Not say that is a bad idea, however you may not be aware that it has some very negative consequences within itself. Once the outcomes of all procedures are made publicly available, health care providers (such as surgeons) will start to refuse to perform procedures on patients who do not have a very high probability of success. In addition the general public will look for simple "pass/fail" information on the outcomes, when that is a completely unrealistic way of looking at it. The cold hard truth is that surgical outcomes have too many factors for the general public to be able to make a well informed decision on.
No, the people who warned that jet airliners wouldn't be able to take off or fly, and that the modem for sale on the shelf at Best Buy would stop working, and that the gas pumps would stop pumping gas, *after* 1/1/2000, they were the scaremongers.
In the US we spent millions, possibly billions of dollars checking every computer that did or ever even thought pumping gas and they all worked fine after 1/1/2000. In Russia they spent nothing [citation required] on checking the computers that ran their nuclear reactors . . and they all worked fine after 1/1/2000.
Yes, there was A LOT of ignorant scaremongering going leading up to Y2K.
No, the #1 problem here is people confusing an upgrade with a security patch. If I am running one major version behind of any software (including an OS) on any platform, I should NOT be required to upgrade to the latest and greatest simply to have all the latest security fixes. That is a mentality that really needs to stop in the software development community.
And don't start about version numbers etc. I don't care what they are called. If I'm running version C of something, and version D is the "latest and greatest", then any security holes in C should be fixed with a patch to C. Call it C.1, C+1 or C and an Icecreamsandwich, I don't care. Just don't force me to upgrade to D ( or D.1 or whatever) in order to get the security fix.
Oh yeah, and patches should be pushed out and installed without any user interaction required. Upgrades should require user confirmation.
Apple AND Microsoft fully understand this concept, I don't understand why others can't.
And I think you're response is a perfect example of what this article is talking about. He did answer his mother's question. She didn't ask what a terabyte was, or how bit a song was, or how big a movie was, she just asked what a gigabyte was, and that's what he told her.
Its shocking though, nobody would trust someone in the real world telling you that you need something they are providing without some kind of double check.
If someone showed up at your house and told you that your water could kill because of some microbe you have never heard of that they claim is getting into your pipes and the only way to make yourself safe is to install this helpful filter that they are selling would you believe them?
How the heck is this similar to the Onstar system? This uses a directed EMP to disrupt electronic engine control, Onstar uses a built-in remote kill switch. That's like saying shooting a lightbulb is the same as turning off the switch.
And you would be correct if your intent is to make the room dark. This system is like onstar in that both stop a vehicle remotely.
Except that this is Slashdot, "news for nerds", not "news for people who only want the high level concepts". I agree with the gp.
>>If people could make good $$ without college, I doubt you'd see so many people trying to go....
Art majors
English majors
Performing arts majors
I could go on... I don't see how you have a valid point. I am not saying that the above fields are not worthy of pursuing, but people do not get into them for the money.
No, he didn't say "If people could make just as crappy $$ with college as without,..."
I don't see how _you_ have a valid point. You included examples that are completely opposite of what the gp meant.
I was just reading some of the posts here. Infuriating. You know what I realized? Most of the people on Slashdot (who post anyway) may seem knowledgeable about computers and smart, but are not. Most are computer newbies. You have a five digit user ID and it has taken you this long to realize that?:)
I suspect you are referring to the first boot? Yes it does take anywhere from 5-10 minutes strait out of the box, after that the boot time should be much faster. I just got an HP dv9000 notebook myself about a month ago, 2Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB ram, 7200 spin hard drive. When I first turned it on it also took a good 5-10 minutes to get up and running, it had to go through driver detection and all that crap. The image that is put on the machine at the factory is designed for that *series*, not that specific model, it's easier on the manufacturer that way. When you boot it for the very first time, it basically has to do the last half of the Windows install.
Have you ever tried the DTS sound track on a DVD? The compression is far less that the Dolby Digital track. Yes I know not all DVD's have DTS, but it's a lot better now than it was 5 years ago. If more people like you (and I) who demand superior sound quality speak with our wallets by buying DVD's with DTS, then perhaps that number will go up.
Plus I'll take any small loss in sound quality between (very rare, only played once etc) superior quality VHS tapes and DTS in exchange for the 6+ discrete channels of audio I can get from a DVD with DTS. (Yes I know Dolby Digital provides the same channels, but it's that damn compression)
I did the Nielsen survey thing a few years ago myself. I didn't actually get one of those boxes that hooks to your television, I wasn't that cool. For one week I had to write down what I watched on a form they provided. As a geek it was actually kind of fun. Anyway my point is that I have a Tivo, and Nielsen does account for time-shifting via a PVR/VCR. The instructions were simple, if I watched a Tivo'ed copy of "The West Wing" on Sat. morning I was to write down that I watched it on Wed. night. The instructions basically said that they don't care when you watch something, they just wanted to know what you watched, and what channel/time it was broadcast on.
