What the hell does this have to do my rights online?
The "you" of the title is plural not singular. Our rights online include those among us who are members of the military. And its online 'cause he's publishing it in a blog.
Read the license. This is case of Microsoft's marketing people saying something different to what their lawyers are saying. In court, what the lawyers wrote is the important thing.
There's even been a precedent not too long ago where someone got burned by buying OEM copies. They had to pay up.
Do you have a reference? I suspect you're talking about the guy who was buying certificates of conformity, which aren't licenses. You only get a license if *everything* is transferred, discs and all.
Not to mention, you could have a perfectly genuine physical disc, certificate and all, and yet still have an illegal unlicensed copy (like if you buy an OEM license separately from a machine).
This is a perfectly valid practice. MS like to tell you that it's invalid, but that license is totally legitimate: the only problem is, the person who transferred it to you violated their contract with MS. So it's the vendor's problem, not the purchasers.
The primary reason this doesn't get done at the moment is that it opens the house up to accusations of cheating: it's very hard but not totally out of the question to influence which area of the wheel the ball ends up in. Allowing bets to placed after the ball is released removes any suspicion that this might be happening.
you can always go hit up lots of casinos in one night before anyone catches on
Not in the UK, where the current plans are to only license one big casino per city, AFAIK. You may be able to get two or three in if you hit a particularly dense area.
You're looking at it from the perspective that storing XML in a database is worse than storing flat relational data in a database: in many ways that's true. But if the data you have isn't really relational in nature (e.g. you're storing hierarchically structured data that should be accessible as whole units), then it's probably better than the alternative, which is storing XML (or some other data serialization) in files.
You do need to do a fairly good job of isolating your keys to separate columns (or even tables, if you can have multiple entries for them), though. I'm working on a project at the moment which stores data from PHP's serialize() method in RDBMS tables, and haven't had any of the problems you describe, exactly because I've done the data analysis to know what keys I need to store outside of the serialized data.
What does learning about the underlying system help with in programming?
Architecting beautiful code? Nope.
Err... yes. Only by understanding the underlying system can you appreciate the reasons why a good architecture is a good architecture. Understanding what you're doing at a low level is a key part of building the aesthetic sense that guides us through high-level design decisions.
Learning powerful, high-level abstractions? Nope.
Most of those abstractions are substantially easier to understand if you can appreciate why they work. Take a look at The Old New Thing, Raymond Chen's blog. He periodically picks a question that a programmer has asked on a newsgroup and explains how you could work out the answer to it from first principles, just by working out how the abstractions you're using work at a low level. The point is: the abstractions have been designed to be efficiently implementable at a low level. This means that understanding the low level helps you understand them.
Programming efficiently to the hardware.
Is sometimes necessary. Computers may be getting faster and faster (but note that a 3.2GHz machine doesn't outperform my current 400MHz machine by a factor of 8 like it sounds like it should... there are other factors to the speed that aren't growing at anything like the speed of the processors: current RAM is only 3 times faster than it was when my machine was built, for instance), but the applications we're putting them to are getting harder and harder. Coding to that edge will always be necessary. Embedded systems usually only have *just enough* power to do the task they're designed for. Squeezing an extra few transactions per second from a machine could save a big web site thousands in additional hardware. People still want their video encodes to finish quicker. And faster cryptography means we can use better cryptography with bigger keys, which will always be desirable.
Look, I may be sitting here on a break from writing a highly abstract web application framework in an inefficient interpreted language and using an SQL database for storage when a custom file format might well deliver better performance, but in the end that's because I know it's more important to get this job finished quickly and with easily maintainable code at the end of the day than a high performance solution. But that doesn't mean I don't understand there are situations when high performance is desirable.
It's on the 100 books list that people have posted at various points above. I guess Google just don't have the text.
I think the reason for the skew towards classics is that mostly these are books that have been thrown off school reading lists because of political pressure.
No, but I come close: The Great Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies, The Call of the Wild. This really is a list of all the books that are the most important ones to read.:)
If you put your mouse over the link it says "...&author=london&..." in the status bar. Also, the text they give here is identical to the text from another book. A cut & paste error, I guess.:)
Probably because it expresses opinions (i.e. that the rights of black people are just as important as the rights of white people) that some folks disagree with.
