"Embedded hardware" can mean anything--Python may be fast enough. And if it isn't, you can still write an emulation library in C and everything else (I/O, parsing, user interface) in Python.
Well, he is right: to succeed in business, you generally don't need to be particularly innovative or high-tech. Hiring average programmers that are easy to work with is probably a better business decision than hiring difficult top-notch nerds. But why go into high tech at all then? If you aren't fascinated by technology and just view the whole thing as a business, you might as well make your money with toilet paper or hamburgers.
Qt and Wx are both open-source cross-platform libraries. However, doing anything cross-platform in C++ is a pain. You're probably better off using Python, Mono, or Java.
Steam began as a way to distribute Valve software. It worked, other people wanted in. End of story. No antitrust.
It's not that simple; in principle, there could still be anti-trust violations. However, Steam doesn't have enough of the market yet for that to be a concern.
The fact and study was mentioned on an NPR podcast recently (On The Media?). You'll have to track it down yourself from there.
It's easy to verify for your own reading, though: just look at the blogs and the newspaper articles you read and look at the qualifications of the authors.
The iPhone is ahead because of the apps and the highly capable hardware.
The reason the iPhone is ahead is because it came out a few years earlier and has developed the usual, rapid, ignorant fan base that Apple products develop, like you're demonstrating.
In terms of actual growth, Android has been growing faster measured from its own release date than the iPhone.
If Android phones don't step up to the plate app-wise, AND touch-wise, accelerometer-wise, GPS-wise, compass-wise, iTunes-wise...
They already have, which is why I switched from iPhone to Android.
When Microsoft loses the personal data of its Danger customers, it's not more an indictment of cloud storage than Microsoft Windows blue-screening and losing your data is an indictment of desktop computing.
I would like to be able to disable all of Murdoch's crap from Google search results and Google news. Google really needs to add opt-out tools that make that simple, treating Murdoch's results like pornography.
The fact that he's making such misinformed claims in apparent ignorance indicates that he has another agenda, one of which we currently know nothing
His agenda is simple: he wants money. More to the point, he wants companies like Google to be forced to pay him money simply for putting pages on the web. That's the way it already works (effectively) for music and print. Other businesses are also kept afloat by effectively government mandated licensing fees. And with European anti-Google sentiments and no European competitor, he has a good chance of getting it.
The guy isn't stupid. He's trying to portray Google in this way in order to exert political pressure in Europe and take advantage of anti-Google sentiment in European politics.
What he really wants is for governments to funnel more money to him, just like they are already funneling money to music, journal, and book publishers from media and device sales.
The fact that he could stop Google with a robots.txt file if he so chose doesn't matter. In fact, he would continue to make these claims even if Google unilaterally excluded all of Murdoch's properties from indexing (he'd probably sue them for damaging his business on top of stealing from him then).
And it should, because we are FAR better served as a country by having professional journalists and bloggers, than by having bloggers alone.
If you compare the education of the top journalists and the top bloggers, the top bloggers are better educated. They probably also actually work in the fields that they are writing about.
The sooner we get rid of the career path of "journalist" and the career option of "full time paid reporter", the better for all of us. I want to get my news from people who are actually professionals in the field they are writing about, who are on the ground and involved, not from someone who derives his power from a superficial understanding and being able to string together a few nice phrases.
If Murdoch didn't want his content linked by Google, he could simply use a robots.txt--specifically against Google if he so chooses.
What he really wants is to force Google to share some of their revenue regardless of whether he provides any value or not, effectively based simply on the amount of content he puts on the web. Unfortunately, media companies in Europe are used to this kind of government-sponsored gravy train: music and book publishers already get their cut of a mandatory tax on blank media and devices, and they want more as their revenues are inevitably shrinking.
This kind of mixing of government and corporations is, sadly, the beginnings of fascism again. Italy seems the furthest along, but Britain, Germany, and other nations are on the same path. If business coughs in Europe, European governments are jumping.
and transmits them to the second user's brain through flashing an LED lamp
Bah, that's nothing. When I talk to my wife, I transmit my brain impulses through air, simply by flapping my tongue, and it is transmitted to her brain via vibrations in thin air! Isn't it amazing? ESP and all?
I don't see Apple becoming the de-facto smartphone standard; I think they're going to remain stuck in the single digits worldwide. Not only is the iPhone hugely expensive, it has too many limitations: no keyboard, proprietary protocols and lack of interoperability, limited software offerings, no interchangeable batteries, non-standard connectors, etc.
last-ditch effort on Adobe's part to remain relevant in the quickly evolving smartphone market.
The real question is how long Apple will remain relevant in the quickly evolving smartphone market, given how its "smarts" are limited by Apple's controls.