As far as acconting for skipping of commercials, they did not seem to have anyway of doing that. This was about three years ago so I don't konw if they have changed anything since then.
I'm no expert, I've only been doing Win32 programming for about 5 years now, but I just would love some clarification to your questions. I'm assuming you are referring to the strait Win32 API, not MFC.
why did you force an object-oriented system on your window system? why each window has to be an object?
Again, do you mean MFC here or the strait Win32 API. If you mean the strait Win32 API how else would you build a windowing system where each window was not naturally an object. What better way do you have in mind?
why didn't you separate the windowing system from the widgets library?
So some of the first basic control types are part of user32.dll. I'm not saying this is perfect but in concept they are still a layer above the windowing system itself, unless there is something I'm missing.
the OO system you have adds an additional overhead for languages that want to have their own OO system.
I as well as several others are obviously missing something here. You make an accusation, then give no examples.
why only one message queue? why not multiple message queues?
How is more than one message que per thread advantageous. What would the thread do, switch back and forth between the ques? The thread can only service one que at a time.
why each windows message can not have an arbitrary amount of data?
Simple answer here is that they can. Each windows message contains two 32bit values that can contain anything, including a pointer to a data structure that can contain any amount of data you wish.
why didn't you use a property system for windows and you had to use the problematic 'set values' interface?
Again, are you referring to MFC or the strait Win32 API? If you are referring to the API I really don't understand what you are talking about. This almost makes me think you are referring to Visual Basic and properties on objects. Obviously for as much compatibility as possible all "values" in windows would be "set" by sending it a message.
why the text resources of a GUI app can not be changed on the fly? why text is not a separate file?
Actually you can do this. I'll admit it isn't the easiest thing. You create separate resource only DLLs for your application and load and unload them dynamically.
As far as all your other comments I either agree completely or will say it's due to legacy support.
Sorry, I was using a little bit more general of an idea of C++, as I'm afraid many who read your comment probably would. I was thinking of APIs that are classes, of which there are none in Win32.
However using the standards you described, which I agree with;), you are right that it is technically C++.
2) NT, and especially Win32 is written almost entirely in C++. Ever try to do self modifying code in C++?
I get the feeling you don't spend your days mired in Win32 application coding. The Win32 libraries are all written in C, not C++. This is why different languages such as C, C++, VB, and even the new.NET runtime can all link to the same libraries, they all support C exports. There are no separate versions of libraries like user32.dll and gdi32.dll for VB, C, C++, etc . .
And oh yes, don't think that MS is re-implementing CreateWindowEx() (in user32.dll) in the.NET world. Any application, no matter where it was written, or in what language, if it runs on Windows it will at sometime end up in CreateWindowEx() (actually CreateWindowExA or CreateWindowExW) in user32.dll.
So, you approve murder... Because being able to sell drugs cheap in the 3rd world and not doing it is murder, you know?
Following that logic, then it is also murder for the developed countries to not build advanced hospitals in every African village that needs one. There are people dying in those villages, hospitals could save their lives, is it murder to not build them?
"other companies have been doing this for years, and Tivo waits until now until to sue?"
Have you ever considered the fact that many of these "other" companies probably licensed the features in question from Tivo? Just because a company was "doing" something doesn't mean they thought of it.
That works just fine for an iPod, it only holds music, nothing else. So what do you do for a general purpose computer? Show how many songs/movies/pictures/copies of OfficeXP it can hold? Which reference do you use? Do you just show all of them? Maybe the industry could just come up with some generic term that describes how much space a digital device has, oh wait, they already did. . . .
I, for one, do actually watch *some* of the commercials in the programs that my Tivo has recorded. However it's not often that I do, and even then the same old rules apply . . . sex sells. Put a good looking girl in the commercial, and I'll hit rewind just to watch it.
You are correct that the software can be considered "specialty" software, but the same *could* be said of M$ Word (It could be said if you looked at it in the context of what it really is, not what M$ makes it out to be).
Even so, we have thousands of clients through out the US, Canada, Britan, France, Austrailia, Saudi Arabia, and other places I don't even know of.
I will admit that the fact that our software targets more narrow markets than say M$ Word, is part of the reason it costs so much more. However, it is no more complex than Word, I can assure you, so complexity is not part of the cost. I still assert that accountability raises the price.
In forming your opinion as to if this law is a good idea or not, consider this:
I work for a medium size company, that among other things sells software for use in hospitals. Our software provides all sorts of "critical" operations, and I assure you that we don't have an EULA, we have legal contracts.
