Having all this great open source compiler technology competing with each other is great, but one does wonder if the alienation caused by GPLv3 was worth it, as it is the primary reason both Apple and FreeBSD embraced Clang (in fact, Apple started the Clang project). As a result, GCC wasn't updated past GPLv2 on either platform. Apple couldn't integrate GCC with their IDE like they wanted, nor could FreeBSD's commercial clients work with it. Flexibility and pragmatism usually wins out over rigidness and ideology.
How many $87k thefts do you think occur on a daily basis with other companies? How many of those do you think you would hear about if they did happen?
How much unreported fraud do you think occurs at Bitcoin companies like Mt. Gox, and what would make Bitcoin companies so special that they would be immune to such dishonesty, especially considering that they're unregulated?
So you think a victim down $87,000 worth of Internet Fun Bucks should be satisfied with some libertarian reply about the free market correcting itself?
Ironically, Bitcoin serves as a pretty good argument that there should be substantial regulation of financial service providers since people that don't know computers keep losing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It doesn't matter how the second instance is allocated (string literals are created at compile-time, so they exist for the duration of the program). All that matters is the ownership rules which state that you own neither of the objects. Additionally, ARC can optimize autoreleased objects so that they don't enter the autorelease pool.
Creating mutable instances is as simple as sending a -mutableCopy message to the collection literal, just as you can already do with string literals: [@"blah" mutableCopy]
The most hilarious part is when Gianaro defended it in the name of " equal opportunity"' : "A student in a school of 200 students should have the same opportunity as a student in a school with 2,000 students."
WTF? Does he really thing the technology works like that...the bigger the router, the bigger the opportunity?
This seems to weaken their "algorithmically neutral" defense against antitrust scrutiny regarding the placement of Google services on the search results page. Perhaps they're testing the waters for abandoning that position in favor of this one, sidestepping antitrust charges entirely by citing free speech protection. I'm not sure governments would find that convincing, especially the EU. Honestly, if Google toned down the pushing of Google+ and other services in search results (or included clearly relevant results like Twitter and Facebook), they'd probably be in less hot water, but they seem to feel they have no other way to compete with social networking.
Properties will also be synthesized by default, so you won't have to write @synthesize statements anymore, and corresponding ivars will be synthesized with an underscore prefixed name.
Objective-C is interesting to follow because it's a language that was once considered totally niche and almost completely irrelevant, but the frameworks were beloved by developers, and the language's keepers kept at it long enough for the world to see how useful the language is. It also has historical significance as the tools used for creation of the original WorldWideWeb program as well as the development of Doom and Quake. John Romero wrote about he and Carmack simultaneously editing the same map in DoomEd thanks to distributed objects.
It's still verbose and Smalltalk-ish, but the language as a whole has improved drastically since the transition to Clang. According to the mailing list, Apple has more engineers allocated to the language than ever before, and a lot of it has to do with the move away from GCC.
I hear that GCC is working toward being easier to modify, so the competition from Clang has been good for everybody, and it's all open source.
I don't think Democrats versus Republicans is a relevant issue. California's scores may be skewed by poor test scores in large urban areas, which the superintendent touched on in the article, and that's a hot-button issue no politician seems to be willing to tackle.
They proactively instituted rules and inspections to prevent labor violations and improve conditions--before the Foxconn suicides--and I proved it. All you can do now is latch onto an audit of an iPad factory six years ago in response to a press report.
You're bad at this. Work on your trolling skills or go back to posting anonymously.
You asked me to prove that they did "anything before the Foxconn suicides hit the press." I did.
Now you're moving the goalpost because I gave you proof that auditing and conformance has been a long-standing supplier policy that improved worker conditions. From the paragraph following the one you quoted:
This audit and the actions that followed have improved the working and living conditions at this facility. The housing conditions are better, pay practices are clearer, and employee benefits have expanded in the areas of educational programs and recreational options. Also, this supplier has incorporated the lessons learned into the design of new facilities.
If you're asking me to prove that Apple possesses telepathic ability and can sense events before they occur or before anyone reports about them, you're asking for the impossible, and nothing anyone can say will satisfy you. But Apple always conducted annual audits, interviewed employees, and enforced their "Code of Conduct" before the Foxconn suicides, and they cancel contracts with non-compliant suppliers.
The game is a remake of the classic Apple II game, Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein was a remake made in 2001. The Apple II games by Muse Software were Castle Wolfenstein and Beyond Castle Wolfenstein. Wolfenstein 3D was not an official remake of them, but it was inspired by them.
