Most people I know with the 5100 series phone choose it for the availability of flashy faceplates. Compared to other phones at the same price point, the Nokias are heavier, have fewer features, and are more power hungry.
On a side note, I strongly believe that if car makers made it easier to change the plastic body panels, people would love to own a few different sets so if they got tired of the current color, they could switch.
I've seen a few of these for racers, but I don't see why it should be any different for a battle bot maker. What you need to do is put together a one or two page write up on who you are and what you're building. Include a cover letter asking for sponsorship and then mass mail the thing to local businesses and the makers of the stuff you need.
If a business can supply you with parts (either free or at a discount) it usually works out pretty well. Getting cash can be tricky (particularily with no past success), but you may just get lucky.
They also tried to patent the sound when the trademark wasn't going to pan out. Honda and Yamaha went to court over it and things were just resolved this year.
To take an example from the physical world. When Japanese companies started making motorcycles that looked and sounded like Harley-Davidson bikes, H-D tried to file a patent on the sound and sue. The final outcome? You can't protect the look or sound of a motorcycle.
Why should look and feel of software be any different?
This is actually a good point. It should be modded up.
Re:Yuck, why don't you just become a cyborg
on
The Ultimate Chair
·
· Score: 2
The human body wasn't designed for sitting nearly motionless for such long periods of time
Uh... the human body wasn't designed for anything. In fact, it wasn't designed at all. We evolved to this state and we'll continue to evolve. If this chair weeds out those genes that require people to be active 3 hours a day in order not to develope disease, so be it.
Without showing you the book, its hard to get across what the original poster was refering to (as an illustrator, McCloud draws better than he can explain). When he talks about reality, it is not the fact no amount of bullets will cause my car to burst into a giant fireball the size of the Goodyear blimp. Rather, he means a visual reality where things look like a thing rather than a class of things.
I could really go on at length about this, but it'd better for you to simply find a copy and read chapter 2. If you're in a real hurry (or just want to get the jist while standing in Barnes & Nobel) read pages 48-55. Should talk all of 4 minutes.
I keep a copy in my cube, but as a reference for UI design. McCloud's ideas aren't really revolutionary, but he distills what learned about human communication in five years of college anthopology classes into 215 pages.
My gaming is the lightest task the notebook does (mame really isn't processor heavy), but compiling code *is* processor intensive. I do it on the plane to try and get things right by the time I get to a customer site.
Both battery life and processor power are important to me, thus I've resorted to carrying extra batteries and plugging in my laptop while at the airport. I'm the luser sitting on the floor in the corner because I found an outlet.
I noticed that part of their letter, too. Anyone who think about it will realize that library does allow copying and its called fair use.
Hmmm... maybe the university should take the same attitude towards Napster. A "Napster card" where you prepay for the bandwidth you're going to use and they just trust you to "Do The Right Thing" (tm). Of course I'm being a little silly, but I think you get the idea.
But it has no meaning until it is explictly given a context (i.e. ptr = &foo | *the vehicle* is a car) unlike a pronoun which draws its meaning by contextual reference (this->foo() | *it* is a car)
Perl is much trickier from a linguistic standpoint. $_ in both it's explict and implied forms make things much trickier. I haven't spent any time seriously considering it though, so I didn't want to bring it up.
A pointer isn't a pronoun it is another reference to an object.
Example:
"Bill Clinton" and "Ronald Regan" are both nouns. A "pointer" for them could be "President of the United States". The current state of "President of the United States" (vs "former President of the United States") can only refer to one of them. The pronoun "He" OTOH could be either.
Drawing on my Anthropology degree, all modern computer languages are highly simplified languages.
The basic components are there (Verbs, nouns, etc.) but they are typically very limited (ever see a pronoun in C?). Also, the sentence structure is *very* ridgid. (Unlike English which allows movement of objects and adjectives or even the removal of the subject!)
Although keywords tend to be english based, structure isn't and that is just as key to learning (and using) a language as the other elements. Just hope the standards aren't "influenced" by other languages the way natural languages have been. Can you imagine C after it "borrows" a few verbs (function calls) from say smalltalk?
I get my Internet access through AT&T's @Home service, but in my area both AT&T and Ameritech compete for home cable access. Due to the screwy pricing structure for @Home and AT&T cable, I actually have Ameritech's cable service. Yes, it does come in on two different physical wires, but at least I get options.
