"The Blue Origin spacecraft, being built by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos' new venture, will have VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) capability, according to the company's FAA permit applications. It will be a cone-shaped vehicle about 15 meter tall and 7 meter in diameter at the base, and carry 3 or more passengers to an altitude of 99 kilometers"
<offtopic>He was so stupid to go around drunk spraying paint on parked cars. In a country where you do get fined 500$ for throwing a cigarette butt on the pavement. Smart.</offtopic>
I have an OfficeConnect (but the one with 55Mb/s wifi). It works very well. My home setup is: - 2 Mbit connection to internet - 1 computer connected via 100Mb eth - 1 computer connected via WiFi - 1 pocket pc via WiFi - 1 Kiss DVD connected via 100Mb eth
I never had any problems, even using eMule (PC), shoutcast (DVD), Skype (PPC) and browsing (notebook) at the same time. The little critter even supports a VPN so i can remotely control it from work.
The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
Well, the definition you posted uses the term with meaning 3., whereas I interpreted the comment as being discriminating with meaning 2.
In other words, and in case you didn't notice, there are differences based on sex, and there are books or publications "made for men" and "made for women". Pointing this fact out is not sexist at all, it's just how things are.
XML Parsing Error: undefined entity Location: http://www.nd.edu/~jsmith30/xul/test/browser2.xul
Line Number 91, Column 83:<command id="Browser:ReadMail" oncommand="MailIntegration.readMail();" label="&mailButton.readMail.label;"/>
Since you're donating Euros I'm not sure if this is the case for you as well, but in the US you do NOT, most emphatically do NOT have the right to download something off the internet as a "backup". You are allowed to create a backup from your copy of the material. If you have a copy that you do not have the rights to the original for, you're infringing.
When I buy a game I buy both the physical medium and the right to play it. It doesn't say anywhere that I can play only by using a particular copy of the CD or another. Think about it, what could a judge say? That you have to buy two copies before you can play only one? Once you paid for the license to use a particular software, there is little that can done: you have already paid for the copyright. Forcing you to pay twice is just plain unfair. Furthermore (this is in Italy), you have the right to modify (crack) the program (or mod the playstation) if this is needed to make your backup copies functional.
You may believe you have that right, but you don't. Well, you do, but not by downloading it. Finding someone who can legally allow you to play or loan you the disc, sure, but not download, as you're creating an unlicensed copy.
I have the moral right, but not the legal right. This is clear. But laws are made by people and can be wrong, can't they? If I choose to break an unfair law, which I have no means to change, I believe I am in the right. See Gandhi for example.
You may think that piracy helps, but that's not your decision. It is the exclusive right of the copyright holder to make that decision.
What have pirates got to do with copyright? I do not know what you mean by "piracy" - do you mean copyright infringment or selling of fake copies? Is there money involved or not? This is a big difference. P2p is just a cheap way of distributing data, not an easy way to make dirty money...;-P Of course it's the copyright holder decision, but I just said that spreading the copies helps real sales a lot. This is a fact and it does not depend on what the copyright holder wants.
Or would you not mind if I painted your car green because it's a better colour?
I would be very pissed off, but I would not sue you for copyright violation! Lol, you would have to pay for the damage, not the copyright!
You may believe you have the right to evaluate a game before you buy it, but unless the game is marketed as shareware or a free demo, you are not legally entitled to an evaluation prior to your purchase. If you are really so concerned about the quality of a game, why not take the time to read some reviews and consumer reports?
I never said I was legally entitled to do so, I just said I think I have the right (as in "morally") to do so. I used to read reviews before I buy, but, as everyone knows, they are very unreliable. Furthermore, think about this: if a game reviewer needs a full copy to evaluate the game, then I need it too.
Occasionally, supermarkets provide free food samples to their customers, in hopes of encouraging them to purchase those products. However, they have no obligation to let you try before you buy. Next time you visit your local grocery store, why don't you try opening products off the shelf and tasting them in the aisle. Then you will experience the law first-hand when the police escort you out of the building in handcuffs.
