Google probably does not want to run a public bus service. That is not their business. There would be many other legal, insurance and bureaucratic hurdles.
Google does this for their employees. I can understand why everyone would want to ride on Google's luxury buses. Heck, I would like to. It must be frustrating that they pick up and drop off so close to your own endpoints. I can sympathize.
You're right. The article does not mention unions. But now that he, and you, brought it up, and now that I think about it -- who else would be opposed to self driving cars? It all makes sense.
You're right. The article does not mention unions. But now that he, and you, brought it up, and now that I think about it -- who else would be opposed to self driving cars? It all makes sense.
You are making the mistake of asking for substance. Patent Trolls do not necessarily bring any substance. A lawsuit, at least the initial complaint can be very substance free. These trolls get used to filing substance free filings with the USPTO. They expect the courts to have a similar approval process for lawsuits as the USPTO has for patents. (That is, the USPTO throws patent applications into a large room full of cats with stamps attached to their feet that say "PATENT GRANTED".)
The complain might just say blah blah Google infringes our valuable patents on ${something}, and not give any actual substance other than a patent number. Maybe not even that. The complaint could be defective and Intellectual Vultures plans to amend their complaint if Google calls them on this defect.
> Which company holds the patent for being a patent troll?
Intellectual Vultures.
Also, please do not use the offensive term 'patent troll'. Instead use the more neutral and less offensive term PTE (for 'patent trolling entity'). Thank you.
Re:Consider your Audience when writing code
on
Code Is Not Literature
·
· Score: 3, Funny
> That's one of my peeves. When I see a comment like that, I scream . . .
When someone does it, then put the following optimizations into their header files somewhere. Be sure to include the useful comments that explain their purpose.
#define struct union// optimization to use less memory
#define while if// optimization to make code run faster
It's the thought that counts.
Re:Consider your Audience when writing code
on
Code Is Not Literature
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The programming language is irrelevant. Bad code can be written in any language. Really good code is an art in any language.
The compiler is not an audience at all. The compiler is the first part of running the code. As far as the compiler is concerned, the code could be obfuscated.
That fact that the code performs it's function is the first economic value of the code. But an equally large, and perhaps greater economic value (or cost) is how well another human can read and comprehend that code later on when managers decide to add pointless features or remove useful features.
Most code is written for economic reasons of some type. Writing code for another human to easily comprehend later increases the economic value of that code -- possibly greatly.
If that tool you speak of is static and unchanging, like a wrench, then I could agree with you. Even if it were a moderately complex but extremely common machine with standardized parts, like a car, I could agree.
But if that tool is a complex machine, even a software machine, then communication is an important goal. Software inevitably requires maintenance and will be changed and improved over time. Pointless features will be added. Useful features removed. Since this machine is not an off the shelf machine, like a car, it is important that all of the information that the maintainers and improvers need are somewhere. The best place is probably in the source code itself.
Consider your Audience when writing code
on
Code Is Not Literature
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
When writing code, your audience is not the compiler.
Your audience is another human being who will be maintaining that code a few years later.
If your audience were the compiler, then your code would just need to compile and run. It could be ugly. Unreadable. Unmaintainable. Uncommented. Have meaningless identifiers. Poor organization. Follow worst practices. Etc. In short, the kind of code you get from an outsourced contractor.
Consider that another human is your audience. Choose identifiers such that a comment is unnecessary. Comments should not say what is obvious. (This assigns foo to x.) Comments should say what is not obvious and cannot be made obvious by the code itself.
Write your code almost as if you are writing literature.
What puzzles me is why they did not follow standard procedure of beating him up when he denied their accusations of recording the movie?
Hopefully in the future this guy will stick to small and victimless crimes that the FBI takes no interest in, such as wrecking the global economy or running a massive ponzi scheme on wall street.
That is correct. They are saying Dart is 25% faster than earlier Dart. Now almost as good as JavaScript. They are NOT saying it is 25% faster than JavaScript.
That idea of making yourself, your home, etc, more attractive to other users was part of Vernor Vinge's fiction Fast Times at Fairmont High. In the story everyone wore augmented reality glasses. Nobody ever took them off because the real world was very unattractive. Everything was well maintained. That is, houses and bridges did not fall down. But absolutely nothing was done in the real world to make things look good. So the real world looked bad.
There were other elements as well. People could virtually attend school or a meeting. If you took off your glasses you couldn't see reality anymore, you would only see the people who physically attended. But with the glasses, you could see everyone who was really there. Now imagine a subversive group that decide to take off their glasses.
Imagine. Those glasses could recognize advertising. Then mask it with other advertising that Google thinks you are interested in.
For example, that offensive billboard with a barely clothed female could be replaced by a strapping muscle bound shirtless hunk . . . holding puppies or kittens.
As per Vernor Vinge's story Fast Times at Fairmont High, everyone could tell Google what color and style they want their house to appear to other people wearing Glass. When you see artwork, Glass could replace it with different artwork that you prefer.
Two people wearing glass want to watch a movie together? All they have to do is agree which wall surface will become the "tv".
An underground meeting place could have a plain door, but members of the underground group, or invitees to the party would see a sign on the door, and could recognize one another.
Since SCO sues their own customers if their customers run any Linux and don't have a SCOsource license, it would be stupid to become a customer of SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
Because IE 6 only runs on Windows.
Let me make it simple for your simple mind. How would self driving cars affect unionized people who get paid to drive cars?
Google probably does not want to run a public bus service. That is not their business. There would be many other legal, insurance and bureaucratic hurdles.
Google does this for their employees. I can understand why everyone would want to ride on Google's luxury buses. Heck, I would like to. It must be frustrating that they pick up and drop off so close to your own endpoints. I can sympathize.
