yes, as of MSVC 6.0 you still cannot have templatized members. I wondered if that's what you meant as I couldn't imagine the function by itself not working....
I don't believe this guy doesn't have complaints about the system he was already using. And I have doubts that this is about his computer masters so much as his masters at EDS or whatever big business contractor changes his systems and retrains him regularly.
OR GEE... could it be his idiot management doling out money for new systems when the old one worked better? No... it's the computer industry.
I think some of these "intuitive" people should work on THEIR personal skills. For example, they should know what I mean when I say, "It's only a flesh wound." Maybe the computer would "like" them better and make them "feel" better about themselves.
another thing is that working for a startup or starting a business can cause financial loss, it happens! It's part of risk. Your idea is to say that you should not be allowed to work hard to get out of debt.
>I'd rather work blue-collar than submit to that type of fascist regime.
nice thought but it's MORE restrictive in the blue collar world and has been for over a decade. Most unions have drug testing. Most blue-collar workers are the most screwed by these. Industry may now be moving on to a harder nut to crack, is all, and during a down economy, is, of course, the time to act for them.
well... if you make 90K a year and become unemployed for 8 months with a wife and two kids... you might want to use credit to eat and pay for medical bills. To pay for gas or even flights to look for work.
Purely hypothetical. And if you don't get another 90K job you might find that between that and what was a reasonable debt load to begin with is suddenly too much to handle.
Were you the guy during the Depression that just said, "well, if they have no bread... why don't they eat cake?"
re: "mistaken", just about the natural evolution of language being something that increases clarity and addresses some deficiency in the language.
For some reason when you say, bullhiginarocks, I want to say, "Yeah! Bill Hicks does rock!" But maybe that's not what you meant... oh, "bright monitor".
No seriously, if you had a group of friends that got a kick out of those words, they would have that much better chance making it to the broader language... but even if they don't, they would still be a part of your (very very) local creole. That's a main mechnism... people create words all the time. To name things is to (feel like you) have power over them.
Language works a LOT like open source, it forks a lot and most of the forks are deadends and negligible. You're comment to the contrary is what caught my attention. You are entitled to your reasoned opinion however, and you could even discover I'm right and still stake your place for and against any given linguistic phenomenon, as you have done! That's your right, and in fact, the example you have given are examples of sloppiness, rather than creative expansion, so I'll vote with you. Good lord, have I accidently been defending "supposubly"? AAAAAAAAKKK!
I think you are mistaken, although I can see why those terms bother you (irregardless always bothered me overly much, as does "same difference" when what is meant is "no difference").
I think what you called Natural Evolution is not the natural evolution. Natural evolution does occur through bastadization of the language, the creation of creoles and slanguages, which is a driving force for language change. The careful completion of language where it's not sufficient occurs only among technical proffessionals, like philosophers and scientists, who create terms they need to do their work. Those terms can also make their way into regular language, but my impression is that this happens far more slowly than creol and "bastadizations". Which is more a part of regular language, for example, the language of Quantum Mechanics or rapper lingo?
well, this is pedantic but hey, if people can argue over [ch]acker then I can point out that OSS is not about those things, GNU/GPL is about those things. OSS is the commercialization of that by RMS and I beg to differ, it is about cost. Cost of development.
I've noticed this sentiment throughout the thread, and though you are correct to a degree... it is significant, and has been for the last three years or so they've been claiming it.
Why? MS has a growth oriented P/E. If they don't find another growth market, their stock will take a huge hit. It seems inevitable to me but oddly enough MS isn't giving up yet. The Server Area was a good possible growth area. It's a huge market... bigger than desktops $-wise, most say. But linux has checked their incursion.
It hasn't really threatened the desktop, but it does "threaten to threaten". lol.
Generally I think the concensus is that these devices were too early. It's probably also true that they were not quite right, e.g. both of these examples were too expensive, and missing unknown features that will the be the killer apps (which most visionaries seem to assume has something to do with recipies (but maybe games (or maybe PVR features (or maybe dimming the lights for you))).
The other thing is that, the industry could be wrong. Maybe one of these won't ever take over. Or maybe it won't be LIKE a VCR, it'll just BE a VCR... or a computer integrated into the TV itself (oh, quite likely actually). So the industry could be wrong. But watch them keep trying and keep trying, they seem fairly certain it's a matter of time and they know the "footprint" if not the specific functionality that will be the pervasive computing device.
It may even be the devices in the home just get smart independently, Apple is pursuing this a bit, but then, such a world still implies a role for the "hub", which in this case is still some general computing controller for the digital home.
I would say the term success is relative, and requires a qualifier... a criteria and point of reference.
As for MS's mission, used to be a "PC everywhere"... pretty aimed at ubiquity such as they have today.
