Really? I don't see any "does not apply to children" clause in the first amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that children have a right to free speech.
You can use any name you like, as long as you are not intentionally using a name to defraud someone. There may be restrictions on the name you use for certain particular legal purposes (though there aren't in England - to change your name, you just need to start using your new name, a deed poll is just a record of the change if you need official documentation of it).
But with the added overhead of reference counting, which is an additional method call every time an object pointer is copied or passed or returned from a function. This is a bit of a problem in C++, where method calls can be inlined; with Objective-C's more heavyweight method calls, I would think this would be a fairly big overhead. I'm sure it's a much larger overhead than real garbage collection (although it does have the advantage of being deterministic).
If you're creating cycles then you didn't understand RAII.
So, what you're saying is, I have to artificially complicate my design in order to deal with a limitation of the language? Neat (actually, you can use garbage collection with C++, and C++0x provides limited support for this).
Government action that interferes with free speech is a violation of the First Amendment, whether that government action is specifically a law or not; see for example, limitations of the restrictions public schools can and can't place on the speech of students. BART (which is a government agency) likewise is limited by the First Amendment in what restrictions it can place on speech - it probably can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech, which might include disabling cell phones for safety purposes, but certainly this incident raises First Amendment questions.
Except that no-one else on the platform, and not the CCTV that's available, backs up the story about the guy coming at the policeman threateningly with a broken glass bottle and a knife (see here). And given the record of the BART police over the past few years, I'm not sure we should give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether they're accurately describing this situation.
To keep the string length, you'd have to employ a struct.
No, strings with a listed length would also be pointers to a series of integers - it's just that, instead of giving a value special semantics (0 as end of string), you give a position in the series special semantics (store the length in the first two bytes). In both cases, you need your string-handling functions to be aware of whatever the convention is.
Computational efficiency. Many if not most operations on strings don't need to know how long they are. So why suffer the overhead of keeping track? That makes string operations on null terminated strings on average faster than string operations on a string bounded by an integer.
I don't know that that's true. Operations that do need to know the length of the string could be quicker, and I'm not sure that these cases are less frequent. What are the common cases you are thinking of where C-style strings are faster?
Is there a "best of email," or a "best of websites"? Neither of these make much sense, because the point of web sites is to read the ones your interested in, and the point of email is to communicate with the people you know. Likewise, the point of Twitter is to follow people you are interested in and/or know. If you don't know of anyone who is of interest to you who uses Twitter, there's not much point in you using it, just as it would be pointless to use email if you didn't know anyone else who used email.
It's really unfortunate that Twitter forces you to follow 10,000 people who post about shoes and shitting. It would be so much more useful if it let you choose whose tweets you read.
Grooveshark's business model appears to be based on blatantly infringing copyright, then hoping they can negotiate deals with the record labels. Google Music is based on doing something that probably isn't copyright infringement (although the RIAA may disagree), backed up by Google's lawyers. I like Grooveshark, but I don't know that it's going to be around for very long.
There's nothing in oAuth that requires that the key be secret, indeed, I think the oAuth spec specifically discourages depending on the oAuth key as a reliable indicator of the application, precisely because there's no real way to keep it secret. It's companies like Twitter, who insist on uses the obviously not secret oAuth key as if it were secret, that are doing it wrong.
You're talking about jazz here, an art form that is build around the continual re-interpretation of standards. If the jazz tradition doesn't prove that "rehashes, reshaping of others" is creative, I don't know what does.
He felt it was necessary to license everything else, how is it the cover art should be treated as less than the rest of the work?
This confused me two, but I can think of a reason why he might have thought there was a difference. With music, you have both composition and performance rights - chiptune versions of Miles Davis songs are, I guess, much like any other cover version, in that they are derivative works of the composition, but not of the original performance. Perhaps the musician here thought that a photo was like a performance, with no equivalent to the composition rights, so that a re-creation of the same (or a similar) image wouldn't be subject to copyright, where a copy of the actual photograph itself would be.
