I really enjoy reading discussion on Slashdot, but I have long since tired of reading general negative statements about a technology, with the implication that a competing technology is superior. It is all too easy to make blanket statements such as "(bad) Win32 APIs" whether you understand what you are talking about or not.
I tend to dismiss comments like this as either ill-informed, poorly though out, or based on ideology rather than an understanding of the facts.
If you are going to refer to "bad Win32 APIs," or make other such general statement, please back it up with an enlightening example or two to add some authority to your statement. WHY do you feel the design of the API is bad? HOW would you change the design to make it better? WHAT programming tasks or constructs are clumsy because of the API's design? I understand these points may be tangential to the primary discussion, but even a little evidence to support a position would be nice.
My same point applies when I read members bash a programming language (on this system, usually Microsoft ones) but don't give specific reasons to support their assertions.
There is too much ideology on here and too little objective discussion of facts, which dilutes the value of Slashdot.
I agree that SCMS is silly, especially since it fails to accomplish its stated goals due to simple workarounds. First, an MD (or CD, or DAT) recorded from an analog source is marked in subcode blocks as originating in analog, and so can be copied digitally. If the recording is marked as originating in digital, it can be copied, but only in analog. So someone *really* wanting to make multiple generation copies can: digital copy, then analog copy the copy, then digital copy the copy of the copy, etc. Much simpler is simply purchasing pro gear, which removed the SCMS concern entirely. Low end pro gear is often available for around the same price as mid-range consumer gear - one simply needs to expend the slight extra effort to locate a pro dealer.
In open discussion, eveyone's opinion should be heard. Certainly, some posts are more relevant to the discussion topic than others. Yours is, unfortunately, irrelevant, and totally unhelpful in remedying the problem that you perceive. Suggestions, rather than profanity, would increase the information content of your message.
I have long been angry with the media industry's selfish policy of fighting technological improvements that give the consumer better audio or video playback and recording quality. This has been evident ever since the introduction of the DAT format in the early '80s. The industry has clearly decided that certain technology is "too good" for the consumer, because it would enable high quality copying for others. This may be a valid concern, but to resort to simpleminded protection schemes and lawsuits against equipment manufacturers shows their lack of concern for the enjoyment of their customers and demonstrates that profit is their only concern.
I fail to see how this would be funny, considering that the OS is probably the least important design factor in the fitness of a robot in the competition ring. Let us not extend advocacy of a platform to the point of being ridiculous, please.
Slashdot Mirror
I really enjoy reading discussion on Slashdot, but I have long since tired of reading general negative statements about a technology, with the implication that a competing technology is superior. It is all too easy to make blanket statements such as "(bad) Win32 APIs" whether you understand what you are talking about or not.
I tend to dismiss comments like this as either ill-informed, poorly though out, or based on ideology rather than an understanding of the facts.
If you are going to refer to "bad Win32 APIs," or make other such general statement, please back it up with an enlightening example or two to add some authority to your statement. WHY do you feel the design of the API is bad? HOW would you change the design to make it better? WHAT programming tasks or constructs are clumsy because of the API's design? I understand these points may be tangential to the primary discussion, but even a little evidence to support a position would be nice.
My same point applies when I read members bash a programming language (on this system, usually Microsoft ones) but don't give specific reasons to support their assertions.
There is too much ideology on here and too little objective discussion of facts, which dilutes the value of Slashdot.
In my opinion.
I agree that SCMS is silly, especially since it fails to accomplish its stated goals due to simple workarounds. First, an MD (or CD, or DAT) recorded from an analog source is marked in subcode blocks as originating in analog, and so can be copied digitally. If the recording is marked as originating in digital, it can be copied, but only in analog. So someone *really* wanting to make multiple generation copies can: digital copy, then analog copy the copy, then digital copy the copy of the copy, etc. Much simpler is simply purchasing pro gear, which removed the SCMS concern entirely. Low end pro gear is often available for around the same price as mid-range consumer gear - one simply needs to expend the slight extra effort to locate a pro dealer.
In open discussion, eveyone's opinion should be heard. Certainly, some posts are more relevant to the discussion topic than others. Yours is, unfortunately, irrelevant, and totally unhelpful in remedying the problem that you perceive. Suggestions, rather than profanity, would increase the information content of your message.
I have long been angry with the media industry's selfish policy of fighting technological improvements that give the consumer better audio or video playback and recording quality. This has been evident ever since the introduction of the DAT format in the early '80s. The industry has clearly decided that certain technology is "too good" for the consumer, because it would enable high quality copying for others. This may be a valid concern, but to resort to simpleminded protection schemes and lawsuits against equipment manufacturers shows their lack of concern for the enjoyment of their customers and demonstrates that profit is their only concern.
The article specifically states that explosives are not allowed.
I fail to see how this would be funny, considering that the OS is probably the least important design factor in the fitness of a robot in the competition ring. Let us not extend advocacy of a platform to the point of being ridiculous, please.