"Win32 app working under.NET? What do you mean working under.net?.NET is a managed environment, a JIT-ed world with bytecode, GC etc. (like Java)"
It's also the name of the latest API. The new stuff in.NET doesn't break the stuff (well, not completely) that's in Win32. Neither did MFC. Neither did ActiveX.
A better example is probably the successive versions of the DirectX API. At least here we don't have people getting confused because of the lack of a numbering scheme.;)
"This might come as a surprise to some Slashdotters, but virtually all the cops I've ever known were able to make that intellectual leap."
It's not a surprise, but it's good to hear. A lot of police departments tend to be insular from what I've heard, so it's nice that in at least one case that was a positive influence. What worries me are the cases where that's not such a positive influence, such as the obvious cases of racial profiling in New Jersey and the like.
Jesus, I was wondering when someone was going to say this. Qt developers obviously aren't reading slashdot. other than you and me, that is:D
I think the large number of complaints is that although source-compatibility is -basically- maintained, you still have to recompile your apps. One of the nice things Microsoft has done is that you don't have to recompile your Win32-based app to work in.NET -- well, not completely, anyhow. This does have the side effect of dirtying up the API a bit. So it's a trade-off. Backwards compatibility does make GUIs easier for people to adopt -- who wants to constantly have to download new apps to work with the latest version???
I think the problem is that I'm being silly nit-picky on the translation. Zeno's Paradox should have the meaning, "This statement is false." But if you look at this translation in a certain way, it loses that meaning.
The rest of what he wrote is bunk, but he's right. Objectivity is this wonderful impossible bullshit that nobody ever really achieves. You're reviewing something, so you're giving an opinion -- be forthright about your biases. Give me that over false objectivity any day of the week (and twice on Sundays).
Hey uh... you know that your sig is NOT an example of Russell's Paradox?
Because the statement has two parts... the first part is false, which makes the second part true, but then the whole is still false even though the second part is true. It's like saying "2+2=4 and 2+2=5." 2+2=4 is true, 2+2=5 is false, therefore the logical AND is false.
It does still tell people that a product or service exists. That is the most basic reason for advertisement. Few have ever heard of Pajarito Mountain, because they don't advertise. But plenty of people have heard of Aspen from sponsored shows and other advertisements.
"As a side note, if you really feel that lies by omission aren't actual lies, I hope never to have to do business with you.;)"
You would hope never to have to do business against me. I'm GREAT to have on your side!;)
Seriously, I do make a distinction between omitting enough that the meaning is completely changed and only telling one side of the story. My point is that I don't believe that advertisements "lie by omission" as you say.
Take the Rimbo challenge. Watch an hour of TV, and don't skip the ads. Write down every claim an advertiser explicitly makes. Count how many of them are out-and-out falsehoods. Stated opinions don't count. Misleading by -not- stating facts doesn't count. How many actual lies do you find?
I'm willing to bet that you don't find a single one. Not on US TV, at least. Because ads are actually regulated -- you CAN'T make a claim that's false; you have to have evidence to back up any claim stated as a fact.
Propaganda is only bad when you disagree with it.;)
But seriously -- propaganda is any kind of advertising intended to convince you of the merits of a certain point of view. It is not necessarily misleading. "Zest gets you cleaner than soap because it doesn't leave a filmy residue" is a true fact, and not misleading at all; the question is, do you want to be so clean that even the natural oils on your skin have been removed?
Both Zest's ad and my response to it are propaganda. My question is a very leading question, and I've posted it here in a public place.
There is advertising which is propaganda, and propaganda which is misleading, which comes from a political entity, that may or may not have control over the media, deliberately done to spread manipulative misinformation for the benefit of the political entity. I've seen it myself. But it's not the only kind of speech out there. And it very much is speech.
I'm a big First Amendment type here. I believe the best way to defeat a lie is by telling the truth, and keeping on telling the truth. I believe -- no offense -- that what you and the former poster said is misinformation, so I'm responding to it for that very reason. At the same time, what we're talking about here is far less important than the real lies out there -- such as that hackers are all basically criminals, that file-sharing will kill off the RIAA/MPAA, that we have to re-interpret liberties in the post-9/11/2001 world, and that God wants us to kill infidels wherever they may be.
