Only children think in terms of the worst things that could happen to them
I think only children/childish people don't see beyond the first hurdle.
As a european who has an ISV which directly competes with american software companies, I definitely won't go to the US with a laptop with material on it which could benefit these american companies. You might say that that is 'childish' but YOU won't compensate us when the border patrol (who knows in advance that I'm arriving at some US airport) confiscates my laptop with material on it (encrypted or not) and passes it on to a competitor.
You apparently are that naive that you think that there's a clear distinction between 'good' and 'bad' and that the US is 'good' and won't do things which are forbidden in its own lawbook. Well, I can only say: better safe than sorry. The world runs on money, if it benefits the US to get hold of material which is in hte possesion of foreign companies, why not grab it?
Sure, one will say: "Don't bring it to the US then!", which is a reasonable point, until you realize how stupid it actually is: why would I be worried what's on my laptop (encrypted) when I enter the US? I don't want to be worried about that. That's the whole point. Yes, I can mail it to myself, whatever, that's just a workaround to some stupid rule which affects my life.
You as an american apparently hasn't been questioned 5 times in 10 minutes when entering your country what your business was to be there. I have. After the 4th time, I began to start worrying why I got all these questions by people with a machine gun.
It's simple: when you enter the EU, you don't get the treatment a EU citizen gets when he arrives at the US. If you WOULD, you wouldn't been babbling about how childish all these people are. What's on my laptop is MY business, not the US'. Apparently that's a childish thought... ?
If some guy decides to release his superduper class library for a given platform under the GPL and only for Linux, the guy who wrote the code is the only one who decides under which license he will release the goods and to what platform. The GPL isn't loved by everyone, so some might say "booh! you shouldn't have released that under the GPL, now I can't use it".
You know what? That's simply tough luck. The same with this. If MS decides to release a piece of code under some very restrictive license, and it's only for windows, who else is out there to decide what THEY, the owners of the code, should do?
Oh, and about the 'open source' term/name: aren't there different definitions about that floating around for decades already? To me, open source means: OPEN and SOURCE and there's a license attached to it which says when you can use it. If no license is attached, it's not OPEN SOURCE, as you fall back onto the boundaries drawn by copyright law, i.o.w.: you can't use it.
So in short: OPEN SOURCE means: access to and usage of sourcecode under a license. That license can effectively restrict the usage of the source code to literaly 0. Too bad, write your own.
(Disclaimer: I don't give a **** if I'm on the list or not;))
Perhaps the right question isn't 'how to become a famous programmer' but first let's focus on what a famous programmer is? The concept of being famous is that a lot of people know you.
Let me see some hands, who knows "David Bradley" and can name what he accomplished? No-one? Why is this person then branded as 'famous' ? Sure, he wrote a handler which is in almost every Bios, but aren't there millions of routines out there used by even more million people? I mean: the guy / girl who wrote the event handler for the 'Google Search' button has his/her piece of code executed a couple of million times a day as well... The people who know who wrote that routine is probably as big as the group of people who know the name "David Bradley" and associate that name with cntrl-alt-del.
So this 'famous programmer' list is IMHO more of a list of some editor who liked to have his (her?) personal favorites in a single list on Wikipedia.
... and has no clue what's installed with it. Then he wants to burn a DVD of his own videos but can't, because secuRom prevents these tools from running.
Furthermore, the securom services run as local-system, and can't be removed. This is a rootkit, which could allow distribution of serious worms/viruses etc. without the user being able to prevent that, as the stuff can't be removed!
Ok. Let me get this straight. Apple makes an operating system and the license agreement that comes with it states that you have to run it on Apple branded hardware.
That's what the EULA says perhaps, but it's not said that what's in an EULA is also legally binding. For example, in Europe, if a clause in the EULA isn't compliant with a law, the clause is invalid and void.
What if the EULA says you should name your first born "Steve" no matter what? Would that be legally binding? No of course not.
You want to kill terrorists, but... what is a terrorist? The gitmo detainees are mostly caught in afghanistan. Last time I checked, it wasn't part of the US. This means that any US solder who grabs an Afghan and takes him with him is actually kidnapping a person from his own home land. If these people then try to prevent that and shoot at the US soldiers, also because, oh what a strange thought, they see the US soldiers as _invaders_ (take it from their POV), are they suddenly terrorists? By what definition? They fought against the government? No, they _WERE_ the government. They fought against the US soldiers? Of course they did, the US soldiers barged in and bombed the crap out of them.
