... and the first thing they did was break their own rule by overloading the plus operator for the String class. Did they really need to do that when people could have just called String.append() all over the place? If the answer is yes, then there is an argument for why overloaded operators are useful.
So, what you're actually arguing that C++ is easier to program in than Java or C#. And if you really, truly believe that, then I despair for the future of software engineering.
You're assuming that everyone faces the same sorts of programming tasks that you do, and therefore the tools you find best are best tools for everyone. That's not a valid assumption. One size does not fit all.
There's no better way to guarantee that your product will never congeal than to be constantly changing it.
You don't constantly change it just for the sake of changing it. You improve it only when it is non-optimal. Assuming you have a well defined idea of what "optimal" is, your code will converge to the optimal point and then changes to it will cease.
Or to put it conversely: there's no better way to guarantee that your product will be non-optimal than to not fix the flaws in it.
What happens when the quirky code you just changed 5 minutes ago had just finished a month of testing and debugging? Or when your architectural re-write has a chain-reaction further downstream?
This is a good point -- you need to consider the implications of the changes you make very carefully. I follow the "fix it when you see it" strategy of the previous poster, and it works well for me -- but then, I am the only one working on the majority of the code, so I'm pretty well aware of why the code was written the way it was, and what the changes will effect.
Yeah, they are easy enough to disable once you know they are there. I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of people walking around "bugged" without their knowledge, though.
And the truth of the matter is he played by the rules and won.
If he played by the rules and won, why was his company found guilty of operating as an illegal, predatory monopoly? Or do you mean "the rules" in the Machiavellian sense of "the rules are whatever you can get away with"?
The fact is there is currently no sure fire way to prevent someone from intentionally crashing a plane except perhaps to use this kind of software to shape an entire flight pattern
Even with "soft walls", if the pilot wants to crash the plane, he will. There are simply too many ways to make a plane crash. If we can't trust the pilots, then the only solution is a fully computer-controlled plane with no human pilots at all... and I'm not sure the world is ready for that yet:^)
Of course it is always possible to emotionally coerce the pilots, such as by holding the people in the cockpit hostage.
How would that work, exactly? Terrorist guy speaking over the intercom, saying "Dive this plane into the White House right now or I'll shoot a passenger"?
Maybe you should look up the meaning of "impenetrable".
All a terrorist has to do is start killing hostages, and the pilots will open the door.
No, he doesn't... because there is no door to open. Pilots would have a separate entrance to the cockpit, so the only way to get from the cockpit to the cabin (and vice versa) would be to land the plane, get out, go around, and get back in.
I remember when a standard was a well-documented protocol (e.g. POP or IMAP) and not a particular implementation of that protocol (e.g. Mozilla or Outlook).
Specifically, a very thick, very hard, impenetrable wall between the cockpit and the rest of the plane. That will keep hijaakers from flying planes into buildings just as effectively, and at a lot lower risk and complexity, since no software would be involved.
It won't prevent evil pilots from crashing the plane, but OTOH if it's the actual pilots that are the terrorists, I don't think anything is going to help very much.
Wait a couple years, until you can buy a high resolution camcorder that is the size of your thumb, sneak it into the movie theater, tape it to your forehead, and record the entire movie without anyone being able to tell what you're doing.
They'll need a whole new Orwellian pseudo-crime-name for that... I suggest "digital molestation of kittens".
It's not the computer that gets locked away, it's the data. It won't matter how many CDs you own if only Microsoft Certified Secure CD-ROM drives can play them. At that point, your choice will be either (a) not buy anything, or (b) pay whatever price (in terms of both cash and compliance) that Microsoft wants you to pay.
Yes, it's only a problem for non-DRM content. But the long term goal is to make DRM ubiquitous, at which point there won't be very much non-DRM content.
It is well documented that the USA has developed and maintains a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Even now the US is sitting on huge armaments of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, some of which are armed and ready to strike any city in the world within two hours. This rogue nation has already invaded and occupied one soverign state and has explicitely threatened several others. We cannot afford to wait until the USA has already struck -- we must force the Bush regime to disarm, or preemptively invade immediately to force a regime change. Our citizens' safety demands no less.
Back this up please, because despite a lot of ranting people having done on/., I'm not seeing it.
The key is customer lock-in. Once company X owns the only means to access your data, they have you by the balls and can get away with quite a bit, and there is little you can do about it because the cost of converting your data to another format is too high. The whole point of DRM is to ensure you can only access your data using the official tools that company X provides you with. At first they may have to play nice to get your data into the cage, but once you are dependent on them for everything, how long do you think it will be before the prices start ratcheting up and the abuses of power begin?
My feeling is, not long.
To review the review of the review
on
The Bug
·
· Score: 1
knobmaker attempts to pass himself off as a learned master of literary analysis, but unfortunately he's just another Slashdot wanker with too much time on his hands.
Just the opposite in my experience... the non-techie doesn't understand or care about "certificates", he just wants the site to work. As such, as soon as he finds out that clicking "Go there anyway" will make the site work, that's all he needs to know, and all such warnings are ignored thereafter.
Hey Mister Anonymous Coward, notice how most of your points use the word "was", not "is"? While I totally agree that pre OS/X, Macs mostly sucked, the fact is that the Macs on sale now are just about the coolest personal computers you can buy. So yes, Apple is currently the Ferrari of personal computers.
Jeremy (not connected to Apple in any way -- I just recognize a good system when I see one)
No, the French were right that an invasion of Iraq was unnecesessary. Bush's argument was that Saddam has WMDs ready to launch on 45 minute's notice. Given that the American forces now can't find any evidence of them, either the weapons don't exist, or they are so cleverly hidden that we can't find them. And if the weapons were in fact widely deployed, it's somewhat difficult to believe that a nation in the process of being invaded would have time to hide their WMDs with such great skill in such a short time.
