Correct, but in this case, does 'the organization' operate at a profit? I think they operate at a loss, which means the taxpayer will be covering the costs.
The taxpayer *should* cover the costs, since the taxpayers created this out-of-control system of government-granted entitlements in the first place, and they keep reelecting politicians who protect it.
If the government built a dam above your house, and then it ruptured, would it be fair to make you eat the costs of your destroyed property? Of course not. The taxpayers would be expected to foot the bill for the mistake. Maybe next time they'd take care to elect a government that provided better oversight.
Why not? Doctors are held personally liable for their mistakes. This kind of mistake costs real people at real businesses millions of dollars. Some are even driven out of existence, with careers and life savings destroyed in the process. Why should they suffer?
If nobody will work under those conditions, let the USPTO buy malpractice insurance for their examiners. When the premiums go through the roof on an individual who keeps screwing up, then the patent office will have a good incentive to fire him.
It looks like costly mistakes were made by the USPTO. In a fair world, the original patent examiners should be held personally liable for all of Google's legal fees in this matter. That lesson would most likely make them take a little more care to properly evaluate the next bogus patent application that crosses their desks, before millions of dollars of unnecessary costs are created.
BBut anyway,why are you citing external factors to somehow prove that C# iis an inferior language? Its "goodness" is in no way diminished by the fact that few platforms have implementations written for them.
Intrinsic "goodness" is not the only relevant factor unless you operate in an ivory tower situation. For the real world, you have to take into account all of the aspects associated with using any given language. This includes deployment, developer availability, licensing, performance, suitability for the particular problem to be solved, etc.
What's the patent FUD, specifically? I'm not talking about some obscure part of the Winforms API, I mean in the core language itself.
Any core language is almost useless without its standard and/or de facto libraries. Microsoft's patent policies on the libraries associated with C# (not just Winforms) are intentionally vague and confusing. Nobody really knows what conditions the patents may be used under, and by whom. This passive-aggressive stance on patents is a standard Microsoft strategy, and it's been pretty effective in general.
And you forget that C++ has a giant environment to install as well, but due to age, that is generally part of the OS as is.
Doesn't matter to the average user. If they have to worry about downloading and maintaining a huge pile of optional software libraries to run a sudoku puzzle, that's a hassle.
In fact, Windows Vista and 7 already come with.NET pre-installed, so there's no need to download anything to run a.NET app.
Hence the need to choose a monkey name for your 2nd-class-citizen project for non-Windows platforms.
The saddest part about this whole C++0x ordeal is that they're still just playing catch-up to C#.
True. In particular, C++ is light years behind C# in patent FUD. And C++ hasn't even started work on requirements for a 100MB "managed environment" for users to install before running their apps. Nor have C++ developers chosen a monkey species after which to name its 2nd-class-citizen cross-platform implementation.
The Apple II was plastic, toylike and very expensive for what you got. (You might as well have bought a TRS-80 and saved yourself a good chunk of change.)
The IBM PC was also expensive, but had top quality hardware similar to their mainframe terminals, including: a substantial steel chassis and case, a crisp monochrome monitor that you could actually work with all day without going blind, and one of the best keyboards ever made. It was a serious personal computer that PHBs felt comfortable buying for their businesses.
So the definition depends on your perspective. If based on technicalities, the Apple II, the Altair 8800, the Atari 2600, the Commodore PET, etc. were all "personal computers" because they had microprocessors. If based on what was understood to be a computer in the business word, the IBM PC was one of the first business computers that was small enough and inexpensive enough so that most were bought to be used by one person.
personally I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be using such a system.
Are you comfortable with the current practice of letting a waiter you've never met whisk away a card with your account number prominently stamped on the front (and "security code" stamped on the back)?
At least PayPal uses a unique number for each transaction. In theory, that's an improvement.
The only thing that credit cards have going for them is the limits on customer liability for fraud. However, in the end that really just spreads the huge costs to everyone.
and refused to consider any sort of cleaning system
That's partly because nobody knew at the time how to design an effective cleaning system which would: a) operate without water b) in a near vacuum c) on electrically charged dust, that d) was had enough reach to cover the large surface area of the cells, but e) fit within the rovers size and weight limits without f) jeopardizing the mission with its own added complexity and power requirements.