Perhaps in less populated areas this isn't possible, but in cities with dense populations of cable subscribers, I think multiple providers does a great job. (Nevermind the alternative of DSS for TV and xDSL for Ineternet access).
I wasn't trying to aim my post as "pro-Napster", more along the lines of "what RIAA really is concerned about". RIAA promotes ideas that make marketing easier (top forty lists based purely on record sales, not on listener requests) and squashes those that cause them to work (early electronica music sans "stars"). The whole IP and piracy talk is just the spin machine in motion. Do you think law makers would give a damn if they raised the banner of more difficult marketing?
More likely what happens is that you download a song by Moby, decide you like it, and buy an album. Tomorrow you go and download something by Dr. Dre and discover you like it so you buy one of his CD's rather than buying that second Moby CD (thinking Moby is "safe" since you already like on of his works). Internet music sampling makes consumers less predictable because they can actually make informed musical decesions. As a result the record companies have to work harder (read produce more albums from a larger array of artists) to keep earning your money. This isn't about piracy or artist freedom to RIAA, it's about keeping the consumer where they can market to them more successfully. Douglas Rushkoff outlined this very well when he wrote "Coercion" (before Napster hit the net). RIAA knows you'll buy more albums, they just can't figure out which ones they'll be.
In the book Coersion, Douglas Rushkoff puts it best when he points out the effects of increased distribution of music. Consumers buy more CD's, but become less predictable in their habits. Where at one time you could count on fans to buy every album by the favorite super group (Metallica, U2, R.E.M., etc) now they buy one album per genre and move on.
Of course no one will ever argue that in a court of law, but it does seem to be the real issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I have yet to see such a car (I'm not denying its existance, it just hasn't made it to Detroit or the North American Internationl Auto Show yet).
I would help if it wasn't fugly to start with.
Most people I know with the 5100 series phone choose it for the availability of flashy faceplates. Compared to other phones at the same price point, the Nokias are heavier, have fewer features, and are more power hungry.
On a side note, I strongly believe that if car makers made it easier to change the plastic body panels, people would love to own a few different sets so if they got tired of the current color, they could switch.
- Success of General Motors over Ford Motor Company.
- Success of Nokia 5100 series of cell phones
- iAnything.
- The entire fashion industry.
- Andy Warhol
- Boy/Girl bands
- Wired magazine
I could go on, but I think its clear that consumers prefer style to substance.I've seen a few of these for racers, but I don't see why it should be any different for a battle bot maker. What you need to do is put together a one or two page write up on who you are and what you're building. Include a cover letter asking for sponsorship and then mass mail the thing to local businesses and the makers of the stuff you need.
If a business can supply you with parts (either free or at a discount) it usually works out pretty well. Getting cash can be tricky (particularily with no past success), but you may just get lucky.
Funny, according to our lawyers the LGPL/GPL allow us to link to the libraries in a "normal" fashion without either giving credit or providing source.
Since when does using a precompiled library make you responsible for distributing it and publishing source?
They also tried to patent the sound when the trademark wasn't going to pan out. Honda and Yamaha went to court over it and things were just resolved this year.
To take an example from the physical world. When Japanese companies started making motorcycles that looked and sounded like Harley-Davidson bikes, H-D tried to file a patent on the sound and sue. The final outcome? You can't protect the look or sound of a motorcycle.
Why should look and feel of software be any different?
This is actually a good point. It should be modded up.
Uh... the human body wasn't designed for anything. In fact, it wasn't designed at all. We evolved to this state and we'll continue to evolve. If this chair weeds out those genes that require people to be active 3 hours a day in order not to develope disease, so be it.
Without showing you the book, its hard to get across what the original poster was refering to (as an illustrator, McCloud draws better than he can explain). When he talks about reality, it is not the fact no amount of bullets will cause my car to burst into a giant fireball the size of the Goodyear blimp. Rather, he means a visual reality where things look like a thing rather than a class of things.
I could really go on at length about this, but it'd better for you to simply find a copy and read chapter 2. If you're in a real hurry (or just want to get the jist while standing in Barnes & Nobel) read pages 48-55. Should talk all of 4 minutes.
I keep a copy in my cube, but as a reference for UI design. McCloud's ideas aren't really revolutionary, but he distills what learned about human communication in five years of college anthopology classes into 215 pages.
