Judging by the 'tweets', what seems to be the original has been made 'private', i.e. taken-down. (I'm assuming that was the official YouTube posting - I can't find anything more official looking.)
Don't know why this was downvoted -- this is a legitimate suggestion.
Google Wave (now Apache Wave) is now open-source, so you can deploy your own. In my experience it works nicely, though there are certainly some things to be wary of, like the ability to unaccountably edit other people's submissions.
Not always an option, in my experience, regrettably.
I'm not a fan of 3D cinema, but more from an "I don't see the benefit" (pun not intended) standpoint than active dislike - I don't get headaches, or any such. My only real complaint is the (sometimes unavoidable) hiked-up prices.
My local cinema was, at one point, charging for 3D glasses if you didn't bring your own. Absurd, really. They're now generous enough to lend them.
I see where you're coming from with most of your post, but this I don't get:
Imagine if the US never had defense contractors or scientists and engineers that contributed to the defense industry. What would the soldier go into battle with? Either a sharped stick and loin cloth. Or more likely we'd be forced to buy weapons from an extra national third party and be beholden to their whim whenever we engaged in war.
Or, perhaps, the US would be prevented from going to war whenever they felt the war itch. "whenever we engaged in war" reflects just how ordinary this seems to have become for the US.
People refusing to work on a defence contract because of ethical concerns don't have to be anti-weapon hippies - they might just believe that giving the US even more of an advantage in warfare might serve to further the military/industrial problem.
Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
You're not the first persontonoticethis. They've been up to this stupidity for a while now.
Google also turned up this official-looking BBC capitalisation guide, but it doesn't mention acronyms - all the ones actually in that page are capitalised correctly, though.
Mono can generate a normal, runs-without-Mono, Windows.exe executable from your C#, but Igettheimpression that generation of a (native).dll can't be done, even with Mono.
Got me - I'm more into the Java side of things really.
Apparently Paint.NET (the first C# desktop app that sprang to mind) uses it.
Do you know if an ordinary DLL can be generated, say, by Mono? If I recall correctly, it's somewhat complicated in D, because of garbage-collection; I imagine it would be similar with C#.
Just updated my Firefox. Have to say I strongly dislike the new find behavior. When I searched this discussion-page for "cent" (to match both British and American spellings), and it found 2 matches in your post, and unnecessarily scrolled onto the second match, I assumed the second match was a different post. More importantly, the needless scroll is very jarring to my sense of 'orientation' on the page.
I'd far rather have Firefox reliably stay centered on an element when I change the zoom level.
As it is, I have to highlight what I'm reading, zoom in, then scroll around to find where I was. It doesn't seem to anchor to what's on the top of my view-area, either: it scrolls up as I zoom in. Chrome seems to do the same. Opera is somewhat better behaved, but not perfect.
I don't think Creepy's use of "feature bloat" was referring to run-time performance - having too many features in a language is itself a Bad Thing.
It's harder to write a complete and conformant compiler, for one, so it hurts portability - advanced C++ template code is plagued by this already. It also hurts readability: if I code using a certain subset of C++ (because it's too vast a language for me to keep all of it in my head at once), and you're used to another subset, you'll have trouble reading my code.
the Ahead-of-time compilation service of the.NET Framework. It allows a.NET assembly to be pre-compiled instead of letting the Common Language Runtime do a Just-in-time compilation at runtime
Not an ordinary.exe, granted, but the native code is there even in normal C# use. Ordinary native binaries can be generated from C# if necessary though - this is how Mono targets platforms like the Wii. The reason you can't write (normal) Windows drivers in C# is because Windows isn't written in C#.
Entirely different cookies, and different browser, might be enough to look like a different user, but I don't think there's any way to be sure.
I do something similar - I tend to use Chrome, with a Private Browsing window for Gmail. The disadvantage of this is that it's still the same browser, the same version, the same OS, and so will have the same 'signature', which Google might make use of. The EFF have done some work on this kind of thing, with Panopticlick.
These days what I do is run a virus scan from a write only thumbdrive before I do anything at all on a strange computer. (If anybody is curious, I'm using a kanguru flashblu 2 with a portable antivirurs program and it works just great for that)
If you're making the effort, you could just as well keep an Ubuntu live-boot USB key.
Your only security worry then would be hardware keyloggers, and you'd get the considerable bonus of not having to suffer a strange computer's browser - few things are more horrifying than IE with only half the window's real-estate usable for plugins.
Wrong. Just because there's no copyright law stopping the employee releasing the source, there's still his employer's orders.
If I hire you to write a closed-source program for me, and you write the program but then release the source code, even if there's no copyright law making this specifically illegal, you've still failed to fulfil your contract.
And of course a janitor couldn't. He wouldn't have access to a protected codebase, and would probably be fired for screwing around with company computers.
