yes, but you don't have a catchy name for your tech places like our Silicon Forest over in Redmond, and so your politicians haven't started running on platforms like Strengthening Copyright Legislation like they have here in King County WA...
Your IT sector isn't really entrenched until the local politicians start advertising their corporate pandering as if it were a universal social goal.
...by which we ensure we are governed no _better_ than we deserve.
The grandparent poster is not "funny" he's "correct".
The U.S. was supposed to be a "representative democracy" not a "democracy" in an attempt to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The fact that both corporate interests and modern sound-byte media have caused the thing "represented" to no longer be "the general welfare" and instead to be the "corporate welfare" and the "sound-byte of momentary passion" is where things have failed.
The U.S. of A. was always supposed to be a Socialist regime (e.g. union for the ultimate good of the people). Our stupid electorate however cannot tell that apart from National Socialism (union for the ultimate good of the nation) or Soviet Socialism (union for the good of the bureaucracy). Nor do they understand the difference between "unionism" (voluntary commitment to common goals) and "fascism" (compulsory commitment to uniformly dictated structures).
This leads to some oddities. By definition if you think "my country right or wrong" then you are a National Socialist. And if you believe in the unrestrained free market you are an Anarchist.
We often describe a collapsed and irredeemable social construct by saying "it is just a popularity contest". Keep that in mind the next time you look at any election campaign.
Anarchy is good for the web and "the internets", just as it is good for the high seas. Since there are no whales or fisheries in the internet, and there is no real chance of _actual_ piracy or salvage, that anarchy is good. As soon as people try to turn the high-seas of the internet into territory and real estate things will fall to pieces.
ya know, this would work, if and only if no people were involved.
The last time I took a Taxi the driver was "oh so clever" by shifting into Park every time we were at a light. That way I had to pay for the drive and the "minimum" waiting time. I didn't feel like calling the cops so he got away with it.
So yes, ban cars as long as whatever you replace them with is automated.
Plus I could go out and get wasted with friends without having to worry about how I was going to get home safely. Hell, I wouldn't even have to worry about parking. I would get out and press "park" on my key fob and my car would just drive off. When I was ready to leave I'd press "pick me up" and my car would show up, at which point I would get in and press "home".
I can simulate this with a Taxi, but the meat bags running the Taxi regularly rip me off by doing things like shifting into Park while at red lights so that I get charged for "waiting time" or taking non-optimal routes. With a self driving car I can have safety and security at a known price.
The problem with most public transport is the part where they turn it off or put it in the hands of idiots when you need it most. DC closes the subway before the bars close to keep the drunks out of the system. Seattle installed light rail to the airport to cater to the visitors and then shuts off the good buses at 6pm because "the commute hours are over".
I'd like to see cars barred from "downtown city" streets, with large "welcome to the city" garages on the outskirts and competent 24hr in-town transit.
Or I'd like to see 100% automation required for downtown vehicles.
But no, lets get people to hold their cell phones out the window of their car when they want to send or receive a text...
Jut the other day some girl prevented her own post-rape murder by convincing the idiot criminal that she had to "check in with her sister", and then proceeded to call 911 and fake a conversation with enough information to have the cops reach them as they turned onto the deserted dirt road in the mountains outside provo.
With this jamming technology in place she'd be another corpse in a shallow grave in the mountains.
Life isn't safe. No technology that isolates people will ever make it safer. And the kind of idiot who would be texting in his car will just keep on texting, knowing that he can stack up several and then wave the phone out the window (e.g. outside the Faraday cage containing the jamming signal) to press send. yea, that sounds safer...
Whites First Law of Unintended Consequences: Your clever idea is full of fail... The more clever the idea, the more fail it can contain.
Your OSX analogy is false, and a straw man to boot.
I don't insist that it has to be Oh Ess Ecks because the upper case X _IS_ the correct symbol for the roman numeral representing the value ten. (it isn't "10" by the way, it's ten, but that's beside the point.)
So there is nothing wrong with either statement regarding "OSX" and calling it "ten" or "Ecks"
But Dude, "#" is not and never was a sharp, it's a pound, or a number sign, or octothorpe. A sharp is, and always has been _completely_ dissimilar to a pound sign. In size, sharp is smaller; in baseline sharp is higher, in slant sharp is upright and lines that rise to the right.
If you argue that "#" is "sharp" then cleary "Q" and "O" are the same glyph, numeral one (1) and lower case ell (l) are identical, and "3" and "e" are interchangeable. But they aren't.
"All their documentation" calling the pound in C-pound a sharp don't make it so.
They botched.
And you have swallowed that botch like a good little camper. 8-)
And yes, now I am just greifing you, accuracy and correctness are clearly not things you care about.
