I wonder what it costs retailers to deal with cash? You have to count it, keep it secure, deposit it, etc. etc. More or less than the percentage for electronic transactions?
The alternative is not necessarily paper money. There are many people who pay with debit cards and these provide all the benefits you alluded to without the equivalent surcharge.
I use a credit card for two reasons. A) If someone swipes/steals that information, they're stealing VISA's money, not mine. If I use a debit card and they steal my info, they drain my bank account, my mortgage bounces. That's bad. B) Rewards programs. I get thousands of dollars a year in rewards. I put/everything/ on my credit card. Only thing I don't is my mortgage and that's just because I can't. I pay it off every month. Companies that are going to make this less advantageous for me are going to get less of my business.
If you think these benefits are worth it, why should others who don't benefit share the cost?
I prefer to pay by credit card as well. It allows me to differ the payment and to get reward points. The problem is that it's not free. People that don't pay by credit card shouldn't be forced to pay as well - unless that's the store's policy. In that case people who insist on paying with a credit card will be free to find a better deal elsewhere.
I'm not a lawyer but I think there's a distinction between making money from your fame alone and making money from your profession. One is profiting from your crime. In any case, I don't believe he would have done any such thing. I'm merely pointing out that he might not have been able to even if he had he wanted to.
I don't it's the end of the world either way but only the individuals that made the contribution should be the judge of how bad it is.
I also agree with most others here that this is way too complicated. Developers have already been caught in schemes like this. The company wants to have a low quality version that is GPL'd and hopefully get some software contributions back and they want to have a nicely packaged application with proprietary features. Since anybody else that wants to fork the software would need to do so under the AGPL L-N would get these contributions through the AGPL but they wouldn't need to share their proprietary additions. It's not what the GPL was intended for.
It's complicated and I think people are wise to this SugarCRM way of doing business.
Honestly, if they are looking for bug fixes, they can just open source their software - no redistribution rights required. People who use the software will gladly contribute bug fixes. For new features development, just continue paying for them.
Or better yet, go GPL all the way. Competition might actually be a good thing and when you start with most of the domain knowledge and brains that created it, I like the odds.
The scheme you propose makes these guys look like another SugarCRM. In a few years people will be complaining about L-N and L-N will be wondering why after open sourcing their code, nobody likes them.
If humans existed outside of Eden then what was the purpose of Eden? Was it only for a select few? Also, which part of the Bible are literal and which are not?
Also, isn't the \0 terminated string a library implementation more than a language implementation. The char* points to a string of chars. The effective size of the string is library dependent. If you don't like that strlen() looks for a terminating \0, just use a different library.
The fact that the std library still uses \0 terminated strings seems to indicate that it wasn't such a bad decision.
Now that I've commented, I'll go read the article and maybe change my mind.
So how does that work if I buy a book? If I rip a few pages and let everyone know that by ripping pages 12 and 15 the book is much more entertaining have I done anything wrong? If I start describing the plot of a movie and give an opinion as to how that plot could have been better, have I done anything wrong?
I understand that if I start bypassing online security then I am trying to bypass something that doesn't belong to me. That, in my opinion, is wrong.
On the other hand, there are books and magazines that explain how to open locks and safe. These are perfectly legal, educational and sometimes useful. If I am not attempting to open your lock then I don't understand what I'm doing wrong.
So you have a problem with the atheists that try to educate people because you feel they are on a mission. I myself only have a problem with people that are on a mission to convince atheists that they should just stfu. Not because you are expressing your opinion; That would be perfectly fine. I have a problem with people like you because you are the exact thing you complain about.
He's a little like a 2D character in Flatland that doesn't understand 3D.
Is this a reference to Gamow's One, Two, Three... infinity? In that case, Gamow showed ways for the 2D character to imagine 3D. There might be some hope for him yet.
That's an interesting trivia. Is this for special cases only - for example several multiplication requests and not enough resources - or is it generally true?
In any case, it doesn't make the lack of a multiplication a non-problem; It just makes this an additional problem.
That's like saying that ADD wasn't necessary because you could use AND and NOT and some some conditional loops. Yes it works but it's still a problem. It requires more instructions, it's is slower and it's harder to test for overflow conditions.
The batteries do not have a constant cost. They have a decreasing cost as even damn blurb said so "price of consumer lithium-ion cells has fallen 6 to 8 percent annually since their 1989 launch price of consumer lithium-ion cells has fallen 6 to 8 percent annually since their 1989 launch"
Seriously wtf did you put any effort in your ideas at all?
The cost decrease is over time and not necessarily based on volume. The cost decrease over time is probably due in part to volume but there's a part of the decrease that's due to research and development in producing these batteries.
One morning Julian Assange will awaken to see an unmanned drone hovering outside his bedroom window. It will fire a small but deadly missile through his window, ending his miserable little life. And I will smile...
