...that this surprises him is evidence that he loves Microsoft. Love is blind, and you'd pretty much have to be blind not to see Microsoft's pattern of playing these games.
You've got it backwards. Women don't have the 'male' chromosone (Y). Men have a single (X) chromosone. One or more X's are required. They do need an egg, which would mean destroying the nucleus and replacing it with genetic information from the male donors.
The perception of corporate america is that the colleges & universities aren't cranking out enough talent. Microsoft is turning to China because they're cranking out people that are qualified to do development work.
The real issue is that this is a vicious cycle: offshoring is done (only in part) due to a lack of qualified CS graduates in the U.S., but offshoring is one of the main reasons CS degrees don't look very good right now.
The core developers of Mambo have decided to continue the codebase under a new name. Mambo Foundation still owns Mambo and will continue development. You can argue about which one is the fork all you want, but the fact remains that there's still a fork. That's not good for open source adoption in business.
It's like patenting a storytelling style whereby the narrator's exposition becomes darker/stranger/verbose as the story moves along. This is freaking ridiculous. Works of artistry are the realm of copyright law, not patent law.
Some in the media are portraying this as disagreeing with Linus, but they just don't get it. The trademark issue is orthogonal. You can freely use, modify, and redistribute the software that is typically known as "Linux" freely - that is what RMS cares about. Linus cares about that, and making sure that the name "Linux" isn't ridden down by fly-by-night outfits that might look to make a quick buck.
The fact that this is getting stirred up now is fishy, because the trademark has existed in the U.S. for quite some time.
I have some sympathy to the Java designers' point of view, but I think that a competent programmer can deal with the issues themselves, or the compiler should flag an error when an MI design will lead to a situation where the runtime won't know which method to call.
You're confused. None of the things you mention, that are legitimate gripes, are "real OOP" features.
Multiple inheritance. Java has multiple inheritance. It resolves the question of conflicting implementation inheritance by specifically disallowing it in favor of single implementation inheritance and multiple interface inheritance.
Operator Overloading. Overloading of functions is required, but operators are not. This is an implementation detail, not a core feature of OOP. I disagree with the Java designers regarding its exclusion, but that doesn't damage it's OOP-ness at all.
Traits, mixins, typing. These things are features of languages that have nothing to do with OOP.
I recall when the intel announcement was made the Apple contact said that they would take steps to make sure that OS X only runs on genuine Macs. Could this facility be part of that?
It was the Apple/IBM alliance's inability to agree on a mutually profitable path that would allow Apple to keep up. The PPC 970, based on POWER4, is a generation behind IBM's POWER5. IBM *can* put together a roadmap that will keep the PowerPC competitive with Intel. The question is whether Apple would buy enough of them to allow IBM to leverage economies of scale.
It's not about "free stuff". I'm all for patents when they are applied to legitimate inventions. A patent on being able to tell a customer that they've ordered something when they're on a "Product Details" page is just plain ludicrous -- the idea is so obscenely obvious the application should have been laughed out of the USPTO, not granted.
Sorry to sound like a cynic, but it's this kind of innovation that our IP laws will obstruct. Someone in the U.S. and the E.U. will get a patent on the very idea of sustainable cities and cause the whole thing to get bogged down in licensing.
I think one of the main reasons the Apache license works because of it's "if you change it, you can't call it Apache anymore" clause. Companies that are investing in software need some level of quality assurance, and the name Apache carries with it a reputation for quality.
The GPL works for Linux because Linus holds the trademark on "Linux" so that someone can't just take the kernel, hack it up indiscriminantly and slap a "Dipstick Linux" label on it.
The person Bush picks is not likely to be one of the ones that sided with private companies using city councils to perform an eminent domain land grab.
You only "gotta say it" if you didn't read the article.
Your liberal justices are the ones that drove this desecration of justice. ONE of the five justices that voted with the majority on this decision was your hated "Bush Court".
The court has a 5-4 conservative balance, but the 5 that voted to allow this desecration of private property rights were the 4 moderate/liberals and one of the conservatives.
That should be a mindblower to those of you who feel that the liberals were the voice of reason on the Supreme Court. It turns out that neither the liberals nor the conservatives are looking out for the private citizen -- conservatives supported this one on the principle of property rights (but they supported extending copyright terms, too), and liberals showed a preference for the rights of governments over the rights of citizens.
I couldn't say that if I were a non-technical person I would be able to grasp software patents after reading that article, but I would like to think so. The literary examples are right on the money.
The devil is in the details. The government can require the ISPs to retain the records, but the government's access to those records still must abide by the Constitution (e.g., the DOJ shouldn't be able to see those records without a warrant/court order).
Slashdot Mirror
...that this surprises him is evidence that he loves Microsoft. Love is blind, and you'd pretty much have to be blind not to see Microsoft's pattern of playing these games.
You've got it backwards. Women don't have the 'male' chromosone (Y). Men have a single (X) chromosone. One or more X's are required. They do need an egg, which would mean destroying the nucleus and replacing it with genetic information from the male donors.
