... real programming languages. They are for idiot kids who like to play dress-up and pretend to be real developers.
They are also great for rapid prototyping and cases where you only need something basic. They have issues, but I am wondering whether you are just rocking your high horse?
Ignoring the fact Microsoft sponsored this paper, could you point out the specific issues you have with Typescript and why you would avoid it?
I am a NodeJS developer, who has been considering Typescript, so I would be curious by your insight. I just want to make sure you aren't judging with a similar bias?
Qualcomm seems to be desperate for someone to notice them? They lost the CDMA market in favour of GSMA based communication, they complain that Apple is limiting the capability of their chips and now they want to put down Apple. Does it matter who gets to market first, especially if the technology is rushed to market? Sometimes waiting and getting the kinks sorted matters more.
I assume you are being sarcastic in your post, because nothing there looks like an original idea. If you look at the market, everyone is borrowing from each other. Apple is not always about being there first, but getting the packaging in a way people want to use.
The myOrigo looks like the interface was essentially a Java Swing implementation, with elements borrowed from MacOS and Windows. Before the iPhone there was the Newton, Symbian, PalmOS and Windows CE, amongst others. They each had technology elements that the iPhone would incorporate, but they failed to package it in a way that got the attention of the non-engineer market. According to online sources the first smartphone was released around 1993, with the term being coined around 1995.
Microsoft made the first tablet, but didn't get it packaged in a way that had mass market appeal. One of the issues seems to be wanting to have the Windows branding everywhere, even where it doesn't make sense.
You can have the best gizmo, but if you can't appeal to the market, does it matter? Sometimes the first mover advantage can be a disadvantage.
There are reasonable scenarios for patents, such as when millions were spent. I have issue with any patent that is sat on or simply used as a tool to stifle the competition, while doing nothing useful with said patent. This is too often then case with software patents.
The flip side to the story you mentioned is that had the Wright brothers simply focused on making a better plane, then they may have been more than just inventors. In the end Curtis innovated, based on recommendations from Ford, and this led to some of the technologies we had today. Also the Wright brothers didn't even want to license out their invention, which was the ultimate folly.
Even with a patent you'll have to defend your technology. In the end, usually, the only real winners are the lawyers and the people who can afford to pay them.
Right or wrong, that's how this IP thing works.....
Or the point "works in the USA". Outside of the US there isn't a culture of patenting everything under then sun, and as broadly possible. Also, by the time the researcher shared the knowledge he likely invalidated his own ability to patent it?
The engineer may no longer work for Google, but it is Google that is paying and pushing forward said patent. This shows Google patent team acting out with scum-like behaviour.
If higher levels of management are aware of what is going on and they choose not to drop this from patent submission, then they too are likely showing scum-like behaviour
Even if you want to just give it away, you better apply for that patent or this kind of thing is going to happen Skippy... Now, if you really want to defend this, it's going to cost you a pile of $$, just to give it away.
This is just a requirement for the US. Most other countries seem to be semi sane when it comes to the patentability of algorithms and mathematical formulas. After all, is a mathematical formula really an implementation?
In the US system it is going to cost you $$ if the USPTO doesn't do its homework, as often fails to do when it comes to software related patents. It also goes against the principle of getting a patent, which is to encourage publishing of knowledge, in exchange for a temporary monopoly on the knowledge, to avoid guild-like practice. In this case the knowledge was shared openly and did not need the motivation of a temporary monopoly.
Additionally the person in question is from Poland. In Europe, for the most part, software and algorithms are not patentable, so this would have required an academic to register for a US patent. Registering an international patent is expensive and should not be the first motivation for an academic.
The biggest issue here, IMO, is allowing software patents in the first place and while permitted being for such a long period. A software patent should be good for 5 years at the maximum, since I doubt most software patents took years, cost millions to come up with and implement.
Investigating crime and punishing wrongdoing is not the bank's job. They shouldn't be blanket freezing all these accounts themselves unless as a precaution because they have evidence of fraud.
Depending on the jurisdiction this may just be the requirement of law. Financial institutions typically have a responsibility to monitor for unusual activity and act upon it, without notifying the customer, while the investigation is in progress. The challenge here seems to be a number of false positives and a poorly implemented process to identify and resolve these issues.
Isn't this the same type of conditions that Google applies for Android on the PlayStore? I am not saying this makes Apple innocent, just that this seems to be generally the same across mobile platforms.
Well in the same way as a VC, you should only spend money you can afford to lose. Your offset is that you are receiving a salary from someone. If you aren't, then you should question why you are allowing yourself to spend that money.
In Europe there is IBAN, while allows you to transfer cash from any account to an account electronically. Over here it isn't so simple. Last time I wanted to pay my landlord it was still by check - what is this? 1880?
In many ways carriers are becoming a dumb pipe and the evolution of their plans suggest that they are realising this. In many ways charging for data is of more value than charging for voice, if everyone is moving to third party apps.
