I can see advantages for most things they're proposing... except for dropping the target attribute in anchor tags. I don't get that one. That's really useful for making external links open in new windows/tabs. Unless there's an alternative I've missed I think that could be a big mistake.
Playing games in order to study them is not what most people would consider "fun." This doesn't mean it isn't fun at all; it just means you have to think a different way.
I hate to break this to the submitter, but if you don't consider what you're doing to be fun then that does mean it isn't fun. That's pretty much the definition of "isn't fun".;)
They can adopt completed code posted in an online discussion forum, but such code tends to be buggy.
You what? Discussion forums are full of very helpful, very talented developers. When someone posts some code in one it's seen by many eyes... it's commented upon, criticised, improved and refactored into a neat package much in the same way as a popular open source project only on a smaller scale. Code from forums is often a very high quality, well tested, and well thought out solution... plus it can be very specfic to your precise needs if you ask the right questions to get the ball rolling.
The implication of the comment is that a solution from a book is likely to be better code. I've found that not to be the case on several occasions. Bugs are often not caught by technical reviewers.
I'd much rather use a forum solution than a book.
Disclaimers: I'm a moderator on a large PHP forum.
5. Wrong System, Wrong Time! 'Our business is highly dependent on the success and availability of video game hardware systems manufactured by third parties, as well as our ability to develop commercially successful products for these systems.
That's true of all 3rd party software developers on all games consoles. And all operating systems in fact. And all products in fact, it's not limited to IT. A company that makes after-market parts for a Ford is relying on Ford not releasing a model that's a dismal failure.
Too many people think there's some mysterious difference between computers and everything else. There isn't.
When the Apollo mission landed on the Moon they left behind a retroreflector that NASA used (still use?) to bounce a laser back and forth to measure the distance from the Earth very accurately. That's 385,000 km. If they were doing that in the late 1960s I don't see any reason why 1.5m km should be that tricky today.
What NetApp did was to patent a method of mapping data in a file system. What they should have been made to do by the USPTO was patent their implementation of a method of mapping data in a file system. It's a subtle but important difference.
To draw an analogy to something a little more obvious we should look to the drug industry. Many people believe that patenting drugs shouldn't be allowed, what should be allowed are patents on the method of making the drug. If someone can think of a way to get the same end result using a different process they should be allowed to do just that. Having a system that allows companies to hold patents on what amount of sequences of data is silly.
The same should go for software. It's fine to patent a specific implementation of some code, but it's not fine for that patent to cover every conceivable way of achieving the same end result.
Windows is an OS (I'm being kind), that means there's all sorts of things that run on top of it behind the scenes most users neither know nor care about. Things like a firewall and anti-virus. Quite necessary if Phoenix are suggesting you might run an email client on this thing.
Similarly I don't think there's ever a time when I want to run just a word processor. I want an MP3 player for some tunes. I want a web browser for fact checking. I want Freecell because I'm lazy and rarely do any actual word processing.
Basically what I'm saying is that I want a proper OS, not something that runs one app at a time. I doubt I'm alone in that. Now, give me a decent OS that runs lots of things loaded into an area of Flash memory so it starts up quickly and I'm yours.
Despite the conjecture that the Linux-based XO could convince millions of people in the developing world that they don't need Windows and build a huge base of developers for Linux, there still remains the question of how Microsoft would convince owners of XO laptops to buy and install Windows XP over the functional Linux-based OS already on it.
Buy and install? Why would these developing nations have to buy Windows? Microsoft could intend to give it to them for free. Because they're so fluffy and altruistic and gosh-darn-nice of course, there'd be no ulterior motive whatsoever.
I have to admit it... the screenshots look gorgeous. They've nailed the look brilliantly. It's innovative, clearly very clever, it's sumptuous and lush and all manner of other adjectives. Those 125 developers have been hard at work, that's obvious.
Thing is though, it's a game. It's not a film. Pixar only have to bother themselves with the look. These developers have to bother with the game too. So as delightful as it is, the real question any gamer asks isn't "how good does it look?" rather "how much fun is it to play?". Some of the most brilliant games I've ever played were written by 1 person working parttime in their bedroom on an 8 bit computer. "Fun" just isn't something that comes from pumping millions of dollars into a team.
One day studios will realise this, and will realise that they could make a lot more money concentrating on games written by 5 people that are enjoyable even if they look a bit pants.
As horrible as Word's proprietary format is, there isn't any DRM involved in it. A closed format* that lets you do what the heck you like with it contains no DRM; it's plain irritating for people who prefer openness but it exerts no control over the data contained within. It would be preferable for Yale to release the minutes in plain text, or nicely formated HTML, or something.
DRM is much more evil. DRM tries to control how you use your data. Or, if you believe the vitriol spewed forth from Microsoft, Sony, Apple etc, DRM tries to control how you use their data that they've only issued you a license to use within certain limited parameters.
