I've found that coders who have experience handling resource management can easily adjust to garbage-collected environments, but the opposite is rarely true.
Besides, being aware of resource management can afford for quite a bit of room for performance considerations that would otherwise be out of reach in more automatic environments. As coders, the ability to be considerate of allocation is still a relevant ability. It's one that I think we should all have.
Those combined makes for a programming environment that is harder than the average code jockey can comprehend.
This, to me, seems to be a problem with the average code jockey (and what we're willing to accept). We seem to be quite a bit off of the beaten path, though, as this relates to dalvik and java, but I'm happy to run with it.
Those of us who can handle C++ and the trade-off in ease for the performance benefits find that C++ approaches to resource management flow fairly easily. Those who can't handle it will continue to view the trade-off as too great and use other languages.
There are some programmers who will never really properly understand threading and how to craft efficient, well-organized threaded code. For others, it's a fairly approachable problem, and well worth it.
The district is Tyler Texas. My uncle is an ER doc there, and it's home to the nicest trailer parks I've ever seen (not a joke). People have some near-mansion constructions of linked trailers with little gardens around the wheels.
Houston it ain't, not that Houston is a thriving intellectual hotbed...
This is exactly the dangerous sort of assertion that makes the MPEG-LA's approach so nefarious. They are making the claim that they own the byproduct of products using their technologies.
It would be like Toyota owning a piece of your vacation photos because you went on a road trip, or Roland owning a piece of your music because you used their synth. It's plainly, on the face of it, absurd.
Why should the output of a compressor be any different?
You are not entitled to the success (or legality) of the business model of your choosing. Just because you say that people have to pay you due to a collateral trickle down license doesn't mean they do.
I think that the argument could be made that the public claim is a sufficient replacement for an actual written license. i.e. You don't actually have to have an actually written contract to have a contract.
Given how frail, poorly documented, and cantankerous decoder/playback systems have been on OS X and Windows in the past, it's no surprise that they wouldn't want to rely on these systems in Firefox.
Besides that, this results in running 3rd party code that could be subject to vulnerabilities, crashes, and a bucket of other issues.
Having your own codecs for web-standard formats compiled in makes loads of sense, just as having web-standard formats remain unencumbered by licensing restrictions. Nobody should have to pay to play in a standards-compliant web.
One clock has to win, but simple things like file times/dates for saving trace data, network behavior, and exceedingly long runs could be a real pain with an SI second and magical 86400th second.
Worse, before you do any of this, you'd better be able to tell us in advance how long every day is going to be.
This is as daft an idea as making each day 1/365th of a year, damn the consequences. We'll be catching lunch in the dark.
The truth is not nearly as important as their truth, or my truth, as told to me, by me (and others).
Beyond self-deception, there are many who are drawn to the idea of being a sort of "information royalty." The idea that you know more than others, and deserve to know more, because you're special, is very attractive.
Then there's the reality of tactical and strategic advantages. Sometimes you're just better off knowing more than others (information asymmetry), and sometimes you're just better off with others dead. It's a matter of personal assessment. I'm not talking about morality here, just power. For most of us, killing someone else would be something that we would at least say is unthinkable. For some of us, punishing someone for telling the truth would be in the same boat. Both of these proportions may be significantly smaller than you or I would hope.
Wikileaks is the future, plain and simple. Governments will not be able to legislate restrictions on the internet forever. Pandora's box is essentially open.
This approach to data-distribution and careful evasion of embarrassed (or harmed) governments is bound to remain, as it's a natural capability of the internet. Nations under-represented on the world stage (or more principled in their respect of free speech) will continue to host those responsible for sites like Wikileaks, and fully-distributed, and virtually untrackable, delivery systems are certain to take hold for the proliferation of this type of information.
The law is no substitute for tight security, despite years of governments being trained to the contrary.
I'd think that the activities and speech of a particular elected group of representatives would be off limits to outside governments as a matter of Swedish sovereignty.
That's why we made the CIA, you know, to fix that little global oversight.
As long as there are groups of people exploiting the ADA to extort settlements from others, the incentives for extending the reach of such regulations won't be purely altruistic.
Basically, there will always be people out there bitching, and accommodations will never be sufficient. I think there's a word for what people do... trolling? Is that it?
The presence of individuals with a complaint does not render that complaint valid. Just ask the guy who forged Obama's American birth certificate...
As if Hawaii were part of the US, anyway. I can read a map.