"Advertising is the enemy of information and communication. In a world ruled through corporate centralisation, censorship is a logical extension of that fact."
You were doing great up until here.
"Advertising" is just the word we use for letting people who might have a desire or need for something that you provide it. A fish on the back of a car. Free coupons for pizza. A prostitute's dress and makeup. A link to your webpage on Slashdot. Your favorite band's bumper sticker or T-shirt.
Advertising is as much a valid form of information and communicaton as any other. And just like all other forms of communication, lies are told, and some groups don't want to hear it.
All that's happened here is that technological advances in communication have made it harder to misrepresent certain facts -- which is a good thing. At the same time, the same technology will soon make it easier for people to get their speech to you that you might find unwelcome -- e.g., spammers. But that's no different from the guy who accosts you on the street, follows you, and keeps yappin' at ya.
SCO: What about the fatal flaw in the GPL? IBM: You're bluffing. SCO: Can you afford to take that chance? IBM: *long pause*
*blood-curdling screech of agony*
IBM: Well, I guess it's moot, now...
Re:Stage One of Making PALM Investors Really Rich
on
Palm Reveals New Name
·
· Score: 1
Actually, historically when a company splits in two the combined value of the two companies is worth more than the single company was. Take Ma Bell as the best example of this -- even if Lucent ends up worth nothing, there's SBC, PacBell (now a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC), AT&T, Bell Labs...
And when two companies merge, typically the combined company is worth less than both companies were. Think AOL/Time Warner.
One of the brightest moves Coca-Cola ever made was to split their core syrup/merchandising operation (KO) from their bottling operation (CCE). CCE ends up bearing the brunt of the market's ups and downs, and KO is a gleaming star of profit and happiness. I think we'll see a similar thing with Palm; the hardware end of Palm will have to deal with current market ups and downs, and the OS division will probably be the steady performer.
The moral of the story is that this is a good move for investors. As we UNIX geeks know, there's something to be said for having some small special-purpose entities that you can combine in just the right ways than one monolithic entity.
"Disregarding the MacOS method of handling mount/unmount, one nice way MacOS handles removable media is when you don't have a disc in the drive, the drive isn't cluttering up your GUI workspace. It's not there until you need it, and goes away when you're done with it. I have yet to see this function enabled consistently on any *nix distro/fork."
Try MacOS X, for a *nix distro/fork where this behaves consistently.:)
You're right. The Chinese government was terribly un-forthcoming with information. If they come clean in the first place and cooperate with the rest of the world, this isn't a problem.
It's good that the information at least got out, because things would have been even worse. But given a choice of ways for the information to get out... calmly speaking professionals and officials is generally better than panicked masses.
"They move to Indonesia or China - countries that kill their citizens who step out of line."
I went to China last year. While no self-respecting libertarian would say that the country is Free, getting a personal tour from my girlfriend of her romping grounds and the like were eye-opening.
The days when China would kill citizens who step out of line are drawing to a close. A big reason for this is... well, whaddaya know, globalization. China wants the money and success of the West, but they have to make concessions on the Human Rights issue to gain the right treaties. And then, when the jobs and money do start flowing in, China cannot prevent the ideas from also flowing in and having an impact.
Cell phones and the internet -- the same technologies that empower individuals here -- are empowering ordinary Chinese citizens over there. SMS messaging reported the spread of SARS far more quickly than the PRC gov't wanted -- even more quickly than was reasonable, since it led to a worldwide panic!
And it's not just about technology. The money people have allow them to stop worrying about getting fed, and as they gain comfort and possessions, they gain more and more to lose from the government just taking from those according to their abilities and distributing to those according to their needs. Or simply taking people's lives. Funny, that a lack of anything to lose would encourage someone to suicide bomb, but that a great many things to lose leads someone to want to fight -- and win.