Why is the must-share restriction better than the don't-share restriction? That's the inconsistency.
Because sharing is better than not sharing. There's no inconsistency. If someone thinks that the best situation would be one in which sharing was enforced in all cases, it's perfectly consistent for them to both advocate a legal framework that enforces sharing in some cases (the GPL), and to condemn legal situations that prevent sharing (restrictive copyright licenses). The position you are calling inconsistent just says "we think some restrictions are good and should be enforced, and other restrictions are bad and should not be enforced." Treating different things differently isn't inconsistent.
Social security is paid for specifically out of the social security trust fund, which currently has a surplus. Social security has nothing to do with the deficit.
If the pro-sharing groups believe it's okay for their group to restrict how someone uses their information by requiring distribution of source for derivative works (i.e. copyleft/GPL), they *have* to be okay with a different group restricting how someone uses their information by prohibiting redistribution or derivative works entirely without licensing/royalties (i.e. traditional copyright).
No they don't. If people believe that information should be shared, it's perfectly consistent to support uses of copyright law that require sharing, while opposing uses of copyright law that don't require sharing.
Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses....
According to the mathematics of the book, if you add an IPac to your offshoring, you go from running to sprinting with gazelles and from eating with lions to devouring with them.
Doesn't distributing a tax fund to authors by popularity mean that I, as a person, lost the freedom to vote with my pocketbook not to pay certain authors?
It does, yes. Instead, you get to vote with your vote.
Slashdot Mirror
1. C#'s 'using' block so I don't have to use try/finally everywhere.
That's in Java 7, in the form of the try-with-resources statement.
No, we do not have the right to talk to children that are not our own children.
The Supreme Court disagrees (PDF).
Really? I don't see any "does not apply to children" clause in the first amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that children have a right to free speech.
You can use any name you like, as long as you are not intentionally using a name to defraud someone. There may be restrictions on the name you use for certain particular legal purposes (though there aren't in England - to change your name, you just need to start using your new name, a deed poll is just a record of the change if you need official documentation of it).
But with the added overhead of reference counting, which is an additional method call every time an object pointer is copied or passed or returned from a function. This is a bit of a problem in C++, where method calls can be inlined; with Objective-C's more heavyweight method calls, I would think this would be a fairly big overhead. I'm sure it's a much larger overhead than real garbage collection (although it does have the advantage of being deterministic).
If you're creating cycles then you didn't understand RAII.
So, what you're saying is, I have to artificially complicate my design in order to deal with a limitation of the language? Neat (actually, you can use garbage collection with C++, and C++0x provides limited support for this).
No, they're a government agency operating publicly-owned equipment. They have responsibilities not to interfere with the exercise of free speech.
Government action that interferes with free speech is a violation of the First Amendment, whether that government action is specifically a law or not; see for example, limitations of the restrictions public schools can and can't place on the speech of students. BART (which is a government agency) likewise is limited by the First Amendment in what restrictions it can place on speech - it probably can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech, which might include disabling cell phones for safety purposes, but certainly this incident raises First Amendment questions.
Except that no-one else on the platform, and not the CCTV that's available, backs up the story about the guy coming at the policeman threateningly with a broken glass bottle and a knife (see here). And given the record of the BART police over the past few years, I'm not sure we should give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether they're accurately describing this situation.
Wayland pretty much is "the compositor without all the layers in between." See this description of the Wayland architecture.
To keep the string length, you'd have to employ a struct.
No, strings with a listed length would also be pointers to a series of integers - it's just that, instead of giving a value special semantics (0 as end of string), you give a position in the series special semantics (store the length in the first two bytes). In both cases, you need your string-handling functions to be aware of whatever the convention is.
Computational efficiency. Many if not most operations on strings don't need to know how long they are. So why suffer the overhead of keeping track? That makes string operations on null terminated strings on average faster than string operations on a string bounded by an integer.