They changed that last year, I believe. Now it's something like, and I paraphrase, "No More Sharing."
It's been said that Bill Gates wanted to make sure that MS never turned into IBM. Ok, failure, MS is just like Old IBM (as distinct from the New IBM.
Now: would I feel like a success with a million dollars... well, it totally depends. The question of would I feel comfortable... easier to answer, yes.
But for the former, just to reiterate, it depends totally on the goal. If I make a new kind of motor, drum up VC, pocket a cool million and it turns out my idea is baseless (but not so baseless that I go to jail for fraud), it's not a success. Am I? um, not with respect to that business (unless taking sucker money was the real goal all allong!)
Another example, if I win the lottery, am I a success? No. Because I don't have a method that will win the lottery, I used the same failing method as everyone else.
But then, I admit you do have a point... they have some successes. Word, for example. Windows. These things did succeed.
But they have failures too.
So going back to the joke about routing around failure... the poster does have access to points of view, criteria, where MS is a failure, so I think it makes sense as a joke.
But in a way I agree that it's Just A Joke, because it doesn't explain the criteria either, and is prone to the same weakness as saying that MS is an unqualified success.
Look, my reasoning might be circular... but aren't they nice, tight little circles? Superstrings I like to call them...
Slashdot Mirror
yes, as of MSVC 6.0 you still cannot have templatized members. I wondered if that's what you meant as I couldn't imagine the function by itself not working....
uhoh... I've been using it as advice on effective obfucation techniques!!! doh!
>Most JCP suggestions are calls for Java to look more like C++ or Python.
hmmm.... coincidence?
next... getting rid of the VM.
And using gcc instead of javac.
And writing in C++ instead of Java!
What is the new system? What was the old system?
I don't believe this guy doesn't have complaints about the system he was already using. And I have doubts that this is about his computer masters so much as his masters at EDS or whatever big business contractor changes his systems and retrains him regularly.
OR GEE... could it be his idiot management doling out money for new systems when the old one worked better? No... it's the computer industry.
I think some of these "intuitive" people should work on THEIR personal skills. For example, they should know what I mean when I say, "It's only a flesh wound." Maybe the computer would "like" them better and make them "feel" better about themselves.
Wait, am I bitter?
another thing is that working for a startup or starting a business can cause financial loss, it happens! It's part of risk. Your idea is to say that you should not be allowed to work hard to get out of debt.
Do you think that's good for those creditors?
>I'd rather work blue-collar than submit to that type of fascist regime.
nice thought but it's MORE restrictive in the blue collar world and has been for over a decade. Most unions have drug testing. Most blue-collar workers are the most screwed by these. Industry may now be moving on to a harder nut to crack, is all, and during a down economy, is, of course, the time to act for them.
well... if you make 90K a year and become unemployed for 8 months with a wife and two kids... you might want to use credit to eat and pay for medical bills. To pay for gas or even flights to look for work.
Purely hypothetical. And if you don't get another 90K job you might find that between that and what was a reasonable debt load to begin with is suddenly too much to handle.
Were you the guy during the Depression that just said, "well, if they have no bread... why don't they eat cake?"
I think perhaps Unix systems should just stop forwarding Microsoft packets... it's a free world and you don't have to be fair or sensible.
This includes the phone switches.
Cut off the air supply! I mean, why should Sun machines have to be configurable to pass competitors traffic?
the sytlesheet says to put text contents a -30pixels from the containing element!!!!
And you can't program in HTML.
You're right though that it can be a pain. This doesn't look much like an innocent mistake... but it might be a really stupid one.
The irony is that when I looked at the ad with this article... it wasn't a Micrsoft Ad. wtf?
Time to read Manufacturing Consent by good ol' Noam.
... the correct term is "cracker" ...
re: "mistaken", just about the natural evolution of language being something that increases clarity and addresses some deficiency in the language.
For some reason when you say, bullhiginarocks, I want to say, "Yeah! Bill Hicks does rock!" But maybe that's not what you meant... oh, "bright monitor".
No seriously, if you had a group of friends that got a kick out of those words, they would have that much better chance making it to the broader language... but even if they don't, they would still be a part of your (very very) local creole. That's a main mechnism... people create words all the time. To name things is to (feel like you) have power over them.
Language works a LOT like open source, it forks a lot and most of the forks are deadends and negligible. You're comment to the contrary is what caught my attention. You are entitled to your reasoned opinion however, and you could even discover I'm right and still stake your place for and against any given linguistic phenomenon, as you have done! That's your right, and in fact, the example you have given are examples of sloppiness, rather than creative expansion, so I'll vote with you. Good lord, have I accidently been defending "supposubly"? AAAAAAAAKKK!