Even if their entire domestic energy usage is slightly carbon negative, that's only 20% of a person's energy footprint. The other 80% goes into manufacturing goods, transportation, commerce, communications, etc. That carbon footprint accrues simply because the people of Samsø are Danish citizens and participating in the Danish economy.
So, it's unlikely that they are "carbon negative". Furthermore, they probably compensate for some of the inconveniences by externalizing energy usage--saving energy on their island by consuming more energy remotely on the mainland. Overall, they may have reduced their actual carbon footprint 10-15% relative to the mainland, but it's unlikely that it is more than that.
I referred to "moralists" because typically, people seem to get accused of being "moralists" for having morals like... homosexuality is immoral
You're confusing moralism and morality. When people say that Christians are moralists, they are being accused of attempting to impose their private morals on others; it does not imply approval of Christian morality. In fact, many people object to Christian moralism because they find aspects of Christian morality and its ethical foundations offensive.
By "people," you apparently mean Christians, capitalists/conservatives, heterosexuals, and moralists. I guess atheists, communists, homosexuals, etc., are all peace-loving hate-hating people that have an inherent aversion to stalking or harassing or any sort of "bad behavior,"
It's not about "bad behavior". Christians, conservatives, and moralists have a long history of committing harassment, stalking, and blackmail against minority groups in order to make the minority behavior conform to their views. Atheists and homosexuals have virtually no history of using harassment, stalking, or blackmail to change Christians into atheists or heterosexuals into homosexuals.
whereas others - like Christians and conservatives - only profess to believe in "higher authority," God,
Believing in a "higher authority" is offensive and immoral. But as long as you as you keep it private and to yourself, that's your business. But you don't "only profess", you try to impose your offensive and immoral beliefs on others, and that's where you cross the line.
The problem is with the institution that applied for such a bad patent in the first place: the University of California.
As a public, educational institution, their patent attorneys should have been responsible enough not to patent a feature that clearly has prior art and is already widely used on the web.
and the "fully compatible" clause means it violates the FSFs freedom 1, the freedom to "change it to make it do what you wish".
Since the promise isn't part of a license, it doesn't violate anything, it is just an extra assurance if you like. You don't need to rely on it since Microsoft doesn't seem to have any enforceable patents on ECMA C# anyway.
As to "obsolete" give me a break..Net was not revolutionary
No,.NET was not revolutionary. There have been managed, garbage collected, type-correct languages for three decades, longer than C and C++. But C# is the first efficient, safe, garbage-collected language in decades that actually has a chance for widespread adoption.
That's the problems with shills like you, you've got your heads so far up Redmond's ass
That's the problem with people like you: you're technically so incompetent that you have to resort to categorizing technologies by brands and labels, rather than by understanding the issues. And people like you keep condemning us to technological stagnation.
If people like Stallman hadn't wasted two decades on C hacking, we wouldn't be in this situation; we didn't have to stoop to using Microsoft's knock-off of Sun's knock-off of a lot of other technologies.
If Stallman doesn't like C#, he should create an alternative instead of spreading FUD. I'll just use the best open source tools I can find, and that means Mono.
You're missing the point, which is that you're not free to produce a non-compatible implementation.
No, you're missing the point. You are free to produce a non-compatible version; there is no known patent, license, or copyright stopping you from doing so.
The reason Microsoft had to limit their promise in that way is because otherwise you might incorporate other Microsoft patented technology into your ECMA C# implementation and claim immunity from Microsoft patent suits; no corporation would give you that kind of unrestricted license.
This applies to any software that's under patent threat
Instead of spreading FUD, why don't you and RMS specifically list which patent Mono is supposed to be threatened by.
if the Linux kernel were to be threatened with an impossible to code around patent (purely for example) then the FSF view would also be that the project should cease until such time that the threat has passed.
By that standard, we need to stop using Firefox, X11, the Linux kernel, and probably gcc, since they are all under "impossible to code around patent threats".
We have Java, as well as Python and various other languages on Linux for the niche Mono wants to fill
Apart from the serious technical deficiencies of Java and Python, what evidence is there that they are any less at risk of patent infringement claims than Mono?
Seems to me like RMS gave a principled (and really fairly balanced)
RMS has just been spreading FUD, claiming without any justification that Mono is at risk of patent infringement claims from Microsoft. Which patents are those supposed to be? How is Microsoft supposed to assert them despite their legally binding commitment that they are not going to assert any patents on ECMA/ISO C#?
Why did this even make Slashdot when Icaza says absolutely nothing to refute Stallman's argument?
Stallman hasn't made an argument yet that could be refuted.
Slashdot Mirror
"Embedded hardware" can mean anything--Python may be fast enough. And if it isn't, you can still write an emulation library in C and everything else (I/O, parsing, user interface) in Python.