Sure. Apple puts out an annual Supplier Responsibility Progress Report. The earliest I found online was from 2007 (which covers the supplier audits of 2006). These are in PDF format:
No, reactive would be addressing things after they happened. Apple's annual reports show that they have maintained a proactive stance, instituting rules and inspections to prevent managerial abuses and other labor violations. As Foxconn's likely biggest client, they have the bargaining power to do that. Like I said, some people have personal reasons for hating Apple and simply use Foxconn as that tool.
Despite being the most proactive when it comes to labor abuses, Apple will remain the primary target of critics who use Foxconn as a means to attack the company for personal reasons, even though Foxconn is not an Apple subsidiary and makes electronics for practically every major vendor in the industry, from Dell to Sony to Google. However, these other companies will receive no scrutiny.
I guess I am dense, because if this is a very good day for Google, and the judge believes that all they infringed on was nine lines of code according to the OP, I don't understand why Google would risk another trial after this set of evidence already convinced one jury that they are guilty of infringing on Oracle's copyrights, and I don't understand why they'd risk getting a less (apparently) sympathetic judge.
Anyone a legal background who can convincingly explain this stuff? Is this more or less a good or bad ruling for Google?
That's ridiculous. It just so happens that Safari's default blocking of third-party cookies impacts Google's advertising business, and it just so happened that Google circumvented that setting? They were weaseling their way around user privacy settings by intentionally tricking Safari into thinking they were first-party cookies.
You have to hold the company some standard for moral behavior or else they're no better than the irritating, pop-under advertising companies of yore.
Before you blame post-9/11 security paranoia, this law was made to cover spacecraft in good ol' 1998. Dumb government bureaucracy can happen even in peaceful, profitable times.
Slashdot Mirror
Clang and FreeBSD aren't proprietary software. They're BSD-licensed open source. That code doesn't magically disappear when a company uses it.
Having all this great open source compiler technology competing with each other is great, but one does wonder if the alienation caused by GPLv3 was worth it, as it is the primary reason both Apple and FreeBSD embraced Clang (in fact, Apple started the Clang project). As a result, GCC wasn't updated past GPLv2 on either platform. Apple couldn't integrate GCC with their IDE like they wanted, nor could FreeBSD's commercial clients work with it. Flexibility and pragmatism usually wins out over rigidness and ideology.
I won't say that every Bitcoin business has been or will be above board
But you said Bitcoin has "unparalleled transparency."
How many $87k thefts do you think occur on a daily basis with other companies? How many of those do you think you would hear about if they did happen?
How much unreported fraud do you think occurs at Bitcoin companies like Mt. Gox, and what would make Bitcoin companies so special that they would be immune to such dishonesty, especially considering that they're unregulated?
So you think a victim down $87,000 worth of Internet Fun Bucks should be satisfied with some libertarian reply about the free market correcting itself?
Ironically, Bitcoin serves as a pretty good argument that there should be substantial regulation of financial service providers since people that don't know computers keep losing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It doesn't matter how the second instance is allocated (string literals are created at compile-time, so they exist for the duration of the program). All that matters is the ownership rules which state that you own neither of the objects. Additionally, ARC can optimize autoreleased objects so that they don't enter the autorelease pool.
Creating mutable instances is as simple as sending a -mutableCopy message to the collection literal, just as you can already do with string literals: [@"blah" mutableCopy]
Fuck you, shill.
Signed,
Jimmy Gianato, West Virginia Homeland Security Chief
The most hilarious part is when Gianaro defended it in the name of " equal opportunity"' : "A student in a school of 200 students should have the same opportunity as a student in a school with 2,000 students."
WTF? Does he really thing the technology works like that...the bigger the router, the bigger the opportunity?
This seems to weaken their "algorithmically neutral" defense against antitrust scrutiny regarding the placement of Google services on the search results page. Perhaps they're testing the waters for abandoning that position in favor of this one, sidestepping antitrust charges entirely by citing free speech protection. I'm not sure governments would find that convincing, especially the EU. Honestly, if Google toned down the pushing of Google+ and other services in search results (or included clearly relevant results like Twitter and Facebook), they'd probably be in less hot water, but they seem to feel they have no other way to compete with social networking.
Clang recently added literal syntax for collections and boxed numbers:
NSArray *array = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:@"one", @"two", @"three", nil];
NSDictionary *dict = [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys:
@"bar", @"foo",
@"post", @"first",
nil];
NSNumber *num = [NSNumber numberWithInteger:42];
NSArray *array = @[ @"one", @"two", @"three" ];
NSDictionary *dict = @{
@"foo" : @"bar",
@"first": @"post"
};
NSNumber *num = @42;
Properties will also be synthesized by default, so you won't have to write @synthesize statements anymore, and corresponding ivars will be synthesized with an underscore prefixed name.
