As someone who's used Objective-C, Java, C++, C, and many others, I sympathize with your disdain for C++. I developed almost exclusively in that language for about 8 years. Going to Java was a breath of fresh air, and even Objective-C is significantly refreshing compared to it. But Objective-C is no Java-- it's way too easy to write bugs in that the compiler can't catch, or code that's difficult to understand, or find ways to refactor or analyze the code. Once you get out of college into the real world and have to support a codebase for a decade I suspect you'll appreciate Java a lot more than you do now.
Java is often a little less performant than Objective-C, and sometimes a little more performant. It's rarely significantly different in performance, though.
But what the dynamic compilation and simple but expressive syntax of Java buys you is hugely powerful developer tools and a language in which it's almost difficult to write bugs in. Every time I load up XCode on my Mac and have to read Objective-C I feel like I've been teleported into the 1980's or something. IDE's, languages, and runtimes have come a long way since XCode's predecessors were created in the mid 80's. I wish Apple's market was big enough that alternatives were available.
Duh. So you would rather give Apple big profits? That's odd, because around \., I thought profit was a dirty word
I dunno about "around Slashdot", but yes, I have no moral objection to buying Apple products or any company making a profit. I do object to Microsoft's monopoly money that they got through anti-competitive and under-handed means being leveraged to sell Zunes and XBoxes at a loss in order to conquer a new market. It's really hard to compete against a company with virtually infinite money that doesn't care about making a profit on the product they're competing with you on.
That is the sort of "competition" that actually hurts consumers. As long as everyone's selling things profitably I can be sure that inefficiencies are being driven out of the process and capitalism is working. When people sell things at a loss and pays for it by channeling money from another monopoly it subverts the market.
PE is also the format for EFI, which Apple uses. It could be a step towards a more powerful boot loader.
This is all just wild speculation. I'd personally love it if Apple replaced its aging Cocoa/Objective-C/XCode infrastructure with something more modern like.NET or Java, but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.
The FSF has *already* co-opted the GPL to change its fundamental meaning when they went from GPLv2 to GPLv3. GPLv2 is a license that guarantees the availability of all code put under it as well as code that is in any way closely attached to it. That's it. Even TiVo has to make their code available, so if you want to download it and make your own DVR out of it for personal use, have fun! GPLv3 attempts to dictate what hardware manufacturers have to do to allow code to be run, what intellectual property actions need to be taken, etc. It is as much about the surrounding infrastructure as it is about the code. And that's fine as far as it goes, but it's not in the same spirit as the GPLv2.
So now anyone who was stupid enough to put "or later" in their GPLv2 code has lost all control over its licensing and given the FSF ultimate power. And I think most people who have been around the block enough to have any degree of wisdom would have a problem with that.
What this tells me is that, if Microsoft was willing to cut margins to the bone (or possibly sell at a loss) they could gain substantial marketshare.
Duh. Microsoft is desperate to expand their monopoly to new areas, and the XBox/Zune group has yet to have an annual profit (they were profitable for 1 quarter of their existence so far). It's amazing that Apple is able to compete, let alone dominate, against a company that isn't interested in making a profit. And unlike Microsoft, Apple's MAKING money doing it!
I know a lot of people are willing to buy the Windows and Office-subsidized Zune and XBox products, but I don't really feel like letting Microsoft get away with that kind of practice.
As for your statement "their god is only the Old Testament God when dealing with homosexuals", I don't completely understand where you got this from considering the main part of the bible that discusses homosexuals is the New Testament.
Actually, most Biblical arguments against homosexuality all come from the old Testament (most often cited are Genesis 1, Genesis 19, various other Genesis passages, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and various passages from Deuteronomy, Judges, and Kings). And the hypocrisy is that books like Leviticus are also the ones that admonish, for example, wearing wool and cotton at the same time. If a Christian is not going to keep a completely kosher house and lifestyle, it is pretty hypocritical to attack homosexuality from that same reference.
Some references in the New Testament include Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1. Jesus, however, was notably silent on the issue, despite having a great deal to say about all sorts of other practices in his day. (In fact, Jesus doesn't really have much to say about any of the major "Christian right" hot topics, from homosexuality to abortion, whereas he has a great deal to say about welfare, health care, and the evils of money.)