Did the above text make you angry? If it did, re-read it and think about what the US soldiers are doing in various countries across the globe and more importantly: what the effect is of these soldiers doing their job there: the local population, will they ever live in peace? How can that be, if they can be picked up by any random US soldier and be deported to gitmo without a trial and probably be tortured (according to the definition of torture used by the rest of the world)?
The US had to do something after 9-11. They crushed the taliban government in afghanistan. However, looking back, one can only conclude that that action was just an act of rage, as fighters who aren't tied to one particular country, are hard, if not impossible, to fight, sadly enough. Holding people for 6+ years, torturing them on a regular basis, denying them any trial, but above all: kidnapping these people from all over the world as if you are entitled to do so, these are actions of a country which has no clue what to do with the power it has.
It's dangerous to label people as 'terrorists' and because of that labeling to punish them with a very harsh sentence, e.g. killing them. The point is that by doing so, you 1) declare yourself as the country who is in charge of declaring who a terrorist and 2) by killing the person, you're declaring yourself also the country who's in charge of executing the sentences given to these people.
Using that logic, it's the same as bin laden saying: 1) I declare myself entitled to declare any american a criminal who has to be shot and 2) I declare myself entitled to execute that sentence, so I'll go after every american and shoot him/her.
Because... why wouldn't an american soldier crushing everything there possibly was in afghanistan and iraq be a terrorist in the eyes of the people living there? Of course, a western citizen would say: "that's absurd, they can'tbe a terrorist", but why would a person who defends his country against the US invaders be all of a sudden a terrorist?
For example the.NET tools market is far from dead, simply because in general.NET developers first think like 'Let's see if there's a 3rd party control/tool/lib I can buy for this' and THEN they'll probably think 'perhaps there's an open source variant which can do the same'.
This eco system isn't going to go away soon, partly because MS isn't promoting open source that much, as it will hurt them too, and partly also because in general open source projects for.NET are sometimes successful but in general they're lacking behind commercial products.
as that has the UI you want. (and I agree with you, MS has fragmented functionality which was located at known places in XP to unknown menus, has created an insanely unusable explorer etc.)
I have a brand new quad core intel box, 2gb ram, etc. I have XP as the main OS (I've work to do, vs.net doesn't run on linux;)) and Ubuntu 7.10 on a smaller partition, just for fun. When I compare the resources XP uses vs. what Ubuntu uses (with 3D desktop stuff), then Ubuntu clearly uses much less resources than XP does. What's more: running threaded software on both shows that XP has less capabilities of maximizing the CPUs.
When I buy a brick, it's my brick. When I buy a car, it's my car. When I buy an iPhone, it's... my iphone. So I can do whatever I want with it.
Suddenly, a person who purchased an iphone can't do whatever s/he wants with it, and that is apparently NORMAL, while the brick owner can do whatever s/he wants with it, and that's also normal (duh).
Control: yes, copyright: no. The original copyright holder of the BSD code will always have that copyright unless it's signed away by a notarial contract. So if a linux developer writes 2 extra lines in the code and changes the license, the linux developer never gains copyright over the rest under the GPL, that will always be BSD licensed.
I completely agree. This morning I opened my usual morning batch of sites, among them CNet, and what do I see? 50% of the articles are about this freaking iPhone.:-/
Simply remove the paper from the fax. This then means the fax can't be delivered. We do that too and if someone wants to fax us, they have to call us and we put paper in the fax, we receive the fax and the rest of the paper is removed again. You can also simply unplug the fax and only plug it in when you want to use it.
Though if I could, I would remove the fax altogether. Receiving faxes is rare these days...