You're right. The article does not mention unions. But now that he, and you, brought it up, and now that I think about it -- who else would be opposed to self driving cars? It all makes sense.
Ooops. Sorry..Replied to the wrong. :-(
You're right. The article does not mention unions. But now that he, and you, brought it up, and now that I think about it -- who else would be opposed to self driving cars? It all makes sense.
You are making the mistake of asking for substance. Patent Trolls do not necessarily bring any substance. A lawsuit, at least the initial complaint can be very substance free. These trolls get used to filing substance free filings with the USPTO. They expect the courts to have a similar approval process for lawsuits as the USPTO has for patents. (That is, the USPTO throws patent applications into a large room full of cats with stamps attached to their feet that say "PATENT GRANTED".)
The complain might just say blah blah Google infringes our valuable patents on ${something}, and not give any actual substance other than a patent number. Maybe not even that. The complaint could be defective and Intellectual Vultures plans to amend their complaint if Google calls them on this defect.
Sir, it is Intellectual Vultures. Not Intellectual Ventures. :-)
Apple only holds a patent on patent trolls with rounded corners.
> Which company holds the patent for being a patent troll?
Intellectual Vultures.
Also, please do not use the offensive term 'patent troll'. Instead use the more neutral and less offensive term PTE (for 'patent trolling entity'). Thank you.
> That's one of my peeves. When I see a comment like that, I scream . . .
// optimization to use less memory
// optimization to make code run faster
When someone does it, then put the following optimizations into their header files somewhere. Be sure to include the useful comments that explain their purpose.
#define struct union
#define while if
It's the thought that counts.
The programming language is irrelevant. Bad code can be written in any language. Really good code is an art in any language.
The compiler is not an audience at all. The compiler is the first part of running the code. As far as the compiler is concerned, the code could be obfuscated.
That fact that the code performs it's function is the first economic value of the code. But an equally large, and perhaps greater economic value (or cost) is how well another human can read and comprehend that code later on when managers decide to add pointless features or remove useful features.
Most code is written for economic reasons of some type. Writing code for another human to easily comprehend later increases the economic value of that code -- possibly greatly.
If that tool you speak of is static and unchanging, like a wrench, then I could agree with you. Even if it were a moderately complex but extremely common machine with standardized parts, like a car, I could agree.
But if that tool is a complex machine, even a software machine, then communication is an important goal. Software inevitably requires maintenance and will be changed and improved over time. Pointless features will be added. Useful features removed. Since this machine is not an off the shelf machine, like a car, it is important that all of the information that the maintainers and improvers need are somewhere. The best place is probably in the source code itself.
When writing code, your audience is not the compiler.
Your audience is another human being who will be maintaining that code a few years later.
If your audience were the compiler, then your code would just need to compile and run. It could be ugly. Unreadable. Unmaintainable. Uncommented. Have meaningless identifiers. Poor organization. Follow worst practices. Etc. In short, the kind of code you get from an outsourced contractor.
Consider that another human is your audience. Choose identifiers such that a comment is unnecessary. Comments should not say what is obvious. (This assigns foo to x.) Comments should say what is not obvious and cannot be made obvious by the code itself.
Write your code almost as if you are writing literature.
What puzzles me is why they did not follow standard procedure of beating him up when he denied their accusations of recording the movie?
Hopefully in the future this guy will stick to small and victimless crimes that the FBI takes no interest in, such as wrecking the global economy or running a massive ponzi scheme on wall street.
They could move the conference to Sandy Eggo.
The hard part isn't building a smart thermostat. The hard part is building relationships will all those energy providers.
${brand-name} Airlines is proud to introduce new, convenient, complimentary child muzzles.
> Any frequent and sane flier carries [nose-cancelling headphones] as a rule, of course.
You have the cause and effect reversed. Sanity is not the reason for carrying the headphones. Carrying the headphones is the reason for the sanity.
> Wonder how much it would cost to retrofit every [airplane] with a sound-proofed 'room'.
I wonder how much it would cost to outfit that sound-proofed booth with a trap door floor?
MOD PARENT UP.
That is correct. They are saying Dart is 25% faster than earlier Dart. Now almost as good as JavaScript. They are NOT saying it is 25% faster than JavaScript.
That idea of making yourself, your home, etc, more attractive to other users was part of Vernor Vinge's fiction Fast Times at Fairmont High. In the story everyone wore augmented reality glasses. Nobody ever took them off because the real world was very unattractive. Everything was well maintained. That is, houses and bridges did not fall down. But absolutely nothing was done in the real world to make things look good. So the real world looked bad.
There were other elements as well. People could virtually attend school or a meeting. If you took off your glasses you couldn't see reality anymore, you would only see the people who physically attended. But with the glasses, you could see everyone who was really there. Now imagine a subversive group that decide to take off their glasses.
Imagine. Those glasses could recognize advertising. Then mask it with other advertising that Google thinks you are interested in.
For example, that offensive billboard with a barely clothed female could be replaced by a strapping muscle bound shirtless hunk . . . holding puppies or kittens.
As per Vernor Vinge's story Fast Times at Fairmont High, everyone could tell Google what color and style they want their house to appear to other people wearing Glass. When you see artwork, Glass could replace it with different artwork that you prefer.
Two people wearing glass want to watch a movie together? All they have to do is agree which wall surface will become the "tv".
An underground meeting place could have a plain door, but members of the underground group, or invitees to the party would see a sign on the door, and could recognize one another.
Let your imagination roam.
Please DO NOT take off your glasses. Those glasses can make a McSoylent burger appear as your favorite food.
Since SCO sues their own customers if their customers run any Linux and don't have a SCOsource license, it would be stupid to become a customer of SCO.