Maybe with years and years of operational experience, NOW they could design such a system. But as it turns out, they don't need to, because the occasional encounter with a random dust devil cleans them off just fine. So your whole fit of nerd rage regarding this issue is pointless.
Hey anonymous pedant, I suggest you google the term "never underestimate bandwidth" so you can identify who should actually be receiving your nerdish indignation.
Not really. Things are already more-or-less back to normal in the gulf. A nuclear exclusion zone would have a much bigger long term effect on property values.
You realize that is a problem with any industry when government is close to the people that run anything, right? Nukes, oil, coal, "green" energy. You name it. When government gets in bed with companies, they end up looking the other way every time.
What you say is true. The key distinction is that when something goes wrong with those other industries, you don't ruin all the real estate value in an area the size of a small state.
As a snail mail Netflix user, I'll point this out: Never underestimate the bandwidth of a fleet of federally owned Grumman LLVs driving down residential streets and laden with DVDs.
Here's your memo: PEP 238. I believe that it's frequently referenced in the "what's new" section of various point releases of Python since the PEP was published.
Anyone else apparently, that plant was due for replacement/shutdown many years ago.
Every time there's a nuke plant disaster, some people argue that the particular situation is a special case that can be safely ignored. Undoubtedly, the same arguments will pop up the next time there's a major accident, sabotage or attack (which will undoubtedly be yet another special case).
I think you are missing his point. So you create a syntax that is an error that will be accepted.
Reasonable people should not have "accepted" the integer / operator, and they didn't have to. On integers, the operator didn't do what anybody would expect it to, and this was clearly just about the biggest flaw in Python 2.X. It's unfortunate that the flaw was there and needs to be fixed, but life isn't perfect.
Seeing the mistake, 10 years ago the Python developers gave you the tools to avoid using integer '/', and they told you the planned fix. If you simply followed their advice, you'd be fine now. Personally, I've always cast at least one of the operands to "float()" if I used the / operator, otherwise I've always made integer division explicit by using the// operator.
This is like when the C people tell you to not use the "gets()" function. That function was a mistake, even though it still compiles and runs. Competent coders just don't use gets(), and likewise, they don't use an unqualified '/' in Python 2.X.
In Python 2.7, the result of (3 / 2) is 1, in Python 3 it's 1.5. I have absolutely no way to pore through those million lines and checking every division to see which operator should I use, keep the '/' or change it to '//'.
When the// operator was introduced - over 10 years ago - they warned you that this change was coming. Ever since then, it has been prudent to use// wherever you want the answer of 3 divided by 2 to be 1. So if you had been coding according to best practices, you wouldn't have to look through all your code for divisions.
Indeed, the clean-shaven Shelton is the one who has worries about the debris, and the Shelton that has a goatee is the one who prefers to underscore the debris.
Ok. If Skype were bought out by an Internet genius like Rupert Murdoch, maybe it could lose its market share. Who knows, maybe Ballmer will achieve a similar feat. But left on its own, Skype would be unlikely to be knocked out any time soon. As I pointed out, Microsoft has $8.5B that says it wouldn't.
You don't understand how the software markets work in the real world, and from the bias you show focusing on technical rather than user-related factors, it looks like you're not going to figure it out.
But your grandma only has one one of them: Skype. Due to the network effect, Skype has an effective monopoly on free phone service. While the barrier to entry in this market is technically low, in the real world filled with real users it's probably insurmountable. It looks like Microsoft thinks that the barrier would take at least $8.5B to overcome; otherwise they'd go with their normal instinct to just copy other vendors' technologies.
Grandma isn't going to want to unlearn Skype and learn how to use a sluggish Flash-based solution, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Please read at least the first 50 words of a post before posting replies. Thx.
Correct, but in this case, does 'the organization' operate at a profit? I think they operate at a loss, which means the taxpayer will be covering the costs.