This is a false analogy. First of all, if I get a copy of a game to try it, I do not damage the product. If I taste a grocery product, I spoil it and therefore I have to buy it (unless it's rotten or something). Secondly, if half the products of a grocery store where adulterated or bad (like in the case of videogames) it would be the shop owners that would be taken away in handcuffs!:-) Thirdly, I think the police has better things to do than escorting people out of supermarkets because they opened a product, at least here in the EU! A better analogy would be buying a car: would you buy a car that you cannot test drive? Would you buy a car that you can test drive only without using gears, lights, optionals, etc?
When will people start thinking before they write? Some food for thought: - Downloading a cracked copy of a game is not theft. It's not even copyright violation in itself (you may own a legit copy and be needing a backup). - I believe I have the right to evaluate a game for a few hours before I buy it. If I like it and I'm going to use it, I'll buy it (as I have always done). If I don't, then I'll delete it (or keep a copy if someone wants to try it). I do not buy games without trying them first, and by trying it's only the full version, not the crap demos you are offered legit. You may disagree, but I think I have every right to buy a game knowing that there will be no "surprises". - It's the number of people actually playing that makes or breaks a game, not how many copies you sell initally. For example Microsoft initially used this tactic to get Windows on 95% of the home computers (friend to friend copy is the cheapest form of distribution).
The Linux community really does seem to have an aversion to paying for anything.
If Linux worked half as well as Windows on my desktop I wouldn't mind buying software for it. I've tried installing and using a few commercial apps on Linux, but they don't work very well. At the end of the day, the best working solution for me is having either Cygwin or Colinux under WinXP - and this means that if I have to buy an application, I'll buy it for Windows, not for Linux. I think that very many Linux users are in the same situation: they have to dual boot because L. is too "young", and being W. their main desktop, they buy apps for W. and look for free stuff on L.
No they're not - an IP is not personal information. It's in the public domain and is sent with every packet you send out.
Of course it is, and one should have all the rights of choosing who sees it and who doesn't. You normally choose to send packets, thereby disclosing this info by yourself, in this case you don't. See my other reply for a fuller explanation of this point.
So that's how the company that produces the pop ups "Your Computer is Publizing a Public IP Address!" makes money, by selling to people in Italy.
It's a different situation, don't you see? They are publishing IPs of people who do not know they are connecting to their server (their trojan does not ask explicit permission to call home).
The list they publish is a list of IPs without a firewall and run by poor administrators. So if you get on their list, you do not know that you are, maybe hackers will start hammering you down. It's NOT nice.
If it was an experiment, why didn't they say so in the popup and ask for permission to track the usage? Why didn't they put up any form of contact? Why don't they assume responsibility for their actions? Because they know perfectly well that what they are doing is illegal, that's why.
this is in no way a trojan as it does nothing even slightly malicious
You are tricking users in sending their personal information to you. This is a serious offense in Italy (where I live) and most of Europe. We take our privacy most seriously. Furthermore, cracks are legal in Italy (if you own a registered copy), because it is considered wrong for companies who sell you the software to try and restrict your access to it. For example, Playstation mod-chips are perfectly legal (tested in a court of law). So, you are actually defamating and violating the privacy people who are in fact not pirates or doing anything illegal.
This is ridiculous, the document reads "Stephen Robertson posted copies of some of Ellison's copyrighted short stories on a peer-to-peer file sharing network, the USENET.
Since when is USENET a P2P Filesharing network? Ok, you can find a lot of stuff in it, but it's NOt peer2peer and file-sharing , it's client/server and message-posting! It's a totally different thing.
This Microsoft Research Shared Source license agreement ("MSR-SSLA") is a legal agreement between you and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft" or "we") for the software or data identified above, which may include source code, and any associated materials, text or speech files, associated media and "online" or electronic documentation (together, the "Software").