You're missing the top level. In the US, all intellectual property is assumed to belong to the public.
Citation needed.
Copyright exists from the moment anything is "created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device". A trademark exists whenever a company uses a unique term in the normal course of business. While either of these can be explicitly registered, an implicit ownership is still recognized. A patent is the only part of the "intellectual property" trifecta that has to be explicitly applied for before it is valid in the United States-- divulging a method or idea and not registering for a patent for it within a year puts it into the public domain as prior art.
Thus, I'm not sure where you get the idea that "all intellectual property is assumed to belong to the public".
It sounds like you need to learn to make a distinction between the wet dreams of litigous barristers and real world pragmatics before you look very silly. Oops too late./me sees samkass approached by Alan Dershowitz as porno music plays./me pokes mind's eye out with a fork.
I only seem to "look silly" on Slashdot because I'm right, but most Slashdot folks don't know anything about intellectual property law in the United States or try to pretend it doesn't exist. You only have to register a copyright to get standing for a lawsuit. But everything written in this country is copyrighted by default. If you don't believe me, ask the United States Copyright Office.
What's the remedy? The original author, if he can prove he did not copy it himself, can ask you to stop publishing it
No... stopping publication prevents further infractions, but that doesn't remedy the existing infractions. Paying damages or coming to some other terms with the copyright holder is the "solution" there. In addition, willful infringement can carry penalties beyond "damages".
The best candidate I've seen for the full calendaring "infrastructure" is the open CalDAV spec, but it's only really used commercially by Apple at this point. But since Apple has released their reference implementation as open source , perhaps we'll get more implementations and a snowball effect of support.
Historically, 200 US$ is the mass-market barrier. First console below 200 US$ wins:-)
That's, of course, debatable. In consumer electronics, $300 is generally the barrier between "boutique" products and "I'll get one for Christmas" products. $200 is more the line between "I'll get one for Christmas" and "I want one so I'll go buy one now". It's all on a curve, though, so I don't know where the "mass" market line really is.
You're saying there's an implicit copyright in every web post, then? So this post I'm typing now, if someone put it in a newsletter, I could then sue them for taking my post which is my copyright?
Yes! Now you're catching on! There *is* an implicit Copyright (at least in the United States) on *everything*. Unless the author has agreed to some other license, you need to ask their permission to reproduce it in its entirety (or any use that goes beyond "Fair Use"). Some sites have blanket licenses to everything posted on them that implicitly assigns copyrights of all contributions-- Wikipedia, for example. But if the site hasn't made such arrangements, and the author hasn't made such arrangements, and the "borrower" hasn't made such arrangements, Copyright has been violated.
As for books, some books grant a license for all sample code in the book to be used by the purchaser of the book in any way. Some don't (Numerical Recipies is the most commonly cited example-- it's an entire book of stuff you're not allowed to use. It's a very annoying book that way, needless to say).
It sounds like you seriously need to learn a little bit about Copyrights before you get yourself and your employer in serious trouble.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. The PS3 parts are a lot rarer and more difficult to fab than the Wii parts. If the PS3 is actually numerically outselling the Wii because of supply constraints, then Nintendo has some real problems.
My theory had been that the PS3 would really take off as it got below $300, and that its PS2 compatibility (considering the huge volume of PS2's that are STILL being sold) would allow it to slingshot past the other consoles. Now that the geniuses at Sony are removing PS2 compatibility, I'm starting to think the PS3 is as dead a platform as the naysayers have been saying. (Of course, I love mine...)
One of our designers has a huge sign above his monitor that reads "The User Is *NOT* Like Me!" in big print. I think all engineering workstations should have this engraved alongside the screen.
