Well, those have the effect of polarising the neutrino stream, which means you may end up with a circulatory obstruction, leading to an acute case of
paraesthesia.
I think the idea behind not providing operator overloading was to remove ambiguity, because some people might make arbitrary choices about how two different objects are combined with an operator that may not be intuitive to other developers.
If that's really the reason, then it was a really bad decision. this should be handled by coding standards. Not the language.
Actually it was a barbecue. Found the server in a skip. Threw out the motherboard. Took the (full height!) hard disk drive out. Filled with charcoal and lit up.
Not a lot else I could do with it. I supose an AT case could still have been useful in 1999, but a 386 was a little outdated even for a desktop machine.
The BBC frequently upsets the government. Even when it was a new organisation.
The BBC has a lot of sway on public opinion. If the government even suggests a substantial change to the charter, the people will be told. It would be a very good way to lose the election.
The main difference I can see is that sections of code are typically reused (many games used the Unreal engine, for example), whereas art is usually created specifically for each game. So if game engines were made free, duplication of effort would be greatly reduced. If art was made free, then it wouldn't.
But it's also a practical matter - The only way games can be produced is if you can encourage a lot of people to pay towards the cost. The street performaer protocol might work for Doom 3 or HL2, but it's a little too risky for most people.
No, but we should hand people the data if it isn't something that the person requesting is likely to use for criminal acts. It's only worth onconveniencing people on these grounds if it will actually stop criminal activity.
But is the information available through other means? For example - flying a plane over the area and taking photos, or by walking around the streets and taking notes? All of these are well within the capabilities of anyone who is able to use this information for criminal activities.
On Monday, comcast will install a $10 a month PVR with dual tuner and one that can record 15 hours of HDTV and 60 of regular TV. Why should I invest in a dual G5 power mac and an additional $350 to basically get the same functionality.
Perhaps because you'll want to record TV shows for more than the ($cost_of_Power_mac + 350) / 10 months.
Okay, these are both a little late, but isn't it a little unfair to call them vaporware? I mean, we can expect to see them eventually (at least the 4MHz CPU), and a delay of about 3 months is nothing like the delay we've suffered waiting for the Phantom. They wouldn't have qualified for these awards if their release date was Q2, and they just came out. Surely an annual award should wait for at least most of a year for a delay.
Most standard tools and libraries are realy quite efficient in a general case. In fact, my observations suggest that not using them will cause an indirect slow down. A lot of the software I use uses slow searches because they're good enough, and nobody can be bothered to implement a binary search for a marginal speed increase.
If we used a library with the binary search capability in the first place, the performance would probably have been better, even after the overhead caused by the algorithm beingtoo generic.
You have a point. I can't prove they have a monopoly. I really don't know a lot about what the requirement is. I suspect this is what everything will depend on.
You are aware that this is slashdot aren't you? And that it's not all that new.
Perhaps I wasn't all that clear.
Perhaps I should have said that the rumoured products that the article speculated on were really not all that interesting, and more people expect cool gadgets from Apple.
I thought that was pretty much what I said, but perhaps I need to spell these things out.
If you build your own PVR, you'll only have to compile the kernel and resolve dependencies once. Then it will work and continue to work with no tinkering.
ure they do you, bizarrely, you chose to make up a few products,
Well, actually, if you read the summary, you'll see this text: "If you were hoping to watch Stevie present the rumoured sub-$500 Mac, the Motorola phone, the Flash iPod,". Presumably these are the most exciting things people expect to see.
declare them boring
Well, they ARE boring.
and then blamed Apple for your inventions.
They're other people's invention, and I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Just pointing out that these rumoured suggestions are really quite dull.
Whatever it is you've been smoking: you need to ask for your money back, It's bad shit.
I'm not the one who is incapable of associating a comment with the story that prompted it..