The taxpayer *should* cover the costs, since the taxpayers created this out-of-control system of government-granted entitlements in the first place, and they keep reelecting politicians who protect it.
If the government built a dam above your house, and then it ruptured, would it be fair to make you eat the costs of your destroyed property? Of course not. The taxpayers would be expected to foot the bill for the mistake. Maybe next time they'd take care to elect a government that provided better oversight.
Why not? Doctors are held personally liable for their mistakes. This kind of mistake costs real people at real businesses millions of dollars. Some are even driven out of existence, with careers and life savings destroyed in the process. Why should they suffer?
If nobody will work under those conditions, let the USPTO buy malpractice insurance for their examiners. When the premiums go through the roof on an individual who keeps screwing up, then the patent office will have a good incentive to fire him.
It looks like costly mistakes were made by the USPTO. In a fair world, the original patent examiners should be held personally liable for all of Google's legal fees in this matter. That lesson would most likely make them take a little more care to properly evaluate the next bogus patent application that crosses their desks, before millions of dollars of unnecessary costs are created.
BBut anyway,why are you citing external factors to somehow prove that C# iis an inferior language? Its "goodness" is in no way diminished by the fact that few platforms have implementations written for them.
Intrinsic "goodness" is not the only relevant factor unless you operate in an ivory tower situation. For the real world, you have to take into account all of the aspects associated with using any given language. This includes deployment, developer availability, licensing, performance, suitability for the particular problem to be solved, etc.
What's the patent FUD, specifically? I'm not talking about some obscure part of the Winforms API, I mean in the core language itself.
Any core language is almost useless without its standard and/or de facto libraries. Microsoft's patent policies on the libraries associated with C# (not just Winforms) are intentionally vague and confusing. Nobody really knows what conditions the patents may be used under, and by whom. This passive-aggressive stance on patents is a standard Microsoft strategy, and it's been pretty effective in general.
And you forget that C++ has a giant environment to install as well, but due to age, that is generally part of the OS as is.
Doesn't matter to the average user. If they have to worry about downloading and maintaining a huge pile of optional software libraries to run a sudoku puzzle, that's a hassle.
In fact, Windows Vista and 7 already come with .NET pre-installed, so there's no need to download anything to run a .NET app.
Hence the need to choose a monkey name for your 2nd-class-citizen project for non-Windows platforms.
The saddest part about this whole C++0x ordeal is that they're still just playing catch-up to C#.
True. In particular, C++ is light years behind C# in patent FUD. And C++ hasn't even started work on requirements for a 100MB "managed environment" for users to install before running their apps. Nor have C++ developers chosen a monkey species after which to name its 2nd-class-citizen cross-platform implementation.
The Apple II was plastic, toylike and very expensive for what you got. (You might as well have bought a TRS-80 and saved yourself a good chunk of change.)
The IBM PC was also expensive, but had top quality hardware similar to their mainframe terminals, including: a substantial steel chassis and case, a crisp monochrome monitor that you could actually work with all day without going blind, and one of the best keyboards ever made. It was a serious personal computer that PHBs felt comfortable buying for their businesses.
So the definition depends on your perspective. If based on technicalities, the Apple II, the Altair 8800, the Atari 2600, the Commodore PET, etc. were all "personal computers" because they had microprocessors. If based on what was understood to be a computer in the business word, the IBM PC was one of the first business computers that was small enough and inexpensive enough so that most were bought to be used by one person.
The DEC LSI-11 from the 1970s was a PDP-11 minicomputer shrunk into a case that was about the same size as an early IBM PC.
personally I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be using such a system.
Are you comfortable with the current practice of letting a waiter you've never met whisk away a card with your account number prominently stamped on the front (and "security code" stamped on the back)?
At least PayPal uses a unique number for each transaction. In theory, that's an improvement.
The only thing that credit cards have going for them is the limits on customer liability for fraud. However, in the end that really just spreads the huge costs to everyone.
and refused to consider any sort of cleaning system
That's partly because nobody knew at the time how to design an effective cleaning system which would: a) operate without water b) in a near vacuum c) on electrically charged dust, that d) was had enough reach to cover the large surface area of the cells, but e) fit within the rovers size and weight limits without f) jeopardizing the mission with its own added complexity and power requirements.