Some points: 1. America is named for Amerigo Vespucci, and its earliest use to refer to the continent is in a German map from the very early 1500's. It's pretty certain it's not of Chinese origin. 2. Because of the way the winds blow in the (very large) Pacific Ocean, it's much harder to set up trade routes to the Americas than it is across the Atlantic. I'm not sure I'd credit any particular enlightenment with the reason the Chinese didn't aggressively populate California until after the Spanish. 3. Few can argue that Columbus is the first non-native person to set foot on the Americas since the original migration. There is extensive evidence of both nordic and African sporadic contact. But similar to the argument over whether the Wright brothers were the first to ever lift off the ground in something resembling a plane, it's quite clear that Columbus opened the way for everyone coming after him. 4. The origin of Columbus' maps (which he refers to having in his log books) is a matter of extensive debate. Some say they were nordic, some say Chinese. Lots of theories... but the charts did not survive history, and no one really knows. 5. The exploits of ancient Chinese seafarers, from Zheng He on, is often cited as some kind of precedent to later explorers. In its history China has gone through many cycles of technology and exploration. It's interesting to note that China had invented everything from the printing press to rocketry to large seafaring vessels, but by the time Columbus arrived at the new world they pretty much had lost all of that. Zheng He's flotilla had been long ago disassembled, and the printing press forgotten until Gutenberg re-invented it and re-introduced it to China.
The bottom line, though, is that China appears to have set up no regular trade routes with the rest of the world that survived to Columbus' day. It was left to the Europeans to unite the world in trade and colonization, for better and worse.
Apple and OS X becoming more and more of just another buggy OS and app vendor but with a huge markup on their prices.
I'm not sure that I've read a single sentence that was so false in awhile. To work backwards... Apple's prices are not unreasonable for their configurations, especially in the laptop world-- the issue isn't the price, but the lack of choice in configuration. (You can't "strip down" a Mac and get it cheap.) And I haven't done an analysis, but I suspect Apple has some of the least buggy software out there. Certainly anecdotal evidence (which is all your statement is based on anyway) contradicts you.
Basically, I think the Ubuntu releases went as far as Linux is going to go in the desktop anytime soon. Ubuntu got all the low-hanging fruit in getting the "Linux-curious" to try it out, I think. The rest of the world, actually, does not really want to jump to Linux at all.
One of the nice features of Leopard (MacOS X 10.5) is that it's really, really easy to do screen sharing and show them stuff remotely from another Mac. If you're in a video chat with them via iChat, just select the button that requests screen sharing. It will ask the other user for permission, and if they grant it it will open up the firewall and set up a VNC connection with their machine as the server. You'll still be chatting with them, too, but the chat will shrink to the corner of the screen. No need to wait for Christmas.
There's a pretty good summary of this in the December issue of Discover magazine (can't find it online; I have the paper copy.) Basically, the fact that the probabilities generated by the equations of quantum theory match the observations statistically is what is "the best verified theory". There is a huge debate about whether there's a wave state that needs to "collapse" into macroscopic "reality" or whether there's a "many worlds" condition in which no collapse is necessary-- we're all part of the equation. The latter theory was considered pretty crazy until recently, but it's a pretty elegant solution and requires no collapses or God-like "observer"s.
That's why former Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted all the death sentences in Illinois to life after DNA evidence proved that half the men on death row were innocent.
That's a nice gesture, but it's a lot harder for someone sentenced to life in prison to get people to review their case to overturn it. If I was innocent of a crime, I'm not sure if I'd rather be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, or death. The latter would get me a lot more people digging for my innocence.
The new garbage collected languages (C# and Java) seem to be creating coders that don't know the basics of debugging.
An interesting observation. Java is a lot harder to write bugs in and is easier to debug (with more runtime information), so coders spend a lot less time in the debug cycle and therefore get less experience doing it. So should we design our languages to be obtuse and hard to read (ie. C++) or continue trying to design languages that make it harder to get things wrong?
Java has made some wrong turns in this regard (ie. autoboxing-- I wonder if we can yank that from the language in JDK7), but in general has done a great job of making it difficult to tie that noose for yourself.
A new spec for easily embedded media components is in the works, hopefully it will make it into Java 7, and will be a good compliment to Java FX script on the web.
I'm looking forward to Sun's renewed interest in the desktop (as someone who develops desktop Java applications). However, creating yet another media component stack on Java is a pretty boneheaded move. Clean up JMF or help FMJ succeed, then link it to the scripting engine. That would be 100x more useful than yet another media framework they'll build then ignore to rot.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who's used Objective-C, Java, C++, C, and many others, I sympathize with your disdain for C++. I developed almost exclusively in that language for about 8 years. Going to Java was a breath of fresh air, and even Objective-C is significantly refreshing compared to it. But Objective-C is no Java-- it's way too easy to write bugs in that the compiler can't catch, or code that's difficult to understand, or find ways to refactor or analyze the code. Once you get out of college into the real world and have to support a codebase for a decade I suspect you'll appreciate Java a lot more than you do now.