So, what do we have? A mobile phone that plays music files... Not seen one of them before. A Cheap Mac. Because as we all know cheap commodity hardware is what's really sexy. And a Flash iPod. It's an iPod. It looks and acts the same as an exisiting iPod.
It's a pointless argument anyway. As far as I understand it, INDUCE is not intended to ban P2P itself. For example, Bittorrent is clearly useful for distributing any large file to many users. The record industry wants to ban the specific P2P apps that it believes exist only to violate copyright, such as Kazaa.
A software developer explained, "When someone wants a 6mm drill, they don't actually want a 6mm drill. What they want is a 6mm hole in the wall".
The point being that presumably the poster doesn't neccesarily want to plug a PCI card into a laptop. He simply wants some of the capabilities of a specific PCI card, and some of the capabilities of a laptop. If its posted to Ask Slashdot, people will try to think outside the box, and try to solve the actual overall problem rather than the immediate problem.
Are you suggesting that ANY proprietery companion service is illegal and should be abolished or only if the market share exceeds some threshold?
Only if the market share is significantly large that it can be used to prevent competitors from entering a related market.
There's nothing stopping another company starting exactly the same business.
Well, the argument is that they're using their monopoly to prevent rivals from entering the music player market. And there is a barrier to entry here. It will be incompatible with the most popular music download service!
The difference is that you see iTMS and the iPod as two different products in two different markets, whereas I see iTMS as a software feature of the iPod itself. The same goes for consoles and portable game units.
Yes, I do. It would be hypocritical for me to agree that Microsoft are abusing their operating system monopoly, if I didn't think that Apple are abusing their music download monopoly.
No, you don't. Your iTMS songs will play just fine even if you have no portable player at all. Nobody's forcing you to buy anything.
They are if you want a portable player.
The fact that the iPod is the only portable player that can play these songs is irrelevant here.
No it's not. It's the whole point.
Apple makes no secret of that fact, and the competing music stores are rather quick to point it out as well. If he didn't know about it, that's his fault. If he did know about it but bought the music anyway just so he could later cause a stink about it, then he's just an asshole looking for publicity or a quick "go away" type payout from Apple.
It's not about fitness for purpose. It's about lock-in. Apple are conspiring to make it non-viable to use any other player.
You want to talk about companies reducing consumer choice, then I'd start with the company whose DRM'd music format only works on one OS. Apple's works on two.
The number of operating systems the respective offerings work on is beside the point. It only works on one player.
And Microsoft were fined 497 million Euros for their anti-competitive practices in a related area.
Wait a minute, the consumer clearly has a choice here: the consumer can simply choose not to buy an iPod and buy one of the many other players that amazingly work with a dozen online music stores
I'm no expert on antitrust law, but I don't see how this is any different from Microsoft's argument that the consumer can simply download a competing media player. The EU didn't buy that one. They have a monopoly on the download market. There's nothing wrong with this as long as they don't abuse their monopoly.
How does Apple limit choice here? How does Apple have a monopoly over online music if one can easily purchase an iRiver and use Napster to purchase music?
If you want to use iTunes with a portable player, you have to buy an iPod. People who have already downlaoded songs have to buy them again if they want any other player. For whatever reason, Napster is not good enough. No idea why, but since most people use iTunes, it must be a better service. The fact that he wants a different mp3 player should not mean he's forced to use an inferior service.
Here's an other way to think about it: To use a Playstation 2 game you need to buy a "second piece of hardware" namely a Playstation 2 console. Is this "quite clearly product tying" and an "illegal abuse of a monopoly?"
Well, it is quite clearly product tying. Actually, I think its about time someone started to look into the dirty tricks console manufacturers play as well. Perhaps they deserve a little leniency because none of them have a monopoly in the console market
Slashdot Mirror
Well, those have the effect of polarising the neutrino stream, which means you may end up with a circulatory obstruction, leading to an acute case of paraesthesia.
I think the idea behind not providing operator overloading was to remove ambiguity, because some people might make arbitrary choices about how two different objects are combined with an operator that may not be intuitive to other developers.
