And strangely, even when I wasn't paying for it, I virtually never heard an ad.
I suspect they're lumping the kick-backs from music stores when they link users over to them under "advertising". I've bought lots of music through referral links on Pandora, but really never heard ads.
You should also uninstall the internet, because almost all ads use targeting. This story is pointless.
Yes, but Google does not know my gender, or everyplace I go all day. Smart phones are nice, but things like this could actually kill the market. For the most part, they are still an emotional impulse buy. If that emotion becomes fear and disgust for too many people...
The surprising thing is that anyone thought Google *wouldn't* do that.
The OS is only of value to Google if they control the platform. They could play the open game for penetration, but at some point they had to start locking it down. Android is only as valuable as its brand, and the tie in to Google's services. If you let things be too open, you lose both.
In the US, the receivers of the message are also going to pay ten cents. So the author is punishing them, as well.
I hope someone decides to sue the author of the app for it, too. If I break into your house and steal something, you can't break into the houses of all my friends. The law doesn't work that way.
He also believes he knows, with absolute certainty, who killed JFK. If asked about it, he'll say its impossible for anyone who hasn't done his research to understand the proof.
He also is convinced (and claims to have proof) of a theory he's made up that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids using some sort of long-forgotten technology for casting granite.
No, it wasn't hard. Building a bomb that'll work with a small amount of enriched fuel is hard. Enriching fuel is hard. If you have enough fuel, building the bomb itself is not.
That's not some grand secret and is why all the tech for limiting proliferation is around a) keeping how to enrich fuel without massive industry secret and b) detecting massive enrichment industry.
None of the major nuclear powers had a single failure until they started pushing the boundaries of size (upwards or downwards).
Apple is a marketing juggernaut. They could decide floppy disks are trendy, sell a brushed aluminum USB floppy drive and sell millions based on commercials touting the benefits of the media being so cheap you could just give it away to your friends.
They also happened to have a fairly robust marketplace for small applications that can run on dinky hardware. That helps, but they also happened to hit a point in time where computing was ubiquitous enough that a couple tens of millions of people would see a value in a secondary device.
I suspect there's also a little dirty secret behind the iPad -- that a large percentage of them aren't used very often.
In my experience, its just project changes, not source changes (for the most part).
Parts of the C++ code that need to talk to.NET obviously change but the deeper down bits that are well componentized don't.
Its probably not trivial for a lot of projects, but its absolutely possible to refactor a C++ codebase to compile both native and managed for the bits of code that need to be shared. (Just as there are bits that would have to change in native Win32 C++ vs iOS vs Linux, etc)
Well, you can buy those running Windows now. Or buy them and run Linux. Whatever.
Tablets existed LONG before Apple. They even ran Windows. Post-iPAD tablets are released all the time. You want rugged? Its there. You want built-in bar code scanners? There. Digitizers instead of touch? Yup, you can get them. Digitizers AND touch? EEE has one coming.
Win7 runs like a champ on them, especially if they are pen and not touch based. Touch works, but nevermind that touch-based PCs have been around for ages (HP sells a lot of them), not many app vendors actually try their apps on them. Complain to your app vendors if you don't like how their apps behave on them.
So you can go out and get what you want today. In fact, you could five years ago.
I've never had a problem converting native C++ to managed C++. I'm sure there's screwy stuff you can do that it'll be unhappy with, but I've never run into any. (And that has been hundreds of thousands of lines of C++).
XNA games can be written in C++, Visual Studio just doesn't include the templates for it. You can also easily do the platform bits in C# (which is, frankly, easier) and call directly into the C++ whenever you need.
XNA is.NET, and you can write.NET code in C#, C++, F#, Ruby, Java, Perl. There are LOTS of languages that can compile to the.NET bytecode. All of them can access the Silverlight and XNA libraries.
I think the knee-jerk anti-MS reactions on here unfortunately keep some people from actually looking at the platform and seeing what is there.
Your second point, when using Linq or Linq-to-SQL, if you have a complex SQL statement (i.e. it creates a temporary table) it balks and refuses to accept it, claiming the temporary table is illegal. I had to re-write a stored procedure so that parameters and results are returned to VS and afterwards change it back so that it uses the temporary table in order for it to work. I had better experiences with Entity Framework, but then, I haven't yet done any serious work with it.
You're doing it wrong. Linq to SQL is Link to SQL(Server). Its not named well, but its not meant to go to other databases. You (or someone you get one from) is supposed to write a query provider to the DB in question, so they can be optimized for each target source. The abstraction happens at the layer you use LINQ, not the layer LINQ uses to get to SQL.
If you get on Bing and search for LINQ to Oracle, you'll see there's at least a few Oracle providers.
I do agree the docs aren't all that clear on it. Custom query providers are not particularly hard to write, and its a very handy abstraction to have.
