As someone who spent 10 years teaching mostly learning disabled students and a few that were classified as gifted, I can only wonder if the problem here was not with the user, but with her teacher.
Well, his situation was a bit different, he wasn't a teacher but a lowly technician who should fix something that should have worked in the first place and the use of which shouldn't involve any skills or learning either as after all she payed for it and all this techie stuff is far below her. Yeah, that's a lot of shoulds, which garantees lots of frustration and lots of blaming. When people go to a class like yours they have already accepted that they are a student and should learn something, i.e. they have taken responsability, that's a major step.
There are many ways to teach how a scrollbar works, such as cutting out a square in paper and moving another sheet up and down behind it.
I'm sure that if he was a professional teacher that he could come up with something like this too, as it is he is just volunteering some help. Anyway in my experience it wouldn't have solved the problem because as soon as they grok one feature, they'll feel entitled to another feature or program and the process starts anew. Money in the bank for someone like you who gets payed for it, but no fun for someone who volunteers his help.
Are you paying royalties to the inventors of those skills or are you just 'stealing' them? Or maybe copying is 'stealing' when someone copies from you, but it is not stealing when you copy from someone else?
If you want your house analogy to work you have to change it so that someone copies the design/look of your house. Say someone walks past your newly build house and likes it so much that he decides to build a similar house in the next village.
Why would you call that a counterpoint? It is no counterpoint, it supports his case. It tells us that the disease is not limited to the Bush administration and some fundamental changes will have to be made to root it out.
Why do we need a justification? France is a democracy which means that the people are the boss. It is clearly in their interest to be able to format-shift and it is also of interest for the economy as a whole to be able to format shift. So why not do it? There are only positives.
And no, Apple isn't required to do anything. They can take it or leave it. It's their choice to sell stuff in France.
...there is and always will be a fundamental tension between RMS's notion of ideal freedom and the Linux community's goal of "Linux everywhere".
You seem to suggest that Linus wants Linux everywhere also? From the article his opinion seems to be rather well rounded with no real interest other than making a great kernel.
He's talking about the Linux community not Linus himself. Linus may have been joking when he made his well known "world domination" quote, but it is a pretty good description of what seems to be one of the main driving forces inside the Linux community. To put it crudely: The FSF is about political excellence, BSD is about technical excellence, Linux is about being big. And the Linux community seems to have it right as political excellence and technical excellence are easy once you dominate the os scene.
Re:GCC is the Key to Open Source's Success
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You sound like a Jehovah's Witness citing the bible.
Giving things away for free is bad when it is used to stiffle competition.
There are basically 2 ways in which you can do that: by dumping or by creating private standards. Dumping is selling stuff below cost price (and thus taking losses) until your competitors are out of business. Private standards can be used to make competing related products incompatible or generally inconvience users of those products and thus try to set up a monopoly, this is at the core of Microsofts business strategy.
For many people this is all too abstract so they reduce it to 'giving away products is bad' which is clearly nonsense.
invoking a better future for children is just dumb.
It certainly isn't. There is a battle going on over who controls our software. Big software companies are trying to make us depend on their software and standards, OSS tries to do the opposite. Will our children be consumers who will be told what they want in the next corporate PR campaign or will they be citizens in control.
It's not about ethics or freedom, it is about money and power. It's about Microsoft being able to squeeze huge profits out of us not by making exceptional products but by controlling software standards that could have been open. It's also about monopolies breeding new monopolies, if we don't manage to stop it here it will go from bad to worse. So yes, Samba is a small part of an important fight and your ridiculing them isn't helpful.
Without an exclusive license, free riders become a problem.
For this very reason much of the research is either payed for or heavily subsidized out of public means. This is a much better solution than giving up on the free market.
Another policy that has been successful is non-exclusive licences. Take a look at the well organized electronics industry where patent pooling and non-exclusive licences are common and a lot of R&D is done.
The market is what makes companies depend on their customers. If we voluntary deny ourselves the option of buying some drug from another company, we get what we deserve and what the article describes: high prices and stagnating innovation.
The difference between life science patents and programming logic is not fundamental. The final products of life science might be more tangible but from an economic point of view they both produce products that have high sunk cost and low marginal cost.
Also, if someone wants to question the patent system in biotech, then what's the alternative?
Patents are government backed monopolies, so the alternative would be a free market. Research would be payed for by the government. The government would be financed by taxing the products in the free market. Another option would be allowing patents but forbidding exclusive licenses.
Patents have, despite a few cases of misuse, been proven to be the suitable intellectual property rights regime in that field.