By installing, copying, or otherwise using this Software, found at http://research.microsoft.com/downloads, you agree to be bound by the terms of this MSR-SSLA. If you do not agree, do not install copy or use the Software. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and is licensed, not sold.
SCOPE OF RIGHTS: You may use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, subject to the restrictions in this License. Some purposes which can be non-commercial are teaching, academic research, public demonstrations and personal experimentation. You may also distribute this Software with books or other teaching materials, or publish the Software on websites, that are intended to teach the use of the Software for academic or other non- commercial purposes. You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in any form for commercial purposes. Examples of commercial purposes would be running business operations, licensing, leasing, or selling the Software, distributing the Software for use with commercial products or any other activity which purpose is to procure a commercial gain to you or others. If the Software includes source code or data, you may modify such portions of the Software and distribute the modified Software for non-commercial purposes, as provided herein.
You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the Software. However, this right does not grant you a license to any of Microsoft's copyrights or patents for anything you might create using such information.
In return, we simply require that you agree: 1. That you will not remove any copyright or other notices from the Software. 2. That if any of the Software is in binary format, you will not attempt to modify such portions of the Software, or to reverse engineer or decompile them, except and only to the extent authorized by law. 3. That if you distribute the Software or any derivative works of the Software, you will distribute them under a verbatim copy of this License, and you will not grant rights to the Software or derivative works that are broader than those provided by this License. For example, you may not distribute modifications of the Software under terms that would permit commercial use, or under terms that purport to require the Software or such derivative works to be sublicensed to others. 4. That if you have modified the Software or created derivative works, and distribute such modifications or derivative works, you will cause the modified files to carry prominent notices so that recipients know that they are not receiving the original Software. Such notices must state: (i) that you have changed the Software; and (ii) the date of any changes. 5. That Microsoft is granted back, without any limitations and on a royalty free basis, the rights to reproduce, install, use, modify, distribute and transfer your modifications to the Software source code or data. 6. That any feedback about the Software provided by you to us is voluntarily given, and Microsoft shall be free to use the feedback as it sees fit without obligation or restriction of any kind, even if the feedback is designated by you as confidential. 7. THAT THE SOFTWARE COMES "AS IS", WITH NO WARRANTIES. THIS MEANS NO EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY WARRANTY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ANY WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE SOFTWARE OR ANY WARRANTY OF TITLE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT
A law firm wrote to the Copyright Office claiming to own the copyright on Copyright Offices. Said firm asked for an undisclosed sum of money or else they would sue and get the Copyright Office closed for copyright infringment.
I own one of these cams and I gotta say, I totally agree with the point of the article. It's a totally new way of interacting with games, and it attracts non gamers a lot, because it's so simple. I have had my whole family (ages 9 to 57) playing with Groove. Also it just works (TM). One would think that a thing like this would have some problems recognising your movements, but I found that it works perfectly right out of the box. I hope that more innovative ways of interacting with computers/consoles come forward in the near future (Matrix anyone?;-P)
case folding is not as simple as oring every character in the string
Ok, so you can't OR a char to get the UC corresponding char. You can use a 64k lookup table. Fast and easy. Before people start complaining about embedded Java, a couple points. The UC function is provided (methinks) on the same platforms, so the table is there. Also, if you really want to save space on small platforms, use ASCII instead of Unicode in varnames... You can write fuctionally equivalent code without resorting to (say) cyrillic varnames.
Well, in Java, you have to INTENTIONALLY make two different properties of an object which differ only in case (and there are probably code beautifying tools that check for that crap) while in a case insensitve language you could ACCIDENTALLY refer to the same thing with two different cases, detrimenting readability.