Basicly we are just one of many companys who provide software which we *are* held accountable for.
There is software you buy off the shelf, and then there is software you need lawyers to purchase, and both of them already exist. What this law may be trying to create (ie. accoutability for software) already exist, and trust me, it ain't cheep.
If you're asking will the cost of software go up if this type of thing is implented, the obvious answer is YES. How much is the only question, and that I'm not sure of. It may not be that much for off the shelf software, and then again, there may end up being no be such a thing as off the shelf software.
If you want proof that it will cost more, it is not uncommon to contract 25 user licenses for this type of softare and it costing over 100K (yes thats one hundred thousand dollars), and then there's the yearly maintenance that you *must* buy with the software, you can guess at prices there.
Slashdot Mirror
Not say that is a bad idea, however you may not be aware that it has some very negative consequences within itself. Once the outcomes of all procedures are made publicly available, health care providers (such as surgeons) will start to refuse to perform procedures on patients who do not have a very high probability of success. In addition the general public will look for simple "pass/fail" information on the outcomes, when that is a completely unrealistic way of looking at it. The cold hard truth is that surgical outcomes have too many factors for the general public to be able to make a well informed decision on.
No, the people who warned that jet airliners wouldn't be able to take off or fly, and that the modem for sale on the shelf at Best Buy would stop working, and that the gas pumps would stop pumping gas, *after* 1/1/2000, they were the scaremongers.
In the US we spent millions, possibly billions of dollars checking every computer that did or ever even thought pumping gas and they all worked fine after 1/1/2000. In Russia they spent nothing [citation required] on checking the computers that ran their nuclear reactors . . and they all worked fine after 1/1/2000.
Yes, there was A LOT of ignorant scaremongering going leading up to Y2K.
No, the #1 problem here is people confusing an upgrade with a security patch. If I am running one major version behind of any software (including an OS) on any platform, I should NOT be required to upgrade to the latest and greatest simply to have all the latest security fixes. That is a mentality that really needs to stop in the software development community.
And don't start about version numbers etc. I don't care what they are called. If I'm running version C of something, and version D is the "latest and greatest", then any security holes in C should be fixed with a patch to C. Call it C.1, C+1 or C and an Icecreamsandwich, I don't care. Just don't force me to upgrade to D ( or D.1 or whatever) in order to get the security fix.
Oh yeah, and patches should be pushed out and installed without any user interaction required. Upgrades should require user confirmation.
Apple AND Microsoft fully understand this concept, I don't understand why others can't.
"End Users" and "Scripting" are two things that will never go together.
And I think you're response is a perfect example of what this article is talking about. He did answer his mother's question. She didn't ask what a terabyte was, or how bit a song was, or how big a movie was, she just asked what a gigabyte was, and that's what he told her.
Its shocking though, nobody would trust someone in the real world telling you that you need something they are providing without some kind of double check.
If someone showed up at your house and told you that your water could kill because of some microbe you have never heard of that they claim is getting into your pipes and the only way to make yourself safe is to install this helpful filter that they are selling would you believe them?
Have you even heard of infomercials?
How the heck is this similar to the Onstar system? This uses a directed EMP to disrupt electronic engine control, Onstar uses a built-in remote kill switch. That's like saying shooting a lightbulb is the same as turning off the switch.
And you would be correct if your intent is to make the room dark. This system is like onstar in that both stop a vehicle remotely.
Except that this is Slashdot, "news for nerds", not "news for people who only want the high level concepts". I agree with the gp.
>>If people could make good $$ without college, I doubt you'd see so many people trying to go....
..."
Art majors
English majors
Performing arts majors
I could go on... I don't see how you have a valid point. I am not saying that the above fields are not worthy of pursuing, but people do not get into them for the money.
No, he didn't say "If people could make just as crappy $$ with college as without,
I don't see how _you_ have a valid point. You included examples that are completely opposite of what the gp meant.
I suspect you are referring to the first boot? Yes it does take anywhere from 5-10 minutes strait out of the box, after that the boot time should be much faster. I just got an HP dv9000 notebook myself about a month ago, 2Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB ram, 7200 spin hard drive. When I first turned it on it also took a good 5-10 minutes to get up and running, it had to go through driver detection and all that crap. The image that is put on the machine at the factory is designed for that *series*, not that specific model, it's easier on the manufacturer that way. When you boot it for the very first time, it basically has to do the last half of the Windows install.
Have you ever tried the DTS sound track on a DVD? The compression is far less that the Dolby Digital track. Yes I know not all DVD's have DTS, but it's a lot better now than it was 5 years ago. If more people like you (and I) who demand superior sound quality speak with our wallets by buying DVD's with DTS, then perhaps that number will go up.