You also seem not to grasp the difference between copyleft and copycenter. A world without copyright would approximate the latter, most decidedly not the former.
Some of the divisions made in the classifications seem dubious. For example, the basic "Vision" should be capable of watching DVDs, while "Vision Premium" can "Convert CD to MP3s". But any general-purpose personal computer capable of playing a DVD is also perfectly capable of converting CD to MP3s. So adding "Convert CD to MP3s" to "Vision Premium" instead of "Vision" is purely for marketing, without basis in technical reality.[citation needed]
They're still full of shit - their "Help Me Choose" page would have me buy a mid-range machine to rip CDs, apparently more demanding than watching DVDs. To "be a productivity powerhouse", though, I'd really better shell out for the best.
It's a pity. I really want to like AMD - they're a much-needed underdog.
This is C++, not C, but you can always choose to use a "better C" subset of C++ features that suits you, many people do. I've used this trick for locking/unlocking mutexes (_very_ handy for that) and freeing memory too.
Except that you still pay the full price for using C++:
You now require a C++ compiler, not just a C compiler.
You cannot use C static-analysis tools.
You have to worry about 'extern "c"' if you want to work with C code.
Not saying it's necessarily a terrible idea, but you pay a price for using C++ as a better C.
Exactly. Shouldn't we be teaching kids to avoid conflict, rather than create it? To seek peaceful solutions, and not rely on coercion?
Then point them to the Libertarian Party. Ignorance and disinterest in just how your government is screwing everyone, and what they should be up to, isn't the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Cue the usual debate over how artists see very little of the money that music sales make, and whether we need record companies.
I think you might be right -- it's quicker than writing a damage-control apology.
Judging by the 'tweets', what seems to be the original has been made 'private', i.e. taken-down. (I'm assuming that was the official YouTube posting - I can't find anything more official looking.)
As well as the mirror linked in the summary, we have a Youtube mirror, and another non-Youtube mirror.
Why would they bother? Do they really not realise that if you release something high-profile on the web, it's out for good?
Don't know why this was downvoted -- this is a legitimate suggestion.
Google Wave (now Apache Wave) is now open-source, so you can deploy your own. In my experience it works nicely, though there are certainly some things to be wary of, like the ability to unaccountably edit other people's submissions.
Not always an option, in my experience, regrettably.
I'm not a fan of 3D cinema, but more from an "I don't see the benefit" (pun not intended) standpoint than active dislike - I don't get headaches, or any such. My only real complaint is the (sometimes unavoidable) hiked-up prices.
My local cinema was, at one point, charging for 3D glasses if you didn't bring your own. Absurd, really. They're now generous enough to lend them.
They're already available.
Imagine if the US never had defense contractors or scientists and engineers that contributed to the defense industry. What would the soldier go into battle with? Either a sharped stick and loin cloth. Or more likely we'd be forced to buy weapons from an extra national third party and be beholden to their whim whenever we engaged in war.
Or, perhaps, the US would be prevented from going to war whenever they felt the war itch. "whenever we engaged in war" reflects just how ordinary this seems to have become for the US.
People refusing to work on a defence contract because of ethical concerns don't have to be anti-weapon hippies - they might just believe that giving the US even more of an advantage in warfare might serve to further the military/industrial problem.
Really, what were they thinking on the 10 legitimate websites that often get unfairly blocked pdf? It's horrible trying to read it on a screen, and I'm using a desktop. Good luck to anyone on a smartphone...
Seems painfully ironic that they're excluding mobile users in this way.
We use HTML for a reason, ORG...
Interestingly, the BBC article calls CERN "Cern" as though it were a person. To whom do we address our complaints?
You're not the first person to notice this. They've been up to this stupidity for a while now.
Google also turned up this official-looking BBC capitalisation guide, but it doesn't mention acronyms - all the ones actually in that page are capitalised correctly, though.
This seems to be the place to complain.
Mono can generate a normal, runs-without-Mono, Windows .exe executable from your C#, but I get the impression that generation of a (native) .dll can't be done, even with Mono.
Got me - I'm more into the Java side of things really.
Apparently Paint.NET (the first C# desktop app that sprang to mind) uses it.
Do you know if an ordinary DLL can be generated, say, by Mono? If I recall correctly, it's somewhat complicated in D, because of garbage-collection; I imagine it would be similar with C#.
Just updated my Firefox. Have to say I strongly dislike the new find behavior. When I searched this discussion-page for "cent" (to match both British and American spellings), and it found 2 matches in your post, and unnecessarily scrolled onto the second match, I assumed the second match was a different post. More importantly, the needless scroll is very jarring to my sense of 'orientation' on the page.
I'd far rather have Firefox reliably stay centered on an element when I change the zoom level.
As it is, I have to highlight what I'm reading, zoom in, then scroll around to find where I was. It doesn't seem to anchor to what's on the top of my view-area, either: it scrolls up as I zoom in. Chrome seems to do the same. Opera is somewhat better behaved, but not perfect.