Don Lawrence's Storm - Legend of Yggdrasil already contained this idea: they use a black hole to travel to another universe where black holes are actually white suns.:)
In Devil may cry 3 (not the SE edition), I simply couldn't proceed anymore with the game. I already switched to 'easy' which I found pretty lame, but heck, it was said to be a great game. Though in mission 7 you need to put out flames on a statue by attacking it with every combo you know, and... every time you need to use a different combo, and for a loooooong time. I spend over an hour to get past it and then I gave up. It wasnt even the end-boss. So if I failed to hammer the end-boss' into the ground, I would be forced to do it all over again... no way.
I also quit on GTA 3 VC and GTA SA, simply due to the incredibly crappy controls during shooting missions. It was simply impossible to aim right in some missions, so you were forced to do them over and over again, while other missions were just so boringly easy.
I'm also an MVP (C#), and a well-known.NET developer, and I hate it when Microsoft tries to tie things together like XBox 360 and windows gaming. The thing is: I can't run vista on my PC, because it's my main dev box and I need VS.NET 2003, which isn't supported on Vista (debugger won't run). So, if PC gaming is going the way MS wants, I either need to buy another PC to just run PC games or abandone PC gaming altogether. Now, FPS games are better played on a PC, so I really would hate the direction MS is looking at. I mean: I don't care about the XBox 360, as I like games made by japanese studio's, so I have a PS2 and will likely move to PS3.
And for the rest of your post... well, I'm happy for you you really like your Microsoft stuff, but newsflash: there are others who have different opinions. I like.NET and C# a lot, but hate their marketing tactics/strategies, and I'm not alone in that.
... a lot of the patches MS makes aren't released to the public on a public website, you've to call PSS (public support services) of MS to obtain the patch. A service pack contains these as well. So a service pack is more than just the publically available patches.
... as Sony owns a movie studio and MS doesn't. As MS is in fierce competition with Sony with their console, it's IMHO is in MS best interest to deny a request to block HD playback on 32bit: The less Sony sells, the better it is for MS.
Now Vista 32bit, the majority of the users will use this, will be crippled in a way users might not like (as Vista is here to stay for the next couple of years!).
How many times per day do you want to overtype something? Not a lot of times, the INS key is more a frustration trigger than a helper. Get rid of it too, with its buddy CAPS and it's dead step child SCROLL-LOCK.
I wondered, wtf has wireless to do with this, but TFA is pretty clear: WARRANTLESS tapping, not wireless tapping.
Although I can fully understand the outrage among some US citizens because of this blocking, here in the Netherlands, unwarranted tapping and surveilance is already legit by law for some time. Not that most people agree, but hey, what can you do against politicians who think that by limiting freedom they will win the next election.
Not only that, Objectspark is one of the most expensive o/r mappers on the planet. It comes at a price of at least $20,000 (twenty thousand dollars) a pop.
Add to that that TopLink is at least 10 years old, we can safely say, Firestar is trying but is doing that in the wrong area: they should simply lower their prices and increase their value for money.
Their.NET product has failed, and I'm pretty sure their Java product isn't doing that well either, considering alternatives which cost at least a lot less.
A computer isn't a thing which has 1 function like a vacuumcleaner, it has many many features and functions. This means that you don't have 1 button in front of you which does what you want to do with the product, hence the requirement for reading some documentation.
However, most people who don't understand computers (as they say) simply don't WANT TO read any documenation or are too stubborn to actually understand what's going on. Well, I then say: suffer! If it's too much for you, user, to read some simple instructions, then it's too much for me to help your lazy a$$ out.
"The decision was endorsed last night by the Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, who had asked the board to review of the game's MA15+ classification after local councils and state governments voiced concerns that the game would promote graffiti." Gee, for a minute I thought they had concerns the game would promite violence, but *pfew*, violence is still normal, and accepted.
I don't need n, n>1, cores on a die, I want a processor which is COLD, so it can be passively cooled, or with a very small cooler. The fun of those things is that it will make computers silent again, like in the days of the 486 and earlier. Proper motherboard designs also can allow multi-proc systems which will mitigate the fact that you need multiple cores on a die.
You're focussing on 1 server with a lot of horsepower. But that single server's going to serve 50 people at any given time. That will make the mainboard/network channels the bottleneck, if not the HDD controller's ability to reach main-memory.
Why not go for 2 servers, use cheap SATA RAID1+0 disks? Then you can move the load to multiple servers and if more demand is required, you're not facing bottlenecks, just add another box.
