One issue about anonymous classes is that if the implementation of your anonymous class is very simple, such as an interface that contains only one method, the syntax of anonymous classes may seem too unwieldy and unclear.
It could be argued that if you are manipulating classes that represent some sort of number or mathematical type, using methods like add() or multiply(), instead of using arguably much more intuitive operators is just as unwieldy or unclear (while the only sustainable argument against operator overloading in Java is actually isomorphic to objections about poor naming conventions for identifiers, and has nothing to do with operators, specifically).
So why is it that they figure that they should make actual changes to the language to provide syntactic sugar for what can be accomplished with anonymous classes when they figure it's not appropriate to do the same with classes which happen to represent some sort of mathematical type, the number of actual cases for which are not bounded, since the dimensionality of such types is not restricted, and there may be cases where you want a class to only deal with a specific cases rather than be a more general class (eg, one might want to make use of a specific 3x3 matrix class instead of using a general matrix class, or a tuple of Complex or BigInteger values, instead of a tuple of double values).
If your hand is close enough to the device for any finger to touch the screen, given the actual range that the device detects on, how would any fingers be not within the field of view of such a sensor?
You can deduce which fingers are which by counting the number of fingers to the left and right of the one that touched the screen, and assuming a particular handedness (which could be provided to the program as a user profile setting, for instance).
Fingerprints can be dealt with by regularly wiping the screen. If you wipe down a touch screen just once a day, it will make a huge difference.
Touch screens involve the very natural gesture of pointing... a communication mechanism that human beings learn to use even before they've learned to talk. It's admittedly imprecise, but not every type of application requires any more precision than that. Conversely, however, some types of application *DO* require more precision than that, and it's a grievous user-interface mistake to utilize an imprecise input device for such contexts.
I agree with you about input devices on a PC. They are already sufficiently diverse that a touch-screen isn't really necessary outside of an application that is designed to be used only in a kiosk situation.
If this sort of thing were built into touch-screen devices, when the screen is touched, it would be possible for the device to identify exactly which finger was responsible for the touch. This could considerably increase the versatility of using a touch-screen as an input medium
Also, you could get hover-detection practically for free.
...as effectively having stated that they don't give a damn if there's a slowly growing contingent of former fans that are starting to loathe them because the marketing people at EA are so effing rich because there are enough people who buy their games and continue to pay for their shit that they just don't have to worry about who they piss off, because the money will still keep rolling in.
I mean that's really what making games is all about right?
Except we don't actually *KNOW* anything about what life was like in this preceding stage, or even if it existed at all. It may have... it might even probably have. But we don't actually *KNOW*. My objection is to the notion that anything other than life that apparently originated here on earth is any life that we "know of".
They might be saying exactly the opposite, but saying doesn't make it so.
Regardless of how probable life elsewhere might be, our limited knowledge of the universe right now is such that the life which is right here on Earth is genuinely the only life that we know exists in the entire universe. Sure there can be life elsewhere, but we don't actually know about it yet.
"life as we know it originated 9.7 billion years ago."
Uhmmm.... "life as we know it" happens to be limited to life that originated on Earth. Earth isn't 9.7 billion years old. I trust you can see the problem with this notion.
Certainly the possibility exists that life on earth actually originated elsewhere and happened to land here after the earth was formed, this is far from an actual testable scientific theory until at least we find any evidence of life outside of this planet that we can verifiable say did not come from here.
Then you may be interested to know that adjusting for inflation, £399 in Jan of 2005 would ordinarily buy about what £511 does today, and £799 in May of 2006 is equivalent to about £998 today.
So yep.... prices have come down. At least after you adjust for inflation.
You can verify the above by using one of the many available inflation calculators you can find online.
Uhm.... if you're not reproducing them, how would you get into somebody's system that used this type of authentication? Sure, you can record their brainwaves while they are thinking whatever it is they need to think, but how on earth would that recording actually help *you* get into their system, which only records brainwaves?
Brains change over time, but such change is ordinarily slow enough that if you are keeping the database of what the person's current brain waves look like up to date, then such normal evolution would not be a problem.
The only time it would be is on account of certain types of trauma, which can very abruptly and very quickly change a person's thought patterns.
The CME happened on Thursday, and the story only comes on the afternoon of the very night of the visibility of the event?
Timing fail. I'm not blaming slashdot for this one specifically, since the linked story itself only came out on Saturday as well, but really, it would have been nice to know about it 24 hours sooner.
One could similarly argue that the requirement of a driver's license is an exception to what would otherwise be the norm of anyone being free to drive, by the exact same standards.
I meant native compiled code... taking a C++ program that is using the default new operator for allocations, which is compiled to native code, and comparing against an equivalent java program at execution time. If the program is quite allocation/deallocation heavy, even after factoring in garbage collection employed by the jre compared to using C++'s default delete operator, a java application can frequently outperform its comparable counterpart written in C++. Obviously, if you write explicit code in your C++ program to optimize the cases that are actually expected to happen, overloading the new operator as needed, etc... you will probably end up with the C++ version running faster, as expected. But the resulting work will probably contain much more special-case code, possibly to the extent that the underlying algorithms being used are obfuscated, and in turn will be harder to maintain afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Relative position to what, exactly? The other fingers aren't touching the screen.