The perception of corporate america is that the colleges & universities aren't cranking out enough talent. Microsoft is turning to China because they're cranking out people that are qualified to do development work.
The real issue is that this is a vicious cycle: offshoring is done (only in part) due to a lack of qualified CS graduates in the U.S., but offshoring is one of the main reasons CS degrees don't look very good right now.
The core developers of Mambo have decided to continue the codebase under a new name. Mambo Foundation still owns Mambo and will continue development. You can argue about which one is the fork all you want, but the fact remains that there's still a fork. That's not good for open source adoption in business.
It's like patenting a storytelling style whereby the narrator's exposition becomes darker/stranger/verbose as the story moves along. This is freaking ridiculous. Works of artistry are the realm of copyright law, not patent law.
Some in the media are portraying this as disagreeing with Linus, but they just don't get it. The trademark issue is orthogonal. You can freely use, modify, and redistribute the software that is typically known as "Linux" freely - that is what RMS cares about. Linus cares about that, and making sure that the name "Linux" isn't ridden down by fly-by-night outfits that might look to make a quick buck.
The fact that this is getting stirred up now is fishy, because the trademark has existed in the U.S. for quite some time.
I have some sympathy to the Java designers' point of view, but I think that a competent programmer can deal with the issues themselves, or the compiler should flag an error when an MI design will lead to a situation where the runtime won't know which method to call.
I gather from your selective snippet that you either didn't read or didn't read the entire sentence.
Interface inheritance is still inheritance.
Don't blame NASA. This project probably went out for bids and the firm that had the .Net bid was the cheapest.
You're confused. None of the things you mention, that are legitimate gripes, are "real OOP" features.
Multiple inheritance. Java has multiple inheritance. It resolves the question of conflicting implementation inheritance by specifically disallowing it in favor of single implementation inheritance and multiple interface inheritance.
Operator Overloading. Overloading of functions is required, but operators are not. This is an implementation detail, not a core feature of OOP. I disagree with the Java designers regarding its exclusion, but that doesn't damage it's OOP-ness at all.
Traits, mixins, typing. These things are features of languages that have nothing to do with OOP.
Miro is clearly in the wrong, but the Developers did little to help matters. The way to deal with idiocy is not idiocy.
I recall when the intel announcement was made the Apple contact said that they would take steps to make sure that OS X only runs on genuine Macs. Could this facility be part of that?
It was the Apple/IBM alliance's inability to agree on a mutually profitable path that would allow Apple to keep up. The PPC 970, based on POWER4, is a generation behind IBM's POWER5. IBM *can* put together a roadmap that will keep the PowerPC competitive with Intel. The question is whether Apple would buy enough of them to allow IBM to leverage economies of scale.
It's not about "free stuff". I'm all for patents when they are applied to legitimate inventions. A patent on being able to tell a customer that they've ordered something when they're on a "Product Details" page is just plain ludicrous -- the idea is so obscenely obvious the application should have been laughed out of the USPTO, not granted.
No, I'm pissed off because the USPTO keeps giving out stupid patents.
Sorry to sound like a cynic, but it's this kind of innovation that our IP laws will obstruct. Someone in the U.S. and the E.U. will get a patent on the very idea of sustainable cities and cause the whole thing to get bogged down in licensing.
An economic loss should have a largely economic punishment. The death penalty should be reserved for traitors, rapists, and murderers.
I think one of the main reasons the Apache license works because of it's "if you change it, you can't call it Apache anymore" clause. Companies that are investing in software need some level of quality assurance, and the name Apache carries with it a reputation for quality.
The GPL works for Linux because Linus holds the trademark on "Linux" so that someone can't just take the kernel, hack it up indiscriminantly and slap a "Dipstick Linux" label on it.
Really?
The person Bush picks is not likely to be one of the ones that sided with private companies using city councils to perform an eminent domain land grab.
You only "gotta say it" if you didn't read the article.
Your liberal justices are the ones that drove this desecration of justice. ONE of the five justices that voted with the majority on this decision was your hated "Bush Court".
The court has a 5-4 conservative balance, but the 5 that voted to allow this desecration of private property rights were the 4 moderate/liberals and one of the conservatives.
That should be a mindblower to those of you who feel that the liberals were the voice of reason on the Supreme Court. It turns out that neither the liberals nor the conservatives are looking out for the private citizen -- conservatives supported this one on the principle of property rights (but they supported extending copyright terms, too), and liberals showed a preference for the rights of governments over the rights of citizens.
I couldn't say that if I were a non-technical person I would be able to grasp software patents after reading that article, but I would like to think so. The literary examples are right on the money.
Seems like Theo can't come to grips with reality - design perfection isn't as important as making it work.
The devil is in the details. The government can require the ISPs to retain the records, but the government's access to those records still must abide by the Constitution (e.g., the DOJ shouldn't be able to see those records without a warrant/court order).
If you believe you have any sort of right to privacy when it comes ot your use of the internet, you're fooling yourself.
ISPs and publicly-traded companies are not subject to the requirements set forth in the constitution. Those only apply to governments.
Those requirements would be immoral, but they are not unconstitutional. IANAL, so take that with a salt lick.