I'm honestly quite for accessibility measures (US paper currency should be illegal), but mandatory measures (like closed-captioning restrictions) on web presentation are too specific. There's a huge difference between government measures (and physical access requirements) and forced requirements on private websites.
I'm typically the first to say that we need to be more considerate of impaired users (I'm generally the first coder in my group to give a damn), but I see great risk in legislating accessibility remedies.
And, yes, the US could learn more than a few lessons from Europe when it comes to accommodation of impaired users.
This sort of inanity is comical, pointless, impossible, and laughable.
This is akin to mandating braille on the Mona Lisa.
The more nefarious thing is that such actions (like requiring closed-captioning on new shows online) can serve as an impediment to the publication of creative works (for fear of ADA-style lawsuits). Restrictions on presentation could also lead to limitations on new online presentation techniques.
It's not like these things (like alt text) weren't already considered. Force all government agencies (as means of public access) to adopt these rules for their websites, but major search providers (and places like YouTube) are *way* ahead of the government on this one. Unlike quite a few other places that needed a nudge from the government, the private sector has already recognized the market value of serving impaired users.
Specific restrictions are almost always going to lead to undesired side-effects. Chevy Volt drivers can't use HOV2 lanes solo but Toyota Prius drivers can? Whoops. Corn subsidies lead to a fatter nation? Sorry about that. HMO-friendly regs? Yeah, about that...
Legislators are notoriously bad at actually knowing the details of the problem. Letting them call for specific remedies to perceived problems is perilous. Start small, with government sites, and see if we can merely catch up to the accessibility practices of leading internet companies.
I'm all for stiff punishment for folks who were well and truly drunk, but lowering the line for blanket punishment is ridiculous. It's like putting public urinators in the same sex-offender bucket as violent rapists.
As for interlocks for severe drunk-driving offenders, sure, that or BAC-detecting RFID bracelets that are hard-locked, but changes in speed are just dangerous. Find a way to notify the cops or the probation officers, but don't cause people to create strong variations in speed in traffic. Changes in velocity are supremely dangerous on the road, caused by drunk driving, intersections, or people being forced to pull over.
I'm confident that we can find a safer way while still protecting against repeat offenders.
Which sounds like a presumption of guilt without proof.
Forcing people to pull over means a change in speed, especially when compared to the flow of traffic. Changes in speed are dangerous (statistically speaking).
Keep in mind, of course, that breathalyzers (as used in interlocks) measure breath alcohol and assume a partition ratio of 2100:1. With actual partition ratios in humans typically ranging between 1300:1 and 3100:1, this means that the actual BAC could reasonably be between.015 and.037. That's a huge spread, and pretty ridiculous.
Now, I'm not a drunk driver (never been caught doing it because I don't do it), but I care about our rights. Drunk driving is being used as a tool to violate our rights.
Check out this link for a little run down on the case-law that has completely boned us.
Let's not pretend that the increasingly rigid and unthinking drunk-driving regulations are about the endangerment of others. We're looking at puritanical prohibition masked by reasonless application of rigid standards, leveraging inaccurate measurement devices.
I'm not suggesting that people should drive drunk (and I definitely don't drive after having anything more than a glass of wine with dinner, as cabs are comparatively cheap), but we need to take a step back any time there is a mandatory penalty and look at how this limits the latitude of the judiciary to impose fair and just punishments. Make tools available to judges. Don't make them mandatory.
MADD won years ago. They should change their name to Mothers Against Drinking to more accurately reflect their policy recommendations.
Have your wife write her thoughts to your daughters, and you, and help her write them if you have to. Keep journals around, but don't be too pushy. It's the rest of her life, so let her choose. Letters for important future events for your daughters could be really nice.
More importantly, put the camera down, stop worrying so much about the distant future, and worry about the time you have now. Don't use it too much to plan to remember. Use it to live.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found that coders who have experience handling resource management can easily adjust to garbage-collected environments, but the opposite is rarely true.
Besides, being aware of resource management can afford for quite a bit of room for performance considerations that would otherwise be out of reach in more automatic environments. As coders, the ability to be considerate of allocation is still a relevant ability. It's one that I think we should all have.
Those combined makes for a programming environment that is harder than the average code jockey can comprehend.
This, to me, seems to be a problem with the average code jockey (and what we're willing to accept). We seem to be quite a bit off of the beaten path, though, as this relates to dalvik and java, but I'm happy to run with it.