I don't know that that's true. Operations that do need to know the length of the string could be quicker, and I'm not sure that these cases are less frequent. What are the common cases you are thinking of where C-style strings are faster?
I've not experienced a single case in which the Xorg drivers actually equalled the proprietary drivers.
I assume you haven't used the ATI drivers, then. IME, the open source drivers are much more stable and easy to get working than fglrx.
Is there a "best of email," or a "best of websites"? Neither of these make much sense, because the point of web sites is to read the ones your interested in, and the point of email is to communicate with the people you know. Likewise, the point of Twitter is to follow people you are interested in and/or know. If you don't know of anyone who is of interest to you who uses Twitter, there's not much point in you using it, just as it would be pointless to use email if you didn't know anyone else who used email.
It's really unfortunate that Twitter forces you to follow 10,000 people who post about shoes and shitting. It would be so much more useful if it let you choose whose tweets you read.
Grooveshark's business model appears to be based on blatantly infringing copyright, then hoping they can negotiate deals with the record labels. Google Music is based on doing something that probably isn't copyright infringement (although the RIAA may disagree), backed up by Google's lawyers. I like Grooveshark, but I don't know that it's going to be around for very long.
There's nothing in oAuth that requires that the key be secret, indeed, I think the oAuth spec specifically discourages depending on the oAuth key as a reliable indicator of the application, precisely because there's no real way to keep it secret. It's companies like Twitter, who insist on uses the obviously not secret oAuth key as if it were secret, that are doing it wrong.
You're talking about jazz here, an art form that is build around the continual re-interpretation of standards. If the jazz tradition doesn't prove that "rehashes, reshaping of others" is creative, I don't know what does.
He felt it was necessary to license everything else, how is it the cover art should be treated as less than the rest of the work?
This confused me two, but I can think of a reason why he might have thought there was a difference. With music, you have both composition and performance rights - chiptune versions of Miles Davis songs are, I guess, much like any other cover version, in that they are derivative works of the composition, but not of the original performance. Perhaps the musician here thought that a photo was like a performance, with no equivalent to the composition rights, so that a re-creation of the same (or a similar) image wouldn't be subject to copyright, where a copy of the actual photograph itself would be.
Why is the must-share restriction better than the don't-share restriction? That's the inconsistency.
Because sharing is better than not sharing. There's no inconsistency. If someone thinks that the best situation would be one in which sharing was enforced in all cases, it's perfectly consistent for them to both advocate a legal framework that enforces sharing in some cases (the GPL), and to condemn legal situations that prevent sharing (restrictive copyright licenses). The position you are calling inconsistent just says "we think some restrictions are good and should be enforced, and other restrictions are bad and should not be enforced." Treating different things differently isn't inconsistent.
Social security is paid for specifically out of the social security trust fund, which currently has a surplus. Social security has nothing to do with the deficit.
If the pro-sharing groups believe it's okay for their group to restrict how someone uses their information by requiring distribution of source for derivative works (i.e. copyleft/GPL), they *have* to be okay with a different group restricting how someone uses their information by prohibiting redistribution or derivative works entirely without licensing/royalties (i.e. traditional copyright).
No they don't. If people believe that information should be shared, it's perfectly consistent to support uses of copyright law that require sharing, while opposing uses of copyright law that don't require sharing.
I think any post referencing Thomas Friedman requires a link to Matt Taibbi's classic article:
Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses....
According to the mathematics of the book, if you add an IPac to your offshoring, you go from running to sprinting with gazelles and from eating with lions to devouring with them.
Doesn't distributing a tax fund to authors by popularity mean that I, as a person, lost the freedom to vote with my pocketbook not to pay certain authors?
It does, yes. Instead, you get to vote with your vote.
The second option obviously leads to more freedom. With that option, I'm free to read and distribute whatever I wish to, with the first, I'm not.
RMS has always been a socialist. The model of free copying, with authors funded via taxation, is in the GNU Manifesto.