If that's really the reason, then it was a really bad decision. this should be handled by coding standards. Not the language.
Actually it was a barbecue. Found the server in a skip. Threw out the motherboard. Took the (full height!) hard disk drive out. Filled with charcoal and lit up.
Not a lot else I could do with it. I supose an AT case could still have been useful in 1999, but a 386 was a little outdated even for a desktop machine.
The BBC frequently upsets the government. Even when it was a new organisation.
The BBC has a lot of sway on public opinion. If the government even suggests a substantial change to the charter, the people will be told. It would be a very good way to lose the election.
Hell, the BBC Micro was good enough for teletext. It should be good enough for this intarnet thing.
The main difference I can see is that sections of code are typically reused (many games used the Unreal engine, for example), whereas art is usually created specifically for each game. So if game engines were made free, duplication of effort would be greatly reduced. If art was made free, then it wouldn't.
But it's also a practical matter - The only way games can be produced is if you can encourage a lot of people to pay towards the cost. The street performaer protocol might work for Doom 3 or HL2, but it's a little too risky for most people.
No, but we should hand people the data if it isn't something that the person requesting is likely to use for criminal acts. It's only worth onconveniencing people on these grounds if it will actually stop criminal activity.
But is the information available through other means? For example - flying a plane over the area and taking photos, or by walking around the streets and taking notes? All of these are well within the capabilities of anyone who is able to use this information for criminal activities.
But they only killed 2 or 3 people. Perhaps it's better this way than killing thousands of people in a single attack.
On Monday, comcast will install a $10 a month PVR with dual tuner and one that can record 15 hours of HDTV and 60 of regular TV. Why should I invest in a dual G5 power mac and an additional $350 to basically get the same functionality.
Perhaps because you'll want to record TV shows for more than the ($cost_of_Power_mac + 350) / 10 months.
Doh! I'm showing my age. I keep getting my M's and G's mixed up.
Okay, these are both a little late, but isn't it a little unfair to call them vaporware? I mean, we can expect to see them eventually (at least the 4MHz CPU), and a delay of about 3 months is nothing like the delay we've suffered waiting for the Phantom. They wouldn't have qualified for these awards if their release date was Q2, and they just came out. Surely an annual award should wait for at least most of a year for a delay.
Most standard tools and libraries are realy quite efficient in a general case. In fact, my observations suggest that not using them will cause an indirect slow down. A lot of the software I use uses slow searches because they're good enough, and nobody can be bothered to implement a binary search for a marginal speed increase.
If we used a library with the binary search capability in the first place, the performance would probably have been better, even after the overhead caused by the algorithm beingtoo generic.
Isn't interaction usually a part of the game - even if its just chat, it's a si9gnificant element.
You have a point. I can't prove they have a monopoly. I really don't know a lot about what the requirement is. I suspect this is what everything will depend on.
Anyone ever felt that was a bit rich coming from a TV series where the whole premise was based on changing the laws of physics?
You are aware that this is slashdot aren't you? And that it's not all that new.
Perhaps I wasn't all that clear.
Perhaps I should have said that the rumoured products that the article speculated on were really not all that interesting, and more people expect cool gadgets from Apple.
I thought that was pretty much what I said, but perhaps I need to spell these things out.
If you build your own PVR, you'll only have to compile the kernel and resolve dependencies once. Then it will work and continue to work with no tinkering.
ure they do you, bizarrely, you chose to make up a few products,
Well, actually, if you read the summary, you'll see this text: "If you were hoping to watch Stevie present the rumoured sub-$500 Mac, the Motorola phone, the Flash iPod,". Presumably these are the most exciting things people expect to see.
declare them boring
Well, they ARE boring.
and then blamed Apple for your inventions.
They're other people's invention, and I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Just pointing out that these rumoured suggestions are really quite dull.