Objective-C is interesting to follow because it's a language that was once considered totally niche and almost completely irrelevant, but the frameworks were beloved by developers, and the language's keepers kept at it long enough for the world to see how useful the language is. It also has historical significance as the tools used for creation of the original WorldWideWeb program as well as the development of Doom and Quake. John Romero wrote about he and Carmack simultaneously editing the same map in DoomEd thanks to distributed objects.
It's still verbose and Smalltalk-ish, but the language as a whole has improved drastically since the transition to Clang. According to the mailing list, Apple has more engineers allocated to the language than ever before, and a lot of it has to do with the move away from GCC.
I hear that GCC is working toward being easier to modify, so the competition from Clang has been good for everybody, and it's all open source.
I don't think Democrats versus Republicans is a relevant issue. California's scores may be skewed by poor test scores in large urban areas, which the superintendent touched on in the article, and that's a hot-button issue no politician seems to be willing to tackle.
They proactively instituted rules and inspections to prevent labor violations and improve conditions--before the Foxconn suicides--and I proved it. All you can do now is latch onto an audit of an iPad factory six years ago in response to a press report.
You're bad at this. Work on your trolling skills or go back to posting anonymously.
Next.
You asked me to prove that they did "anything before the Foxconn suicides hit the press." I did.
Now you're moving the goalpost because I gave you proof that auditing and conformance has been a long-standing supplier policy that improved worker conditions. From the paragraph following the one you quoted:
This audit and the actions that followed have improved the working and living conditions at this facility. The housing conditions are better, pay practices are clearer, and employee benefits have expanded in the areas of educational programs and recreational options. Also, this supplier has incorporated the lessons learned into the design of new facilities.
If you're asking me to prove that Apple possesses telepathic ability and can sense events before they occur or before anyone reports about them, you're asking for the impossible, and nothing anyone can say will satisfy you. But Apple always conducted annual audits, interviewed employees, and enforced their "Code of Conduct" before the Foxconn suicides, and they cancel contracts with non-compliant suppliers.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein was a remake made in 2001. The Apple II games by Muse Software were Castle Wolfenstein and Beyond Castle Wolfenstein. Wolfenstein 3D was not an official remake of them, but it was inspired by them.
That's incorrect. Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, and Contribute weren't updated in CS5.5. See here.
Sure. Apple puts out an annual Supplier Responsibility Progress Report. The earliest I found online was from 2007 (which covers the supplier audits of 2006). These are in PDF format:
2007 report
2008 report
2009 report
2010 report
If this was a years-old version, I'd understand, but CS5 was the latest version until literally days ago!
No, reactive would be addressing things after they happened. Apple's annual reports show that they have maintained a proactive stance, instituting rules and inspections to prevent managerial abuses and other labor violations. As Foxconn's likely biggest client, they have the bargaining power to do that. Like I said, some people have personal reasons for hating Apple and simply use Foxconn as that tool.
Despite being the most proactive when it comes to labor abuses, Apple will remain the primary target of critics who use Foxconn as a means to attack the company for personal reasons, even though Foxconn is not an Apple subsidiary and makes electronics for practically every major vendor in the industry, from Dell to Sony to Google. However, these other companies will receive no scrutiny.
I guess I am dense, because if this is a very good day for Google, and the judge believes that all they infringed on was nine lines of code according to the OP, I don't understand why Google would risk another trial after this set of evidence already convinced one jury that they are guilty of infringing on Oracle's copyrights, and I don't understand why they'd risk getting a less (apparently) sympathetic judge.
Anyone a legal background who can convincingly explain this stuff? Is this more or less a good or bad ruling for Google?
Then why is Google moving for a mistrial?
That's ridiculous. It just so happens that Safari's default blocking of third-party cookies impacts Google's advertising business, and it just so happened that Google circumvented that setting? They were weaseling their way around user privacy settings by intentionally tricking Safari into thinking they were first-party cookies.
You have to hold the company some standard for moral behavior or else they're no better than the irritating, pop-under advertising companies of yore.
Repeated concussions cause brain damage? You don't say!
Oh, wait, this was always obvious, but American football makes a lot of $$$ so...
Before you blame post-9/11 security paranoia, this law was made to cover spacecraft in good ol' 1998. Dumb government bureaucracy can happen even in peaceful, profitable times.