Absolutely right, too many developers blame the tools rather than becoming better developers, we see this every couple of years: "Every language is crap, we should all move to Language X!". Then a few years later Language Y will come along to save us from the abhorrent abortion that is Language X.
By all means work on developing a new language if you feel it genuinely will be advantageous but unless that's your fulltime commitment in your capacity of coding then you should be focusing on becoming a more proficient developer with the tools you have because no language will save you from yourself. Ultimately in terms of speed, stability and maintainability it will be much more about your design choices than the design choices of the language, if you're not proficient in development with that language then you're likely to be making bad design choices so you're going to be the major problem.
They don't mention if any of the devices were using Android's full device encryption either or which of the devices they recovered deleted data from rather than just receiving a phone where the user had forgotten to delete their data. Seems less like a study and more like a sales pitch.
No matter what genre (except sports games and simulations), games seem to be only about killing hordes of copy&paste enemies.
That's true of even the most successful ones from decades ago. Doom (particular standout), Rise of the Triad, Streets of Rage, the various Mario and Donkey Kong games, etc... Not quite sure where you get the idea that it was so much better "back in the day".
Of course you have the standouts like Monkey Island or Abe's Odyssey just like you do these days with titles like Alan Wake or Limbo.
If you're not a television, please don't use 16:9.
The iPhone seems to be doing pretty well with 16:9. Although given their marketing around how its current ratio and dimensions are perfect the rumors of a size bump in the next iteration are likely to make them look a bit stupid.
The idea is, you wifi tether your table/watch to your phone.
But, to get the deal, you need a larger data package because the tablet/watch will cause you to consume more data.
In the case of the watch it shouldn't cause you to consume more data because it doesn't do anything additional, it's just a way to indirectly control your phone.
If you still don't get it, it's like everyone in his family wearing a T-shirt that says "My home address is 123 Johnson Rd -- and if you're reading this, I'm probably not at home".
It makes burglary easy, and stalking as well.
No, not it isn't, it's saying "a phone in the vicinity has at some point connected to a network named 123 Johnson Rd which may or may not exist at that address". Even if it did exist at that address how does that make burglary easy? Tell me what your scenario is that makes this so much easier than just staking out a house until a person leaves.
I am talking about allowing your application to make use of system extensions which means no two apps are alike in use.
And how many of those system extensions are available on platforms other that iOS? None. But from within your Apple-centric view of the world that doesn't matter.
The key point is that those extensions are not available on platforms other than iOS so if you want a consistent cross-platform experience you won't be using platform-specific features.
Actually, it IS a trap. How long until they back away from their support of open source and back away, migrating to their own proprietary BS, taking full advantage of the progress made by others?
What would be the point of that? It won't work with all the other devices in the "internet of things".
What "system extensions"? Are you even reading? This is about using Adobe's services which are then available from whatever platform you target resulting in a consistent experience. Are the iOS8 features available on Android or Windows Phone so my application can produce the same results on those platforms too?
If your image editing program can make further use of external plug-ins, then you don't care about having it produce the same across platforms because it will never be the same FOR EACH USER.
What are you talking about? If you want to perform an operation on an image and that operation produces different results in your application on iOS and Android then that is a problem, your application is not portable and is inconsistent.
Would you truly argue that image editing programs should not allow for plugins, that there is no value?
No.
Because you are.
No i'm not, and if that's how you understood it then you have misinterpreted.
Perhaps because of the number of times it turned out to be a trap. Embrace/Extend/Extinguish. It's going to take a long time before seeing MS "embrace" a standard doesn't automatically trigger an "oh crap, not again" reaction in us old timers.
Old timers with alzheimer's maybe. I can't remember a time they released open source stuff and it turned out to be a trap. The essence of the "EEE" concept is adding additional proprietary functionality that developers ultimately use because they need it and because they aren't worried about compatibility of other platforms because the only platform that matters is Microsoft's. But how does that apply here? Actually how does that apply anywhere these days? The days of Microsoft having a monopoly even in personal computing are long over.
I would suspect because things like "EEE" were from nearly 2 decades ago in a time when the company was run by Bill Gates, who has since been succeeded by Steve Ballmer who has since been succeeded by Satya Nadella. It's the same as when Google introduces a new product and we get those same posts polluting the story "reminding" us of how many products they have killed off or their StreetView wifi case. The same as how in just about every Apple story we get "reminded" of issues like the iPhone 4's antenna or the iBooks anti-trust saga.