Whatever it is you've been smoking: you need to ask for your money back, It's bad shit.
I'm not the one who is incapable of associating a comment with the story that prompted it..
So, what do we have? A mobile phone that plays music files... Not seen one of them before. A Cheap Mac. Because as we all know cheap commodity hardware is what's really sexy. And a Flash iPod. It's an iPod. It looks and acts the same as an exisiting iPod.
Didn't Apple once have cool gadgets?
It's a pointless argument anyway. As far as I understand it, INDUCE is not intended to ban P2P itself. For example, Bittorrent is clearly useful for distributing any large file to many users. The record industry wants to ban the specific P2P apps that it believes exist only to violate copyright, such as Kazaa.
A software developer explained, "When someone wants a 6mm drill, they don't actually want a 6mm drill. What they want is a 6mm hole in the wall".
The point being that presumably the poster doesn't neccesarily want to plug a PCI card into a laptop. He simply wants some of the capabilities of a specific PCI card, and some of the capabilities of a laptop. If its posted to Ask Slashdot, people will try to think outside the box, and try to solve the actual overall problem rather than the immediate problem.
Are you suggesting that ANY proprietery companion service is illegal and should be abolished or only if the market share exceeds some threshold?
Only if the market share is significantly large that it can be used to prevent competitors from entering a related market.
There's nothing stopping another company starting exactly the same business.
Well, the argument is that they're using their monopoly to prevent rivals from entering the music player market. And there is a barrier to entry here. It will be incompatible with the most popular music download service!
The difference is that you see iTMS and the iPod as two different products in two different markets, whereas I see iTMS as a software feature of the iPod itself. The same goes for consoles and portable game units.
Yes, I do. It would be hypocritical for me to agree that Microsoft are abusing their operating system monopoly, if I didn't think that Apple are abusing their music download monopoly.
No, you don't. Your iTMS songs will play just fine even if you have no portable player at all. Nobody's forcing you to buy anything.
They are if you want a portable player.
The fact that the iPod is the only portable player that can play these songs is irrelevant here.
No it's not. It's the whole point.
Apple makes no secret of that fact, and the competing music stores are rather quick to point it out as well. If he didn't know about it, that's his fault. If he did know about it but bought the music anyway just so he could later cause a stink about it, then he's just an asshole looking for publicity or a quick "go away" type payout from Apple.
It's not about fitness for purpose. It's about lock-in. Apple are conspiring to make it non-viable to use any other player.
You want to talk about companies reducing consumer choice, then I'd start with the company whose DRM'd music format only works on one OS. Apple's works on two.
The number of operating systems the respective offerings work on is beside the point. It only works on one player.
And Microsoft were fined 497 million Euros for their anti-competitive practices in a related area.
Wait a minute, the consumer clearly has a choice here: the consumer can simply choose not to buy an iPod and buy one of the many other players that amazingly work with a dozen online music stores
I'm no expert on antitrust law, but I don't see how this is any different from Microsoft's argument that the consumer can simply download a competing media player. The EU didn't buy that one. They have a monopoly on the download market. There's nothing wrong with this as long as they don't abuse their monopoly.
How does Apple limit choice here? How does Apple have a monopoly over online music if one can easily purchase an iRiver and use Napster to purchase music?
If you want to use iTunes with a portable player, you have to buy an iPod. People who have already downlaoded songs have to buy them again if they want any other player. For whatever reason, Napster is not good enough. No idea why, but since most people use iTunes, it must be a better service. The fact that he wants a different mp3 player should not mean he's forced to use an inferior service.
Here's an other way to think about it: To use a Playstation 2 game you need to buy a "second piece of hardware" namely a Playstation 2 console. Is this "quite clearly product tying" and an "illegal abuse of a monopoly?"
Well, it is quite clearly product tying. Actually, I think its about time someone started to look into the dirty tricks console manufacturers play as well. Perhaps they deserve a little leniency because none of them have a monopoly in the console market