The standard of evidence required *is* lower. Implications are good enough.
Besides: having visited their servers is probably enough to get you listed in a court case, at which point **AA get to examine your computer for "additional" evidence. They'll probably catch quite a few like this.
Note that this chip does have a faster FSB speed (333MHz x 4 words = 1333MHz) than the current-gen Core 2 Duo chips (266MHz x 4 words = 1066MHz). Possibly not *enough* faster to support twice as many cores, but that depends heavily on what your application is.
I've heard a lot of experts suggest that scaling outwards (i.e. adding more nodes to the cluster) is a better solution than improving the performance of individual nodes. They look at google as a model of how to build a high-performance database application.
I'm not convinced, but that's one point of view that's often expressed.
What the hell are you talking about? To copy songs to your iPod, you highlight them in your iTunes library and drag them to your iPod. One step, done.
And if they aren't in your library, (e.g. because you don't use iTunes as a media player?) then you have to put them into your library first. Which is a waste of time when every other media player manager can cope with copying files directly from disk without messing around like that.
I suspect the issue of non-replaceable batteries is more important to *most* consumers.
Combine that with DRM meaning they realise their only options are to by another iPod (at inflated prices compared to the competition: compare the iPod Nano 4GB at £113 to the Zen Microphoto 8GB at £60... I know which I'd rather buy) or replace all the music they've bought in the last two years, and you can bet they're telling all their friends *not* to buy an iPod.
The question is, though, how did those quarters compare to the quarters one year before each of them? This might be a seasonal variation that's just becoming obvious because growth is slowing.
You'd be able to see whether that was the case or not if they'd provided a graph, but they didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell does this have to do my rights online?
The "you" of the title is plural not singular. Our rights online include those among us who are members of the military. And its online 'cause he's publishing it in a blog.
Nobody's forcing you to read the story.
Read the license. This is case of Microsoft's marketing people saying something different to what their lawyers are saying. In court, what the lawyers wrote is the important thing.
There's even been a precedent not too long ago where someone got burned by buying OEM copies. They had to pay up.
Do you have a reference? I suspect you're talking about the guy who was buying certificates of conformity, which aren't licenses. You only get a license if *everything* is transferred, discs and all.
Not to mention, you could have a perfectly genuine physical disc, certificate and all, and yet still have an illegal unlicensed copy (like if you buy an OEM license separately from a machine).
This is a perfectly valid practice. MS like to tell you that it's invalid, but that license is totally legitimate: the only problem is, the person who transferred it to you violated their contract with MS. So it's the vendor's problem, not the purchasers.
Pretty much, yes. Which is presumably why the quoted person believes it wouldn't be illegal.
The primary reason this doesn't get done at the moment is that it opens the house up to accusations of cheating: it's very hard but not totally out of the question to influence which area of the wheel the ball ends up in. Allowing bets to placed after the ball is released removes any suspicion that this might be happening.
If you fidgit from foot to foot regularly, it's a simple matter to press your foot down slightly.
Casinos are aware of this, and will routinely throw out any roulette players who repeatedly shuffle or wobble on their feet.
you can always go hit up lots of casinos in one night before anyone catches on
Not in the UK, where the current plans are to only license one big casino per city, AFAIK. You may be able to get two or three in if you hit a particularly dense area.
You're looking at it from the perspective that storing XML in a database is worse than storing flat relational data in a database: in many ways that's true. But if the data you have isn't really relational in nature (e.g. you're storing hierarchically structured data that should be accessible as whole units), then it's probably better than the alternative, which is storing XML (or some other data serialization) in files.
You do need to do a fairly good job of isolating your keys to separate columns (or even tables, if you can have multiple entries for them), though. I'm working on a project at the moment which stores data from PHP's serialize() method in RDBMS tables, and haven't had any of the problems you describe, exactly because I've done the data analysis to know what keys I need to store outside of the serialized data.
Yeah, but so far the only alternative to a textual query language I've ever seen is ADO.net.
Agreed. JavaScript is the new BASIC.
" is *supposed* to be Shift-2. If it isn't on your keyboard, it's cause your keyboard's fucked up.
;)
Damned American keyboards.
What does learning about the underlying system help with in programming?
Architecting beautiful code? Nope.