* Closed in terms of free-as-in-speech. Anyone can use the format in a free-as-in-beer sense under a covenant which Microsoft promise not to sue... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/840817/en-us#... If you believe them.;)
True, but in a good way. It's a pretty harrowing experience for the innocent victim but at least it was just a prank. A more nefarious criminal could use the same exploit to send a SWAT team to the other end of their jurisdiction while they carried out a robbery. This way the security flaw can be found and fixed with relatively little harm done.
If they chose them based entirely on their merits like 'best qualified', 'most passionate', 'willing to work for the least money' then that'd be fine. The problem arises when an employer uses an irrational reason to choose between two perfectly capable candidates. Age, especially in a compsci job, is not a factor that stops someone doing the job well. Equally factors like race, gender, and disability don't necessarily stop someone doing a good job. So why rule out people based on any of them?
Discrimination laws actually help companies. If they discriminate and turn away the best person because they fail to meet some ludicrous and irrelevant target like "is the candidate white?" or "is the candidate under 30?" the company is going to suffer as a result. Employers need protecting from themselves.
Maybe it's just me, a lefty liberal socialist Brit, but I don't really understand the mentality behind the 'humourous' tagline here. Selling stuff on eBay means you're earning money. Why shouldn't it be taxed like any other income? Ok, someone selling a couple of DVDs isn't really going to make any dent in the government's revenue, but there are powersellers on eBay with a turnover to rival a large highstreet store, all tax free if you're a bit underhand about it. That's not a good thing. That's a few more potholes in the road, one less nurse looking after you in hospital, a few less books in the school library. Tax evaders aren't Robin Hood*, they're plain old criminals.
If you give a damn about the quality of your community you probably ought to welcome Uncle Sam getting ideas along the same lines.
* English folk hero, robbed from the rich to give to the poor, portrayed very poorly in film by Kevin Costner.
Noone is saying it's anti-competitive. They're saying it might be anti-competitive. There's less choice for the consumer. Prior to Google buying DoubleClick someone wanting to purchase adverts had a few choices between 3 similarly sized networks (Google, DoubleClick and Yahoo) plus a handful of smaller players. Since the merger there's one behemoth and noone even close to the same sort of size, and consequently noone in a position to offer the same sort of service. If Google wanted to they could reduce their prices too (economies of scale coming into effect). They have effectively bought themselves into the position of a monopoly. All the EU are doing is checking if that's really the case or if the market is still open for consumers to shop around.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got one here on my desk. Curiously it looks, and smells, just like an orange.
Tastes like an orange too.
Actually, come to think of it, I think this might be an orange.
I can see advantages for most things they're proposing ... except for dropping the target attribute in anchor tags. I don't get that one. That's really useful for making external links open in new windows/tabs. Unless there's an alternative I've missed I think that could be a big mistake.
Energy efficient photovoltaic cells is fun and all, but clearly he's better qualified to invent nuclear powered Super Soakers.
And I think I speak for all of the geek fraternity when I say we'd prefer them over some poxy solar panels.
I hate to break this to the submitter, but if you don't consider what you're doing to be fun then that does mean it isn't fun. That's pretty much the definition of "isn't fun".
I'd rather have an easily-laid woman who can emulate a chat bot.
In fact, the chat bot side of things is wholly superfluous to what I want if I'm being honest.
The same is true of sex.
:(
Apparently.
Our moon isn't aggregated dust, it's a chuck of Earth that was knocked off by an impact with something early in the life of the planet.
You what? Discussion forums are full of very helpful, very talented developers. When someone posts some code in one it's seen by many eyes
The implication of the comment is that a solution from a book is likely to be better code. I've found that not to be the case on several occasions. Bugs are often not caught by technical reviewers.
I'd much rather use a forum solution than a book.
Disclaimers: I'm a moderator on a large PHP forum.
If you're drinking 500 calorie milkshakes then this is probably something you need. If you can fit it under the desk with your huge fat legs.
That's true of all 3rd party software developers on all games consoles. And all operating systems in fact. And all products in fact, it's not limited to IT. A company that makes after-market parts for a Ford is relying on Ford not releasing a model that's a dismal failure.
Too many people think there's some mysterious difference between computers and everything else. There isn't.
When the Apollo mission landed on the Moon they left behind a retroreflector that NASA used (still use?) to bounce a laser back and forth to measure the distance from the Earth very accurately. That's 385,000 km. If they were doing that in the late 1960s I don't see any reason why 1.5m km should be that tricky today.
What NetApp did was to patent a method of mapping data in a file system. What they should have been made to do by the USPTO was patent their implementation of a method of mapping data in a file system. It's a subtle but important difference.
To draw an analogy to something a little more obvious we should look to the drug industry. Many people believe that patenting drugs shouldn't be allowed, what should be allowed are patents on the method of making the drug. If someone can think of a way to get the same end result using a different process they should be allowed to do just that. Having a system that allows companies to hold patents on what amount of sequences of data is silly.
The same should go for software. It's fine to patent a specific implementation of some code, but it's not fine for that patent to cover every conceivable way of achieving the same end result.