Slashdot Mirror
I think only children/childish people don't see beyond the first hurdle.
As a european who has an ISV which directly competes with american software companies, I definitely won't go to the US with a laptop with material on it which could benefit these american companies. You might say that that is 'childish' but YOU won't compensate us when the border patrol (who knows in advance that I'm arriving at some US airport) confiscates my laptop with material on it (encrypted or not) and passes it on to a competitor.
You apparently are that naive that you think that there's a clear distinction between 'good' and 'bad' and that the US is 'good' and won't do things which are forbidden in its own lawbook. Well, I can only say: better safe than sorry. The world runs on money, if it benefits the US to get hold of material which is in hte possesion of foreign companies, why not grab it?
Sure, one will say: "Don't bring it to the US then!", which is a reasonable point, until you realize how stupid it actually is: why would I be worried what's on my laptop (encrypted) when I enter the US? I don't want to be worried about that. That's the whole point. Yes, I can mail it to myself, whatever, that's just a workaround to some stupid rule which affects my life.
You as an american apparently hasn't been questioned 5 times in 10 minutes when entering your country what your business was to be there. I have. After the 4th time, I began to start worrying why I got all these questions by people with a machine gun.
It's simple: when you enter the EU, you don't get the treatment a EU citizen gets when he arrives at the US. If you WOULD, you wouldn't been babbling about how childish all these people are. What's on my laptop is MY business, not the US'. Apparently that's a childish thought... ?
If some guy decides to release his superduper class library for a given platform under the GPL and only for Linux, the guy who wrote the code is the only one who decides under which license he will release the goods and to what platform. The GPL isn't loved by everyone, so some might say "booh! you shouldn't have released that under the GPL, now I can't use it".
You know what? That's simply tough luck. The same with this. If MS decides to release a piece of code under some very restrictive license, and it's only for windows, who else is out there to decide what THEY, the owners of the code, should do?
Oh, and about the 'open source' term/name: aren't there different definitions about that floating around for decades already? To me, open source means: OPEN and SOURCE and there's a license attached to it which says when you can use it. If no license is attached, it's not OPEN SOURCE, as you fall back onto the boundaries drawn by copyright law, i.o.w.: you can't use it.
So in short: OPEN SOURCE means: access to and usage of sourcecode under a license. That license can effectively restrict the usage of the source code to literaly 0. Too bad, write your own.
(Disclaimer: I don't give a **** if I'm on the list or not ;))
Perhaps the right question isn't 'how to become a famous programmer' but first let's focus on what a famous programmer is? The concept of being famous is that a lot of people know you.
Let me see some hands, who knows "David Bradley" and can name what he accomplished? No-one? Why is this person then branded as 'famous' ? Sure, he wrote a handler which is in almost every Bios, but aren't there millions of routines out there used by even more million people? I mean: the guy / girl who wrote the event handler for the 'Google Search' button has his/her piece of code executed a couple of million times a day as well... The people who know who wrote that routine is probably as big as the group of people who know the name "David Bradley" and associate that name with cntrl-alt-del.
So this 'famous programmer' list is IMHO more of a list of some editor who liked to have his (her?) personal favorites in a single list on Wikipedia.
... and has no clue what's installed with it. Then he wants to burn a DVD of his own videos but can't, because secuRom prevents these tools from running.
Furthermore, the securom services run as local-system, and can't be removed. This is a rootkit, which could allow distribution of serious worms/viruses etc. without the user being able to prevent that, as the stuff can't be removed!
That's what the EULA says perhaps, but it's not said that what's in an EULA is also legally binding. For example, in Europe, if a clause in the EULA isn't compliant with a law, the clause is invalid and void.
What if the EULA says you should name your first born "Steve" no matter what? Would that be legally binding? No of course not.
You want to kill terrorists, but ... what is a terrorist? The gitmo detainees are mostly caught in afghanistan. Last time I checked, it wasn't part of the US. This means that any US solder who grabs an Afghan and takes him with him is actually kidnapping a person from his own home land. If these people then try to prevent that and shoot at the US soldiers, also because, oh what a strange thought, they see the US soldiers as _invaders_ (take it from their POV), are they suddenly terrorists? By what definition? They fought against the government? No, they _WERE_ the government. They fought against the US soldiers? Of course they did, the US soldiers barged in and bombed the crap out of them.