Do you really need to be reminded of these things every single story? Of course the intention is to incite arguments and it's always the same old stuff every time, often argued by the same people. I'm quite sure it gets pretty tiresome.
Hundreds of legacy code developed for Windows platform using Windows development tools run only on XP and are not supported by 7 or 8.
So not only have you tied yourself to a particular version of a proprietary OS that - as we all know from previous experience - has a limited lifetime but you chose to do that by using proprietary software that won't run on anything else and you didn't think there might be a problem with that? Seriously? If you cut corners then you're going to get burned.
You can't compare binaries for Microsoft's attempt at a C compiler. If you use the/GS (IIRC) flag, Microsoft will insert a different random value just before the return address of a function so any buffer overrun will change it.
/GS only allocates space for a random value, the random value isn't computed at compile time.
1/ How can observers know that the source code shown results in the compiled binary sold.
Compile the code and compare the binaries?
2/ How can observers know that when compiled the compiler does not introduce vulnerabilities.
Same way you would for open source software: inspect the compiler code.
3/ Would not a malicious observer use the knowledge of the source to look for vulnerabilities for their intelligence agencies to exploit later.
Maybe.
4/ As a private citizen how can I be assured of or against all the above if I and a number of expert friends cannot also look at the source.
You can't, but then you can't practically do it in the open source world either, at some point you have to trust somebody, if you don't then the simple answer is don't use the product. I inspect a lot of open source software but it's mostly for interest sake, I don't pretend to understand the full scope of it, much less the 3rd party libraries or the compilers or OS I run it on or the drivers for the hardware or the physical hardware or the microcode within that hardware (where I can even get to it), you have to trust far to many people to consider things safe even when using open source software.
Yeah when TFA says nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet I'm pretty sure that's what they meant, not whether it will deliver their packets.
Well a set of headphones with 'one or more integrated physiological sensors' designed to help users keep track of their body stats isn't patentable, that's just an idea and you cannot patent an idea. It's a specific implementation of that idea that is patentable.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely right, too many developers blame the tools rather than becoming better developers, we see this every couple of years: "Every language is crap, we should all move to Language X!". Then a few years later Language Y will come along to save us from the abhorrent abortion that is Language X.
By all means work on developing a new language if you feel it genuinely will be advantageous but unless that's your fulltime commitment in your capacity of coding then you should be focusing on becoming a more proficient developer with the tools you have because no language will save you from yourself. Ultimately in terms of speed, stability and maintainability it will be much more about your design choices than the design choices of the language, if you're not proficient in development with that language then you're likely to be making bad design choices so you're going to be the major problem.
They don't mention if any of the devices were using Android's full device encryption either or which of the devices they recovered deleted data from rather than just receiving a phone where the user had forgotten to delete their data. Seems less like a study and more like a sales pitch.
Does the same thing occur with iPhones or Windows Phones or Blackberrys?
That's what I was thinking, they're just a small company and they use the biggest publishers in the industry, that's not "independent".
No matter what genre (except sports games and simulations), games seem to be only about killing hordes of copy&paste enemies.
That's true of even the most successful ones from decades ago. Doom (particular standout), Rise of the Triad, Streets of Rage, the various Mario and Donkey Kong games, etc... Not quite sure where you get the idea that it was so much better "back in the day".
Of course you have the standouts like Monkey Island or Abe's Odyssey just like you do these days with titles like Alan Wake or Limbo.
If you're not a television, please don't use 16:9.
The iPhone seems to be doing pretty well with 16:9. Although given their marketing around how its current ratio and dimensions are perfect the rumors of a size bump in the next iteration are likely to make them look a bit stupid.
The idea is, you wifi tether your table/watch to your phone.
But, to get the deal, you need a larger data package because the tablet/watch will cause you to consume more data.
In the case of the watch it shouldn't cause you to consume more data because it doesn't do anything additional, it's just a way to indirectly control your phone.
A bean counter, I doubt it.
I think understanding that downtime costs money is exactly the thing a "bean counter" would know.
If you still don't get it, it's like everyone in his family wearing a T-shirt that says "My home address is 123 Johnson Rd -- and if you're reading this, I'm probably not at home".
It makes burglary easy, and stalking as well.
No, not it isn't, it's saying "a phone in the vicinity has at some point connected to a network named 123 Johnson Rd which may or may not exist at that address". Even if it did exist at that address how does that make burglary easy? Tell me what your scenario is that makes this so much easier than just staking out a house until a person leaves.
I am talking about allowing your application to make use of system extensions which means no two apps are alike in use.