Maybe with years and years of operational experience, NOW they could design such a system. But as it turns out, they don't need to, because the occasional encounter with a random dust devil cleans them off just fine. So your whole fit of nerd rage regarding this issue is pointless.
Hey anonymous pedant, I suggest you google the term "never underestimate bandwidth" so you can identify who should actually be receiving your nerdish indignation.
Not really. Things are already more-or-less back to normal in the gulf. A nuclear exclusion zone would have a much bigger long term effect on property values.
You realize that is a problem with any industry when government is close to the people that run anything, right? Nukes, oil, coal, "green" energy. You name it. When government gets in bed with companies, they end up looking the other way every time.
What you say is true. The key distinction is that when something goes wrong with those other industries, you don't ruin all the real estate value in an area the size of a small state.
As a snail mail Netflix user, I'll point this out: Never underestimate the bandwidth of a fleet of federally owned Grumman LLVs driving down residential streets and laden with DVDs.
Here's your memo: PEP 238. I believe that it's frequently referenced in the "what's new" section of various point releases of Python since the PEP was published.
Anyone else apparently, that plant was due for replacement/shutdown many years ago.
Every time there's a nuke plant disaster, some people argue that the particular situation is a special case that can be safely ignored. Undoubtedly, the same arguments will pop up the next time there's a major accident, sabotage or attack (which will undoubtedly be yet another special case).
I think you are missing his point. So you create a syntax that is an error that will be accepted.
Reasonable people should not have "accepted" the integer / operator, and they didn't have to. On integers, the operator didn't do what anybody would expect it to, and this was clearly just about the biggest flaw in Python 2.X. It's unfortunate that the flaw was there and needs to be fixed, but life isn't perfect.
Seeing the mistake, 10 years ago the Python developers gave you the tools to avoid using integer '/', and they told you the planned fix. If you simply followed their advice, you'd be fine now. Personally, I've always cast at least one of the operands to "float()" if I used the / operator, otherwise I've always made integer division explicit by using the // operator.
This is like when the C people tell you to not use the "gets()" function. That function was a mistake, even though it still compiles and runs. Competent coders just don't use gets(), and likewise, they don't use an unqualified '/' in Python 2.X.
In Python 2.7, the result of (3 / 2) is 1, in Python 3 it's 1.5. I have absolutely no way to pore through those million lines and checking every division to see which operator should I use, keep the '/' or change it to '//'.
When the // operator was introduced - over 10 years ago - they warned you that this change was coming. Ever since then, it has been prudent to use // wherever you want the answer of 3 divided by 2 to be 1. So if you had been coding according to best practices, you wouldn't have to look through all your code for divisions.
Think of what a boon this will be to the wireless telcos on SMS fees:
That's about a half dozen US annual GDPs of SMS charges racked up every second, over one thin fiber!
Indeed, the clean-shaven Shelton is the one who has worries about the debris, and the Shelton that has a goatee is the one who prefers to underscore the debris.
"Oh no, grandmas won't be able to learn anything else and they'll tie it to windows!"
Are you claiming that that statement is somehow false?
Ok. If Skype were bought out by an Internet genius like Rupert Murdoch, maybe it could lose its market share. Who knows, maybe Ballmer will achieve a similar feat. But left on its own, Skype would be unlikely to be knocked out any time soon. As I pointed out, Microsoft has $8.5B that says it wouldn't.
You don't understand how the software markets work in the real world, and from the bias you show focusing on technical rather than user-related factors, it looks like you're not going to figure it out.
There are dozens of decent VoIP apps out there
But your grandma only has one one of them: Skype. Due to the network effect, Skype has an effective monopoly on free phone service. While the barrier to entry in this market is technically low, in the real world filled with real users it's probably insurmountable. It looks like Microsoft thinks that the barrier would take at least $8.5B to overcome; otherwise they'd go with their normal instinct to just copy other vendors' technologies.
Grandma isn't going to want to unlearn Skype and learn how to use a sluggish Flash-based solution, either.