Honestly, I think most of your complaints are more related to shoddy documentation and the learning curve. While I haven't seen the Spanish problem you talked about, I've seen weirdness like that before when I made a mistake and was setting a culture and not a locale, as an example.
The problem is the IP clauses in it. Any company with a reasonable legal department has already made even the installation of a GPLv3 package a fireable offense. V3 has all sorts of automatic grants of patent rights in it. Its toxic to any company trying to even maintain a defensive IP portfolio.
How is it Microsoft's responsibility that people are still using a ten year old operating system?
They're not holding the internet back. The fact that usage has exploded by nearly an order of magnitude since XP came out, and a crapton of those people are not wealthy "new computer every two years" types is.
If your target demographic is in that pool of people, then that will drive the requirements you have around SSL support. If not, then why are you worried about it?
Other than techniques for self-promotion and publicity, what is he generally correct on? I mean, he's not Dr. Oz level of self-important whackjob, but that's not saying much.
The law says I can sue you for damages for anything you do that impacts me. Doesn't matter what it is, doesn't matter if your action was legal or illegal. If you impacted me in any way, I have grounds to sue you for damages.
No, its not that simple. He sold a ton of 99 cent books (20x the $2.99) because it hit a sweet spot *relative to the other books available*. He got eyeballs because his book stuck out.
If all the books were 99 cents, he'd be lost in the noise and having to sell his book for ten cents to get that kind of bump in sales.
Price is not the issue, exposure is.
This is why he is a literary author, not an economist.
5-20% below list price would be nice. Since Apple jumped into the fray and Amazon lost its hold on the market, books have gone up a LOT. These days its not even remotely uncommon to see the e-book at 5% off the hardcover price... even when the paperback is out.
A perfect example -- a couple months ago I was at a talk/book signing. The author's hardcover book was for sale for $10 (and he'd sign it for that) -- not an unreasonable price. Amazon's kindle price? $35. Needless to say, I neither was going to pay 3.5x more for the book, nor was I interested in an analog book. Author lost a sale.
Slashdot Mirror
(I am not a physicist or engineer)
Yes, we can tell.
And strangely, even when I wasn't paying for it, I virtually never heard an ad.
I suspect they're lumping the kick-backs from music stores when they link users over to them under "advertising". I've bought lots of music through referral links on Pandora, but really never heard ads.
You should also uninstall the internet, because almost all ads use targeting. This story is pointless.
Yes, but Google does not know my gender, or everyplace I go all day. Smart phones are nice, but things like this could actually kill the market. For the most part, they are still an emotional impulse buy. If that emotion becomes fear and disgust for too many people...
And yet most ad networks do.
The surprising thing is that anyone thought Google *wouldn't* do that.
The OS is only of value to Google if they control the platform. They could play the open game for penetration, but at some point they had to start locking it down. Android is only as valuable as its brand, and the tie in to Google's services. If you let things be too open, you lose both.
That's actually quite incorrect.
In the US, the receivers of the message are also going to pay ten cents. So the author is punishing them, as well.
I hope someone decides to sue the author of the app for it, too. If I break into your house and steal something, you can't break into the houses of all my friends. The law doesn't work that way.
He also believes he knows, with absolute certainty, who killed JFK. If asked about it, he'll say its impossible for anyone who hasn't done his research to understand the proof.
He also is convinced (and claims to have proof) of a theory he's made up that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids using some sort of long-forgotten technology for casting granite.
Don't know what you tell you. Not sure where you are getting your info. It works fine, and * doesn't change to ^?
The language is nearly identical.
No, it wasn't hard. Building a bomb that'll work with a small amount of enriched fuel is hard. Enriching fuel is hard. If you have enough fuel, building the bomb itself is not.
That's not some grand secret and is why all the tech for limiting proliferation is around a) keeping how to enrich fuel without massive industry secret and b) detecting massive enrichment industry.
None of the major nuclear powers had a single failure until they started pushing the boundaries of size (upwards or downwards).
Did what? Made tablets or marketed?
Apple is a marketing juggernaut. They could decide floppy disks are trendy, sell a brushed aluminum USB floppy drive and sell millions based on commercials touting the benefits of the media being so cheap you could just give it away to your friends.
They also happened to have a fairly robust marketplace for small applications that can run on dinky hardware. That helps, but they also happened to hit a point in time where computing was ubiquitous enough that a couple tens of millions of people would see a value in a secondary device.
I suspect there's also a little dirty secret behind the iPad -- that a large percentage of them aren't used very often.
In my experience, its just project changes, not source changes (for the most part).
Parts of the C++ code that need to talk to .NET obviously change but the deeper down bits that are well componentized don't.
Its probably not trivial for a lot of projects, but its absolutely possible to refactor a C++ codebase to compile both native and managed for the bits of code that need to be shared. (Just as there are bits that would have to change in native Win32 C++ vs iOS vs Linux, etc)
Well, you can buy those running Windows now. Or buy them and run Linux. Whatever.