Ok, so how unreadable does the code become if you write a miscased (?) word by mistake once or twice? The most readeable languages I've come across are c# and vb (not a flamebait) - one is CS one is CI. But the worst ever readeable languages are CS (Perl, C, C++, even Java with all those casts!). Of course it depends on the programmer, but the obfuscated C contest and, well, Perl, do prove a point. You don't get an obfuscated VB contest...:-P
Oh, and I've been a Perl/Java/C# programmer for the last five years...;-)
That could work for the just-in-time compilation issues, but it still leaves extra work for plugins and interpretted scripting languages
I believe we were talking about Java, not Javascript!
Right, dynamic loading/linking doesn't involve the original source code. However, it does involve matching up identifiers and filling in offsets. Either the loader/linker has to match modulo case insensitivity, or all of the code-generation tools have to normalize identifiers. Others have pointed out that both tasks are a bit tricky for Unicode.
I am not sure of this, but I do not expect bytecode to include variable/method/property names. I guess they are encoded with indices. Also the dynamic library would have its own namespace similarly encoded. Once you compile it makes no difference. Also I still fail to see how uppercasing (lowercasing) is "hard" in Unicode. Java does have functions to do that right? Just use the same algorithm.
I'd like to emphasize how difficult it is to not think (and write) "professional programmers" for "C programmers" and "VB hacks" for "some other group." But I wouldn't want anyone to think I was biased.
You know, having been a professional programmer for the likes of 10 years, I've tried both. I find case sensitivity a stupid practice. That does not mean VB is kool and C sucks... it means that i don't like to recompile my code for stupid reasons like wrong capitals.
More seriously, the grandparent poster also referred to dynamic loading/linking, which is used a lot and is not normally considered bad practice. It is unreasonable to equate interpreting runtime-generated source code with dynamic loading/linking.
What's the difference? I can't see why dynamic loading would require retokenizing/recompiling the source code.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Blue Origin spacecraft, being built by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos' new venture, will have VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) capability, according to the company's FAA permit applications. It will be a cone-shaped vehicle about 15 meter tall and 7 meter in diameter at the base, and carry 3 or more passengers to an altitude of 99 kilometers"
We definitely need several of these to promote alternate OS.
We also definitely need several of these to sustain the tsunami of slashdotter who are going to kill a good site in 2 minutes!
Ok, it's a flowchart, but it documents the recipe for making tomato sauce. :-)
a spx
http://blogs.ugidotnet.org/cecconi/articles/2413.
Have fun!
<offtopic>He was so stupid to go around drunk spraying paint on parked cars. In a country where you do get fined 500$ for throwing a cigarette butt on the pavement. Smart.</offtopic>
I have an OfficeConnect (but the one with 55Mb/s wifi). It works very well. My home setup is:
- 2 Mbit connection to internet
- 1 computer connected via 100Mb eth
- 1 computer connected via WiFi
- 1 pocket pc via WiFi
- 1 Kiss DVD connected via 100Mb eth
I never had any problems, even using eMule (PC), shoutcast (DVD), Skype (PPC) and browsing (notebook) at the same time.
The little critter even supports a VPN so i can remotely control it from work.
Very recomended!
Well, the definition you posted uses the term with meaning 3., whereas I interpreted the comment as being discriminating with meaning 2. In other words, and in case you didn't notice, there are differences based on sex, and there are books or publications "made for men" and "made for women". Pointing this fact out is not sexist at all, it's just how things are.
Since you're donating Euros I'm not sure if this is the case for you as well, but in the US you do NOT, most emphatically do NOT have the right to download something off the internet as a "backup". You are allowed to create a backup from your copy of the material. If you have a copy that you do not have the rights to the original for, you're infringing.
;-P
When I buy a game I buy both the physical medium and the right to play it. It doesn't say anywhere that I can play only by using a particular copy of the CD or another. Think about it, what could a judge say? That you have to buy two copies before you can play only one? Once you paid for the license to use a particular software, there is little that can done: you have already paid for the copyright. Forcing you to pay twice is just plain unfair. Furthermore (this is in Italy), you have the right to modify (crack) the program (or mod the playstation) if this is needed to make your backup copies functional.