The main point of the article is that it been a disaster. Did you read it? In fact the article is still pretty mild, it doesn't mention the many thousands of people that have died and are dying because of the high prices for drugs that can be cheaply produced (after the research has done).
The results of this 'suitable intellectual property rights regime' are at least as bad as those of Katrina. They just happen over a longer period of time and most of the dying is in far away places.
The dutch system is OS agnostic too. I had no problems filling out my tax form on Linux. The likely problem in Australia is that they hired a bunch of Microsoft fanboys into their IT department.
STL algorithms value *predictable* speed, vs raw average speed
No this is specified per function. partial_sort() prefers predictability. sort() prefers raw average speed. As another poster mentioned sort() is usually implemented with quicksort or introsort.
No, Linux attracted those companies because it was big and growing fast already. And the lawsuit is just a convenient story to blame someone else for the failure to win the battle for the user. It wasn't that important.
Imo the big problem of freebsd was (is?) that it is an OS by specialists for specialists (and specialist wanna bees). These people were not interested in marketing and helping out newbies they were focused on building the best OS available.
The early Linux community was very different in this respect. Many had only just switched from some commercial OS and were Unix newbies themselves. They were in a better position to recruit new users and did so enthusiastically, aiming for 'world domination' rather than technical excellence.
It never ceases to amaze me how deeply people believe that one cannot have an OO model, including destructors, without language support.
That is indeed amazing given that every C advocate around will repeat this over and over again.
You do realize that C++ was originally rolled in C, don't you?
How can I miss it when every C advocate around will repeat this over and over again. But of course it doesn't help your argument as you don't need automatic destructors to implement automatic destructors.
The use of RAII breaks down when resources must be freed in a deterministic order
I use RAII to free resources in a deterministic order all the time. You might not have total control, you still have a lot of control. And if you really need total you control you can just handcode it.
or worse, when resources are interdependent.
When resources are interdependent than this should reflect in the design: they probably should be released in the same destructor.
Sure. This is an example using the boost::function and boost::bind libraries which have both been available for a long time and are in the process of becoming part of the standard C++ library.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, his situation was a bit different, he wasn't a teacher but a lowly technician who should fix something that should have worked in the first place and the use of which shouldn't involve any skills or learning either as after all she payed for it and all this techie stuff is far below her. Yeah, that's a lot of shoulds, which garantees lots of frustration and lots of blaming. When people go to a class like yours they have already accepted that they are a student and should learn something, i.e. they have taken responsability, that's a major step.
I'm sure that if he was a professional teacher that he could come up with something like this too, as it is he is just volunteering some help. Anyway in my experience it wouldn't have solved the problem because as soon as they grok one feature, they'll feel entitled to another feature or program and the process starts anew. Money in the bank for someone like you who gets payed for it, but no fun for someone who volunteers his help.
Are you paying royalties to the inventors of those skills or are you just 'stealing' them? Or maybe copying is 'stealing' when someone copies from you, but it is not stealing when you copy from someone else?
If you want your house analogy to work you have to change it so that someone copies the design/look of your house. Say someone walks past your newly build house and likes it so much that he decides to build a similar house in the next village.
Why would you call that a counterpoint? It is no counterpoint, it supports his case. It tells us that the disease is not limited to the Bush administration and some fundamental changes will have to be made to root it out.
Why do we need a justification? France is a democracy which means that the people are the boss. It is clearly in their interest to be able to format-shift and it is also of interest for the economy as a whole to be able to format shift. So why not do it? There are only positives.
And no, Apple isn't required to do anything. They can take it or leave it. It's their choice to sell stuff in France.
Indeed, Microsoft took the same road with Windows. But of course they are not primarily interested in technical and political excellence.
He's talking about the Linux community not Linus himself. Linus may have been joking when he made his well known "world domination" quote, but it is a pretty good description of what seems to be one of the main driving forces inside the Linux community. To put it crudely: The FSF is about political excellence, BSD is about technical excellence, Linux is about being big. And the Linux community seems to have it right as political excellence and technical excellence are easy once you dominate the os scene.
You sound like a Jehovah's Witness citing the bible.
m l
Here is a list of contributors to GCC: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Contributors.ht
I would be quite annoyed with all this talk about initial authorship if I had just worked my butt of to get the current release out of the door.
Giving things away for free is bad when it is used to stiffle competition.
There are basically 2 ways in which you can do that: by dumping or by creating private standards. Dumping is selling stuff below cost price (and thus taking losses) until your competitors are out of business. Private standards can be used to make competing related products incompatible or generally inconvience users of those products and thus try to set up a monopoly, this is at the core of Microsofts business strategy.
