I want the new pocketPC T-Mobile phone (I don't think one has come out yet...)
Why?
Because you can use Visual Studio 2003 to easily write apps for the.net portable framework. I've already written a few simple ones using the simulator in visual studio and it's incredibly easy. I predict that as Visual Studio 2003 catches on and pocketPC 2003 catches on the number of pocketPC apps will spike and at least catch up with the number of palm apps.
Just about any app you can think of that would be useful could be written straightforwardly using the portable.net framework.
Does anyone know anything about the development kit for the qtopia phone?
I didn't notice the part about IE5 being a requirement. I installed the deskbar, and it would be great if it were a bit easier to keep a flock of google windows organized and floatable, etc.
There was a story on this book in Slashdot a few years ago, and I ended up deciding to purchase the book.
It's decent material, and it's all accurate, but it's nothing revolutionary.
Generally, when the media publishes a misleading chart or graph it's done intentionally, and anyone of moderate intelligence realizes that when viewing the chart or graph.
The book is like Strunk and White for people who display quantitative information.
Strunk and White is not useful for most people raised on standard English grammar, and is quite frankly annoyingly parochial. Tufte's books strike me similarly. For instance, just as Strunk and White would likely find authors like Jack Kerouak or Junot Diaz abhorrent, Tufte would find Wired magazine abhorrent for all its visual excess and non-information-conveying design.
I haven't seen the latest edition, but I recommend browsing through this one at the book store before spending money on it.
Re:C# generics on built-in types do not use boxing
on
C# 2.0 Spec Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
In case anyone reading the parent didn't get it, that means that the C# implementation of generics will have a strong efficiency advantage over Java's b/c boxing/unboxing is a costly operation.
Since I think copyrights are legitimate ways of protecting IP, I don't think that textbooks from China should be allowed to be sold here, unless of course all of the authorization has been obtained to print/reproduce the materials.
The siutation with UK books doesn't bother me, though, b/c there is no governmental regulation in the picture and it's up to someone to ship the books, attempt to sell them, etc.
For Pharmaceuticals, one must consider the following:
The US is the bigggest market for new/costly drugs. Pharm companies formulate their strategic plans based on a certain amount of profitability. In order for a new drug to make sense (financially) the company has to consider the fact that only 5% of the drugs they research end up becoming useful pharmaceuticals, and that the FDA's regulatory process can take several years and costs a lot. Since a US patent can last for only 20 years, there are very specific circumstances that lead to the constant creation of new drugs, and gray market drug importation on a large scale would alter those circumstances such that fewer dollars would be invested in new and innovative drugs.
From a purely economic standpoint, this should be allowed to happen, so that American consumers can accurately assess the role of the FDA in new pharm. development. The problem is, people only see what's there, and the promotional materials released by drug companies would spin any new drugs as the latest innovations, the underlying truth would be that due to the diminished profit potential less money was invested in research and less progress was made at creating pharmaceuticals to fight disease.
I suppose my thought on the issue is that the Canadian government is effectively cheating by imposing a price ceiling, and all of us in the US are being charged for Canadians' pharmaceuticals. If it were up to Canada, there would be far less incentive for drug companies to create the new drugs that we all benefit from. Since Canada is a government, it could nationalize the formulas for key pharmaceuticals, and no inventors would ever be compensated for their work.
If market forces are allowed to function, then gray market drugs would be illegal, and one by one all nations would impose price ceilings, and the gray market would adapt and drugs would be imported from wherever the ceiling was the lowest.
The problem is that this is not a situation of true efficiencies, as in importing widgets from the place that can produce them most efficiently, this is a situation where governments are able to coerce pharm companies through price controls, and by preventing price signals to invite new inventors to the pharm. industry, they handicap its ability to meet consumer demand through new innovation.
My point was that with Pharmaceuticals companies must get approval in all countries they wish to sell them in... they cannot shop around. You cannot buy a drug just because it was approved in France (if you're in America).
I can see how in the case of pharmaceuticals, where companies must go through the burocracy of the FDA, it is wrong to let people import drugs from Canada where there is less expense imposed by regulatory hassles. The same with automobiles across the canadian border, since the Federal Government heavily regulates the auto industry and introduces a lot of extra cost into each vehicle.
But to my knowledge there are no such regulations on books, and so importing them is simply the free market in operation rather than a way of circumventing regulations and the associated costs.