Well, he is right: to succeed in business, you generally don't need to be particularly innovative or high-tech. Hiring average programmers that are easy to work with is probably a better business decision than hiring difficult top-notch nerds. But why go into high tech at all then? If you aren't fascinated by technology and just view the whole thing as a business, you might as well make your money with toilet paper or hamburgers.
Qt and Wx are both open-source cross-platform libraries. However, doing anything cross-platform in C++ is a pain. You're probably better off using Python, Mono, or Java.
Steam began as a way to distribute Valve software. It worked, other people wanted in. End of story. No antitrust.
It's not that simple; in principle, there could still be anti-trust violations. However, Steam doesn't have enough of the market yet for that to be a concern.
The fact and study was mentioned on an NPR podcast recently (On The Media?). You'll have to track it down yourself from there.
It's easy to verify for your own reading, though: just look at the blogs and the newspaper articles you read and look at the qualifications of the authors.
The iPhone is ahead because of the apps and the highly capable hardware.
The reason the iPhone is ahead is because it came out a few years earlier and has developed the usual, rapid, ignorant fan base that Apple products develop, like you're demonstrating.
In terms of actual growth, Android has been growing faster measured from its own release date than the iPhone.
If Android phones don't step up to the plate app-wise, AND touch-wise, accelerometer-wise, GPS-wise, compass-wise, iTunes-wise...
They already have, which is why I switched from iPhone to Android.
When Microsoft loses the personal data of its Danger customers, it's not more an indictment of cloud storage than Microsoft Windows blue-screening and losing your data is an indictment of desktop computing.
I would like to be able to disable all of Murdoch's crap from Google search results and Google news. Google really needs to add opt-out tools that make that simple, treating Murdoch's results like pornography.
The fact that he's making such misinformed claims in apparent ignorance indicates that he has another agenda, one of which we currently know nothing
His agenda is simple: he wants money. More to the point, he wants companies like Google to be forced to pay him money simply for putting pages on the web. That's the way it already works (effectively) for music and print. Other businesses are also kept afloat by effectively government mandated licensing fees. And with European anti-Google sentiments and no European competitor, he has a good chance of getting it.
The guy isn't stupid. He's trying to portray Google in this way in order to exert political pressure in Europe and take advantage of anti-Google sentiment in European politics.
What he really wants is for governments to funnel more money to him, just like they are already funneling money to music, journal, and book publishers from media and device sales.
The fact that he could stop Google with a robots.txt file if he so chose doesn't matter. In fact, he would continue to make these claims even if Google unilaterally excluded all of Murdoch's properties from indexing (he'd probably sue them for damaging his business on top of stealing from him then).
And it should, because we are FAR better served as a country by having professional journalists and bloggers, than by having bloggers alone.
If you compare the education of the top journalists and the top bloggers, the top bloggers are better educated. They probably also actually work in the fields that they are writing about.
The sooner we get rid of the career path of "journalist" and the career option of "full time paid reporter", the better for all of us. I want to get my news from people who are actually professionals in the field they are writing about, who are on the ground and involved, not from someone who derives his power from a superficial understanding and being able to string together a few nice phrases.
If Murdoch didn't want his content linked by Google, he could simply use a robots.txt--specifically against Google if he so chooses.
What he really wants is to force Google to share some of their revenue regardless of whether he provides any value or not, effectively based simply on the amount of content he puts on the web. Unfortunately, media companies in Europe are used to this kind of government-sponsored gravy train: music and book publishers already get their cut of a mandatory tax on blank media and devices, and they want more as their revenues are inevitably shrinking.
This kind of mixing of government and corporations is, sadly, the beginnings of fascism again. Italy seems the furthest along, but Britain, Germany, and other nations are on the same path. If business coughs in Europe, European governments are jumping.
and transmits them to the second user's brain through flashing an LED lamp
Bah, that's nothing. When I talk to my wife, I transmit my brain impulses through air, simply by flapping my tongue, and it is transmitted to her brain via vibrations in thin air! Isn't it amazing? ESP and all?
I don't see Apple becoming the de-facto smartphone standard; I think they're going to remain stuck in the single digits worldwide. Not only is the iPhone hugely expensive, it has too many limitations: no keyboard, proprietary protocols and lack of interoperability, limited software offerings, no interchangeable batteries, non-standard connectors, etc.
last-ditch effort on Adobe's part to remain relevant in the quickly evolving smartphone market.
The real question is how long Apple will remain relevant in the quickly evolving smartphone market, given how its "smarts" are limited by Apple's controls.
Samsø is in fact carbon negative.
Even if their entire domestic energy usage is slightly carbon negative, that's only 20% of a person's energy footprint. The other 80% goes into manufacturing goods, transportation, commerce, communications, etc. That carbon footprint accrues simply because the people of Samsø are Danish citizens and participating in the Danish economy.