The value of keeping a phone number with your carrier is that it is still the closest to an universal contact ID, working across carriers. The same can't be said for solutions such as WhatsApp, Skype, Facebook and Google Hangouts.
Maybe it will take the European Union to make this happen, since they did make equivalent happen for mobile phones? With the anti-regulation stance of the current US administration, I see it less likely happening there, hence believing it will be the EU who will make it happen, if industry doesn't gets its act together first.
Slack is written in React and uses Electron. I suspect the version of the Google's V8 JavaScript engine being used does not benefit from some of the more recent optimisations used by the one in Chrome 57?
I would be curious to see what could be done to improve things?
Suddenly the number of dissidents jumped. Couldn't be anything with a newly missed iff bunch of people now feeling whatever freedoms they had squashed even further? Even the most innocent can lash back out they feel they are being treated unfairly or like caged animals. .
To use the restaurant analogy, it would be cool if the waitress accepted any price I give her for the meal, but it would probably be shoddy business. Oh, it wasn't normal operating procedure? The waitress accepted it, but now I am being accused of hacking the waitress. How about training her properly to not accept everything the client talks her?
At the same time I believe there is a difference between encryption for the target site and a certificate saying the site is owned by the people who claim they do. The standard for the former is likely to be lower than for the latter.
For example I want to know that the data for www.somedomain.mars is encrypted for said site, while for www.mybank.mars it is encrypted for the site and also owned by my bank.
The real question should be what should the expectations of a certificate for a given context and are the checkboxes all checked?
Yes, quite unconscionable of Google to not credit the source of by far the most important (and most reliable) component of their proprietary platform, don't you think? Or don't you.
How much do they need to talk about it. It isn't as if Apple talks about Darwin much either, since it doesn't matter to the end user. BTW if you want to see Linux referenced, you need to see the developer oriented stuff, such as the diagram on this page: https://source.android.com/sou...
They use the Linux kernel, but they slap a whole other layer on top of it. It is similar to MacOS X where you have an OS over an OS (the base being Darwin, which a fork of BSD).
Slashdot Mirror
... real programming languages. They are for idiot kids who like to play dress-up and pretend to be real developers.
They are also great for rapid prototyping and cases where you only need something basic. They have issues, but I am wondering whether you are just rocking your high horse?
Ignoring the fact Microsoft sponsored this paper, could you point out the specific issues you have with Typescript and why you would avoid it?
I am a NodeJS developer, who has been considering Typescript, so I would be curious by your insight. I just want to make sure you aren't judging with a similar bias?
Qualcomm seems to be desperate for someone to notice them? They lost the CDMA market in favour of GSMA based communication, they complain that Apple is limiting the capability of their chips and now they want to put down Apple. Does it matter who gets to market first, especially if the technology is rushed to market? Sometimes waiting and getting the kinks sorted matters more.
I assume you are being sarcastic in your post, because nothing there looks like an original idea. If you look at the market, everyone is borrowing from each other. Apple is not always about being there first, but getting the packaging in a way people want to use.
The myOrigo looks like the interface was essentially a Java Swing implementation, with elements borrowed from MacOS and Windows. Before the iPhone there was the Newton, Symbian, PalmOS and Windows CE, amongst others. They each had technology elements that the iPhone would incorporate, but they failed to package it in a way that got the attention of the non-engineer market. According to online sources the first smartphone was released around 1993, with the term being coined around 1995.
Microsoft made the first tablet, but didn't get it packaged in a way that had mass market appeal. One of the issues seems to be wanting to have the Windows branding everywhere, even where it doesn't make sense.
You can have the best gizmo, but if you can't appeal to the market, does it matter? Sometimes the first mover advantage can be a disadvantage.
There are reasonable scenarios for patents, such as when millions were spent. I have issue with any patent that is sat on or simply used as a tool to stifle the competition, while doing nothing useful with said patent. This is too often then case with software patents.
The flip side to the story you mentioned is that had the Wright brothers simply focused on making a better plane, then they may have been more than just inventors. In the end Curtis innovated, based on recommendations from Ford, and this led to some of the technologies we had today. Also the Wright brothers didn't even want to license out their invention, which was the ultimate folly.
Even with a patent you'll have to defend your technology. In the end, usually, the only real winners are the lawyers and the people who can afford to pay them.
Right or wrong, that's how this IP thing works.....
Or the point "works in the USA". Outside of the US there isn't a culture of patenting everything under then sun, and as broadly possible. Also, by the time the researcher shared the knowledge he likely invalidated his own ability to patent it?
The engineer may no longer work for Google, but it is Google that is paying and pushing forward said patent. This shows Google patent team acting out with scum-like behaviour.