Windows is an OS (I'm being kind), that means there's all sorts of things that run on top of it behind the scenes most users neither know nor care about. Things like a firewall and anti-virus. Quite necessary if Phoenix are suggesting you might run an email client on this thing.
Similarly I don't think there's ever a time when I want to run just a word processor. I want an MP3 player for some tunes. I want a web browser for fact checking. I want Freecell because I'm lazy and rarely do any actual word processing.
Basically what I'm saying is that I want a proper OS, not something that runs one app at a time. I doubt I'm alone in that. Now, give me a decent OS that runs lots of things loaded into an area of Flash memory so it starts up quickly and I'm yours.
There aren't 50 million Facebook developers. It only seems that way because there's 50 million 'really awesome super dooper wall' applications.
Buy and install? Why would these developing nations have to buy Windows? Microsoft could intend to give it to them for free. Because they're so fluffy and altruistic and gosh-darn-nice of course, there'd be no ulterior motive whatsoever.
Honest.
I have to admit it ... the screenshots look gorgeous. They've nailed the look brilliantly. It's innovative, clearly very clever, it's sumptuous and lush and all manner of other adjectives. Those 125 developers have been hard at work, that's obvious.
Thing is though, it's a game. It's not a film. Pixar only have to bother themselves with the look. These developers have to bother with the game too. So as delightful as it is, the real question any gamer asks isn't "how good does it look?" rather "how much fun is it to play?". Some of the most brilliant games I've ever played were written by 1 person working parttime in their bedroom on an 8 bit computer. "Fun" just isn't something that comes from pumping millions of dollars into a team.
One day studios will realise this, and will realise that they could make a lot more money concentrating on games written by 5 people that are enjoyable even if they look a bit pants.
I'm not going to hold my breath though.
As horrible as Word's proprietary format is, there isn't any DRM involved in it. A closed format* that lets you do what the heck you like with it contains no DRM; it's plain irritating for people who prefer openness but it exerts no control over the data contained within. It would be preferable for Yale to release the minutes in plain text, or nicely formated HTML, or something.
... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/840817/en-us# ... If you believe them. ;)
DRM is much more evil. DRM tries to control how you use your data. Or, if you believe the vitriol spewed forth from Microsoft, Sony, Apple etc, DRM tries to control how you use their data that they've only issued you a license to use within certain limited parameters.
* Closed in terms of free-as-in-speech. Anyone can use the format in a free-as-in-beer sense under a covenant which Microsoft promise not to sue
True, but in a good way. It's a pretty harrowing experience for the innocent victim but at least it was just a prank. A more nefarious criminal could use the same exploit to send a SWAT team to the other end of their jurisdiction while they carried out a robbery. This way the security flaw can be found and fixed with relatively little harm done.
This slashvertising has reached a new low. ;)
You'd question seeing a penis but you're fine with all those donkeys?
I'm on Windows here, and I find it incredibly annoying when the UI changes to 'soothing blue'.
If they chose them based entirely on their merits like 'best qualified', 'most passionate', 'willing to work for the least money' then that'd be fine. The problem arises when an employer uses an irrational reason to choose between two perfectly capable candidates. Age, especially in a compsci job, is not a factor that stops someone doing the job well. Equally factors like race, gender, and disability don't necessarily stop someone doing a good job. So why rule out people based on any of them?
Discrimination laws actually help companies. If they discriminate and turn away the best person because they fail to meet some ludicrous and irrelevant target like "is the candidate white?" or "is the candidate under 30?" the company is going to suffer as a result. Employers need protecting from themselves.
Maybe it's just me, a lefty liberal socialist Brit, but I don't really understand the mentality behind the 'humourous' tagline here. Selling stuff on eBay means you're earning money. Why shouldn't it be taxed like any other income? Ok, someone selling a couple of DVDs isn't really going to make any dent in the government's revenue, but there are powersellers on eBay with a turnover to rival a large highstreet store, all tax free if you're a bit underhand about it. That's not a good thing. That's a few more potholes in the road, one less nurse looking after you in hospital, a few less books in the school library. Tax evaders aren't Robin Hood*, they're plain old criminals.
If you give a damn about the quality of your community you probably ought to welcome Uncle Sam getting ideas along the same lines.
* English folk hero, robbed from the rich to give to the poor, portrayed very poorly in film by Kevin Costner.
Is your next kid going to be named '95'?
Noone is saying it's anti-competitive. They're saying it might be anti-competitive. There's less choice for the consumer. Prior to Google buying DoubleClick someone wanting to purchase adverts had a few choices between 3 similarly sized networks (Google, DoubleClick and Yahoo) plus a handful of smaller players. Since the merger there's one behemoth and noone even close to the same sort of size, and consequently noone in a position to offer the same sort of service. If Google wanted to they could reduce their prices too (economies of scale coming into effect). They have effectively bought themselves into the position of a monopoly. All the EU are doing is checking if that's really the case or if the market is still open for consumers to shop around.