Does every new product have to be a revolution that ushers in a whole new paradigm and way of life, or is a company allowed to just make a neat gizmo?
Well, a "whole new product concept that was completely incubated by Microsoft Research" would be expected to be a revolution or something, not just a copy of 20 or 30-year-old technology with a watchband on it. I'm also not particularly impressed that it uses FM. Should I be?
Doctors would rather see 3 month waiting lists than having another doctor on staff
Oh baloney. A doctor that I know is RIGHT NOW trying to arrange to visit me late in the summer (July or August) because his schedule is booked up 4 or more months in advance. He'd love to have some help - if he has to stay home sick or anything like that, then that's a week of working 12-13 hour days (instead of 10-11) to make up for it, because he just can't reschedule people for anytime soon.
No, what you'd end up with is that in down times like these, the company would have to lay off the shortest-tenured programmers, not the incompetent ones. And there would be no such thing as "merit raises", "merit promotions" and "merit bonuses". Those would all be determined by how long you've been with the company.
This isn't what we're really trying to achieve here, I think. Your proposal would allow us to bring menial laborers in. The point of the H1-B program is to bring in people of high talent, so that companies can fill positions that they wouldn't be able to fill with Americans.
Seems to me that your proposal would merely allow us to give the crap jobs that nobody else wants to foreigners.
Seems to me that the whole crux of what you don't like about Java (at least as relates to this subject...) is that there is a fairly marked distinction between primitive types and classes. They behave differently. They are used differently. Yes, Strings do use the + operator and there is implicit toString() calling, which ar an exceptions (side note: I have no idea what you mean when you say "Except that in Java, you can only set that up for conversion to a String implicitly"). If you're that much of a "purist" that this is a problem for you, then maybe only Lisp is uniform enough for you.
But really, as others have pointed out, what does it mean to add a primitive to an object (of a perhaps arbitrary class) or two different objects? Why is it really so wrong that you have to define in a method what happens when you add them?
Re:Most important quote...
on
Largo Loving Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
All of that dirt cheap hardward adds up
Yes, but if they used windows everywhere, would they be able to use dirt-cheap hardware? No, so even that reduction is a result of using a Linux solution.
Re:AAAAAAAAArgh -- missing the point sooo badly
on
Java Gets Templates
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't necessarily disagree with everything you're saying here, but a few things drew my attention....
You have a conversion operator called toString
Um, no. You have Object.toString() which is a method, not an operator.
There are accepted standards for how we write certain concepts such as addition or strict ordering, and operator overloading is necessary to allow user-defined types to meet those standards...
It sounds like you're talking about why operator overloading is necessary for C. For one, "user-defined types" don't exist in Java. Second, I don't agree with what you're saying. What about Lisp? Do you think that Lisp is a poor language because you don't add two numbers by saying 1 + 2? Lisp breaks your "accepted standards for how we write... addition".
Puzzling.... Why do you think that it is the responsibility of the bar to control the band's playlist, rather than the responsibility of the band? If I download and use software that happens to contain illegitimately obtained/used code, is that my fault, or is it the fault of the people who actually included the code in the product?
I shouldn't even reply to this, but what the hell. You're talking about iTunes and iPhoto, which are applications. I'm talking about operating systems. I guess you have bought wholesale into the MS marketing mechanism who want you to believe that all applications are really a part of the operating system.
There are a good portion of us who are very technically aware, have used all of the major OSes extensively, and feel that Mac OS is much better than Windoze.
There are a large number of you out there who say that "Macs are crap" blindly, without having used one in quite a while or ever. I would say that those people should "atleast [sic] have the decency to KNOW what [they] are talking about".
What's your basis for saying that? Do you have any reasoning at all? I own a mac. Still have the one-button mouse (no problem adjusting between the 3-button scroll wheel mouse at work and the single button mouse at home). No MS Office. No MS software at all.
I do understand what your position is. I just feel like "it's not in the spirit of the internet" to be forcing people to be even doing things such as viewing ads (or at least, villainizing those who block them). If you want to go so far as to rig your site in such a way that an ad must be viewed for the page to appear, I'll probably just curse you and either find the information somewhere else, or in the case of your site, do without it.
A lot of people seem to feel that there's some implicit contract between surfer and content provider. I feel that there is none. Anything that I can technically and legally get away with is fair game. If I feel that a site is providing me with valuable information, I will occasionally (very occasionally...) click through on an ad, though of course I don't buy things just to beef up revenues (tangent: I thought banner ad revenue was generally by click-throughs, not impressions? I guess I'm wrong).
To take it a bit too far: I could go telnet to www.hockeydb.com port 80 and get my content that way. I don't think I'm either doing any wrong or have any obligation to then telnet to the URL for the ads. (using lynx as an example here might be slightly more reasonable).