If higher levels of management are aware of what is going on and they choose not to drop this from patent submission, then they too are likely showing scum-like behaviour
Even if you want to just give it away, you better apply for that patent or this kind of thing is going to happen Skippy... Now, if you really want to defend this, it's going to cost you a pile of $$, just to give it away.
This is just a requirement for the US. Most other countries seem to be semi sane when it comes to the patentability of algorithms and mathematical formulas. After all, is a mathematical formula really an implementation?
In the US system it is going to cost you $$ if the USPTO doesn't do its homework, as often fails to do when it comes to software related patents. It also goes against the principle of getting a patent, which is to encourage publishing of knowledge, in exchange for a temporary monopoly on the knowledge, to avoid guild-like practice. In this case the knowledge was shared openly and did not need the motivation of a temporary monopoly.
Additionally the person in question is from Poland. In Europe, for the most part, software and algorithms are not patentable, so this would have required an academic to register for a US patent. Registering an international patent is expensive and should not be the first motivation for an academic.
The biggest issue here, IMO, is allowing software patents in the first place and while permitted being for such a long period. A software patent should be good for 5 years at the maximum, since I doubt most software patents took years, cost millions to come up with and implement.
Wikipedia on European software patents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Investigating crime and punishing wrongdoing is not the bank's job. They shouldn't be blanket freezing all these accounts themselves unless as a precaution because they have evidence of fraud.
Depending on the jurisdiction this may just be the requirement of law. Financial institutions typically have a responsibility to monitor for unusual activity and act upon it, without notifying the customer, while the investigation is in progress. The challenge here seems to be a number of false positives and a poorly implemented process to identify and resolve these issues.
You do know the cake is a lie?
Do you want some cake?
Or Google: 'redefining evil, because we can'.
Isn't this the same type of conditions that Google applies for Android on the PlayStore? I am not saying this makes Apple innocent, just that this seems to be generally the same across mobile platforms.
This page says this about Android apps:
For applications and in-app products that you offer on Google Play, the transaction fee is equivalent to 30% of the price.
You receive 70% of the payment. The remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees.
Heck, when a developer sold an app via the old brick and mortar stores, they were probably lucky to get 50%.
What does happen if you look at them in the eyes? They blink?
As long as they aren't crossplaying Weeping Angels, then it may be safe?
Well in the same way as a VC, you should only spend money you can afford to lose. Your offset is that you are receiving a salary from someone. If you aren't, then you should question why you are allowing yourself to spend that money.
In Europe there is IBAN, while allows you to transfer cash from any account to an account electronically. Over here it isn't so simple. Last time I wanted to pay my landlord it was still by check - what is this? 1880?
In many ways carriers are becoming a dumb pipe and the evolution of their plans suggest that they are realising this. In many ways charging for data is of more value than charging for voice, if everyone is moving to third party apps.
The value of keeping a phone number with your carrier is that it is still the closest to an universal contact ID, working across carriers. The same can't be said for solutions such as WhatsApp, Skype, Facebook and Google Hangouts.
Maybe it will take the European Union to make this happen, since they did make equivalent happen for mobile phones? With the anti-regulation stance of the current US administration, I see it less likely happening there, hence believing it will be the EU who will make it happen, if industry doesn't gets its act together first.
Slack is written in React and uses Electron. I suspect the version of the Google's V8 JavaScript engine being used does not benefit from some of the more recent optimisations used by the one in Chrome 57?
I would be curious to see what could be done to improve things?
Suddenly the number of dissidents jumped. Couldn't be anything with a newly missed iff bunch of people now feeling whatever freedoms they had squashed even further? Even the most innocent can lash back out they feel they are being treated unfairly or like caged animals. .
To use the restaurant analogy, it would be cool if the waitress accepted any price I give her for the meal, but it would probably be shoddy business. Oh, it wasn't normal operating procedure? The waitress accepted it, but now I am being accused of hacking the waitress. How about training her properly to not accept everything the client talks her?
At the same time I believe there is a difference between encryption for the target site and a certificate saying the site is owned by the people who claim they do. The standard for the former is likely to be lower than for the latter.
For example I want to know that the data for www.somedomain.mars is encrypted for said site, while for www.mybank.mars it is encrypted for the site and also owned by my bank.
The real question should be what should the expectations of a certificate for a given context and are the checkboxes all checked?
Yes, quite unconscionable of Google to not credit the source of by far the most important (and most reliable) component of their proprietary platform, don't you think? Or don't you.
How much do they need to talk about it. It isn't as if Apple talks about Darwin much either, since it doesn't matter to the end user. BTW if you want to see Linux referenced, you need to see the developer oriented stuff, such as the diagram on this page: https://source.android.com/sou...
They use the Linux kernel, but they slap a whole other layer on top of it. It is similar to MacOS X where you have an OS over an OS (the base being Darwin, which a fork of BSD).
The source is here: https://source.android.com/sou...