Java is often a little less performant than Objective-C, and sometimes a little more performant. It's rarely significantly different in performance, though.
But what the dynamic compilation and simple but expressive syntax of Java buys you is hugely powerful developer tools and a language in which it's almost difficult to write bugs in. Every time I load up XCode on my Mac and have to read Objective-C I feel like I've been teleported into the 1980's or something. IDE's, languages, and runtimes have come a long way since XCode's predecessors were created in the mid 80's. I wish Apple's market was big enough that alternatives were available.
Well... at least it wasn't Microsoft that bought Blizzard.
Duh. So you would rather give Apple big profits? That's odd, because around \., I thought profit was a dirty word
I dunno about "around Slashdot", but yes, I have no moral objection to buying Apple products or any company making a profit. I do object to Microsoft's monopoly money that they got through anti-competitive and under-handed means being leveraged to sell Zunes and XBoxes at a loss in order to conquer a new market. It's really hard to compete against a company with virtually infinite money that doesn't care about making a profit on the product they're competing with you on.
That is the sort of "competition" that actually hurts consumers. As long as everyone's selling things profitably I can be sure that inefficiencies are being driven out of the process and capitalism is working. When people sell things at a loss and pays for it by channeling money from another monopoly it subverts the market.
PE is also the format for EFI, which Apple uses. It could be a step towards a more powerful boot loader.
.NET or Java, but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.
This is all just wild speculation. I'd personally love it if Apple replaced its aging Cocoa/Objective-C/XCode infrastructure with something more modern like
The FSF has *already* co-opted the GPL to change its fundamental meaning when they went from GPLv2 to GPLv3. GPLv2 is a license that guarantees the availability of all code put under it as well as code that is in any way closely attached to it. That's it. Even TiVo has to make their code available, so if you want to download it and make your own DVR out of it for personal use, have fun! GPLv3 attempts to dictate what hardware manufacturers have to do to allow code to be run, what intellectual property actions need to be taken, etc. It is as much about the surrounding infrastructure as it is about the code. And that's fine as far as it goes, but it's not in the same spirit as the GPLv2.
So now anyone who was stupid enough to put "or later" in their GPLv2 code has lost all control over its licensing and given the FSF ultimate power. And I think most people who have been around the block enough to have any degree of wisdom would have a problem with that.
What this tells me is that, if Microsoft was willing to cut margins to the bone (or possibly sell at a loss) they could gain substantial marketshare.
Duh. Microsoft is desperate to expand their monopoly to new areas, and the XBox/Zune group has yet to have an annual profit (they were profitable for 1 quarter of their existence so far). It's amazing that Apple is able to compete, let alone dominate, against a company that isn't interested in making a profit. And unlike Microsoft, Apple's MAKING money doing it!
I know a lot of people are willing to buy the Windows and Office-subsidized Zune and XBox products, but I don't really feel like letting Microsoft get away with that kind of practice.
As for your statement "their god is only the Old Testament God when dealing with homosexuals", I don't completely understand where you got this from considering the main part of the bible that discusses homosexuals is the New Testament.
Actually, most Biblical arguments against homosexuality all come from the old Testament (most often cited are Genesis 1, Genesis 19, various other Genesis passages, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and various passages from Deuteronomy, Judges, and Kings). And the hypocrisy is that books like Leviticus are also the ones that admonish, for example, wearing wool and cotton at the same time. If a Christian is not going to keep a completely kosher house and lifestyle, it is pretty hypocritical to attack homosexuality from that same reference.
Some references in the New Testament include Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1. Jesus, however, was notably silent on the issue, despite having a great deal to say about all sorts of other practices in his day. (In fact, Jesus doesn't really have much to say about any of the major "Christian right" hot topics, from homosexuality to abortion, whereas he has a great deal to say about welfare, health care, and the evils of money.)
You're missing the top level. In the US, all intellectual property is assumed to belong to the public.
Citation needed.