Re:This will be another solid update
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
Amongst the Mac people I know, they've developed a bit of a "well, now I know UNIX! h4rdc0r3!" sensibility about Mac OS, but they attribute that strength and flexibility to Apple
Well, aren't they correct to do so? It was Apple that put the necessary (for them) candy-coated GUI around BSD and got their favorite MacApps to be ported to run on the BSD core... so without Apple, these people wouldn't be able to use Unix. Thanks to Apple, they can now use Unix (or at least Apple's version of it). Makes perfect sense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
... and the first thing they did was break their own rule by overloading the plus operator for the String class. Did they really need to do that when people could have just called String.append() all over the place? If the answer is yes, then there is an argument for why overloaded operators are useful.
You're assuming that everyone faces the same sorts of programming tasks that you do, and therefore the tools you find best are best tools for everyone. That's not a valid assumption. One size does not fit all.
For example:
Matrix a = b*(c+d-e)/f;
is much easier to read, write, understand, and debug than:
Matrix a = MatrixDivide(MatrixMultiply(b,MatrixSubtract(Matr
(Note: any errors in the above line merely serve to prove my point
You don't constantly change it just for the sake of changing it. You improve it only when it is non-optimal. Assuming you have a well defined idea of what "optimal" is, your code will converge to the optimal point and then changes to it will cease.
Or to put it conversely: there's no better way to guarantee that your product will be non-optimal than to not fix the flaws in it.
What happens when the quirky code you just changed 5 minutes ago had just finished a month of testing and debugging? Or when your architectural re-write has a chain-reaction further downstream?
This is a good point -- you need to consider the implications of the changes you make very carefully. I follow the "fix it when you see it" strategy of the previous poster, and it works well for me -- but then, I am the only one working on the majority of the code, so I'm pretty well aware of why the code was written the way it was, and what the changes will effect.
Yeah, big deal... let me know when they develop power-over-WiFi.
Yeah, they are easy enough to disable once you know they are there. I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of people walking around "bugged" without their knowledge, though.
If he played by the rules and won, why was his company found guilty of operating as an illegal, predatory monopoly? Or do you mean "the rules" in the Machiavellian sense of "the rules are whatever you can get away with"?
Pilot: "Okay, I entered them in." (and then lands at the nearest airport and waits for the SWAT team)
Even with "soft walls", if the pilot wants to crash the plane, he will. There are simply too many ways to make a plane crash. If we can't trust the pilots, then the only solution is a fully computer-controlled plane with no human pilots at all... and I'm not sure the world is ready for that yet
How would that work, exactly? Terrorist guy speaking over the intercom, saying "Dive this plane into the White House right now or I'll shoot a passenger"?
Seems rather unlikely.
All a terrorist has to do is start killing hostages, and the pilots will open the door.
No, he doesn't... because there is no door to open. Pilots would have a separate entrance to the cockpit, so the only way to get from the cockpit to the cabin (and vice versa) would be to land the plane, get out, go around, and get back in.
I remember when a standard was a well-documented protocol (e.g. POP or IMAP) and not a particular implementation of that protocol (e.g. Mozilla or Outlook).
It won't prevent evil pilots from crashing the plane, but OTOH if it's the actual pilots that are the terrorists, I don't think anything is going to help very much.
They'll need a whole new Orwellian pseudo-crime-name for that... I suggest "digital molestation of kittens".
Yes, it's only a problem for non-DRM content. But the long term goal is to make DRM ubiquitous, at which point there won't be very much non-DRM content.
It is well documented that the USA has developed and maintains a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Even now the US is sitting on huge armaments of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, some of which are armed and ready to strike any city in the world within two hours. This rogue nation has already invaded and occupied one soverign state and has explicitely threatened several others. We cannot afford to wait until the USA has already struck -- we must force the Bush regime to disarm, or preemptively invade immediately to force a regime change. Our citizens' safety demands no less.
The key is customer lock-in. Once company X owns the only means to access your data, they have you by the balls and can get away with quite a bit, and there is little you can do about it because the cost of converting your data to another format is too high. The whole point of DRM is to ensure you can only access your data using the official tools that company X provides you with. At first they may have to play nice to get your data into the cage, but once you are dependent on them for everything, how long do you think it will be before the prices start ratcheting up and the abuses of power begin?
My feeling is, not long.
Just the opposite in my experience... the non-techie doesn't understand or care about "certificates", he just wants the site to work. As such, as soon as he finds out that clicking "Go there anyway" will make the site work, that's all he needs to know, and all such warnings are ignored thereafter.
Hehe, cute... but in the new scheme we want to keep the carbon bits inside the car, not spew them out the tail pipe. :^)
Jeremy (not connected to Apple in any way -- I just recognize a good system when I see one)
No, the French were right that an invasion of Iraq was unnecesessary. Bush's argument was that Saddam has WMDs ready to launch on 45 minute's notice. Given that the American forces now can't find any evidence of them, either the weapons don't exist, or they are so cleverly hidden that we can't find them. And if the weapons were in fact widely deployed, it's somewhat difficult to believe that a nation in the process of being invaded would have time to hide their WMDs with such great skill in such a short time.
Well, aren't they correct to do so? It was Apple that put the necessary (for them) candy-coated GUI around BSD and got their favorite MacApps to be ported to run on the BSD core... so without Apple, these people wouldn't be able to use Unix. Thanks to Apple, they can now use Unix (or at least Apple's version of it). Makes perfect sense to me.
Personally, I'd rather be using an OS that doesn't suck. It only takes a little bit of suckage to waste $100 worth of my time...
Wouldn't that be the hyena? (aka MacOS/X 10.5?)