My gaming is the lightest task the notebook does (mame really isn't processor heavy), but compiling code *is* processor intensive. I do it on the plane to try and get things right by the time I get to a customer site.
Both battery life and processor power are important to me, thus I've resorted to carrying extra batteries and plugging in my laptop while at the airport. I'm the luser sitting on the floor in the corner because I found an outlet.
Yes, and like the article says that's one of the reasons adoption of the Internet has been slower there.
Everything is written from a clearly American perspective. They aren't "consumer" but "American consumers". Why try and bash it for this?
I noticed that part of their letter, too. Anyone who think about it will realize that library does allow copying and its called fair use.
Hmmm... maybe the university should take the same attitude towards Napster. A "Napster card" where you prepay for the bandwidth you're going to use and they just trust you to "Do The Right Thing" (tm). Of course I'm being a little silly, but I think you get the idea.
But it has no meaning until it is explictly given a context (i.e. ptr = &foo | *the vehicle* is a car) unlike a pronoun which draws its meaning by contextual reference (this->foo() | *it* is a car)
Most definately the "this" of C++ is a pronoun. I'll agree to that, but as another poster pointed out, that is the only one.
A pointer hardly counts as a pronoun. Not generic enough.
I've heard of Objective-C, but never read it. (I was at the zoo studing spider monkeys, not programming)
Perl is much trickier from a linguistic standpoint. $_ in both it's explict and implied forms make things much trickier. I haven't spent any time seriously considering it though, so I didn't want to bring it up.
A pointer isn't a pronoun it is another reference to an object.
Example:
"Bill Clinton" and "Ronald Regan" are both nouns. A "pointer" for them could be "President of the United States". The current state of "President of the United States" (vs "former President of the United States") can only refer to one of them. The pronoun "He" OTOH could be either.
Drawing on my Anthropology degree, all modern computer languages are highly simplified languages.
The basic components are there (Verbs, nouns, etc.) but they are typically very limited (ever see a pronoun in C?). Also, the sentence structure is *very* ridgid. (Unlike English which allows movement of objects and adjectives or even the removal of the subject!)
Although keywords tend to be english based, structure isn't and that is just as key to learning (and using) a language as the other elements. Just hope the standards aren't "influenced" by other languages the way natural languages have been. Can you imagine C after it "borrows" a few verbs (function calls) from say smalltalk?
I get my Internet access through AT&T's @Home service, but in my area both AT&T and Ameritech compete for home cable access. Due to the screwy pricing structure for @Home and AT&T cable, I actually have Ameritech's cable service. Yes, it does come in on two different physical wires, but at least I get options.
Perhaps in less populated areas this isn't possible, but in cities with dense populations of cable subscribers, I think multiple providers does a great job. (Nevermind the alternative of DSS for TV and xDSL for Ineternet access).
I wasn't trying to aim my post as "pro-Napster", more along the lines of "what RIAA really is concerned about". RIAA promotes ideas that make marketing easier (top forty lists based purely on record sales, not on listener requests) and squashes those that cause them to work (early electronica music sans "stars"). The whole IP and piracy talk is just the spin machine in motion. Do you think law makers would give a damn if they raised the banner of more difficult marketing?
More likely what happens is that you download a song by Moby, decide you like it, and buy an album. Tomorrow you go and download something by Dr. Dre and discover you like it so you buy one of his CD's rather than buying that second Moby CD (thinking Moby is "safe" since you already like on of his works). Internet music sampling makes consumers less predictable because they can actually make informed musical decesions. As a result the record companies have to work harder (read produce more albums from a larger array of artists) to keep earning your money. This isn't about piracy or artist freedom to RIAA, it's about keeping the consumer where they can market to them more successfully. Douglas Rushkoff outlined this very well when he wrote "Coercion" (before Napster hit the net). RIAA knows you'll buy more albums, they just can't figure out which ones they'll be.
In the book Coersion, Douglas Rushkoff puts it best when he points out the effects of increased distribution of music. Consumers buy more CD's, but become less predictable in their habits. Where at one time you could count on fans to buy every album by the favorite super group (Metallica, U2, R.E.M., etc) now they buy one album per genre and move on.
Of course no one will ever argue that in a court of law, but it does seem to be the real issue.