Those of us who can handle C++ and the trade-off in ease for the performance benefits find that C++ approaches to resource management flow fairly easily. Those who can't handle it will continue to view the trade-off as too great and use other languages.
There are some programmers who will never really properly understand threading and how to craft efficient, well-organized threaded code. For others, it's a fairly approachable problem, and well worth it.
Can we all agree that the only true winners are the IP attorneys winning by the bucketload?
The district is Tyler Texas. My uncle is an ER doc there, and it's home to the nicest trailer parks I've ever seen (not a joke). People have some near-mansion constructions of linked trailers with little gardens around the wheels.
Houston it ain't, not that Houston is a thriving intellectual hotbed...
This is exactly the dangerous sort of assertion that makes the MPEG-LA's approach so nefarious. They are making the claim that they own the byproduct of products using their technologies.
It would be like Toyota owning a piece of your vacation photos because you went on a road trip, or Roland owning a piece of your music because you used their synth. It's plainly, on the face of it, absurd.
Why should the output of a compressor be any different?
You are not entitled to the success (or legality) of the business model of your choosing. Just because you say that people have to pay you due to a collateral trickle down license doesn't mean they do.
I think that the argument could be made that the public claim is a sufficient replacement for an actual written license. i.e. You don't actually have to have an actually written contract to have a contract.
Licenses are contracts.
Given how frail, poorly documented, and cantankerous decoder/playback systems have been on OS X and Windows in the past, it's no surprise that they wouldn't want to rely on these systems in Firefox.
Besides that, this results in running 3rd party code that could be subject to vulnerabilities, crashes, and a bucket of other issues.
Having your own codecs for web-standard formats compiled in makes loads of sense, just as having web-standard formats remain unencumbered by licensing restrictions. Nobody should have to pay to play in a standards-compliant web.
One clock has to win, but simple things like file times/dates for saving trace data, network behavior, and exceedingly long runs could be a real pain with an SI second and magical 86400th second.
Worse, before you do any of this, you'd better be able to tell us in advance how long every day is going to be.
This is as daft an idea as making each day 1/365th of a year, damn the consequences. We'll be catching lunch in the dark.
Dude, bad example.
People in the states friggin' talk about invading Canada all the time, but the point is otherwise a good one.
Is the Pentagon "held accountable" when "things go wrong" and Afghan citizens die like chickens?
That's not really a fair thing to say.
We have the ASPCA and anti-animal-cruelty laws in the U.S. Chickens are given far more consideration.
Yes, sensitive people, there's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek attitude there...
Sorry, you must be new here.
The truth is not nearly as important as their truth, or my truth, as told to me, by me (and others).
Beyond self-deception, there are many who are drawn to the idea of being a sort of "information royalty." The idea that you know more than others, and deserve to know more, because you're special, is very attractive.
Then there's the reality of tactical and strategic advantages. Sometimes you're just better off knowing more than others (information asymmetry), and sometimes you're just better off with others dead. It's a matter of personal assessment. I'm not talking about morality here, just power. For most of us, killing someone else would be something that we would at least say is unthinkable. For some of us, punishing someone for telling the truth would be in the same boat. Both of these proportions may be significantly smaller than you or I would hope.
Wikileaks is the future, plain and simple. Governments will not be able to legislate restrictions on the internet forever. Pandora's box is essentially open.
This approach to data-distribution and careful evasion of embarrassed (or harmed) governments is bound to remain, as it's a natural capability of the internet. Nations under-represented on the world stage (or more principled in their respect of free speech) will continue to host those responsible for sites like Wikileaks, and fully-distributed, and virtually untrackable, delivery systems are certain to take hold for the proliferation of this type of information.
The law is no substitute for tight security, despite years of governments being trained to the contrary.
I'd think that the activities and speech of a particular elected group of representatives would be off limits to outside governments as a matter of Swedish sovereignty.
That's why we made the CIA, you know, to fix that little global oversight.
As long as there are groups of people exploiting the ADA to extort settlements from others, the incentives for extending the reach of such regulations won't be purely altruistic.
Basically, there will always be people out there bitching, and accommodations will never be sufficient. I think there's a word for what people do... trolling? Is that it?
The presence of individuals with a complaint does not render that complaint valid. Just ask the guy who forged Obama's American birth certificate...
As if Hawaii were part of the US, anyway. I can read a map.