I don't think Creepy's use of "feature bloat" was referring to run-time performance - having too many features in a language is itself a Bad Thing.
It's harder to write a complete and conformant compiler, for one, so it hurts portability - advanced C++ template code is plagued by this already. It also hurts readability: if I code using a certain subset of C++ (because it's too vast a language for me to keep all of it in my head at once), and you're used to another subset, you'll have trouble reading my code.
You write the C# -> native compiler first ;)
And how do you think C# code is executed?
The "Native Image Generator" is
the Ahead-of-time compilation service of the .NET Framework. It allows a .NET assembly to be pre-compiled instead of letting the Common Language Runtime do a Just-in-time compilation at runtime
Not an ordinary .exe, granted, but the native code is there even in normal C# use. Ordinary native binaries can be generated from C# if necessary though - this is how Mono targets platforms like the Wii. The reason you can't write (normal) Windows drivers in C# is because Windows isn't written in C#.
That said, bindings exist for libusb, so that's a start.
(There seem to be a number of similar bindings for Java, and a standard API spec that no-one's implemented.)
Google tells me two operating systems have been written in C#: Cosmos and Singularity.
This isn't to say C# is more suited than C to OS/driver work, but it can be done.
Sun's implementation is the only one that can use the trademarked name "java" (so far), but it's not the only implementation of the language.
False. IBM's 'J9' is certified, and can safely be called a JVM. There may be others, I'm not sure.
I imagine there are are number of different certified JVMs for mobile devices.
Entirely different cookies, and different browser, might be enough to look like a different user, but I don't think there's any way to be sure.
I do something similar - I tend to use Chrome, with a Private Browsing window for Gmail. The disadvantage of this is that it's still the same browser, the same version, the same OS, and so will have the same 'signature', which Google might make use of. The EFF have done some work on this kind of thing, with Panopticlick.
These days what I do is run a virus scan from a write only thumbdrive before I do anything at all on a strange computer. (If anybody is curious, I'm using a kanguru flashblu 2 with a portable antivirurs program and it works just great for that)
If you're making the effort, you could just as well keep an Ubuntu live-boot USB key.
Your only security worry then would be hardware keyloggers, and you'd get the considerable bonus of not having to suffer a strange computer's browser - few things are more horrifying than IE with only half the window's real-estate usable for plugins.
Wrong. Just because there's no copyright law stopping the employee releasing the source, there's still his employer's orders.
If I hire you to write a closed-source program for me, and you write the program but then release the source code, even if there's no copyright law making this specifically illegal, you've still failed to fulfil your contract.
And of course a janitor couldn't. He wouldn't have access to a protected codebase, and would probably be fired for screwing around with company computers.
You also seem not to grasp the difference between copyleft and copycenter. A world without copyright would approximate the latter, most decidedly not the former.
(This said, IANAL or anything.)
Valid point: there's a Real Life workaround for crypto: force.
But it's still quite a big win: if they can't watch you without threatening you, they can't watch you without telling you.
AMD's attempt to mislead the non-techical, a la 'Get The Facts'.
Check out this marketing asshole.
An old version of the Wikipedia article points out the bullshit of their older 'Vision' nonsense:
Some of the divisions made in the classifications seem dubious. For example, the basic "Vision" should be capable of watching DVDs, while "Vision Premium" can "Convert CD to MP3s". But any general-purpose personal computer capable of playing a DVD is also perfectly capable of converting CD to MP3s. So adding "Convert CD to MP3s" to "Vision Premium" instead of "Vision" is purely for marketing, without basis in technical reality.[citation needed]
They're still full of shit - their "Help Me Choose" page would have me buy a mid-range machine to rip CDs, apparently more demanding than watching DVDs. To "be a productivity powerhouse", though, I'd really better shell out for the best.
It's a pity. I really want to like AMD - they're a much-needed underdog.
You joke, but this wouldn't actually be hard.
It's natural to assume that one can't calculate the n'th digit of pi without first calculating all previous digits, but this isn't actually the case.
The same applies for 'e'.
"Spigot algorithms" are where it's at.
This is C++, not C, but you can always choose to use a "better C" subset of C++ features that suits you, many people do. I've used this trick for locking/unlocking mutexes (_very_ handy for that) and freeing memory too.
Except that you still pay the full price for using C++:
Not saying it's necessarily a terrible idea, but you pay a price for using C++ as a better C.
Huzzah!
Exactly. Shouldn't we be teaching kids to avoid conflict, rather than create it? To seek peaceful solutions, and not rely on coercion?
Then point them to the Libertarian Party. Ignorance and disinterest in just how your government is screwing everyone, and what they should be up to, isn't the way.
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
Just so long as you're not using Chrome, right?