I have to agree that, in this particular release, it doesn't seem like the information that has been published has provided any benefit to the public. Killing the messenger won't make things better or stop future leaks. I do believe that the person that provided the information to Assange should remain in jail for a long time.
The US government sent thousands of young men to die based on lies.
You lefties keep saying that like if you repeat it often enough it will become true... or least Truthy. But it just ain't so.
People keep saying that because it's true. The Iraq war was based on a lie. There were no WMDs. There was no known threat from Iraq. Osama Bin Laden is still out there. Denying it will not bring back the people that died. I'm sure that there were many righties and lefties.
I don't understand your frustration with WikiLeaks.
The thing I understand even less however, is that your sig seems to argue that freedom of speech is good yet you are unwilling to accept that this freedom be given to others. Where do you draw the line? Why is it OK to ridicule the prophet of millions while it's wrong to provide government information? The US government sent thousands of young men to die based on lies. Don't you want the truth to be told?
If anything, the concept represents a "really really big positive number" in this context, in which case, yes, if you add something greater than 0 to that really really big number, then you will have an even bigger number.
If I remember, and understood, my college math properly:
In mathematics, k+inf. is inf. but you wouldn't represent it that way. It would probably be a limit. So the limit of a+k as a approaches infinity is infinity. Are they the same?
You could consider the limit of (a+k)/a as a approaches infinity, this limit is 1 so it would appear to be the same.
If you consider the limit of (a+k)-a as a approaches infinity then the limit is k so it would appear that they are different.
So I don't think you can say whether they are the same or not but, within some contexts, you could consider them to be the same or different based on that context.
I don't know if GC uses refcounting at all, though I suppose it's possible.
However, the point is that the reference counting itself isn't just the extra bytes of RAM, it's the extra bytes of CPU cache. It's the difference between a chunk of your program fitting in cache and running insanely fast, then being paged out for GC to run (and GC sits in cache during its run), and that same program needing the refcounting, malloc/free, and a bunch of other housekeeping stuff always hot in cache, meaning it's likely your program will have to have chunks of it paged in and out of cache much more often.
Actually, ref-counting is mostly just the extra few bytes. An auto_ptr (or a unique_ptr or a boost::scoped_ptr) doesn't even use the extra bytes because it has single ownership. When they go out of scope, the object is destroyed. No extra byte; no complicated memory management. The C++ compiler knows when the object goes out of scope and will call the destructor at that time.
For boost::shared_ptr, there's extra memory for reference counting because there can be multiple owners. But, again, I'd be surprised if a GC-based language wouldn't use reference counting. Perl, for example, uses reference counting exclusively *because* it's much faster than other schemes. It has the same drawback that C++ has which is that circular references may leak.
Paradoxical, and I'm not convinced, so I'd want to benchmark it. It does seem plausible, and I did read it in a respectable-looking paper.
If you have a link to that paper I'd like to see it. As I said, there's not much more to reference counting other than incrementing a value when the object is assigned a new owner and decrementing that same value when it's being released. The allocation is done once and there is a single delete.
So no, I wasn't talking about the GC keeping anything "in memory" (as opposed to what?) -- yes, once the object isn't referenced, its data is meaningless.
And yes, I'm pretty sure malloc/new implementations have, at least at one point, been direct system calls. I imagine they still are, on some embedded platforms.
I've programmed in C and other procedural languages, Pascal for example, for a long time. I've never seen a single implementation that would make a system call for each malloc/free call. If you know of one, again, I'd be interested to have a link.
When you're starved for memory, it makes sense -- you want everything free'd for other processes to use as soon as you possibly can.
When delete is called (or free in C), the memory used by the object is made available immediately. This requires a call to the C or C++ library, if that's what you mean, but this is not a system call. It doesn't require an intervention from the OS except, maybe, in a multi-threaded application. If this library call is what you mean by "system call" then yes it has some overhead. I have heard of implementations of new/delete that accumulate the delete in order to gain a few extra cycles. But when you need these extra cycles you probably should be programming in C++.
Good to know about boost -- though now I'm curious what the difference is.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what it costs retailers to deal with cash? You have to count it, keep it secure, deposit it, etc. etc. More or less than the percentage for electronic transactions?
The alternative is not necessarily paper money. There are many people who pay with debit cards and these provide all the benefits you alluded to without the equivalent surcharge.
I use a credit card for two reasons. /everything/ on my credit card. Only thing I don't is my mortgage and that's just because I can't. I pay it off every month. Companies that are going to make this less advantageous for me are going to get less of my business.
A) If someone swipes/steals that information, they're stealing VISA's money, not mine. If I use a debit card and they steal my info, they drain my bank account, my mortgage bounces. That's bad.