I'm honestly quite for accessibility measures (US paper currency should be illegal), but mandatory measures (like closed-captioning restrictions) on web presentation are too specific. There's a huge difference between government measures (and physical access requirements) and forced requirements on private websites.
I'm typically the first to say that we need to be more considerate of impaired users (I'm generally the first coder in my group to give a damn), but I see great risk in legislating accessibility remedies.
And, yes, the US could learn more than a few lessons from Europe when it comes to accommodation of impaired users.
If you legislate it, they will come...
Idiots, all of those old bags.
This sort of inanity is comical, pointless, impossible, and laughable.
This is akin to mandating braille on the Mona Lisa.
The more nefarious thing is that such actions (like requiring closed-captioning on new shows online) can serve as an impediment to the publication of creative works (for fear of ADA-style lawsuits). Restrictions on presentation could also lead to limitations on new online presentation techniques.
It's not like these things (like alt text) weren't already considered. Force all government agencies (as means of public access) to adopt these rules for their websites, but major search providers (and places like YouTube) are *way* ahead of the government on this one. Unlike quite a few other places that needed a nudge from the government, the private sector has already recognized the market value of serving impaired users.
Specific restrictions are almost always going to lead to undesired side-effects. Chevy Volt drivers can't use HOV2 lanes solo but Toyota Prius drivers can? Whoops. Corn subsidies lead to a fatter nation? Sorry about that. HMO-friendly regs? Yeah, about that...
Legislators are notoriously bad at actually knowing the details of the problem. Letting them call for specific remedies to perceived problems is perilous. Start small, with government sites, and see if we can merely catch up to the accessibility practices of leading internet companies.
I'm all for stiff punishment for folks who were well and truly drunk, but lowering the line for blanket punishment is ridiculous. It's like putting public urinators in the same sex-offender bucket as violent rapists.
As for interlocks for severe drunk-driving offenders, sure, that or BAC-detecting RFID bracelets that are hard-locked, but changes in speed are just dangerous. Find a way to notify the cops or the probation officers, but don't cause people to create strong variations in speed in traffic. Changes in velocity are supremely dangerous on the road, caused by drunk driving, intersections, or people being forced to pull over.
I'm confident that we can find a safer way while still protecting against repeat offenders.
Dude, this is Texas. When it comes to demonizing people before the verdict is in for any offense, Texas reigns supreme.
FTFM
Dude, this is Texas. When it comes to demonizing people before the verdict is in for drunk driving, Texas reigns supreme.
Which sounds like a presumption of guilt without proof.
Forcing people to pull over means a change in speed, especially when compared to the flow of traffic. Changes in speed are dangerous (statistically speaking).
Keep in mind, of course, that breathalyzers (as used in interlocks) measure breath alcohol and assume a partition ratio of 2100:1. With actual partition ratios in humans typically ranging between 1300:1 and 3100:1, this means that the actual BAC could reasonably be between .015 and .037. That's a huge spread, and pretty ridiculous.
Now, I'm not a drunk driver (never been caught doing it because I don't do it), but I care about our rights. Drunk driving is being used as a tool to violate our rights.
Check out this link for a little run down on the case-law that has completely boned us.
Let's not pretend that the increasingly rigid and unthinking drunk-driving regulations are about the endangerment of others. We're looking at puritanical prohibition masked by reasonless application of rigid standards, leveraging inaccurate measurement devices.
I'm not suggesting that people should drive drunk (and I definitely don't drive after having anything more than a glass of wine with dinner, as cabs are comparatively cheap), but we need to take a step back any time there is a mandatory penalty and look at how this limits the latitude of the judiciary to impose fair and just punishments. Make tools available to judges. Don't make them mandatory.
MADD won years ago. They should change their name to Mothers Against Drinking to more accurately reflect their policy recommendations.
Have your wife write her thoughts to your daughters, and you, and help her write them if you have to. Keep journals around, but don't be too pushy. It's the rest of her life, so let her choose. Letters for important future events for your daughters could be really nice.
More importantly, put the camera down, stop worrying so much about the distant future, and worry about the time you have now. Don't use it too much to plan to remember. Use it to live.
And google based their work off of SE, not ME. Oracle (Sun) was trying to walk a very fine line here, and they may have opened a loophole.
We'll know soon enough (not from a courtcase, as those are as likely to find the truth as I am to discover a unicorn in my kitchen).
I've used some of those DVR and set top boxes.
He said useful...
Whatever your view of television, those boxes are merely there to shorten one's lifespan with rage alone.