And how many of those system extensions are available on platforms other that iOS? None. But from within your Apple-centric view of the world that doesn't matter.
The key point is that those extensions are not available on platforms other than iOS so if you want a consistent cross-platform experience you won't be using platform-specific features.
Actually, it IS a trap. How long until they back away from their support of open source and back away, migrating to their own proprietary BS, taking full advantage of the progress made by others?
What would be the point of that? It won't work with all the other devices in the "internet of things".
What "system extensions"? Are you even reading? This is about using Adobe's services which are then available from whatever platform you target resulting in a consistent experience. Are the iOS8 features available on Android or Windows Phone so my application can produce the same results on those platforms too?
If your image editing program can make further use of external plug-ins, then you don't care about having it produce the same across platforms because it will never be the same FOR EACH USER.
What are you talking about? If you want to perform an operation on an image and that operation produces different results in your application on iOS and Android then that is a problem, your application is not portable and is inconsistent.
Would you truly argue that image editing programs should not allow for plugins, that there is no value?
No.
Because you are.
No i'm not, and if that's how you understood it then you have misinterpreted.
Perhaps because of the number of times it turned out to be a trap. Embrace/Extend/Extinguish. It's going to take a long time before seeing MS "embrace" a standard doesn't automatically trigger an "oh crap, not again" reaction in us old timers.
Old timers with alzheimer's maybe. I can't remember a time they released open source stuff and it turned out to be a trap. The essence of the "EEE" concept is adding additional proprietary functionality that developers ultimately use because they need it and because they aren't worried about compatibility of other platforms because the only platform that matters is Microsoft's. But how does that apply here? Actually how does that apply anywhere these days? The days of Microsoft having a monopoly even in personal computing are long over.
I would suspect because things like "EEE" were from nearly 2 decades ago in a time when the company was run by Bill Gates, who has since been succeeded by Steve Ballmer who has since been succeeded by Satya Nadella. It's the same as when Google introduces a new product and we get those same posts polluting the story "reminding" us of how many products they have killed off or their StreetView wifi case. The same as how in just about every Apple story we get "reminded" of issues like the iPhone 4's antenna or the iBooks anti-trust saga.
Do you really need to be reminded of these things every single story? Of course the intention is to incite arguments and it's always the same old stuff every time, often argued by the same people. I'm quite sure it gets pretty tiresome.
Hundreds of legacy code developed for Windows platform using Windows development tools run only on XP and are not supported by 7 or 8.
So not only have you tied yourself to a particular version of a proprietary OS that - as we all know from previous experience - has a limited lifetime but you chose to do that by using proprietary software that won't run on anything else and you didn't think there might be a problem with that? Seriously? If you cut corners then you're going to get burned.
You can't compare binaries for Microsoft's attempt at a C compiler. If you use the /GS (IIRC) flag, Microsoft will insert a different random value just before the return address of a function so any buffer overrun will change it.
/GS only allocates space for a random value, the random value isn't computed at compile time.
So foreign governments are forced to consider Microsoft's offerings? Even in that case they just have to compete on merit.
1/ How can observers know that the source code shown results in the compiled binary sold.
Compile the code and compare the binaries?
2/ How can observers know that when compiled the compiler does not introduce vulnerabilities.
Same way you would for open source software: inspect the compiler code.
3/ Would not a malicious observer use the knowledge of the source to look for vulnerabilities for their intelligence agencies to exploit later.
Maybe.
4/ As a private citizen how can I be assured of or against all the above if I and a number of expert friends cannot also look at the source.
You can't, but then you can't practically do it in the open source world either, at some point you have to trust somebody, if you don't then the simple answer is don't use the product. I inspect a lot of open source software but it's mostly for interest sake, I don't pretend to understand the full scope of it, much less the 3rd party libraries or the compilers or OS I run it on or the drivers for the hardware or the physical hardware or the microcode within that hardware (where I can even get to it), you have to trust far to many people to consider things safe even when using open source software.
At least then its your own countries option.
Isn't it already their option?
Yeah when TFA says nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet I'm pretty sure that's what they meant, not whether it will deliver their packets.
Your comment is way funnier the way you put it, but I trust the Internet as a transmission medium -- so long as I'm using solid encryption.
Isn't that true of any transmission medium?
Ah right, yes of course. While their implementation may be different the idea itself is not innovative and has already been done.
Well a set of headphones with 'one or more integrated physiological sensors' designed to help users keep track of their body stats isn't patentable, that's just an idea and you cannot patent an idea. It's a specific implementation of that idea that is patentable.