How is it possible that the Ulrichs or Mich Book & Supply will buy a once-used, otherwise mint condition textbook for, say, $8 and sell it for $50 and not make money?
I don't approve of excessive spending from either party. In fact, I think government's role should be minimal.
Both major parties are in favor of big government. Witness the shift in parties of Wesley Clark, once the opportunities in big government shifted from the GOP during the cold war to the Democratic party during the clinton administration.
You are right that the deficit is a hidden tax. The politicians are betting on a strong economic recovery that they won't be in office to be accountable for if it doesn't happen.
All else being equal, though, if we can't rely on congress to restrain its spending, then we should have lower taxes b/c the money we spend in taxes won't be handled responsibly anyway, and the situation will be forced into the open earlier.
Spending is bad for it economic growth because it must be paid for w/ tax dollars, but if the American people blindly foot the bill for anything Congress decides to spend money on, they are making a mistake. Given the spending habits of Congress, I think Bush may actually be doing a smart thing in creating a deficit so that they can't get out of control with spending. Plus, if one expects an economic rebound, then one can expect the deficit to go away and be replaced by a surplus, as happened during the Clinton administration.
The solution, I think, is to increase the transparency of what goes on in Congress, and which interests are being helped by the spending. Tie this to campaign contributions and you have a nice way to draw attention to those in Congress who cause the spending problem in the first place. McCain-Feingold, incidentally, forces campaign contributions to find alternate routes that are much harder to measure and publicize.
Capital gains tax limits the investments that anyone will want to invest in, because the tax reduces the expected profit. Investment is what fuels the economy, whether it's investment in a software company, a dozen new jobs, a new refrigerator for the break room, etc.
I don't have any trouble believing that. Used book prices are artificially inflated (in Ann Arbor, MI) due to collusion among booksellers.
Here, some profs started doing enormous course packs (basically equivalent to a few books) and having them available for purchase at one local copy shop that didn't worry too much about getting permission to reproduce. Needless to say, that operation got shut down rather quickly, and the rest of the copy shops and coursepack vendors started itemizing all of the costs, including royalty fees, for every pack sold.
I had one math prof who wrote all of our materials from scratch on LaTeX and handed them out as stapled packets in class. They matched the course perfectly, and they were as good as any math book I've seen, and he didn't ask for royalties.
You are right about the farm bill. It would more properly be called the "farm goods tax", and should ideally be itemized on everyone's pay slip so that they know how much produce really costs. Bush is smart to lower taxes, but stupid to create hidden taxes such as farm subsidies (or any subsidies, for that matter).
Generally, when people refer to capitalism (at least in the US) they are referring to some kind of free market capitalism. Capitalism is quite separable from a free market, as in nations like Korea. Free market capitalism is the economic system that maximizes individual freedom. Any other system, including non-free market capitalism, does not maximize individual freedom. The individual who imported the books did so because he is free to do so, hence the concept of freedom behind the idea of free markets. He is a capitalist, because he invested his capital in the books, and increased the amount of capital he owns (after making a profit).
It's neither wrong or frightening. It's simply good for consumers. Nobody cares if you import digital watches or microchips, so why should anyone care about books?
Well, historically they were overpriced. My Powerbook 5300 was $2300 and within a year it was worth $600... way more depreciation than you'd get on x86 hardware during the same period.
I installed skype on my PC, thinking I'd help out with the p2p infrastructure, but there is NO traffic coming across, despite the fact that the client says there are 7K users active...
The quoted survey recipient is right: There is not an alternative out there that provides everything Microsoft does. As a result, Microsoft can be lazy about certain things, which is certainly why some people are dissatisfied.
Once others figure out how to compete with Microsoft, there will be more competition and better quality software for everyone. Microsoft may still end up with very high market share and a lot of happy customers, but it will be nudged in that direction by competetors nipping at its heels.
Slashdot Mirror
very cool. My next phone may end up being a Nokia...
I want the new pocketPC T-Mobile phone (I don't think one has come out yet...)
.net portable framework. I've already written a few simple ones using the simulator in visual studio and it's incredibly easy. I predict that as Visual Studio 2003 catches on and pocketPC 2003 catches on the number of pocketPC apps will spike and at least catch up with the number of palm apps.
.net framework.
Why?
