possible, soon after each thread terminates, no matter in what order this happens. Pthreads can perform similar post-processing, but will need to wait for the threads to terminate is some fixed order. So, even if the last thread finishes first, it must wait for all the post-processing of the previous threads to be completed.
9c9,15
Because different objects all use the HANDLE type, a call to WaitForMultipleObjects can be set to wait for any combination of threads, mutexes, semaphores, and/or events. This feature can give the programmer a flexibility that cannot be easily (if at all) duplicated in Pthreads. As an example, I've written Windows code that used an array to hold both thread and event handles to support a threaded search through data. The ideas was to signal the blocking thread if the item being looked for was found and when the searching thread terminated; if the object was not found, the searching thread terminated without setting the event. By waiting for either handle to cause WaitForMultipleObjects to return, a simple switch statement could determine if the item had been found (and process the data) plus perform some post-processing computation upon the termination of the searching thread (regardless of whether the search was successful).
>
> Persistence of signals. To paraphrase a classic conundrum in terms of Pthreads: If a thread signals a conditio
Slashdot Mirror
I love this guy: 'Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?'. I don't know Mr. Henderson, but Pandora is apparently willing to do so, so maybe you should ease off the royalties a bit and that way you will get some money for "your" music. Instead, without services like Pandora people have limited venues for listening to music and as you said they will just take the path of least resistance and get their music for free. Didn't you learn anything from the past decade's battle over digital music distribution.You aren't in a position to negotiate. People already have access to free music. The only thing you can do is provide them with a legal and more convenient alternative.
Please point me to one website that is "drop-dead gorgeous" and not full of superfluous animations that slow down my browser.
I disagree with your notion that people will want to pay for other peoples opinions. This may have once been the case, but now the internet is awash with blogs and such that are almost exclusively other people's opinions. The way I see it it will only become more and more difficult for the NYT or any one else to convince readers that their columnists are so much "better" than the average blogger. The strength of the newspapers is that they can publish research intensive articles because their reporters are dedicated to this sort of thing. These sort of articles are what I enjoy reading in a paper. Problem is I think it is hard to convince people to read this sort of article rather than simply reading the summary from news aggregate (unless the reader has a very deep rooted interest in the subject).
I have a sneaking suspicion that the mpaa or riaa are going to get an amendment into this bill that will "stop piracy". I mean, a bill that pertains to p2p and doesn't include such an amendment, what's the chances of that?
then the telcos shouldn't accept subsidies from the government. Also, other utilities are regulated by the government, too.
Doctored photos are good for the health of models. If a photo can be doctored to look like it is of an anorexic model it would save the actual model a lot of trouble. I know I know, this will ultimately lead to the unemployment of thousand of girls who have no talent but that of regurgitating every ounce of there lunch and walking short distances. Oh well, all good things must come to an end.
Citation needed.
"The article also mentions coming Lego Stores, a Lego board game, how Lego now allows sets with violence (like a gun for Indiana Jones) ..."
Um, Legos has had guns for years. They commonly appeared in there pirate themed sets. Heck, I probably wouldn't have played legos half as much as I did if it wasn't for the firearms.
iand for extra speed use vi.:w:q
Would the same principle apply then to electronic hardware? Transistor radios, Xeon processors, flat screen TV sets? They're just taking voltages of certain characteristics and transforming them into voltages with other characteristics. Sure, we hook up the transistor radio to a speaker, but that's not the core of the patented design.
yes but that wouldn't be math then but rather electricity. I think , then, being a physical device, would be classified as a machine and perfectly patentable. Math is an abstract formal system.Electrons are quite concrete.
Where does this assumption , Windows Just Works, come from? I switch to linux because Linux Just Works. I was tired of unexplainable crash, lack of useful tools (such as gcc,bash etc.), insane slow downs caused by malware and resource leach cause by anti-malware. Yes linux has problems, more hardware support would be nice, but remember, hardware support is not something that M$ engineers built into windows, it comes from 3rd parties. It takes time to build a user base and market share that will convince hardware venders to release drives/specs/code for their products. That being said Linux still supports far more hardware then windows. Somethings stated in that article aren't even desirable or available on windows: A cross the board GUI configuration. Windows doesn't have this.A lot of stuff must be done in the windows registery etc. Could you imagine the size of this GUI would be, what with all the features and options of a text file or cmdline program. What is unfortunate about Windows is the lack of alternative.In ,say Ubuntu, I can configure the network in a GUI or drop to a console and enter a few lines in a text file or enter a few commands to accomplish the same. This is exactly what I find so intriguing about Linux.
I'm not going to try explain all the problems I had with windows and all the benefits I found with linux.
I agree,I became disillusioned when Negreponte agreed to offer a modified versions of xp on it.The way I see it,it's only a matter of time before M$ lobbies countries into choosing their os.It's to bad,I was really hoping this would a project of much use in the developing word and even domestically,and a project the FOSS community could throw their weight behind.Plus it would've really boosted the adoption of linux.
Ah,but mp3 and mpeg decoders/encoders are hindered by patents and the nvidia drivers are closed source binary blobs (read not free).Where as firefox is FLOSS.So your post rather misses the point.
does anybody else hate those huge ms ads on linux.com as much as I do?
sorry the diff sould've looked like this:
1c1
I've used both POSIX threads (Pthreads) and Windows threads APIs, and I believe that Windows has the better programming model of the two. While each threading method can create threads, destroy threads, and coordinate interactions between threads, the reason I make this claim is the simplicity of use and elegance of design of the Windows threads API. This is all from the perspective of multithreaded code developers or maintainers. Let me illustrate with a few examples.