Cheers
I think you are mistaken, although I can see why those terms bother you (irregardless always bothered me overly much, as does "same difference" when what is meant is "no difference").
I think what you called Natural Evolution is not the natural evolution. Natural evolution does occur through bastadization of the language, the creation of creoles and slanguages, which is a driving force for language change. The careful completion of language where it's not sufficient occurs only among technical proffessionals, like philosophers and scientists, who create terms they need to do their work. Those terms can also make their way into regular language, but my impression is that this happens far more slowly than creol and "bastadizations". Which is more a part of regular language, for example, the language of Quantum Mechanics or rapper lingo?
oops, screwed my TLA... I meant "commercialization of that by ESR"...
well, this is pedantic but hey, if people can argue over [ch]acker then I can point out that OSS is not about those things, GNU/GPL is about those things. OSS is the commercialization of that by RMS and I beg to differ, it is about cost. Cost of development.
hey, this is Merka! We have the right to burn down our exhibit if we like, meddlesome kid!
I've noticed this sentiment throughout the thread, and though you are correct to a degree... it is significant, and has been for the last three years or so they've been claiming it.
Why? MS has a growth oriented P/E. If they don't find another growth market, their stock will take a huge hit. It seems inevitable to me but oddly enough MS isn't giving up yet. The Server Area was a good possible growth area. It's a huge market... bigger than desktops $-wise, most say. But linux has checked their incursion.
It hasn't really threatened the desktop, but it does "threaten to threaten". lol.
>Sorry, the english language is not open source. You do not get to add and remove as you see fit.
You couldn't be more wrong. In fact, thou beest the most wrongful thou could be. Or is that beeth?
Exactly what is your theory to explain the evolution of language? English teachers in a dark smoke filled room writing creative new dictionaries?
It's as if anthropologists were under the delusion they TOLD people how to live rather than studied how they lived.
But then, I think you must be right about meaning "hegemony".
yes, I think you are on to something.
yes, it was! And so was the 3D0!
Generally I think the concensus is that these devices were too early. It's probably also true that they were not quite right, e.g. both of these examples were too expensive, and missing unknown features that will the be the killer apps (which most visionaries seem to assume has something to do with recipies (but maybe games (or maybe PVR features (or maybe dimming the lights for you))).
The other thing is that, the industry could be wrong. Maybe one of these won't ever take over. Or maybe it won't be LIKE a VCR, it'll just BE a VCR... or a computer integrated into the TV itself (oh, quite likely actually). So the industry could be wrong. But watch them keep trying and keep trying, they seem fairly certain it's a matter of time and they know the "footprint" if not the specific functionality that will be the pervasive computing device.
It may even be the devices in the home just get smart independently, Apple is pursuing this a bit, but then, such a world still implies a role for the "hub", which in this case is still some general computing controller for the digital home.
I would say the term success is relative, and requires a qualifier... a criteria and point of reference.
As for MS's mission, used to be a "PC everywhere"... pretty aimed at ubiquity such as they have today.
They changed that last year, I believe. Now it's something like, and I paraphrase, "No More Sharing."
It's been said that Bill Gates wanted to make sure that MS never turned into IBM. Ok, failure, MS is just like Old IBM (as distinct from the New IBM.
Now: would I feel like a success with a million dollars... well, it totally depends. The question of would I feel comfortable... easier to answer, yes.
But for the former, just to reiterate, it depends totally on the goal. If I make a new kind of motor, drum up VC, pocket a cool million and it turns out my idea is baseless (but not so baseless that I go to jail for fraud), it's not a success. Am I? um, not with respect to that business (unless taking sucker money was the real goal all allong!)
Another example, if I win the lottery, am I a success? No. Because I don't have a method that will win the lottery, I used the same failing method as everyone else.
But then, I admit you do have a point... they have some successes. Word, for example. Windows. These things did succeed.
But they have failures too.
So going back to the joke about routing around failure... the poster does have access to points of view, criteria, where MS is a failure, so I think it makes sense as a joke.
But in a way I agree that it's Just A Joke, because it doesn't explain the criteria either, and is prone to the same weakness as saying that MS is an unqualified success.
Look, my reasoning might be circular... but aren't they nice, tight little circles? Superstrings I like to call them...
cheers.
... I think he also had a joke in his standup that was ended, "Well, in Old Soviet Russia, TV watches YOU"...
confirm/deny?
and the amount of the loss will be publicly trumpeted at least once a quarter.
They have the money to do this for a long time.
How long they really choose to do this, however, is going to be based on how long they can bear this to be repeated every quarter.
So my point... plan on hearing this regularly. It's a drumbeat setting time for their loss.
Also, let's face it, we don't know the character of the loss, it's interesting if it doubles, or halves, or stayes constant, beats estimates, etc.