Because you can use Visual Studio 2003 to easily write apps for the
Just about any app you can think of that would be useful could be written straightforwardly using the portable
Does anyone know anything about the development kit for the qtopia phone?
I didn't notice the part about IE5 being a requirement. I installed the deskbar, and it would be great if it were a bit easier to keep a flock of google windows organized and floatable, etc.
Do you know if the google deskbar instantiates IE in the small window, or if they're using another engine (such as Mozilla) to render the HTML...?
I don't mind having bluetooth in a device... in fact, I would prefer to have it... but I don't want to exclude wifi in order to obtain bluetooth.
There was a story on this book in Slashdot a few years ago, and I ended up deciding to purchase the book.
It's decent material, and it's all accurate, but it's nothing revolutionary.
Generally, when the media publishes a misleading chart or graph it's done intentionally, and anyone of moderate intelligence realizes that when viewing the chart or graph.
The book is like Strunk and White for people who display quantitative information.
Strunk and White is not useful for most people raised on standard English grammar, and is quite frankly annoyingly parochial. Tufte's books strike me similarly. For instance, just as Strunk and White would likely find authors like Jack Kerouak or Junot Diaz abhorrent, Tufte would find Wired magazine abhorrent for all its visual excess and non-information-conveying design.
I haven't seen the latest edition, but I recommend browsing through this one at the book store before spending money on it.
In case anyone reading the parent didn't get it, that means that the C# implementation of generics will have a strong efficiency advantage over Java's b/c boxing/unboxing is a costly operation.
Since I think copyrights are legitimate ways of protecting IP, I don't think that textbooks from China should be allowed to be sold here, unless of course all of the authorization has been obtained to print/reproduce the materials.
The siutation with UK books doesn't bother me, though, b/c there is no governmental regulation in the picture and it's up to someone to ship the books, attempt to sell them, etc.
For Pharmaceuticals, one must consider the following:
The US is the bigggest market for new/costly drugs. Pharm companies formulate their strategic plans based on a certain amount of profitability. In order for a new drug to make sense (financially) the company has to consider the fact that only 5% of the drugs they research end up becoming useful pharmaceuticals, and that the FDA's regulatory process can take several years and costs a lot. Since a US patent can last for only 20 years, there are very specific circumstances that lead to the constant creation of new drugs, and gray market drug importation on a large scale would alter those circumstances such that fewer dollars would be invested in new and innovative drugs.
From a purely economic standpoint, this should be allowed to happen, so that American consumers can accurately assess the role of the FDA in new pharm. development. The problem is, people only see what's there, and the promotional materials released by drug companies would spin any new drugs as the latest innovations, the underlying truth would be that due to the diminished profit potential less money was invested in research and less progress was made at creating pharmaceuticals to fight disease.
I suppose my thought on the issue is that the Canadian government is effectively cheating by imposing a price ceiling, and all of us in the US are being charged for Canadians' pharmaceuticals. If it were up to Canada, there would be far less incentive for drug companies to create the new drugs that we all benefit from. Since Canada is a government, it could nationalize the formulas for key pharmaceuticals, and no inventors would ever be compensated for their work.
If market forces are allowed to function, then gray market drugs would be illegal, and one by one all nations would impose price ceilings, and the gray market would adapt and drugs would be imported from wherever the ceiling was the lowest.
The problem is that this is not a situation of true efficiencies, as in importing widgets from the place that can produce them most efficiently, this is a situation where governments are able to coerce pharm companies through price controls, and by preventing price signals to invite new inventors to the pharm. industry, they handicap its ability to meet consumer demand through new innovation.
Why don't you write your own class(es) to do this easily with *N*X and make it freely available on SourceForge?
The parent is probably the most unfunny comment ever moderated "funny" that I've ever seen. A new low has been reached.
My point was that with Pharmaceuticals companies must get approval in all countries they wish to sell them in... they cannot shop around. You cannot buy a drug just because it was approved in France (if you're in America).
I can see how in the case of pharmaceuticals, where companies must go through the burocracy of the FDA, it is wrong to let people import drugs from Canada where there is less expense imposed by regulatory hassles. The same with automobiles across the canadian border, since the Federal Government heavily regulates the auto industry and introduces a lot of extra cost into each vehicle.