3c3
Simplicity of data types. In Pthreads, each object has its own data type (pthread_t, pthread_mutex_t, pthread_cond_t, etc.) while, in Windows threads, there is pretty much just the one type: HANDLE. For Pthreads this means different functions are used for working with each object type. Reading and understanding Pthreads code written by someone else can be straightforward. However, this does mean that the programmer must know the number, order, and type of parameters for all the different functions. On the other hand, because of the use of the same type for different objects, there is a Create* function for each different object and a corresponding Release* function for most.
5c5
Perhaps the biggest advantage of a single object data type is that there is only the one function needed to make a thread block while waiting for an object: WaitForSingleObject. Thus, only one set of parameters needs to be known regardless of whether the code is waiting on a thread, a mutex, a semaphore, or an event. The related function, WaitForMultipleObjects, is just as simple to use and easily overcomes the problem of needing to wait for multiple thread terminations one function call at a time (pthread_join) that Pthreads requires. While some may say that using a single data type for many different objects can lead to confusion when used in WaitFor* calls, programmers should set the name of the handle such that it is readily apparent whether the code is expecting a thread termination, an event to be signaled, or a mutex to be released.
7c7
WaitForMultipleObjects functionality. Besides being able to block a thread waiting for multiple thread terminations in a single call, the programmer can actually wait for any out of a set of threads to terminate. That is, even when only one thread has completed, the WaitForMultipleObjects function can be set to return and indicate which thread triggered the return. If there is specific "clean up" processing that depends on the identity of the thread that finished, this can be done before returning to wait on the remaining threads. This clean up processing will be done in the most efficient order possible, soon after each thread terminates, no matter in what order this happens. Pthreads can perform similar post-processing, but will need to wait for the threads to terminate is some fixed order. So, even if the last thread finishes first, it must wait for all the post-processing of the previous threads to be completed.
9c9,15
Because different objects all use the HANDLE type, a call to WaitForMultipleObjects can be set to wait for any combination of threads, mutexes, semaphores, and/or events. This feature can give the programmer a flexibility that cannot be easily (if at all) duplicated in Pthreads. As an example, I've written Windows code that used an array to hold both thread and event handles to support a threaded search through data. The ideas was to signal the blocking thread if the item being looked for was found and when the searching thread terminated; if the object was not found, the searching thread terminated without setting the event. By waiting for either handle to cause WaitForMultipleObjects to return, a simple switch statement could determine if the item had been found (and process the data) plus perform some post-processing computation upon the termination of the searching thread (regardless of whether the search was successful).
>
> Persistence of signals. To paraphrase a classic conundrum in terms of
I ran both articles through diff and here's what it looks like: 1c1 I've used both POSIX threads (Pthreads) and Windows threads APIs, and I believe that Windows has the better programming model of the two. While each threading method can create threads, destroy threads, and coordinate interactions between threads, the reason I make this claim is the simplicity of use and elegance of design of the Windows threads API. This is all from the perspective of multithreaded code developers or maintainers. Let me illustrate with a few examples. 3c3 Simplicity of data types. In Pthreads, each object has its own data type (pthread_t, pthread_mutex_t, pthread_cond_t, etc.) while, in Windows threads, there is pretty much just the one type: HANDLE. For Pthreads this means different functions are used for working with each object type. Reading and understanding Pthreads code written by someone else can be straightforward. However, this does mean that the programmer must know the number, order, and type of parameters for all the different functions. On the other hand, because of the use of the same type for different objects, there is a Create* function for each different object and a corresponding Release* function for most. 5c5 Perhaps the biggest advantage of a single object data type is that there is only the one function needed to make a thread block while waiting for an object: WaitForSingleObject. Thus, only one set of parameters needs to be known regardless of whether the code is waiting on a thread, a mutex, a semaphore, or an event. The related function, WaitForMultipleObjects, is just as simple to use and easily overcomes the problem of needing to wait for multiple thread terminations one function call at a time (pthread_join) that Pthreads requires. While some may say that using a single data type for many different objects can lead to confusion when used in WaitFor* calls, programmers should set the name of the handle such that it is readily apparent whether the code is expecting a thread termination, an event to be signaled, or a mutex to be released. 7c7 WaitForMultipleObjects functionality. Besides being able to block a thread waiting for multiple thread terminations in a single call, the programmer can actually wait for any out of a set of threads to terminate. That is, even when only one thread has completed, the WaitForMultipleObjects function can be set to return and indicate which thread triggered the return. If there is specific "clean up" processing that depends on the identity of the thread that finished, this can be done before returning to wait on the remaining threads. This clean up processing will be done in the most efficient order possible, soon after each thread terminates, no matter in what order this happens. Pthreads can perform similar post-processing, but will need to wait for the threads to terminate is some fixed order. So, even if the last thread finishes first, it must wait for all the post-processing of the previous threads to be completed. 9c9,15 Because different objects all use the HANDLE type, a call to WaitForMultipleObjects can be set to wait for any combination of threads, mutexes, semaphores, and/or events. This feature can give the programmer a flexibility that cannot be easily (if at all) duplicated in Pthreads. As an example, I've written Windows code that used an array to hold both thread and event handles to support a threaded search through data. The ideas was to signal the blocking thread if the item being looked for was found and when the searching thread terminated; if the object was not found, the searching thread terminated without setting the event. By waiting for either handle to cause WaitForMultipleObjects to return, a simple switch statement could determine if the item had been found (and process the data) plus perform some post-processing computation upon the termination of the searching thread (regardless of whether the search was successful). > > Persistence of signals. To paraphrase a classic conundrum in terms of Pthreads: If a thread signals a conditio