Did the above text make you angry? If it did, re-read it and think about what the US soldiers are doing in various countries across the globe and more importantly: what the effect is of these soldiers doing their job there: the local population, will they ever live in peace? How can that be, if they can be picked up by any random US soldier and be deported to gitmo without a trial and probably be tortured (according to the definition of torture used by the rest of the world)?
The US had to do something after 9-11. They crushed the taliban government in afghanistan. However, looking back, one can only conclude that that action was just an act of rage, as fighters who aren't tied to one particular country, are hard, if not impossible, to fight, sadly enough. Holding people for 6+ years, torturing them on a regular basis, denying them any trial, but above all: kidnapping these people from all over the world as if you are entitled to do so, these are actions of a country which has no clue what to do with the power it has.
It's dangerous to label people as 'terrorists' and because of that labeling to punish them with a very harsh sentence, e.g. killing them. The point is that by doing so, you 1) declare yourself as the country who is in charge of declaring who a terrorist and 2) by killing the person, you're declaring yourself also the country who's in charge of executing the sentences given to these people.
Using that logic, it's the same as bin laden saying: 1) I declare myself entitled to declare any american a criminal who has to be shot and 2) I declare myself entitled to execute that sentence, so I'll go after every american and shoot him/her.
Because... why wouldn't an american soldier crushing everything there possibly was in afghanistan and iraq be a terrorist in the eyes of the people living there? Of course, a western citizen would say: "that's absurd, they can'tbe a terrorist", but why would a person who defends his country against the US invaders be all of a sudden a terrorist?
For example the .NET tools market is far from dead, simply because in general .NET developers first think like 'Let's see if there's a 3rd party control/tool/lib I can buy for this' and THEN they'll probably think 'perhaps there's an open source variant which can do the same'.
.NET are sometimes successful but in general they're lacking behind commercial products.
This eco system isn't going to go away soon, partly because MS isn't promoting open source that much, as it will hurt them too, and partly also because in general open source projects for
as that has the UI you want. (and I agree with you, MS has fragmented functionality which was located at known places in XP to unknown menus, has created an insanely unusable explorer etc.)
I have a brand new quad core intel box, 2gb ram, etc. I have XP as the main OS (I've work to do, vs.net doesn't run on linux ;)) and Ubuntu 7.10 on a smaller partition, just for fun. When I compare the resources XP uses vs. what Ubuntu uses (with 3D desktop stuff), then Ubuntu clearly uses much less resources than XP does. What's more: running threaded software on both shows that XP has less capabilities of maximizing the CPUs.
When I buy a brick, it's my brick. When I buy a car, it's my car. When I buy an iPhone, it's... my iphone. So I can do whatever I want with it.
Suddenly, a person who purchased an iphone can't do whatever s/he wants with it, and that is apparently NORMAL, while the brick owner can do whatever s/he wants with it, and that's also normal (duh).
Control: yes, copyright: no. The original copyright holder of the BSD code will always have that copyright unless it's signed away by a notarial contract. So if a linux developer writes 2 extra lines in the code and changes the license, the linux developer never gains copyright over the rest under the GPL, that will always be BSD licensed.
I completely agree. This morning I opened my usual morning batch of sites, among them CNet, and what do I see? 50% of the articles are about this freaking iPhone. :-/
Simply remove the paper from the fax. This then means the fax can't be delivered. We do that too and if someone wants to fax us, they have to call us and we put paper in the fax, we receive the fax and the rest of the paper is removed again. You can also simply unplug the fax and only plug it in when you want to use it.
Though if I could, I would remove the fax altogether. Receiving faxes is rare these days...
Don Lawrence's Storm - Legend of Yggdrasil already contained this idea: they use a black hole to travel to another universe where black holes are actually white suns. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_(Don_Lawrence)
In Devil may cry 3 (not the SE edition), I simply couldn't proceed anymore with the game. I already switched to 'easy' which I found pretty lame, but heck, it was said to be a great game. Though in mission 7 you need to put out flames on a statue by attacking it with every combo you know, and... every time you need to use a different combo, and for a loooooong time. I spend over an hour to get past it and then I gave up. It wasnt even the end-boss. So if I failed to hammer the end-boss' into the ground, I would be forced to do it all over again... no way.