Err... yes. Only by understanding the underlying system can you appreciate the reasons why a good architecture is a good architecture. Understanding what you're doing at a low level is a key part of building the aesthetic sense that guides us through high-level design decisions.
Learning powerful, high-level abstractions? Nope.
Most of those abstractions are substantially easier to understand if you can appreciate why they work. Take a look at The Old New Thing, Raymond Chen's blog. He periodically picks a question that a programmer has asked on a newsgroup and explains how you could work out the answer to it from first principles, just by working out how the abstractions you're using work at a low level. The point is: the abstractions have been designed to be efficiently implementable at a low level. This means that understanding the low level helps you understand them.
Programming efficiently to the hardware.
Is sometimes necessary. Computers may be getting faster and faster (but note that a 3.2GHz machine doesn't outperform my current 400MHz machine by a factor of 8 like it sounds like it should... there are other factors to the speed that aren't growing at anything like the speed of the processors: current RAM is only 3 times faster than it was when my machine was built, for instance), but the applications we're putting them to are getting harder and harder. Coding to that edge will always be necessary. Embedded systems usually only have *just enough* power to do the task they're designed for. Squeezing an extra few transactions per second from a machine could save a big web site thousands in additional hardware. People still want their video encodes to finish quicker. And faster cryptography means we can use better cryptography with bigger keys, which will always be desirable.
Look, I may be sitting here on a break from writing a highly abstract web application framework in an inefficient interpreted language and using an SQL database for storage when a custom file format might well deliver better performance, but in the end that's because I know it's more important to get this job finished quickly and with easily maintainable code at the end of the day than a high performance solution. But that doesn't mean I don't understand there are situations when high performance is desirable.
If the cork is 1.38 Jupiter Volumes, how big was the bottle?!?
put Anarchist Cookbook on there. i dare you.
It's on the 100 books list that people have posted at various points above. I guess Google just don't have the text.
I think the reason for the skew towards classics is that mostly these are books that have been thrown off school reading lists because of political pressure.
No, but I come close: The Great Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies, The Call of the Wild. This really is a list of all the books that are the most important ones to read. :)
If you put your mouse over the link it says "...&author=london&..." in the status bar. Also, the text they give here is identical to the text from another book. A cut & paste error, I guess. :)
Probably because it expresses opinions (i.e. that the rights of black people are just as important as the rights of white people) that some folks disagree with.
The standard of evidence required *is* lower. Implications are good enough.
Besides: having visited their servers is probably enough to get you listed in a court case, at which point **AA get to examine your computer for "additional" evidence. They'll probably catch quite a few like this.
If the logs are being shared, that is.
OK, clearly I should RTFA before I say something stupid like that.
Err... architectural reasons. Yeah. Probably.
Note that this chip does have a faster FSB speed (333MHz x 4 words = 1333MHz) than the current-gen Core 2 Duo chips (266MHz x 4 words = 1066MHz). Possibly not *enough* faster to support twice as many cores, but that depends heavily on what your application is.
Apart from anything else, the dies are almost certainly square, so 3 of them would require as much space as 4.
I've heard a lot of experts suggest that scaling outwards (i.e. adding more nodes to the cluster) is a better solution than improving the performance of individual nodes. They look at google as a model of how to build a high-performance database application.
I'm not convinced, but that's one point of view that's often expressed.
What the hell are you talking about? To copy songs to your iPod, you highlight them in your iTunes library and drag them to your iPod. One step, done.
And if they aren't in your library, (e.g. because you don't use iTunes as a media player?) then you have to put them into your library first. Which is a waste of time when every other media player manager can cope with copying files directly from disk without messing around like that.
DRM-fatigue, finally, sets in (it's about time!).
I suspect the issue of non-replaceable batteries is more important to *most* consumers.
Combine that with DRM meaning they realise their only options are to by another iPod (at inflated prices compared to the competition: compare the iPod Nano 4GB at £113 to the Zen Microphoto 8GB at £60... I know which I'd rather buy) or replace all the music they've bought in the last two years, and you can bet they're telling all their friends *not* to buy an iPod.
The question is, though, how did those quarters compare to the quarters one year before each of them? This might be a seasonal variation that's just becoming obvious because growth is slowing.
You'd be able to see whether that was the case or not if they'd provided a graph, but they didn't.