Role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons strike me as a unique fit for the computer. In a lot of ways, I think RPG games very much "distribute" the work that would be handled by a computer to the players. When I first put my hands on a computer, the first thing I wanted to do was program it to play role playing games.
Social anxiety and the tensions that follow from it are very real problems for a lot of people, but I think there's more than that to the story. Role playing games have a set of very detailed rules that describe a complex algorithm. The interplay between the relatively rigid system of the RPG and the more free-form creativity of the players creates the thing that we enjoy, the game. It is fascinating in a lot of ways, and I think it is something that all coder's come in contact with daily.
I am curious to know if this books spend a decent amount of space on actually using Hibernate in the context of a J2EE application (i.e., instead of using CMP)? I currently work with CMP and I am not a huge fan, I am very interested in alternatives and wonder if this book is the place to start looking.
The title of the book implies that the book does cover this, but the review doesn't actually mention this specifically.
Where has Jon Katz been? Has he decided to read up on the trial today? How else could he be so misinformed?
Anyone who feels that Microsoft is not a monopoly, or that Microsoft is not predatory simply does not know the facts. There is not doubt on this, and the US Federal Court agrees. Reading the appeal transcript by no means qualifies as knowing the facts. This is just sad.
An operating system that doesn't have a web browser built in is not, as Katz implies, a useless operating system. The Macintosh is a good example: people buy it all the time, and the web browser isn't "part" of the OS.
The browser issue is important, but this is only one episode in a string of predatory actions. I've seen a lot of people downplay this because "Netscape sucks." Not only is this narrow minded, but it ignores the facts that once upon a time, everyone used Netscape. The reason they switched to Explorer was because it was bundled with every copy of the OS, and Netscape wanted you to pay money. Why would people pay for something that they already have?
Microsoft hurt Netscape by giving away software with similar functionality for free, bundling the software with their OS, and forcing OEM's to drop Netscape products even though they were the preferred solution at the time. How is that not predatory, Jon? Explain it to me, I want to know what you think.
It looks like Jon Katz is just another one of the masses of people who believes everything he hears because he is incapable of critical thought on his own. Either that, or he is just lazy and didn't do his reasearch.
I can't help but point out the obvious fact that you really shouldn't be asking us. You should be talking to your patients, finding out how many of them use the internet regularly and what they feel comfortable with.
I, for instance, would drop a doctor if he started offering access to my medical record over the internet. We talk about how important security is, but large sites are compromised all of the time.
This subject deserves a far less cavalier attitude and far more research than (it sounds like) you have invested so far.
I don't see how this is any different from Apple going after computers that look like the iMac or the Cube. This is exactly the same sort of thing, in fact, it seems like the next step up. They're moving from what the machine looks like to what the OS looks like. I don't see how this has anything to do with work done by Xerox PARC or Microsoft. The distinctions people are making between the look of the physical machine and the look of the OS are rather forced and by no means a given.
I'm always surprised at how little you people seem to know the issues involved. Apple has to do almost nothing to run OS X on Intel. They've been spending all of their time porting to the PowerPC. Although Apple hasn't committed to an Intel version of OS X, they have maintained all along that the Intel version continues to compile cleanly.
Apple has also been hinting that they may drop the PowerPC if the alliance doesn't pull it together. Remember as well that there were rumors about using the Transmeta processor in future laptops or handhelds. This is another area where an Intel port would be critical for Apple.
If Apple ever did switch processors, it surely would not be to Intel. They might decide to go with AMD, perhaps, or use Transmeta's processors for portables. Intel is far too tightly intertwined with Microsoft to be viable, and Apple wouldn't ship generic boxes. They would use the same boards that they are using now.