As for the main topic of the thread, I think the fear of jobs moving overseas is mostly hype; even if it is, we will adapt, re-educate ourselves, and take new jobs. And we will still write code! We'll just have a lot more open-source contributors that way.:)
It may very well be some sort of protective measure, brought on by the tourism lobby to ensure people are out paying for scuba lessons and boat rides and not in their hotels surfing the net. Rent a surfboard and surf the waves!
There's no reason why internet access can't be a cash cow for the island as well. And the way this usually works -- with any government -- is that the regulation is put in place until someone comes to the government and says, "I'd love to start up this wonderful company, but this regulation is going to keep me from doing it. Perhaps you, Mr. Politician, could knock down this regulation, and in return I could make you a significant shareowner in the company?" If he then faces any opposition, you simply approach the opposition and make him the same offer -- voila! No more opposition, no more regulation, you're free to make as much money as you want -- giving the government a substantial cut, yes, but funny how they like to have the companies they own stock in tax exemptions, isn't it?
Of course, this regulation was put in place for just this purpose. It is there to ensure that you will grease the palms of the local politcos before you move on to this venture. This is the way of the world -- in every country. Not just St. Lucia. And yes, even in the United States.
What your business doing represents a win-win scenario for the government of St. Lucia. Show the government how your business will make their jobs and lives easier and better. They may even become one of your better investors. I am sure you will be able to work a way around this regulatory snag, or have it deregulated.
"This was all the more puzzling since it's widely acknowledged that the Canadian health care system is far superior to that of the US. While Canadians enjoy the benefits of universal health care, many Americans are without any form of health insurance whatsoever."
*falls out of chair laughing*
I'm sorry, I couldn't take anything in this article seriously after that.:)
Slashdot Mirror
"Win32 app working under .NET? What do you mean working under .net? .NET is a managed environment, a JIT-ed world with bytecode, GC etc. (like Java)"
.NET doesn't break the stuff (well, not completely) that's in Win32. Neither did MFC. Neither did ActiveX.
;)
It's also the name of the latest API. The new stuff in
A better example is probably the successive versions of the DirectX API. At least here we don't have people getting confused because of the lack of a numbering scheme.
"This might come as a surprise to some Slashdotters, but virtually all the cops I've ever known were able to make that intellectual leap."
It's not a surprise, but it's good to hear. A lot of police departments tend to be insular from what I've heard, so it's nice that in at least one case that was a positive influence. What worries me are the cases where that's not such a positive influence, such as the obvious cases of racial profiling in New Jersey and the like.
Well, remember... ESR's also a gun nut. He may have something else in store... ;)
Just kidding, Eric... please, point that thing somewhere elY#&*(&*(0789789 NO CARRIER
Jesus, I was wondering when someone was going to say this. Qt developers obviously aren't reading slashdot. other than you and me, that is :D
.NET -- well, not completely, anyhow. This does have the side effect of dirtying up the API a bit. So it's a trade-off. Backwards compatibility does make GUIs easier for people to adopt -- who wants to constantly have to download new apps to work with the latest version???
I think the large number of complaints is that although source-compatibility is -basically- maintained, you still have to recompile your apps. One of the nice things Microsoft has done is that you don't have to recompile your Win32-based app to work in
I think the problem is that I'm being silly nit-picky on the translation. Zeno's Paradox should have the meaning, "This statement is false." But if you look at this translation in a certain way, it loses that meaning.
Eh. *shrug* Close enough for government work...
The rest of what he wrote is bunk, but he's right. Objectivity is this wonderful impossible bullshit that nobody ever really achieves. You're reviewing something, so you're giving an opinion -- be forthright about your biases. Give me that over false objectivity any day of the week (and twice on Sundays).
Hey uh... you know that your sig is NOT an example of Russell's Paradox?
Because the statement has two parts... the first part is false, which makes the second part true, but then the whole is still false even though the second part is true. It's like saying "2+2=4 and 2+2=5." 2+2=4 is true, 2+2=5 is false, therefore the logical AND is false.
Okay, I should get more sleep...
I don't think they get the joke.
What the hell, I've got plenty of karma to burn...
Wait... so we're going to criticize a false claim of copyright violation by using a real copyright violation?