I also quit on GTA 3 VC and GTA SA, simply due to the incredibly crappy controls during shooting missions. It was simply impossible to aim right in some missions, so you were forced to do them over and over again, while other missions were just so boringly easy.
I'm also an MVP (C#), and a well-known .NET developer, and I hate it when Microsoft tries to tie things together like XBox 360 and windows gaming. The thing is: I can't run vista on my PC, because it's my main dev box and I need VS.NET 2003, which isn't supported on Vista (debugger won't run). So, if PC gaming is going the way MS wants, I either need to buy another PC to just run PC games or abandone PC gaming altogether. Now, FPS games are better played on a PC, so I really would hate the direction MS is looking at. I mean: I don't care about the XBox 360, as I like games made by japanese studio's, so I have a PS2 and will likely move to PS3.
.NET and C# a lot, but hate their marketing tactics/strategies, and I'm not alone in that.
And for the rest of your post... well, I'm happy for you you really like your Microsoft stuff, but newsflash: there are others who have different opinions. I like
... a lot of the patches MS makes aren't released to the public on a public website, you've to call PSS (public support services) of MS to obtain the patch. A service pack contains these as well. So a service pack is more than just the publically available patches.
... as Sony owns a movie studio and MS doesn't. As MS is in fierce competition with Sony with their console, it's IMHO is in MS best interest to deny a request to block HD playback on 32bit: The less Sony sells, the better it is for MS.
Now Vista 32bit, the majority of the users will use this, will be crippled in a way users might not like (as Vista is here to stay for the next couple of years!).
How many times per day do you want to overtype something? Not a lot of times, the INS key is more a frustration trigger than a helper. Get rid of it too, with its buddy CAPS and it's dead step child SCROLL-LOCK.
Saves 2 leds as well
I wondered, wtf has wireless to do with this, but TFA is pretty clear: WARRANTLESS tapping, not wireless tapping.
Although I can fully understand the outrage among some US citizens because of this blocking, here in the Netherlands, unwarranted tapping and surveilance is already legit by law for some time. Not that most people agree, but hey, what can you do against politicians who think that by limiting freedom they will win the next election.
Fresh patents.com link
.NET product has failed, and I'm pretty sure their Java product isn't doing that well either, considering alternatives which cost at least a lot less.
Not only that, Objectspark is one of the most expensive o/r mappers on the planet. It comes at a price of at least $20,000 (twenty thousand dollars) a pop.
Add to that that TopLink is at least 10 years old, we can safely say, Firestar is trying but is doing that in the wrong area: they should simply lower their prices and increase their value for money.
Their
FB, lead developer LLBLGen Pro
A computer isn't a thing which has 1 function like a vacuumcleaner, it has many many features and functions. This means that you don't have 1 button in front of you which does what you want to do with the product, hence the requirement for reading some documentation.
However, most people who don't understand computers (as they say) simply don't WANT TO read any documenation or are too stubborn to actually understand what's going on. Well, I then say: suffer! If it's too much for you, user, to read some simple instructions, then it's too much for me to help your lazy a$$ out.
"The decision was endorsed last night by the Federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, who had asked the board to review of the game's MA15+ classification after local councils and state governments voiced concerns that the game would promote graffiti."
Gee, for a minute I thought they had concerns the game would promite violence, but *pfew*, violence is still normal, and accepted.
I don't need n, n>1, cores on a die, I want a processor which is COLD, so it can be passively cooled, or with a very small cooler. The fun of those things is that it will make computers silent again, like in the days of the 486 and earlier. Proper motherboard designs also can allow multi-proc systems which will mitigate the fact that you need multiple cores on a die.
You're focussing on 1 server with a lot of horsepower. But that single server's going to serve 50 people at any given time. That will make the mainboard/network channels the bottleneck, if not the HDD controller's ability to reach main-memory.
Why not go for 2 servers, use cheap SATA RAID1+0 disks? Then you can move the load to multiple servers and if more demand is required, you're not facing bottlenecks, just add another box.