B) Rewards programs. I get thousands of dollars a year in rewards. I put
If you think these benefits are worth it, why should others who don't benefit share the cost?
I prefer to pay by credit card as well. It allows me to differ the payment and to get reward points. The problem is that it's not free. People that don't pay by credit card shouldn't be forced to pay as well - unless that's the store's policy. In that case people who insist on paying with a credit card will be free to find a better deal elsewhere.
I'm not a lawyer but I think there's a distinction between making money from your fame alone and making money from your profession. One is profiting from your crime. In any case, I don't believe he would have done any such thing. I'm merely pointing out that he might not have been able to even if he had he wanted to.
I thought he'd only recently been allowed to profit from his "crimes" which is why he's now allowed to publish this book.
I don't it's the end of the world either way but only the individuals that made the contribution should be the judge of how bad it is.
I also agree with most others here that this is way too complicated. Developers have already been caught in schemes like this. The company wants to have a low quality version that is GPL'd and hopefully get some software contributions back and they want to have a nicely packaged application with proprietary features. Since anybody else that wants to fork the software would need to do so under the AGPL L-N would get these contributions through the AGPL but they wouldn't need to share their proprietary additions. It's not what the GPL was intended for.
It's complicated and I think people are wise to this SugarCRM way of doing business.
Honestly, if they are looking for bug fixes, they can just open source their software - no redistribution rights required. People who use the software will gladly contribute bug fixes. For new features development, just continue paying for them.
Or better yet, go GPL all the way. Competition might actually be a good thing and when you start with most of the domain knowledge and brains that created it, I like the odds.
The scheme you propose makes these guys look like another SugarCRM. In a few years people will be complaining about L-N and L-N will be wondering why after open sourcing their code, nobody likes them.
If humans existed outside of Eden then what was the purpose of Eden? Was it only for a select few?
Also, which part of the Bible are literal and which are not?
I'm sure there's a dongle for that.
Agreed.
Also, isn't the \0 terminated string a library implementation more than a language implementation. The char* points to a string of chars. The effective size of the string is library dependent. If you don't like that strlen() looks for a terminating \0, just use a different library.
The fact that the std library still uses \0 terminated strings seems to indicate that it wasn't such a bad decision.
Now that I've commented, I'll go read the article and maybe change my mind.
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-05-18/
Oops. Never mind.
Maybe it's because Apple doesn't sign their paycheck.
Maybe it's because they like the protection of the GPLv3 more than they would like their hugely popular software to run on the Apple platform as well.
One thing is certain though. They don't need to justify their choice. If you don't like GPLv3, don't use their software or fork from the GPLv2.
So how does that work if I buy a book? If I rip a few pages and let everyone know that by ripping pages 12 and 15 the book is much more entertaining have I done anything wrong? If I start describing the plot of a movie and give an opinion as to how that plot could have been better, have I done anything wrong?
I understand that if I start bypassing online security then I am trying to bypass something that doesn't belong to me. That, in my opinion, is wrong.
On the other hand, there are books and magazines that explain how to open locks and safe. These are perfectly legal, educational and sometimes useful. If I am not attempting to open your lock then I don't understand what I'm doing wrong.
Laws like the DMCA are simply wrong.
So you have a problem with the atheists that try to educate people because you feel they are on a mission. I myself only have a problem with people that are on a mission to convince atheists that they should just stfu. Not because you are expressing your opinion; That would be perfectly fine. I have a problem with people like you because you are the exact thing you complain about.
He's a little like a 2D character in Flatland that doesn't understand 3D.
Is this a reference to Gamow's One, Two, Three... infinity? In that case, Gamow showed ways for the 2D character to imagine 3D. There might be some hope for him yet.
That's an interesting trivia. Is this for special cases only - for example several multiplication requests and not enough resources - or is it generally true?
In any case, it doesn't make the lack of a multiplication a non-problem; It just makes this an additional problem.
That's like saying that ADD wasn't necessary because you could use AND and NOT and some some conditional loops. Yes it works but it's still a problem. It requires more instructions, it's is slower and it's harder to test for overflow conditions.
Do you also think it's a problem that some programs on the Cable News Network are not news?
Yes.
Bill O'Reilly admitted as much on Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO. The problem is that The O'Reilly Factor airs on a channel called Fox News.
Cunning indeed!
The batteries do not have a constant cost. They have a decreasing cost as even damn blurb said so "price of consumer lithium-ion cells has fallen 6 to 8 percent annually since their 1989 launch price of consumer lithium-ion cells has fallen 6 to 8 percent annually since their 1989 launch" Seriously wtf did you put any effort in your ideas at all?
The cost decrease is over time and not necessarily based on volume. The cost decrease over time is probably due in part to volume but there's a part of the decrease that's due to research and development in producing these batteries.