You may believe you have that right, but you don't. Well, you do, but not by downloading it. Finding someone who can legally allow you to play or loan you the disc, sure, but not download, as you're creating an unlicensed copy.
I have the moral right, but not the legal right. This is clear. But laws are made by people and can be wrong, can't they? If I choose to break an unfair law, which I have no means to change, I believe I am in the right. See Gandhi for example.
You may think that piracy helps, but that's not your decision. It is the exclusive right of the copyright holder to make that decision.
What have pirates got to do with copyright? I do not know what you mean by "piracy" - do you mean copyright infringment or selling of fake copies? Is there money involved or not? This is a big difference. P2p is just a cheap way of distributing data, not an easy way to make dirty money...
Of course it's the copyright holder decision, but I just said that spreading the copies helps real sales a lot. This is a fact and it does not depend on what the copyright holder wants.
Or would you not mind if I painted your car green because it's a better colour?
I would be very pissed off, but I would not sue you for copyright violation! Lol, you would have to pay for the damage, not the copyright!
You may believe you have the right to evaluate a game before you buy it, but unless the game is marketed as shareware or a free demo, you are not legally entitled to an evaluation prior to your purchase. If you are really so concerned about the quality of a game, why not take the time to read some reviews and consumer reports?
:-) Thirdly, I think the police has better things to do than escorting people out of supermarkets because they opened a product, at least here in the EU!
I never said I was legally entitled to do so, I just said I think I have the right (as in "morally") to do so. I used to read reviews before I buy, but, as everyone knows, they are very unreliable. Furthermore, think about this: if a game reviewer needs a full copy to evaluate the game, then I need it too.
Occasionally, supermarkets provide free food samples to their customers, in hopes of encouraging them to purchase those products. However, they have no obligation to let you try before you buy. Next time you visit your local grocery store, why don't you try opening products off the shelf and tasting them in the aisle. Then you will experience the law first-hand when the police escort you out of the building in handcuffs.
This is a false analogy. First of all, if I get a copy of a game to try it, I do not damage the product. If I taste a grocery product, I spoil it and therefore I have to buy it (unless it's rotten or something). Secondly, if half the products of a grocery store where adulterated or bad (like in the case of videogames) it would be the shop owners that would be taken away in handcuffs!
A better analogy would be buying a car: would you buy a car that you cannot test drive? Would you buy a car that you can test drive only without using gears, lights, optionals, etc?
When will people start thinking before they write?
Some food for thought:
- Downloading a cracked copy of a game is not theft. It's not even copyright violation in itself (you may own a legit copy and be needing a backup).
- I believe I have the right to evaluate a game for a few hours before I buy it. If I like it and I'm going to use it, I'll buy it (as I have always done). If I don't, then I'll delete it (or keep a copy if someone wants to try it). I do not buy games without trying them first, and by trying it's only the full version, not the crap demos you are offered legit. You may disagree, but I think I have every right to buy a game knowing that there will be no "surprises".
- It's the number of people actually playing that makes or breaks a game, not how many copies you sell initally. For example Microsoft initially used this tactic to get Windows on 95% of the home computers (friend to friend copy is the cheapest form of distribution).
Just my 0.02EUR
The Linux community really does seem to have an aversion to paying for anything.
If Linux worked half as well as Windows on my desktop I wouldn't mind buying software for it. I've tried installing and using a few commercial apps on Linux, but they don't work very well.
At the end of the day, the best working solution for me is having either Cygwin or Colinux under WinXP - and this means that if I have to buy an application, I'll buy it for Windows, not for Linux.
I think that very many Linux users are in the same situation: they have to dual boot because L. is too "young", and being W. their main desktop, they buy apps for W. and look for free stuff on L.
Not bad for 24hrs work!!! :-)
Auction Page
No they're not - an IP is not personal information. It's in the public domain and is sent with every packet you send out.