Copyright exists from the moment anything is "created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device". A trademark exists whenever a company uses a unique term in the normal course of business. While either of these can be explicitly registered, an implicit ownership is still recognized. A patent is the only part of the "intellectual property" trifecta that has to be explicitly applied for before it is valid in the United States-- divulging a method or idea and not registering for a patent for it within a year puts it into the public domain as prior art.
Thus, I'm not sure where you get the idea that "all intellectual property is assumed to belong to the public".
It sounds like you need to learn to make a distinction between the wet dreams of litigous barristers and real world pragmatics before you look very silly. Oops too late. /me sees samkass approached by Alan Dershowitz as porno music plays. /me pokes mind's eye out with a fork.
I only seem to "look silly" on Slashdot because I'm right, but most Slashdot folks don't know anything about intellectual property law in the United States or try to pretend it doesn't exist. You only have to register a copyright to get standing for a lawsuit. But everything written in this country is copyrighted by default. If you don't believe me, ask the United States Copyright Office.
What's the remedy? The original author, if he can prove he did not copy it himself, can ask you to stop publishing it
No... stopping publication prevents further infractions, but that doesn't remedy the existing infractions. Paying damages or coming to some other terms with the copyright holder is the "solution" there. In addition, willful infringement can carry penalties beyond "damages".
The best candidate I've seen for the full calendaring "infrastructure" is the open CalDAV spec, but it's only really used commercially by Apple at this point. But since Apple has released their reference implementation as open source , perhaps we'll get more implementations and a snowball effect of support.
Historically, 200 US$ is the mass-market barrier. First console below 200 US$ wins :-)
That's, of course, debatable. In consumer electronics, $300 is generally the barrier between "boutique" products and "I'll get one for Christmas" products. $200 is more the line between "I'll get one for Christmas" and "I want one so I'll go buy one now". It's all on a curve, though, so I don't know where the "mass" market line really is.
You're saying there's an implicit copyright in every web post, then? So this post I'm typing now, if someone put it in a newsletter, I could then sue them for taking my post which is my copyright?
Yes! Now you're catching on! There *is* an implicit Copyright (at least in the United States) on *everything*. Unless the author has agreed to some other license, you need to ask their permission to reproduce it in its entirety (or any use that goes beyond "Fair Use"). Some sites have blanket licenses to everything posted on them that implicitly assigns copyrights of all contributions-- Wikipedia, for example. But if the site hasn't made such arrangements, and the author hasn't made such arrangements, and the "borrower" hasn't made such arrangements, Copyright has been violated.
As for books, some books grant a license for all sample code in the book to be used by the purchaser of the book in any way. Some don't (Numerical Recipies is the most commonly cited example-- it's an entire book of stuff you're not allowed to use. It's a very annoying book that way, needless to say).
It sounds like you seriously need to learn a little bit about Copyrights before you get yourself and your employer in serious trouble.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. The PS3 parts are a lot rarer and more difficult to fab than the Wii parts. If the PS3 is actually numerically outselling the Wii because of supply constraints, then Nintendo has some real problems.
My theory had been that the PS3 would really take off as it got below $300, and that its PS2 compatibility (considering the huge volume of PS2's that are STILL being sold) would allow it to slingshot past the other consoles. Now that the geniuses at Sony are removing PS2 compatibility, I'm starting to think the PS3 is as dead a platform as the naysayers have been saying. (Of course, I love mine...)
One of our designers has a huge sign above his monitor that reads "The User Is *NOT* Like Me!" in big print. I think all engineering workstations should have this engraved alongside the screen.
Some points:
1. America is named for Amerigo Vespucci, and its earliest use to refer to the continent is in a German map from the very early 1500's. It's pretty certain it's not of Chinese origin.
2. Because of the way the winds blow in the (very large) Pacific Ocean, it's much harder to set up trade routes to the Americas than it is across the Atlantic. I'm not sure I'd credit any particular enlightenment with the reason the Chinese didn't aggressively populate California until after the Spanish.
3. Few can argue that Columbus is the first non-native person to set foot on the Americas since the original migration. There is extensive evidence of both nordic and African sporadic contact. But similar to the argument over whether the Wright brothers were the first to ever lift off the ground in something resembling a plane, it's quite clear that Columbus opened the way for everyone coming after him.