I sympathize with you, but I know that I'm never going to buy something from a pop-up or pop-under. So I know that by setting Mozilla to disallow pop-ups, I'm making absolutely no change in the revenue of the sites I'm visiting. Frankly, it's a cold, hard world out there, and if sites don't want to provide me content for free (which 99.999% of the time they do - I guess I must have followed a banner link at some point), then they don't have to. But nobody should pretend that I have an obligation to follow any sort of advertising link just because I'm viewing a site. And nobody should pretend that they have a right to clutter my desktop with unwanted windows just because I'm viewing the information that they're providing for free.
Well, first off, I say "stop destroying the business model that I already have"
Well, you just can't expect to come up with a business model and then have it work forever. Times change, and people and businesses have to adapt to them. Technology changes, and those who don't stay up with it and adapt end up losing (look at Lucent, Digital, Cray, etc). What the hell, Hank had to stop selling "Where's George" stamps, and he's managed to stay up:-)
My saying car and some one from Boston saying car are drastically different but they are the same word.
Hey! I resent that remahk! You ah stereotyping heah, and it's not fa-uh. Some of us from Bahston can say cah just like the rest of you. Just jealous, that's what you ah. Come up heah, and you'll be wicked sorry that you did.:-)
Which would be fine if Microsoft had trademark on "Windows", which is a generic, commonly-used term that was in use before Microsoft tried to take control of it. If it were "Microsoft Lindows" rather than Windows, that would be infringing on the "Microsoft Windows" trademark.
Okay, so what's the difference? You say that the only difference is how the service is paid for (which is by the community contracting). Where does the money to contract come from? Donations? Not likely. Taxes (Gasp!)?
Do you think that if 30% of adults of able bodies and sound minds were packing in that area this SOB would still have the balls to do what he is doing . . . ?
Nobody has seen the bastard. Why do you think that having the populace armed would make a difference?
And how does this work? Joe murders Frank. Nobody does anything about it unless Frank's family has money to pony up to pay for an investigation? Sounds like a situation where somebody who manages to get rich can buy anything they damn well please. And yes, I think that human nature even exists in libertarians.
Re:Crack to stop all this...
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
I don't really think that I agree with this. You're saying that in order to win, we have to play at their game. I think that by playing their game, we'd lose - we would all begin to think that it's normal that the RIAA can go into any audio file and find out everything about anybody who has ever touched it. By refusing to play their game, we remind ourselves (and them) that they don't have the right to force this down our throats.
Add:
- Oracle Enterprise Management consoli
- IBM Websphere Administration client
- Together Control Center [togethersoft.com]
other similar things....
Slashdot Mirror
Does every new product have to be a revolution that ushers in a whole new paradigm and way of life, or is a company allowed to just make a neat gizmo?
Well, a "whole new product concept that was completely incubated by Microsoft Research" would be expected to be a revolution or something, not just a copy of 20 or 30-year-old technology with a watchband on it. I'm also not particularly impressed that it uses FM. Should I be?
Doctors would rather see 3 month waiting lists than having another doctor on staff
Oh baloney. A doctor that I know is RIGHT NOW trying to arrange to visit me late in the summer (July or August) because his schedule is booked up 4 or more months in advance. He'd love to have some help - if he has to stay home sick or anything like that, then that's a week of working 12-13 hour days (instead of 10-11) to make up for it, because he just can't reschedule people for anytime soon.
No, what you'd end up with is that in down times like these, the company would have to lay off the shortest-tenured programmers, not the incompetent ones. And there would be no such thing as "merit raises", "merit promotions" and "merit bonuses". Those would all be determined by how long you've been with the company.
Don't you mean .95 * .3 == .285??
This isn't what we're really trying to achieve here, I think. Your proposal would allow us to bring menial laborers in. The point of the H1-B program is to bring in people of high talent, so that companies can fill positions that they wouldn't be able to fill with Americans.
Seems to me that your proposal would merely allow us to give the crap jobs that nobody else wants to foreigners.
Does "Stellar 7" qualify as a FPS? Methinks it must, and was certainly around before 1991.
"... or else Pizza is going to send out for you."
Seems to me that the whole crux of what you don't like about Java (at least as relates to this subject...) is that there is a fairly marked distinction between primitive types and classes. They behave differently. They are used differently. Yes, Strings do use the + operator and there is implicit toString() calling, which ar an exceptions (side note: I have no idea what you mean when you say "Except that in Java, you can only set that up for conversion to a String implicitly"). If you're that much of a "purist" that this is a problem for you, then maybe only Lisp is uniform enough for you.
But really, as others have pointed out, what does it mean to add a primitive to an object (of a perhaps arbitrary class) or two different objects? Why is it really so wrong that you have to define in a method what happens when you add them?
All of that dirt cheap hardward adds up
Yes, but if they used windows everywhere, would they be able to use dirt-cheap hardware? No, so even that reduction is a result of using a Linux solution.
I don't necessarily disagree with everything you're saying here, but a few things drew my attention....
You have a conversion operator called toString
Um, no. You have Object.toString() which is a method, not an operator.
There are accepted standards for how we write certain concepts such as addition or strict ordering, and operator overloading is necessary to allow user-defined types to meet those standards...