Of course it is, and one should have all the rights of choosing who sees it and who doesn't. You normally choose to send packets, thereby disclosing this info by yourself, in this case you don't.
See my other reply for a fuller explanation of this point.
So that's how the company that produces the pop ups "Your Computer is Publizing a Public IP Address!" makes money, by selling to people in Italy.
It's a different situation, don't you see? They are publishing IPs of people who do not know they are connecting to their server (their trojan does not ask explicit permission to call home).
The list they publish is a list of IPs without a firewall and run by poor administrators. So if you get on their list, you do not know that you are, maybe hackers will start hammering you down. It's NOT nice.
If it was an experiment, why didn't they say so in the popup and ask for permission to track the usage? Why didn't they put up any form of contact? Why don't they assume responsibility for their actions? Because they know perfectly well that what they are doing is illegal, that's why.
this is in no way a trojan as it does nothing even slightly malicious
You are tricking users in sending their personal information to you. This is a serious offense in Italy (where I live) and most of Europe. We take our privacy most seriously.
Furthermore, cracks are legal in Italy (if you own a registered copy), because it is considered wrong for companies who sell you the software to try and restrict your access to it. For example, Playstation mod-chips are perfectly legal (tested in a court of law).
So, you are actually defamating and violating the privacy people who are in fact not pirates or doing anything illegal.
Thank you.
This is ridiculous, the document reads "Stephen Robertson posted copies of some of Ellison's copyrighted short stories on a peer-to-peer file sharing network, the USENET.
Since when is USENET a P2P Filesharing network? Ok, you can find a lot of stuff in it, but it's NOt peer2peer and file-sharing , it's client/server and message-posting! It's a totally different thing.
Damn, we both posted the Licence at the same time.
Sorry for the dupe, mod down if you like!
This Microsoft Research Shared Source license agreement ("MSR-SSLA") is a legal
agreement between you and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft" or "we") for the software
or data identified above, which may include source code, and any associated materials,
text or speech files, associated media and "online" or electronic documentation (together,
the "Software").
By installing, copying, or otherwise using this Software, found at
http://research.microsoft.com/downloads, you agree to be bound by the terms of this
MSR-SSLA. If you do not agree, do not install copy or use the Software. The Software is
protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and is licensed, not sold.
SCOPE OF RIGHTS:
You may use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, subject to the restrictions in
this License. Some purposes which can be non-commercial are teaching, academic
research, public demonstrations and personal experimentation. You may also distribute
this Software with books or other teaching materials, or publish the Software on
websites, that are intended to teach the use of the Software for academic or other non-
commercial purposes.
You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in any form for
commercial purposes. Examples of commercial purposes would be running business
operations, licensing, leasing, or selling the Software, distributing the Software for use
with commercial products or any other activity which purpose is to procure a commercial
gain to you or others.
If the Software includes source code or data, you may modify such portions of the
Software and distribute the modified Software for non-commercial purposes, as provided
herein.
You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the
Software. However, this right does not grant you a license to any of Microsoft's
copyrights or patents for anything you might create using such information.
In return, we simply require that you agree:
1. That you will not remove any copyright or other notices from the Software.
2. That if any of the Software is in binary format, you will not attempt to modify such
portions of the Software, or to reverse engineer or decompile them, except and
only to the extent authorized by law.
3. That if you distribute the Software or any derivative works of the Software, you
will distribute them under a verbatim copy of this License, and you will not grant
rights to the Software or derivative works that are broader than those provided by
this License. For example, you may not distribute modifications of the Software
under terms that would permit commercial use, or under terms that purport to
require the Software or such derivative works to be sublicensed to others.
4. That if you have modified the Software or created derivative works, and distribute
such modifications or derivative works, you will cause the modified files to carry
prominent notices so that recipients know that they are not receiving the original
Software. Such notices must state: (i) that you have changed the Software; and
(ii) the date of any changes.
