How is operator overloading any worse than creating a member function that does something contrary to what the name says? Eliminating something entirely because someone could do something wrong is idiotic.
Yes a very stupid reason since they overloaded the + operator themselves. Apparently they are the only people who are allowed to do so bring such gurus. Especially since it's just as easy to do the same bad things with regular member functions as can be done with an overloaded operator.
Java has operator overloading it's just taken away from the programmers. String concatenation with + is done through oppressor overloading. Unfortunately the java designers think no one else should be able to do so to stop them from doing.bad things. But then again these are the same people who develop the jvm which is doing its best to pass flash as being the most exploitable piece of software running on your system so maybe they aren't the best to be.lecturing others on bad practices.
In what city do you live in you have to drive an hour to get.to the.post office? I've lived in a.half dozen cities (large and small) and never had to go.more than 10 minutes to get to my local.post office.
How could DES have been a way to work around it when the publication of DES predates the filing of that patent by 3 years? RSA was also publicly published the same year as the filing date but clearly would have had to have been worked on for years before then. RC4 you could make a case for since it was published during the term of the patent but you'd make a hard case for AES since the patent expired before it was published.
But...but...those were trumped up too! The CIA had a time machine to know to start trumping up all those charges a decade or more in advance to the fact that he was going to try to become the IMF head and make bad statements about the US dollar. It has to be a conspiracy! It just must!
Or you could have bothered to read the linked story:
Methenitis added that customers might be able to pursue legal action against GameStop for deceptive trade practices or fraudulent advertising, though he doesn’t think they’d have much of a case, as nothing on the game’s packaging suggests that it includes the OnLive code.
You do realize that for most popular, new games they still sell the "used" versions for like 95% of the price of the new copies, right? You're not going to save much of anything.
They likely have contracts on what can be done to their product while it is in the hands of Gamestop before it's sold to the end customer.
Doubtful. GameStop owns the product at that point and can do with it as they want. Anyone who is surprised by this news that GameStop opens these packages before selling them is apparently rather clueless because this is something they've done for years. Back in 2009 there was a big hullabaloo over it as well with a supposed FTC investigation but as you can see, nothing happened.
I'm willing to bet it's most likely in violation of US anti-competition laws, if not product tampering.
In what way is it a violation of anti-competition laws? GameStop does not hold some significant market share over game sales as they are easily dwarfed by companies like Best Buy. Secondly, GameStop has already been investigated by the FTC for this practice since it's been their company policy FOR YEARS. And since those stories mentioning that are from 2009 and nothing seems to have happened to them, it's doubtful you are correct on either count.
Maybe GameStop doesn't, but if anyone does I think they're courting legal trouble.
Why?
GameStop doesn't make any specific claims about what's in the sold package, but if what they're advertising is "a boxed copy of DXHR" and it's common knowledge that such a box includes a coupon from the publisher, there's some bad faith going on.
Yes, they do. Their website clearly states what you get in the package. The box itself also makes no mention of the coupon, either.
They are selling used games as if they were new. If they consider a game to be used after the customer has opened it, then the customer should do the same.
They've done this for years and the FTC supposedly already investigated them for the practice. If there was some great legal issue something would have come of it by now.
Slashdot Mirror
So that's why it was bad for the Java developers to overload the + operator for string concatenation, right?
I hear there's this new thing called mono that brings c# and .net to linux.
How is operator overloading any worse than creating a member function that does something contrary to what the name says? Eliminating something entirely because someone could do something wrong is idiotic.
Yes a very stupid reason since they overloaded the + operator themselves. Apparently they are the only people who are allowed to do so bring such gurus. Especially since it's just as easy to do the same bad things with regular member functions as can be done with an overloaded operator.
C, c++, ruby, python, scheme, d and the list could go on and on. Last time I checked those all still existed and weren't magically disappeared.
Java has operator overloading it's just taken away from the programmers. String concatenation with + is done through oppressor overloading. Unfortunately the java designers think no one else should be able to do so to stop them from doing.bad things. But then again these are the same people who develop the jvm which is doing its best to pass flash as being the most exploitable piece of software running on your system so maybe they aren't the best to be.lecturing others on bad practices.
Which doesn't change the rules on prior art.
First to file does not get rid of prior art.
In what city do you live in you have to drive an hour to get.to the.post office? I've lived in a.half dozen cities (large and small) and never had to go.more than 10 minutes to get to my local.post office.
Bad reviews don't necessarily have to do with the quality of the food. The problems could be due to poor service, etc.
rating 7
How very helpful. This is a 7 out of what? 7 out of 7? 7 out of 10? 7 out of 50?
How could DES have been a way to work around it when the publication of DES predates the filing of that patent by 3 years? RSA was also publicly published the same year as the filing date but clearly would have had to have been worked on for years before then. RC4 you could make a case for since it was published during the term of the patent but you'd make a hard case for AES since the patent expired before it was published.
Wrong a bathyscape is free driving. You are thinking of a bathysphere.
Or, you know, it could mean he did it rather then inventing grand conspiracies.
He has a history of this sort of behavior.
But...but...those were trumped up too! The CIA had a time machine to know to start trumping up all those charges a decade or more in advance to the fact that he was going to try to become the IMF head and make bad statements about the US dollar. It has to be a conspiracy! It just must!
No, Austin has plenty of fatties. Unfortunately a lot of them seem to be way more proud of their bodies than they should be.
Or you could have bothered to read the linked story:
Methenitis added that customers might be able to pursue legal action against GameStop for deceptive trade practices or fraudulent advertising, though he doesn’t think they’d have much of a case, as nothing on the game’s packaging suggests that it includes the OnLive code.
You do realize that for most popular, new games they still sell the "used" versions for like 95% of the price of the new copies, right? You're not going to save much of anything.
You mean the price where they knock off 5 bucks at most?
They likely have contracts on what can be done to their product while it is in the hands of Gamestop before it's sold to the end customer.
Doubtful. GameStop owns the product at that point and can do with it as they want. Anyone who is surprised by this news that GameStop opens these packages before selling them is apparently rather clueless because this is something they've done for years. Back in 2009 there was a big hullabaloo over it as well with a supposed FTC investigation but as you can see, nothing happened.
There is nothing on the box at all about the coupon. You could have found this out with a simple google image search.
I'm willing to bet it's most likely in violation of US anti-competition laws, if not product tampering.
In what way is it a violation of anti-competition laws? GameStop does not hold some significant market share over game sales as they are easily dwarfed by companies like Best Buy. Secondly, GameStop has already been investigated by the FTC for this practice since it's been their company policy FOR YEARS. And since those stories mentioning that are from 2009 and nothing seems to have happened to them, it's doubtful you are correct on either count.
Maybe GameStop doesn't, but if anyone does I think they're courting legal trouble.
Why?
GameStop doesn't make any specific claims about what's in the sold package, but if what they're advertising is "a boxed copy of DXHR" and it's common knowledge that such a box includes a coupon from the publisher, there's some bad faith going on.
Yes, they do. Their website clearly states what you get in the package. The box itself also makes no mention of the coupon, either.
Actually, do you know that the coupon isn't advertised on the package?
Yes, I do.
They are selling used games as if they were new. If they consider a game to be used after the customer has opened it, then the customer should do the same.
They've done this for years and the FTC supposedly already investigated them for the practice. If there was some great legal issue something would have come of it by now.