For many people this is all too abstract so they reduce it to 'giving away products is bad' which is clearly nonsense.
Willingness is not the problem. Disproving evolution would make you famous and rich. The problem is the enormous amount evidence against you:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
invoking a better future for children is just dumb.
It certainly isn't. There is a battle going on over who controls our software. Big software companies are trying to make us depend on their software and standards, OSS tries to do the opposite. Will our children be consumers who will be told what they want in the next corporate PR campaign or will they be citizens in control.
It's not about ethics or freedom, it is about money and power. It's about Microsoft being able to squeeze huge profits out of us not by making exceptional products but by controlling software standards that could have been open. It's also about monopolies breeding new monopolies, if we don't manage to stop it here it will go from bad to worse. So yes, Samba is a small part of an important fight and your ridiculing them isn't helpful.
Without an exclusive license, free riders become a problem.
For this very reason much of the research is either payed for or heavily subsidized out of public means.
This is a much better solution than giving up on the free market.
Another policy that has been successful is non-exclusive licences. Take a look at the well organized electronics industry where patent pooling and non-exclusive licences are common and a lot of R&D is done.
The market is what makes companies depend on their customers. If we voluntary deny ourselves the option of buying some drug from another company, we get what we deserve and what the article describes: high prices and stagnating innovation.
Patents are government backed monopolies, so the alternative would be a free market. Research would
be payed for by the government. The government would be financed by taxing the products in the free market. Another option would be allowing patents but forbidding exclusive licenses.
The main point of the article is that it been a disaster. Did you read it? In fact the article is still pretty mild, it doesn't mention the many thousands of people that have died and are dying because of the high prices for drugs that can be cheaply produced (after the research has done).
The results of this 'suitable intellectual property rights regime' are at least as bad as those of Katrina. They just happen over a longer period of time and most of the dying is in far away places.
It is a free download.
The Australian e-tax is a Windows application - it is not a website.
In Holland it used to be a windows/dos application too. They fixed it and it is now a web application.
In Holland this is already no longer true for firms, even one person firms. Electronic submittal is mandatory.
It's web + pdf based though so it's mostly OS agnostic.
The dutch system is OS agnostic too. I had no problems filling out my tax form on Linux. The likely problem in Australia is that they hired a bunch of Microsoft fanboys into their IT department.
No this is specified per function. partial_sort() prefers predictability. sort() prefers raw average speed. As another poster mentioned sort() is usually implemented with quicksort or introsort.
Indeed, qsort is known to be slow. See:
http://theory.stanford.edu/~amitp/rants/c++-vs-c/
A comparison with the much faster STL sort should be interesting.
It is probably a C thing from the time it didn't support 'inline'. It never made sense for C++.
Well, you are part of that community. How would you react?
No, Linux attracted those companies because it was big and growing fast already. And the lawsuit is just a convenient story to blame someone else for the failure to win the battle for the user. It wasn't that important.
Imo the big problem of freebsd was (is?) that it is an OS by specialists for specialists (and specialist wanna bees). These people were not interested in marketing and helping out newbies they were focused on building the best OS available.
The early Linux community was very different in this respect. Many had only just switched from some commercial OS and were Unix newbies themselves. They were in a better position to recruit new users and did so enthusiastically, aiming for 'world domination' rather than technical excellence.
It never ceases to amaze me how deeply people believe that one cannot have an OO model, including destructors, without language support.
That is indeed amazing given that every C advocate around will repeat this over and over again.
You do realize that C++ was originally rolled in C, don't you?
How can I miss it when every C advocate around will repeat this over and over again. But of course it doesn't help your argument as you don't need automatic destructors to implement automatic destructors.
Just show us some code dude.
Resource acquisition is allocation is a technique, not a language facet.
a lization
Of course, check out http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ResourceAcquisitionIsIniti
it works perfectly well in C.
How does it work without destructors?
The use of RAII breaks down when resources must be freed in a deterministic order
I use RAII to free resources in a deterministic order all the time. You might not have total control, you still have a lot of control. And if you really need total you control you can just handcode it.
or worse, when resources are interdependent.
When resources are interdependent than this should reflect in the design: they probably should be released in the same destructor.
Sure. This is an example using the boost::function and boost::bind libraries which have both been available for a long time and are in the process of becoming part of the standard C++ library.If you don't want to use libraries just assign function objects or static class functions.
If you want to do several callbacks at once check out one of the many available signal/slot libraries.