Plus I'll take any small loss in sound quality between (very rare, only played once etc) superior quality VHS tapes and DTS in exchange for the 6+ discrete channels of audio I can get from a DVD with DTS. (Yes I know Dolby Digital provides the same channels, but it's that damn compression)
I did the Nielsen survey thing a few years ago myself. I didn't actually get one of those boxes that hooks to your television, I wasn't that cool. For one week I had to write down what I watched on a form they provided. As a geek it was actually kind of fun. Anyway my point is that I have a Tivo, and Nielsen does account for time-shifting via a PVR/VCR. The instructions were simple, if I watched a Tivo'ed copy of "The West Wing" on Sat. morning I was to write down that I watched it on Wed. night. The instructions basically said that they don't care when you watch something, they just wanted to know what you watched, and what channel/time it was broadcast on.
As far as acconting for skipping of commercials, they did not seem to have anyway of doing that. This was about three years ago so I don't konw if they have changed anything since then.
As far as all your other comments I either agree completely or will say it's due to legacy support.
If your against this bill, then you are probably 12 years old.
This sounds an awful lot like "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide"
Sorry, I was using a little bit more general of an idea of C++, as I'm afraid many who read your comment probably would. I was thinking of APIs that are classes, of which there are none in Win32.
;), you are right that it is technically C++.
However using the standards you described, which I agree with
2) NT, and especially Win32 is written almost entirely in C++. Ever try to do self modifying code in C++?
.NET runtime can all link to the same libraries, they all support C exports. There are no separate versions of libraries like user32.dll and gdi32.dll for VB, C, C++, etc . .
.NET world. Any application, no matter where it was written, or in what language, if it runs on Windows it will at sometime end up in CreateWindowEx() (actually CreateWindowExA or CreateWindowExW) in user32.dll.
= /library/en-us/winprog/winprog/functions_in_alphab etical_order.asp
I get the feeling you don't spend your days mired in Win32 application coding. The Win32 libraries are all written in C, not C++. This is why different languages such as C, C++, VB, and even the new
And oh yes, don't think that MS is re-implementing CreateWindowEx() (in user32.dll) in the
Take a look at the actual Win32 API
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
See any classes in there?
Following that logic, then it is also murder for the developed countries to not build advanced hospitals in every African village that needs one. There are people dying in those villages, hospitals could save their lives, is it murder to not build them?
"other companies have been doing this for years, and Tivo waits until now until to sue?"
Have you ever considered the fact that many of these "other" companies probably licensed the features in question from Tivo? Just because a company was "doing" something doesn't mean they thought of it.
They say how many *songs* you can have on it.
That works just fine for an iPod, it only holds music, nothing else. So what do you do for a general purpose computer? Show how many songs/movies/pictures/copies of OfficeXP it can hold? Which reference do you use? Do you just show all of them? Maybe the industry could just come up with some generic term that describes how much space a digital device has, oh wait, they already did. . . .
I, for one, do actually watch *some* of the commercials in the programs that my Tivo has recorded. However it's not often that I do, and even then the same old rules apply . . . sex sells. Put a good looking girl in the commercial, and I'll hit rewind just to watch it.
I miss sending messages the real way :)
You are correct that the software can be considered "specialty" software, but the same *could* be said of M$ Word (It could be said if you looked at it in the context of what it really is, not what M$ makes it out to be).
Even so, we have thousands of clients through out the US, Canada, Britan, France, Austrailia, Saudi Arabia, and other places I don't even know of.
I will admit that the fact that our software targets more narrow markets than say M$ Word, is part of the reason it costs so much more. However, it is no more complex than Word, I can assure you, so complexity is not part of the cost. I still assert that accountability raises the price.
In forming your opinion as to if this law is a good idea or not, consider this:
I work for a medium size company, that among other things sells software for use in hospitals. Our software provides all sorts of "critical" operations, and I assure you that we don't have an EULA, we have legal contracts.
Basicly we are just one of many companys who provide software which we *are* held accountable for.
There is software you buy off the shelf, and then there is software you need lawyers to purchase, and both of them already exist. What this law may be trying to create (ie. accoutability for software) already exist, and trust me, it ain't cheep.
If you're asking will the cost of software go up if this type of thing is implented, the obvious answer is YES. How much is the only question, and that I'm not sure of. It may not be that much for off the shelf software, and then again, there may end up being no be such a thing as off the shelf software.
If you want proof that it will cost more, it is not uncommon to contract 25 user licenses for this type of softare and it costing over 100K (yes thats one hundred thousand dollars), and then there's the yearly maintenance that you *must* buy with the software, you can guess at prices there.
as I recall M$ had to unplug the keyboard/mouse and the modem to get NT 3.5.1 C2 certified. . . . .