A note about Carbon: the carbon API replaces traditional Mac OS calls with OS X "plumbing." While carbon apps are not cocoa apps, there isn't any reason why they wouldn't run on an Intel version of OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
Role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons strike me as a unique fit for the computer. In a lot of ways, I think RPG games very much "distribute" the work that would be handled by a computer to the players. When I first put my hands on a computer, the first thing I wanted to do was program it to play role playing games. Social anxiety and the tensions that follow from it are very real problems for a lot of people, but I think there's more than that to the story. Role playing games have a set of very detailed rules that describe a complex algorithm. The interplay between the relatively rigid system of the RPG and the more free-form creativity of the players creates the thing that we enjoy, the game. It is fascinating in a lot of ways, and I think it is something that all coder's come in contact with daily.
I am curious to know if this books spend a decent amount of space on actually using Hibernate in the context of a J2EE application (i.e., instead of using CMP)? I currently work with CMP and I am not a huge fan, I am very interested in alternatives and wonder if this book is the place to start looking.
The title of the book implies that the book does cover this, but the review doesn't actually mention this specifically.
For years and years I thought I was the only one who liked this movie. I am much gladdened to know that I am not alone.
Where has Jon Katz been? Has he decided to read up on the trial today? How else could he be so misinformed?
Anyone who feels that Microsoft is not a monopoly, or that Microsoft is not predatory simply does not know the facts. There is not doubt on this, and the US Federal Court agrees. Reading the appeal transcript by no means qualifies as knowing the facts. This is just sad.
An operating system that doesn't have a web browser built in is not, as Katz implies, a useless operating system. The Macintosh is a good example: people buy it all the time, and the web browser isn't "part" of the OS.
The browser issue is important, but this is only one episode in a string of predatory actions. I've seen a lot of people downplay this because "Netscape sucks." Not only is this narrow minded, but it ignores the facts that once upon a time, everyone used Netscape. The reason they switched to Explorer was because it was bundled with every copy of the OS, and Netscape wanted you to pay money. Why would people pay for something that they already have?
Microsoft hurt Netscape by giving away software with similar functionality for free, bundling the software with their OS, and forcing OEM's to drop Netscape products even though they were the preferred solution at the time. How is that not predatory, Jon? Explain it to me, I want to know what you think.
It looks like Jon Katz is just another one of the masses of people who believes everything he hears because he is incapable of critical thought on his own. Either that, or he is just lazy and didn't do his reasearch.
I can't help but point out the obvious fact that you really shouldn't be asking us. You should be talking to your patients, finding out how many of them use the internet regularly and what they feel comfortable with.
I, for instance, would drop a doctor if he started offering access to my medical record over the internet. We talk about how important security is, but large sites are compromised all of the time.
This subject deserves a far less cavalier attitude and far more research than (it sounds like) you have invested so far.
I don't see how this is any different from Apple going after computers that look like the iMac or the Cube. This is exactly the same sort of thing, in fact, it seems like the next step up. They're moving from what the machine looks like to what the OS looks like. I don't see how this has anything to do with work done by Xerox PARC or Microsoft. The distinctions people are making between the look of the physical machine and the look of the OS are rather forced and by no means a given.
I'm always surprised at how little you people seem to know the issues involved. Apple has to do almost nothing to run OS X on Intel. They've been spending all of their time porting to the PowerPC. Although Apple hasn't committed to an Intel version of OS X, they have maintained all along that the Intel version continues to compile cleanly.
Apple has also been hinting that they may drop the PowerPC if the alliance doesn't pull it together. Remember as well that there were rumors about using the Transmeta processor in future laptops or handhelds. This is another area where an Intel port would be critical for Apple.
If Apple ever did switch processors, it surely would not be to Intel. They might decide to go with AMD, perhaps, or use Transmeta's processors for portables. Intel is far too tightly intertwined with Microsoft to be viable, and Apple wouldn't ship generic boxes. They would use the same boards that they are using now.
A note about Carbon: the carbon API replaces traditional Mac OS calls with OS X "plumbing." While carbon apps are not cocoa apps, there isn't any reason why they wouldn't run on an Intel version of OS X.