It does still tell people that a product or service exists. That is the most basic reason for advertisement. Few have ever heard of Pajarito Mountain, because they don't advertise. But plenty of people have heard of Aspen from sponsored shows and other advertisements.
;)"
;)
"As a side note, if you really feel that lies by omission aren't actual lies, I hope never to have to do business with you.
You would hope never to have to do business against me. I'm GREAT to have on your side!
Seriously, I do make a distinction between omitting enough that the meaning is completely changed and only telling one side of the story. My point is that I don't believe that advertisements "lie by omission" as you say.
Take the Rimbo challenge. Watch an hour of TV, and don't skip the ads. Write down every claim an advertiser explicitly makes. Count how many of them are out-and-out falsehoods. Stated opinions don't count. Misleading by -not- stating facts doesn't count. How many actual lies do you find?
I'm willing to bet that you don't find a single one. Not on US TV, at least. Because ads are actually regulated -- you CAN'T make a claim that's false; you have to have evidence to back up any claim stated as a fact.
"Propaganda is bad, right?"
;)
Propaganda is only bad when you disagree with it.
But seriously -- propaganda is any kind of advertising intended to convince you of the merits of a certain point of view. It is not necessarily misleading. "Zest gets you cleaner than soap because it doesn't leave a filmy residue" is a true fact, and not misleading at all; the question is, do you want to be so clean that even the natural oils on your skin have been removed?
Both Zest's ad and my response to it are propaganda. My question is a very leading question, and I've posted it here in a public place.
There is advertising which is propaganda, and propaganda which is misleading, which comes from a political entity, that may or may not have control over the media, deliberately done to spread manipulative misinformation for the benefit of the political entity. I've seen it myself. But it's not the only kind of speech out there. And it very much is speech.
I'm a big First Amendment type here. I believe the best way to defeat a lie is by telling the truth, and keeping on telling the truth. I believe -- no offense -- that what you and the former poster said is misinformation, so I'm responding to it for that very reason. At the same time, what we're talking about here is far less important than the real lies out there -- such as that hackers are all basically criminals, that file-sharing will kill off the RIAA/MPAA, that we have to re-interpret liberties in the post-9/11/2001 world, and that God wants us to kill infidels wherever they may be.
Oh yeah... they DID do that, didn't they?
:)
So I guess they're protected, then.
"Advertising is the enemy of information and communication. In a world ruled through corporate centralisation, censorship is a logical extension of that fact."
You were doing great up until here.
"Advertising" is just the word we use for letting people who might have a desire or need for something that you provide it. A fish on the back of a car. Free coupons for pizza. A prostitute's dress and makeup. A link to your webpage on Slashdot. Your favorite band's bumper sticker or T-shirt.
Advertising is as much a valid form of information and communicaton as any other. And just like all other forms of communication, lies are told, and some groups don't want to hear it.
All that's happened here is that technological advances in communication have made it harder to misrepresent certain facts -- which is a good thing. At the same time, the same technology will soon make it easier for people to get their speech to you that you might find unwelcome -- e.g., spammers. But that's no different from the guy who accosts you on the street, follows you, and keeps yappin' at ya.
Except that the current Windows kernel was started in conjunction with IBM, who had the rights to UNIX at that time.
Which means that Microsoft is not just a supporter of SCO -- they're also a potential target.
SCO: What about the fatal flaw in the GPL?
IBM: You're bluffing.
SCO: Can you afford to take that chance?
IBM: *long pause*
*blood-curdling screech of agony*
IBM: Well, I guess it's moot, now...
Actually, historically when a company splits in two the combined value of the two companies is worth more than the single company was. Take Ma Bell as the best example of this -- even if Lucent ends up worth nothing, there's SBC, PacBell (now a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC), AT&T, Bell Labs...
And when two companies merge, typically the combined company is worth less than both companies were. Think AOL/Time Warner.