But to my knowledge there are no such regulations on books, and so importing them is simply the free market in operation rather than a way of circumventing regulations and the associated costs.
How is it possible that the Ulrichs or Mich Book & Supply will buy a once-used, otherwise mint condition textbook for, say, $8 and sell it for $50 and not make money?
I don't approve of excessive spending from either party. In fact, I think government's role should be minimal.
Both major parties are in favor of big government. Witness the shift in parties of Wesley Clark, once the opportunities in big government shifted from the GOP during the cold war to the Democratic party during the clinton administration.
You are right that the deficit is a hidden tax. The politicians are betting on a strong economic recovery that they won't be in office to be accountable for if it doesn't happen.
All else being equal, though, if we can't rely on congress to restrain its spending, then we should have lower taxes b/c the money we spend in taxes won't be handled responsibly anyway, and the situation will be forced into the open earlier.
Spending is bad for it economic growth because it must be paid for w/ tax dollars, but if the American people blindly foot the bill for anything Congress decides to spend money on, they are making a mistake. Given the spending habits of Congress, I think Bush may actually be doing a smart thing in creating a deficit so that they can't get out of control with spending. Plus, if one expects an economic rebound, then one can expect the deficit to go away and be replaced by a surplus, as happened during the Clinton administration.
The solution, I think, is to increase the transparency of what goes on in Congress, and which interests are being helped by the spending. Tie this to campaign contributions and you have a nice way to draw attention to those in Congress who cause the spending problem in the first place. McCain-Feingold, incidentally, forces campaign contributions to find alternate routes that are much harder to measure and publicize.
Capital gains tax limits the investments that anyone will want to invest in, because the tax reduces the expected profit. Investment is what fuels the economy, whether it's investment in a software company, a dozen new jobs, a new refrigerator for the break room, etc.
I don't have any trouble believing that. Used book prices are artificially inflated (in Ann Arbor, MI) due to collusion among booksellers.
Here, some profs started doing enormous course packs (basically equivalent to a few books) and having them available for purchase at one local copy shop that didn't worry too much about getting permission to reproduce. Needless to say, that operation got shut down rather quickly, and the rest of the copy shops and coursepack vendors started itemizing all of the costs, including royalty fees, for every pack sold.
I had one math prof who wrote all of our materials from scratch on LaTeX and handed them out as stapled packets in class. They matched the course perfectly, and they were as good as any math book I've seen, and he didn't ask for royalties.
You are right about the farm bill. It would more properly be called the "farm goods tax", and should ideally be itemized on everyone's pay slip so that they know how much produce really costs. Bush is smart to lower taxes, but stupid to create hidden taxes such as farm subsidies (or any subsidies, for that matter).
Generally, when people refer to capitalism (at least in the US) they are referring to some kind of free market capitalism. Capitalism is quite separable from a free market, as in nations like Korea. Free market capitalism is the economic system that maximizes individual freedom. Any other system, including non-free market capitalism, does not maximize individual freedom. The individual who imported the books did so because he is free to do so, hence the concept of freedom behind the idea of free markets. He is a capitalist, because he invested his capital in the books, and increased the amount of capital he owns (after making a profit).
It's neither wrong or frightening. It's simply good for consumers. Nobody cares if you import digital watches or microchips, so why should anyone care about books?
Plus, the college textbook market is a racket.
I think the c64 was probably the better machine... at least from a learning to program standpoint...
Well, historically they were overpriced. My Powerbook 5300 was $2300 and within a year it was worth $600... way more depreciation than you'd get on x86 hardware during the same period.
Uh,... you're taking it a bit seriously, don't you think? Macs are horrendously overpriced when you compare performance vs intel or lintel.
I turned off the fallback port initially, and even opened up my router to allow the other port to have access...
I was running IIS, but I just stopped it, and now I'll restart skype and see if that makes a difference.
I installed skype on my PC, thinking I'd help out with the p2p infrastructure, but there is NO traffic coming across, despite the fact that the client says there are 7K users active...
The quoted survey recipient is right: There is not an alternative out there that provides everything Microsoft does. As a result, Microsoft can be lazy about certain things, which is certainly why some people are dissatisfied.
Once others figure out how to compete with Microsoft, there will be more competition and better quality software for everyone. Microsoft may still end up with very high market share and a lot of happy customers, but it will be nudged in that direction by competetors nipping at its heels.