4. The origin of Columbus' maps (which he refers to having in his log books) is a matter of extensive debate. Some say they were nordic, some say Chinese. Lots of theories... but the charts did not survive history, and no one really knows.
5. The exploits of ancient Chinese seafarers, from Zheng He on, is often cited as some kind of precedent to later explorers. In its history China has gone through many cycles of technology and exploration. It's interesting to note that China had invented everything from the printing press to rocketry to large seafaring vessels, but by the time Columbus arrived at the new world they pretty much had lost all of that. Zheng He's flotilla had been long ago disassembled, and the printing press forgotten until Gutenberg re-invented it and re-introduced it to China.
The bottom line, though, is that China appears to have set up no regular trade routes with the rest of the world that survived to Columbus' day. It was left to the Europeans to unite the world in trade and colonization, for better and worse.
Apple and OS X becoming more and more of just another buggy OS and app vendor but with a huge markup on their prices.
I'm not sure that I've read a single sentence that was so false in awhile. To work backwards... Apple's prices are not unreasonable for their configurations, especially in the laptop world-- the issue isn't the price, but the lack of choice in configuration. (You can't "strip down" a Mac and get it cheap.) And I haven't done an analysis, but I suspect Apple has some of the least buggy software out there. Certainly anecdotal evidence (which is all your statement is based on anyway) contradicts you.
Basically, I think the Ubuntu releases went as far as Linux is going to go in the desktop anytime soon. Ubuntu got all the low-hanging fruit in getting the "Linux-curious" to try it out, I think. The rest of the world, actually, does not really want to jump to Linux at all.
My guess is that in 10 years every dentist and orthodontist office will have a full-head CT scanner like device.
One of the nice features of Leopard (MacOS X 10.5) is that it's really, really easy to do screen sharing and show them stuff remotely from another Mac. If you're in a video chat with them via iChat, just select the button that requests screen sharing. It will ask the other user for permission, and if they grant it it will open up the firewall and set up a VNC connection with their machine as the server. You'll still be chatting with them, too, but the chat will shrink to the corner of the screen. No need to wait for Christmas.
Since when did modern technical society start making any progress by sticking to tried and tired technologies?
1982.
There's a pretty good summary of this in the December issue of Discover magazine (can't find it online; I have the paper copy.) Basically, the fact that the probabilities generated by the equations of quantum theory match the observations statistically is what is "the best verified theory". There is a huge debate about whether there's a wave state that needs to "collapse" into macroscopic "reality" or whether there's a "many worlds" condition in which no collapse is necessary-- we're all part of the equation. The latter theory was considered pretty crazy until recently, but it's a pretty elegant solution and requires no collapses or God-like "observer"s.
The funny thing is that somehow between the ages of 17 ("M") and 18 ("AO") the kids are supposed to have grown up and be able to handle it.
That's why former Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted all the death sentences in Illinois to life after DNA evidence proved that half the men on death row were innocent.
That's a nice gesture, but it's a lot harder for someone sentenced to life in prison to get people to review their case to overturn it. If I was innocent of a crime, I'm not sure if I'd rather be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, or death. The latter would get me a lot more people digging for my innocence.
The new garbage collected languages (C# and Java) seem to be creating coders that don't know the basics of debugging.
An interesting observation. Java is a lot harder to write bugs in and is easier to debug (with more runtime information), so coders spend a lot less time in the debug cycle and therefore get less experience doing it. So should we design our languages to be obtuse and hard to read (ie. C++) or continue trying to design languages that make it harder to get things wrong?
Java has made some wrong turns in this regard (ie. autoboxing-- I wonder if we can yank that from the language in JDK7), but in general has done a great job of making it difficult to tie that noose for yourself.
A new spec for easily embedded media components is in the works, hopefully it will make it into Java 7, and will be a good compliment to Java FX script on the web.
I'm looking forward to Sun's renewed interest in the desktop (as someone who develops desktop Java applications). However, creating yet another media component stack on Java is a pretty boneheaded move. Clean up JMF or help FMJ succeed, then link it to the scripting engine. That would be 100x more useful than yet another media framework they'll build then ignore to rot.