One morning Julian Assange will awaken to see an unmanned drone hovering outside his bedroom window. It will fire a small but deadly missile through his window, ending his miserable little life. And I will smile...
Is that you Prince Andrew?
It's probably Tom Flanagan.
I have to agree that, in this particular release, it doesn't seem like the information that has been published has provided any benefit to the public. Killing the messenger won't make things better or stop future leaks. I do believe that the person that provided the information to Assange should remain in jail for a long time.
The US government sent thousands of young men to die based on lies.
You lefties keep saying that like if you repeat it often enough it will become true... or least Truthy. But it just ain't so.
People keep saying that because it's true. The Iraq war was based on a lie. There were no WMDs. There was no known threat from Iraq. Osama Bin Laden is still out there. Denying it will not bring back the people that died. I'm sure that there were many righties and lefties.
I don't understand your frustration with WikiLeaks.
The thing I understand even less however, is that your sig seems to argue that freedom of speech is good yet you are unwilling to accept that this freedom be given to others. Where do you draw the line? Why is it OK to ridicule the prophet of millions while it's wrong to provide government information? The US government sent thousands of young men to die based on lies. Don't you want the truth to be told?
Infinity isn't a number.
Right
If anything, the concept represents a "really really big positive number" in this context, in which case, yes, if you add something greater than 0 to that really really big number, then you will have an even bigger number.
If I remember, and understood, my college math properly:
In mathematics, k+inf. is inf. but you wouldn't represent it that way. It would probably be a limit. So the limit of a+k as a approaches infinity is infinity. Are they the same?
You could consider the limit of (a+k)/a as a approaches infinity, this limit is 1 so it would appear to be the same.
If you consider the limit of (a+k)-a as a approaches infinity then the limit is k so it would appear that they are different.
So I don't think you can say whether they are the same or not but, within some contexts, you could consider them to be the same or different based on that context.
IANAM
If you're not rational enough to be an atheist, you should not be allowed into medical school.
Here's a conundrum for you ass-wipe. I'm an atheist, my degree is biology and I oppose embryonic stem cell research. It's not needed.
Let S1 = "If you're not rational enough to be an atheist, you should not be allowed into medical school."
Let S2 = "I am an atheist."
Let S3 = "I am smart enough to be in medical school."
Prove that S1 and S2 doesn't imply S3.
I don't know if GC uses refcounting at all, though I suppose it's possible.
However, the point is that the reference counting itself isn't just the extra bytes of RAM, it's the extra bytes of CPU cache. It's the difference between a chunk of your program fitting in cache and running insanely fast, then being paged out for GC to run (and GC sits in cache during its run), and that same program needing the refcounting, malloc/free, and a bunch of other housekeeping stuff always hot in cache, meaning it's likely your program will have to have chunks of it paged in and out of cache much more often.
Actually, ref-counting is mostly just the extra few bytes. An auto_ptr (or a unique_ptr or a boost::scoped_ptr) doesn't even use the extra bytes because it has single ownership. When they go out of scope, the object is destroyed. No extra byte; no complicated memory management. The C++ compiler knows when the object goes out of scope and will call the destructor at that time.
For boost::shared_ptr, there's extra memory for reference counting because there can be multiple owners. But, again, I'd be surprised if a GC-based language wouldn't use reference counting. Perl, for example, uses reference counting exclusively *because* it's much faster than other schemes. It has the same drawback that C++ has which is that circular references may leak.
Paradoxical, and I'm not convinced, so I'd want to benchmark it. It does seem plausible, and I did read it in a respectable-looking paper.
If you have a link to that paper I'd like to see it. As I said, there's not much more to reference counting other than incrementing a value when the object is assigned a new owner and decrementing that same value when it's being released. The allocation is done once and there is a single delete.
So no, I wasn't talking about the GC keeping anything "in memory" (as opposed to what?) -- yes, once the object isn't referenced, its data is meaningless.
And yes, I'm pretty sure malloc/new implementations have, at least at one point, been direct system calls. I imagine they still are, on some embedded platforms.
I've programmed in C and other procedural languages, Pascal for example, for a long time. I've never seen a single implementation that would make a system call for each malloc/free call. If you know of one, again, I'd be interested to have a link.
When you're starved for memory, it makes sense -- you want everything free'd for other processes to use as soon as you possibly can.
When delete is called (or free in C), the memory used by the object is made available immediately. This requires a call to the C or C++ library, if that's what you mean, but this is not a system call. It doesn't require an intervention from the OS except, maybe, in a multi-threaded application. If this library call is what you mean by "system call" then yes it has some overhead. I have heard of implementations of new/delete that accumulate the delete in order to gain a few extra cycles. But when you need these extra cycles you probably should be programming in C++.
Good to know about boost -- though now I'm curious what the difference is.
here