It sounds like you're talking about why operator overloading is necessary for C. For one, "user-defined types" don't exist in Java. Second, I don't agree with what you're saying. What about Lisp? Do you think that Lisp is a poor language because you don't add two numbers by saying 1 + 2? Lisp breaks your "accepted standards for how we write... addition".
Puzzling.... Why do you think that it is the responsibility of the bar to control the band's playlist, rather than the responsibility of the band? If I download and use software that happens to contain illegitimately obtained/used code, is that my fault, or is it the fault of the people who actually included the code in the product?
I shouldn't even reply to this, but what the hell. You're talking about iTunes and iPhoto, which are applications. I'm talking about operating systems. I guess you have bought wholesale into the MS marketing mechanism who want you to believe that all applications are really a part of the operating system.
There are a good portion of us who are very technically aware, have used all of the major OSes extensively, and feel that Mac OS is much better than Windoze.
There are a large number of you out there who say that "Macs are crap" blindly, without having used one in quite a while or ever. I would say that those people should "atleast [sic] have the decency to KNOW what [they] are talking about".
What's your basis for saying that? Do you have any reasoning at all? I own a mac. Still have the one-button mouse (no problem adjusting between the 3-button scroll wheel mouse at work and the single button mouse at home). No MS Office. No MS software at all.
I do understand what your position is. I just feel like "it's not in the spirit of the internet" to be forcing people to be even doing things such as viewing ads (or at least, villainizing those who block them). If you want to go so far as to rig your site in such a way that an ad must be viewed for the page to appear, I'll probably just curse you and either find the information somewhere else, or in the case of your site, do without it.
A lot of people seem to feel that there's some implicit contract between surfer and content provider. I feel that there is none. Anything that I can technically and legally get away with is fair game. If I feel that a site is providing me with valuable information, I will occasionally (very occasionally...) click through on an ad, though of course I don't buy things just to beef up revenues (tangent: I thought banner ad revenue was generally by click-throughs, not impressions? I guess I'm wrong).
To take it a bit too far: I could go telnet to www.hockeydb.com port 80 and get my content that way. I don't think I'm either doing any wrong or have any obligation to then telnet to the URL for the ads. (using lynx as an example here might be slightly more reasonable).
- Nolan
I sympathize with you, but I know that I'm never going to buy something from a pop-up or pop-under. So I know that by setting Mozilla to disallow pop-ups, I'm making absolutely no change in the revenue of the sites I'm visiting. Frankly, it's a cold, hard world out there, and if sites don't want to provide me content for free (which 99.999% of the time they do - I guess I must have followed a banner link at some point), then they don't have to. But nobody should pretend that I have an obligation to follow any sort of advertising link just because I'm viewing a site. And nobody should pretend that they have a right to clutter my desktop with unwanted windows just because I'm viewing the information that they're providing for free.
Well, first off, I say "stop destroying the business model that I already have"
Well, you just can't expect to come up with a business model and then have it work forever. Times change, and people and businesses have to adapt to them. Technology changes, and those who don't stay up with it and adapt end up losing (look at Lucent, Digital, Cray, etc). What the hell, Hank had to stop selling "Where's George" stamps, and he's managed to stay up :-)
My saying car and some one from Boston saying car are drastically different but they are the same word.
Hey! I resent that remahk! You ah stereotyping heah, and it's not fa-uh. Some of us from Bahston can say cah just like the rest of you. Just jealous, that's what you ah. Come up heah, and you'll be wicked sorry that you did. :-)
Don't you mean: ...like the 80's movie "classic" "Space Camp"?
And that is exactly why NASA is not going to invest in a book to try to convince the conspiracy theorists.
Which would be fine if Microsoft had trademark on "Windows", which is a generic, commonly-used term that was in use before Microsoft tried to take control of it. If it were "Microsoft Lindows" rather than Windows, that would be infringing on the "Microsoft Windows" trademark.
Okay, so what's the difference? You say that the only difference is how the service is paid for (which is by the community contracting). Where does the money to contract come from? Donations? Not likely. Taxes (Gasp!)?
Do you think that if 30% of adults of able bodies and sound minds were packing in that area this SOB would still have the balls to do what he is doing . . . ?
Nobody has seen the bastard. Why do you think that having the populace armed would make a difference?
Police forces should be privatized.
And how does this work? Joe murders Frank. Nobody does anything about it unless Frank's family has money to pony up to pay for an investigation? Sounds like a situation where somebody who manages to get rich can buy anything they damn well please. And yes, I think that human nature even exists in libertarians.
I don't really think that I agree with this. You're saying that in order to win, we have to play at their game. I think that by playing their game, we'd lose - we would all begin to think that it's normal that the RIAA can go into any audio file and find out everything about anybody who has ever touched it. By refusing to play their game, we remind ourselves (and them) that they don't have the right to force this down our throats.
Add: - Oracle Enterprise Management consoli - IBM Websphere Administration client - Together Control Center [togethersoft.com] other similar things....