You still don't get it. It's not up to me, you, or Google to determine what's good or bad for a particular author or what sort of "deal" they might want to make.
"The problem is there are lots of books out there where it is not reasonably practical to get in touch with the copyright holder."
But because there's no necessity for Google to do this, it's not really a problem for anyone but Google. Google wants to do it, but the law prevents them from doing it. Tough.
Remember Moore's law is about number of transistors. Historically there was a correlation between Moore's law and processor performance. A mulitcore approach breaks that correlation.
I tire of your use of "you". How about "one" or "a person".
Anyway, I would suggest that in any selection process that the most important criteria by applied first.
I'm not suggesting that candidates shouldn't do their best to make their resume error-free.
I'm suggesting that people who are trying to hire the best people for the job shouldn't take the lazy way out.
You believe that a poorly written resume indicates that the candidate will create poorly written code. I might believe it too if I had any evidence to support it.
The problem is the idea of a single code base that will satisfy all needs is a pipe dream and always will be. Developers may have to do some extra work to write appropriate drivers for both trees. Welcome to the real world.
"since companies are mostly made up of greedy ass holes"
"greedy asshole" definition: a person who wishes to have a roof over their head and eat on a regular basis and whose parents have a house without a basement.
I know the standard programming language for Android is Java, but it's not fully compatible with Java ME. Are you certain that all these Java games will run on Android?
The extra cores are the result of chip makers using essentially the same technologies they have used for the last 20 years.
Their ability to improve performance on single cores has greatly diminished so they are trying to convince people that multiple cores are the answer.
It reminds me a bit of the early 60s when portable radio makers would advertise how many transistors their units had (even though only 3 were actually used).
The current situation isn't as bad, but multicores haven't yet proven themselves as more efficient in common applications.
It's just that some people can't admit that there are MS customers who are actually pretty satisfied. There always has to be some alternate explanation.
Funny I don't see any marketing that says it can only handle 98% of MS office files. In any case, if your numbers are right, it's a rather minor barrier for switching from Windows to Linux.
"1. Slashdot readers tend to be very analytical. We like to get all the facts and make a decision based on those facts. Marketing often obscures the facts by which we could make informed decisions."
If one considered Slashdot readers to be a separate group from Slashdot posters, what you say may be true. Oops, you said "we".
I don't understand how people can simultaneously claim that OpenOffice can read and write MS Office files and then turn around and say MS customers are "trapped".
In addition, anybody who designed an application around IE certainly went in to it with their eyes wide open to the fact that it was a Windows-specific solution. There are thousands of non-MS applications that won't run on Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
If all of this is inevitable why argue for it? If it's inevitable it will happen no matter what.
You still don't get it. It's not up to me, you, or Google to determine what's good or bad for a particular author or what sort of "deal" they might want to make.
"The problem is there are lots of books out there where it is not reasonably practical to get in touch with the copyright holder."
But because there's no necessity for Google to do this, it's not really a problem for anyone but Google. Google wants to do it, but the law prevents them from doing it. Tough.
Only those who have actually been published can argue against Google's proposal? But it's OK to argue for Google without being published, right?
That's an interesting philosophy, but other philosophies may have a different view. That's why we have laws.
Remember Moore's law is about number of transistors. Historically there was a correlation between Moore's law and processor performance. A mulitcore approach breaks that correlation.
I tire of your use of "you". How about "one" or "a person".
Anyway, I would suggest that in any selection process that the most important criteria by applied first.
I'm not suggesting that candidates shouldn't do their best to make their resume error-free.
I'm suggesting that people who are trying to hire the best people for the job shouldn't take the lazy way out.
You believe that a poorly written resume indicates that the candidate will create poorly written code. I might believe it too if I had any evidence to support it.
The problem is the idea of a single code base that will satisfy all needs is a pipe dream and always will be. Developers may have to do some extra work to write appropriate drivers for both trees. Welcome to the real world.
use optoisolators for any sensors attached to the human body.
"since companies are mostly made up of greedy ass holes"
"greedy asshole" definition: a person who wishes to have a roof over their head and eat on a regular basis and whose parents have a house without a basement.
I know the standard programming language for Android is Java, but it's not fully compatible with Java ME. Are you certain that all these Java games will run on Android?
The extra cores are the result of chip makers using essentially the same technologies they have used for the last 20 years.
Their ability to improve performance on single cores has greatly diminished so they are trying to convince people that multiple cores are the answer.
It reminds me a bit of the early 60s when portable radio makers would advertise how many transistors their units had (even though only 3 were actually used).
The current situation isn't as bad, but multicores haven't yet proven themselves as more efficient in common applications.
Well, your previous post was a sudden departure from the topic. It's a long journey from resume to unit tests.
"The main problem is compilation speed. C++ compilers are just plain slow."
You do go to the bathroom or have some coffee or tea once in a while don't you?
Make that "He said".
"Not really, by the original poster at least."
I never said the original poster said it. You said "nobody".
Again, a minor issue.
It's just that some people can't admit that there are MS customers who are actually pretty satisfied. There always has to be some alternate explanation.
Funny I don't see any marketing that says it can only handle 98% of MS office files. In any case, if your numbers are right, it's a rather minor barrier for switching from Windows to Linux.
Your funny comment got modded as Offtopic. I guess we have to meta-meta-mod down the Slashdot community again (-1 Whoosh).
"1. Slashdot readers tend to be very analytical. We like to get all the facts and make a decision based on those facts. Marketing often obscures the facts by which we could make informed decisions."
If one considered Slashdot readers to be a separate group from Slashdot posters, what you say may be true. Oops, you said "we".
"Nobody said marketing=lying"
Right. Nobody typed the exact equation "marketing=lying". But that's exactly what was implied.
I don't understand how people can simultaneously claim that OpenOffice can read and write MS Office files and then turn around and say MS customers are "trapped".
In addition, anybody who designed an application around IE certainly went in to it with their eyes wide open to the fact that it was a Windows-specific solution. There are thousands of non-MS applications that won't run on Linux.
Dogma is a poor excuse for an inefficacious process.
don't make great ice dancers.
If that's what your resume "says" than you're obviously not looking for a developer's job.
There's a difference between what we expect and what is good.