So, it's unlikely that they are "carbon negative". Furthermore, they probably compensate for some of the inconveniences by externalizing energy usage--saving energy on their island by consuming more energy remotely on the mainland. Overall, they may have reduced their actual carbon footprint 10-15% relative to the mainland, but it's unlikely that it is more than that.
I referred to "moralists" because typically, people seem to get accused of being "moralists" for having morals like ... homosexuality is immoral
You're confusing moralism and morality. When people say that Christians are moralists, they are being accused of attempting to impose their private morals on others; it does not imply approval of Christian morality. In fact, many people object to Christian moralism because they find aspects of Christian morality and its ethical foundations offensive.
By "people," you apparently mean Christians, capitalists/conservatives, heterosexuals, and moralists. I guess atheists, communists, homosexuals, etc., are all peace-loving hate-hating people that have an inherent aversion to stalking or harassing or any sort of "bad behavior,"
It's not about "bad behavior". Christians, conservatives, and moralists have a long history of committing harassment, stalking, and blackmail against minority groups in order to make the minority behavior conform to their views. Atheists and homosexuals have virtually no history of using harassment, stalking, or blackmail to change Christians into atheists or heterosexuals into homosexuals.
whereas others - like Christians and conservatives - only profess to believe in "higher authority," God,
Believing in a "higher authority" is offensive and immoral. But as long as you as you keep it private and to yourself, that's your business. But you don't "only profess", you try to impose your offensive and immoral beliefs on others, and that's where you cross the line.
The problem is with the institution that applied for such a bad patent in the first place: the University of California.
As a public, educational institution, their patent attorneys should have been responsible enough not to patent a feature that clearly has prior art and is already widely used on the web.
and the "fully compatible" clause means it violates the FSFs freedom 1, the freedom to "change it to make it do what you wish".
Since the promise isn't part of a license, it doesn't violate anything, it is just an extra assurance if you like. You don't need to rely on it since Microsoft doesn't seem to have any enforceable patents on ECMA C# anyway.
That's far from all of .Net
Good; I hate .NET (but I like Mono).
As to "obsolete" give me a break. .Net was not revolutionary
No, .NET was not revolutionary. There have been managed, garbage collected, type-correct languages for three decades, longer than C and C++. But C# is the first efficient, safe, garbage-collected language in decades that actually has a chance for widespread adoption.
That's the problems with shills like you, you've got your heads so far up Redmond's ass
That's the problem with people like you: you're technically so incompetent that you have to resort to categorizing technologies by brands and labels, rather than by understanding the issues. And people like you keep condemning us to technological stagnation.
If people like Stallman hadn't wasted two decades on C hacking, we wouldn't be in this situation; we didn't have to stoop to using Microsoft's knock-off of Sun's knock-off of a lot of other technologies.
If Stallman doesn't like C#, he should create an alternative instead of spreading FUD. I'll just use the best open source tools I can find, and that means Mono.
You're missing the point, which is that you're not free to produce a non-compatible implementation.
No, you're missing the point. You are free to produce a non-compatible version; there is no known patent, license, or copyright stopping you from doing so.
The reason Microsoft had to limit their promise in that way is because otherwise you might incorporate other Microsoft patented technology into your ECMA C# implementation and claim immunity from Microsoft patent suits; no corporation would give you that kind of unrestricted license.
This applies to any software that's under patent threat
Instead of spreading FUD, why don't you and RMS specifically list which patent Mono is supposed to be threatened by.
if the Linux kernel were to be threatened with an impossible to code around patent (purely for example) then the FSF view would also be that the project should cease until such time that the threat has passed.
By that standard, we need to stop using Firefox, X11, the Linux kernel, and probably gcc, since they are all under "impossible to code around patent threats".
So, I think that's a bad standard.
The patents are of less value to Microsoft than the disruption they'd cause Linux/FOSS
WHAT patents are you talking about? Microsoft does not have patents on Mono.
We have Java, as well as Python and various other languages on Linux for the niche Mono wants to fill
Apart from the serious technical deficiencies of Java and Python, what evidence is there that they are any less at risk of patent infringement claims than Mono?
Seems to me like RMS gave a principled (and really fairly balanced)
RMS has just been spreading FUD, claiming without any justification that Mono is at risk of patent infringement claims from Microsoft. Which patents are those supposed to be? How is Microsoft supposed to assert them despite their legally binding commitment that they are not going to assert any patents on ECMA/ISO C#?
Why did this even make Slashdot when Icaza says absolutely nothing to refute Stallman's argument?
Stallman hasn't made an argument yet that could be refuted.
What difference does it make that Microsoft is evil? They can't enforce patents against Mono that they don't have.