One of the brightest moves Coca-Cola ever made was to split their core syrup/merchandising operation (KO) from their bottling operation (CCE). CCE ends up bearing the brunt of the market's ups and downs, and KO is a gleaming star of profit and happiness. I think we'll see a similar thing with Palm; the hardware end of Palm will have to deal with current market ups and downs, and the OS division will probably be the steady performer.
The moral of the story is that this is a good move for investors. As we UNIX geeks know, there's something to be said for having some small special-purpose entities that you can combine in just the right ways than one monolithic entity.
"Disregarding the MacOS method of handling mount/unmount, one nice way MacOS handles removable media is when you don't have a disc in the drive, the drive isn't cluttering up your GUI workspace. It's not there until you need it, and goes away when you're done with it. I have yet to see this function enabled consistently on any *nix distro/fork."
:)
Try MacOS X, for a *nix distro/fork where this behaves consistently.
"And look where it's got you, a consumer and an employee of a large corporation. Wow."
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Of course; the criminal courts aren't clogged with these cases, they're clogged with cases for the War On Drugs.
You're right. The Chinese government was terribly un-forthcoming with information. If they come clean in the first place and cooperate with the rest of the world, this isn't a problem.
It's good that the information at least got out, because things would have been even worse. But given a choice of ways for the information to get out... calmly speaking professionals and officials is generally better than panicked masses.
"They move to Indonesia or China - countries that kill their citizens who step out of line."
:)
I went to China last year. While no self-respecting libertarian would say that the country is Free, getting a personal tour from my girlfriend of her romping grounds and the like were eye-opening.
The days when China would kill citizens who step out of line are drawing to a close. A big reason for this is... well, whaddaya know, globalization. China wants the money and success of the West, but they have to make concessions on the Human Rights issue to gain the right treaties. And then, when the jobs and money do start flowing in, China cannot prevent the ideas from also flowing in and having an impact.
Cell phones and the internet -- the same technologies that empower individuals here -- are empowering ordinary Chinese citizens over there. SMS messaging reported the spread of SARS far more quickly than the PRC gov't wanted -- even more quickly than was reasonable, since it led to a worldwide panic!
And it's not just about technology. The money people have allow them to stop worrying about getting fed, and as they gain comfort and possessions, they gain more and more to lose from the government just taking from those according to their abilities and distributing to those according to their needs. Or simply taking people's lives. Funny, that a lack of anything to lose would encourage someone to suicide bomb, but that a great many things to lose leads someone to want to fight -- and win.
As for the main topic of the thread, I think the fear of jobs moving overseas is mostly hype; even if it is, we will adapt, re-educate ourselves, and take new jobs. And we will still write code! We'll just have a lot more open-source contributors that way.
It may very well be some sort of protective measure, brought on by the tourism lobby to ensure people are out paying for scuba lessons and boat rides and not in their hotels surfing the net. Rent a surfboard and surf the waves!
There's no reason why internet access can't be a cash cow for the island as well. And the way this usually works -- with any government -- is that the regulation is put in place until someone comes to the government and says, "I'd love to start up this wonderful company, but this regulation is going to keep me from doing it. Perhaps you, Mr. Politician, could knock down this regulation, and in return I could make you a significant shareowner in the company?" If he then faces any opposition, you simply approach the opposition and make him the same offer -- voila! No more opposition, no more regulation, you're free to make as much money as you want -- giving the government a substantial cut, yes, but funny how they like to have the companies they own stock in tax exemptions, isn't it?
Of course, this regulation was put in place for just this purpose. It is there to ensure that you will grease the palms of the local politcos before you move on to this venture. This is the way of the world -- in every country. Not just St. Lucia. And yes, even in the United States.
What your business doing represents a win-win scenario for the government of St. Lucia. Show the government how your business will make their jobs and lives easier and better. They may even become one of your better investors. I am sure you will be able to work a way around this regulatory snag, or have it deregulated.
oh, God, this article is hilarious:
:)
"This was all the more puzzling since it's widely acknowledged that the Canadian health care system is far superior to that of the US. While Canadians enjoy the benefits of universal health care, many Americans are without any form of health insurance whatsoever."
*falls out of chair laughing*
I'm sorry, I couldn't take anything in this article seriously after that.