It could be argued that if you are manipulating classes that represent some sort of number or mathematical type, using methods like add() or multiply(), instead of using arguably much more intuitive operators is just as unwieldy or unclear (while the only sustainable argument against operator overloading in Java is actually isomorphic to objections about poor naming conventions for identifiers, and has nothing to do with operators, specifically).
So why is it that they figure that they should make actual changes to the language to provide syntactic sugar for what can be accomplished with anonymous classes when they figure it's not appropriate to do the same with classes which happen to represent some sort of mathematical type, the number of actual cases for which are not bounded, since the dimensionality of such types is not restricted, and there may be cases where you want a class to only deal with a specific cases rather than be a more general class (eg, one might want to make use of a specific 3x3 matrix class instead of using a general matrix class, or a tuple of Complex or BigInteger values, instead of a tuple of double values).
I'm not sure if that's coincidental, or intended.
If your hand is close enough to the device for any finger to touch the screen, given the actual range that the device detects on, how would any fingers be not within the field of view of such a sensor?
You can deduce which fingers are which by counting the number of fingers to the left and right of the one that touched the screen, and assuming a particular handedness (which could be provided to the program as a user profile setting, for instance).
Fingerprints can be dealt with by regularly wiping the screen. If you wipe down a touch screen just once a day, it will make a huge difference.
Touch screens involve the very natural gesture of pointing... a communication mechanism that human beings learn to use even before they've learned to talk. It's admittedly imprecise, but not every type of application requires any more precision than that. Conversely, however, some types of application *DO* require more precision than that, and it's a grievous user-interface mistake to utilize an imprecise input device for such contexts.
I agree with you about input devices on a PC. They are already sufficiently diverse that a touch-screen isn't really necessary outside of an application that is designed to be used only in a kiosk situation.
If this sort of thing were built into touch-screen devices, when the screen is touched, it would be possible for the device to identify exactly which finger was responsible for the touch. This could considerably increase the versatility of using a touch-screen as an input medium
Also, you could get hover-detection practically for free.
False positives.
We certainly don't know that it *DIDN'T* originate on earth. That's *MY* whole point.
I mean that's really what making games is all about right?
Making shitpiles of money?
Except we don't actually *KNOW* anything about what life was like in this preceding stage, or even if it existed at all. It may have... it might even probably have. But we don't actually *KNOW*. My objection is to the notion that anything other than life that apparently originated here on earth is any life that we "know of".
And what "life before earth" do we actually really know about?
Regardless of how probable life elsewhere might be, our limited knowledge of the universe right now is such that the life which is right here on Earth is genuinely the only life that we know exists in the entire universe. Sure there can be life elsewhere, but we don't actually know about it yet.
Uhmmm.... "life as we know it" happens to be limited to life that originated on Earth. Earth isn't 9.7 billion years old. I trust you can see the problem with this notion.
Certainly the possibility exists that life on earth actually originated elsewhere and happened to land here after the earth was formed, this is far from an actual testable scientific theory until at least we find any evidence of life outside of this planet that we can verifiable say did not come from here.
Then you may be interested to know that adjusting for inflation, £399 in Jan of 2005 would ordinarily buy about what £511 does today, and £799 in May of 2006 is equivalent to about £998 today.
So yep.... prices have come down. At least after you adjust for inflation.
You can verify the above by using one of the many available inflation calculators you can find online.
How long ago?
Uhm.... if you're not reproducing them, how would you get into somebody's system that used this type of authentication? Sure, you can record their brainwaves while they are thinking whatever it is they need to think, but how on earth would that recording actually help *you* get into their system, which only records brainwaves?
You can record their brainwaves, but how do you reproduce them to another device that records them?
Brains change over time, but such change is ordinarily slow enough that if you are keeping the database of what the person's current brain waves look like up to date, then such normal evolution would not be a problem.
The only time it would be is on account of certain types of trauma, which can very abruptly and very quickly change a person's thought patterns.
The CME happened on Thursday, and the story only comes on the afternoon of the very night of the visibility of the event?
Timing fail. I'm not blaming slashdot for this one specifically, since the linked story itself only came out on Saturday as well, but really, it would have been nice to know about it 24 hours sooner.
One could similarly argue that the requirement of a driver's license is an exception to what would otherwise be the norm of anyone being free to drive, by the exact same standards.
I meant native compiled code... taking a C++ program that is using the default new operator for allocations, which is compiled to native code, and comparing against an equivalent java program at execution time. If the program is quite allocation/deallocation heavy, even after factoring in garbage collection employed by the jre compared to using C++'s default delete operator, a java application can frequently outperform its comparable counterpart written in C++. Obviously, if you write explicit code in your C++ program to optimize the cases that are actually expected to happen, overloading the new operator as needed, etc... you will probably end up with the C++ version running faster, as expected. But the resulting work will probably contain much more special-case code, possibly to the extent that the underlying algorithms being used are obfuscated, and in turn will be harder to maintain afterwards.
And if there weren't a DMV, there wouldn't be drivers licenses... nor would you actually need one to drive (since you couldn't get one).
Nobody can. Legally. Without permission, you cannot legally copy a copyrighted work.
A driver's license also permits you drive. Lack of a drivers license prevents you from being able to legally drive.
No... the right is to *PERMIT* others to copy.
The exclusivity of this right is what gives copyright its value.