5. That Microsoft is granted back, without any limitations and on a royalty free basis,
the rights to reproduce, install, use, modify, distribute and transfer your
modifications to the Software source code or data.
6. That any feedback about the Software provided by you to us is voluntarily given,
and Microsoft shall be free to use the feedback as it sees fit without obligation or
restriction of any kind, even if the feedback is designated by you as confidential.
7. THAT THE SOFTWARE COMES "AS IS", WITH NO WARRANTIES. THIS
MEANS NO EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY WARRANTY, INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ANY WARRANTY AGAINST
INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE SOFTWARE OR ANY
WARRANTY OF TITLE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT
A law firm wrote to the Copyright Office claiming to own the copyright on Copyright Offices. Said firm asked for an undisclosed sum of money or else they would sue and get the Copyright Office closed for copyright infringment.
:-(
Funny? Wait till we get there
I own one of these cams and I gotta say, I totally agree with the point of the article. It's a totally new way of interacting with games, and it attracts non gamers a lot, because it's so simple. I have had my whole family (ages 9 to 57) playing with Groove. ;-P)
Also it just works (TM). One would think that a thing like this would have some problems recognising your movements, but I found that it works perfectly right out of the box.
I hope that more innovative ways of interacting with computers/consoles come forward in the near future (Matrix anyone?
case folding is not as simple as oring every character in the string
Ok, so you can't OR a char to get the UC corresponding char. You can use a 64k lookup table. Fast and easy.
Before people start complaining about embedded Java, a couple points. The UC function is provided (methinks) on the same platforms, so the table is there. Also, if you really want to save space on small platforms, use ASCII instead of Unicode in varnames... You can write fuctionally equivalent code without resorting to (say) cyrillic varnames.
Well, in Java, you have to INTENTIONALLY make two different properties of an object which differ only in case (and there are probably code beautifying tools that check for that crap) while in a case insensitve language you could ACCIDENTALLY refer to the same thing with two different cases, detrimenting readability.
:-P
;-)
Ok, so how unreadable does the code become if you write a miscased (?) word by mistake once or twice?
The most readeable languages I've come across are c# and vb (not a flamebait) - one is CS one is CI.
But the worst ever readeable languages are CS (Perl, C, C++, even Java with all those casts!).
Of course it depends on the programmer, but the obfuscated C contest and, well, Perl, do prove a point. You don't get an obfuscated VB contest...
Oh, and I've been a Perl/Java/C# programmer for the last five years...
That could work for the just-in-time compilation issues, but it still leaves extra work for plugins and interpretted scripting languages
I believe we were talking about Java, not Javascript!
Right, dynamic loading/linking doesn't involve the original source code. However, it does involve matching up identifiers and filling in offsets. Either the loader/linker has to match modulo case insensitivity, or all of the code-generation tools have to normalize identifiers. Others have pointed out that both tasks are a bit tricky for Unicode.
I am not sure of this, but I do not expect bytecode to include variable/method/property names. I guess they are encoded with indices. Also the dynamic library would have its own namespace similarly encoded.
Once you compile it makes no difference.
Also I still fail to see how uppercasing (lowercasing) is "hard" in Unicode. Java does have functions to do that right? Just use the same algorithm.
I'd like to emphasize how difficult it is to not think (and write) "professional programmers" for "C programmers" and "VB hacks" for "some other group." But I wouldn't want anyone to think I was biased.
You know, having been a professional programmer for the likes of 10 years, I've tried both. I find case sensitivity a stupid practice. That does not mean VB is kool and C sucks... it means that i don't like to recompile my code for stupid reasons like wrong capitals.
More seriously, the grandparent poster also referred to dynamic loading/linking, which is used a lot and is not normally considered bad practice. It is unreasonable to equate interpreting runtime-generated source code with dynamic loading/linking.
What's the difference? I can't see why dynamic loading would require retokenizing/recompiling the source code.