Tablets existed LONG before Apple. They even ran Windows. Post-iPAD tablets are released all the time. You want rugged? Its there. You want built-in bar code scanners? There. Digitizers instead of touch? Yup, you can get them. Digitizers AND touch? EEE has one coming.
Win7 runs like a champ on them, especially if they are pen and not touch based. Touch works, but nevermind that touch-based PCs have been around for ages (HP sells a lot of them), not many app vendors actually try their apps on them. Complain to your app vendors if you don't like how their apps behave on them.
So you can go out and get what you want today. In fact, you could five years ago.
I've never had a problem converting native C++ to managed C++. I'm sure there's screwy stuff you can do that it'll be unhappy with, but I've never run into any. (And that has been hundreds of thousands of lines of C++).
YMMV.
XNA games can be written in C++, Visual Studio just doesn't include the templates for it. You can also easily do the platform bits in C# (which is, frankly, easier) and call directly into the C++ whenever you need.
XNA is .NET, and you can write .NET code in C#, C++, F#, Ruby, Java, Perl. There are LOTS of languages that can compile to the .NET bytecode. All of them can access the Silverlight and XNA libraries.
I think the knee-jerk anti-MS reactions on here unfortunately keep some people from actually looking at the platform and seeing what is there.
.NET is a framework. The .NET runtime is bytecode like Java.
You can write XNA and Silverlight apps in C++, if you like.
I suppose someone could make an ObjC compiler for the .NET runtime, but seriously, who other than an Apple zealot can deal with ObjC?
Your second point, when using Linq or Linq-to-SQL, if you have a complex SQL statement (i.e. it creates a temporary table) it balks and refuses to accept it, claiming the temporary table is illegal. I had to re-write a stored procedure so that parameters and results are returned to VS and afterwards change it back so that it uses the temporary table in order for it to work. I had better experiences with Entity Framework, but then, I haven't yet done any serious work with it.
You're doing it wrong. Linq to SQL is Link to SQL(Server). Its not named well, but its not meant to go to other databases. You (or someone you get one from) is supposed to write a query provider to the DB in question, so they can be optimized for each target source. The abstraction happens at the layer you use LINQ, not the layer LINQ uses to get to SQL.
If you get on Bing and search for LINQ to Oracle, you'll see there's at least a few Oracle providers.
I do agree the docs aren't all that clear on it. Custom query providers are not particularly hard to write, and its a very handy abstraction to have.
Honestly, I think most of your complaints are more related to shoddy documentation and the learning curve. While I haven't seen the Spanish problem you talked about, I've seen weirdness like that before when I made a mistake and was setting a culture and not a locale, as an example.
The impact that took out the dinosaurs would've put crap into orbit plenty high enough to take out a "space ship" that can't actually go anywhere.
The problem is the IP clauses in it. Any company with a reasonable legal department has already made even the installation of a GPLv3 package a fireable offense. V3 has all sorts of automatic grants of patent rights in it. Its toxic to any company trying to even maintain a defensive IP portfolio.
Well, now we know why he couldn't find them ...
How is it Microsoft's responsibility that people are still using a ten year old operating system?
They're not holding the internet back. The fact that usage has exploded by nearly an order of magnitude since XP came out, and a crapton of those people are not wealthy "new computer every two years" types is.
If your target demographic is in that pool of people, then that will drive the requirements you have around SSL support. If not, then why are you worried about it?
On this one?
Other than techniques for self-promotion and publicity, what is he generally correct on? I mean, he's not Dr. Oz level of self-important whackjob, but that's not saying much.
The law says I can sue you for damages for anything you do that impacts me. Doesn't matter what it is, doesn't matter if your action was legal or illegal. If you impacted me in any way, I have grounds to sue you for damages.
I may lose, but I may win.
*That* is the law. Not what you wish the law was.
You have no idea what you're missing ...
No, its not that simple. He sold a ton of 99 cent books (20x the $2.99) because it hit a sweet spot *relative to the other books available*. He got eyeballs because his book stuck out.
If all the books were 99 cents, he'd be lost in the noise and having to sell his book for ten cents to get that kind of bump in sales.
Price is not the issue, exposure is.
This is why he is a literary author, not an economist.
5-20% below list price would be nice. Since Apple jumped into the fray and Amazon lost its hold on the market, books have gone up a LOT. These days its not even remotely uncommon to see the e-book at 5% off the hardcover price... even when the paperback is out.
A perfect example -- a couple months ago I was at a talk/book signing. The author's hardcover book was for sale for $10 (and he'd sign it for that) -- not an unreasonable price. Amazon's kindle price? $35. Needless to say, I neither was going to pay 3.5x more for the book, nor was I interested in an analog book. Author lost a sale.