Why should I? We both know I am right. It's C-pound, or C-numbersign, or C-octothorpe. In no case is it C-sharp.
I give technical citations, you give excuses.
Unless you claim that I can write "A b Tire" and have it mean "a flat tire" because ascii doesn't have a the musical "flat" so I had no possibility of clarity...
The objection is, to my understanding, that "Exhibit 'J'" doesn't consist of any of the actual source code at all. It's got nothing to do with the headers or locations. Exhibit "J" is a decompile. To that end it has all the expressive part stripped. It may be that both halves of the comparison are decompiled from their respective objects using the same tool.
This would naturally strip the result of any indicators as to whether any code was copied because the _tool_ would pick the variable names, and the indenting style and so on.
So consider two implementations of some function "int add_two_integers(int, int)".
One guy goes in for the one-liner: "int add_two_integers(int l, int r) { return l+r; }"
Another guy does the long haul:/* giant copyright notice *//* motivation for writing code */ int32/*specific integer sizes selected to constrain results within 32 bits for sure */ add_two_integers(int32 Left, int32 Right) {
return (Left + Right);/*with comments and everything */ }
In no way did either party "copy" the other.
But you compile both on a 32-bit platform, then decompile them both, and then say look, that second guy just stole the first guy's code.
The outcome of the above would be different code were both compiled for, say, an amd64. The intent is clearly different. The amount of effort clearly different again. The actual act of copying isn't even in question when the source is examined.
But cook it right and use decompiles and whatnot and you produce a misleading sense of similarity.
So don't go looking at the files from the two distributions and how similar or different they are. The objection is to the particular details of an exhibit we don't have that has, according to Google, been produced or redacted or just plain old manipulated to remove the obvious dissimilarities in a way that Google thinks the court should see as dishonest or biased against a correct finding of fact.
Microsoft could indeed (re)sell you a copy of OSX if they possessed one...
It's like Microsoft demanding you pay Microsoft a license fee for OSX in order for you to buy Windows, but in return for that license fee for OSX you get... nothing... Well you get a paper from Microsoft that says that as far as they are concerned it's okay if you get OSX by some other means and then use it. But since Microsoft doesn't have any stake in OSX that paper doesn't actually mean anything.
Now if you replace the copyright/patent (improperly "intellectual property") bits of the claim with the word/idea "Safety" the nature of this as a "protection racket" becomes clear.
You pay Oracle some money to protect you from any claims Oracle might make against you for things Oracle doesn't own...
You pay (entity) some money for protect you from any (action) (entity) might take against you for things (entity) doesn't otherwise have any right to influence (like your kneecaps or your store-front downtown).
Does that mean that the string "a b c" is "a sharp c" because I said so?
No. Because that isn't the meaning of the symbol "b". It is _necessary_ to misuse "b" in a musical context if you are stuck with ASCII encoding.
Microsoft was not so stuck. They either didn't know, or didn't care, that they were naming the language C-pound.
The license to pretend that some things are actually something else has its limits. The numeral three isn't the letter "e" no matter how many people write "l33t".
Deep in your soul you know I am right, else you would have stopped two messages ago... you are a C-pounder. And every time you preface a function with square-bracketed config directive looking thingies, your soul dies just a little more. Pounding it deeper into ignominy.
Lack of choice in ascii for a sharp is sad. And Even here in SlashDot I cannot post the unicode character for sharp.
But in no case does that mean that Microsoft named the language "C-sharp" when they put the letter C and followed it by a Pound Sign.
In _their_ materials they had the full choice to use an actual sharp. heck, they got the little "tm" trademark symbol in there, and they used the proper circle-c instead of the legally junct "(c)" construct.
So what they did was name the language "see pound" on purpose, or due to incompetence, because they were trying to be "clever" instead of "clear".
The fact that there are limits to the ascii character set that people evade typographically is completely beside the point. Microsoft wasn't limited to the ascii character set when they decided to call the language C-pound. Windows had unicode support by default by then.
They just did it because they are dumb.
It was an _utter_ fail on their part.
Apologize for it all you like. Justify it all you like. It's still C-pound.
And yes, I will accept C-numbersign and C-octothorpe as valid aliases, since both are also correct... C-pound is shorter and more obviously in line with the awful language constructs in use, so it is my preferred.
It is, however, by no reading, a "sharp" and it was pretty blunt of them to try to make it one. 8-)
Just like (c) isn't the circle-c for copyright and it has no legal meaning no matter how many people put it in their code, this thing ==> # == is not a sharp. Ever.
He didn't actually say anything negative about android. It's the handset manufacturers that are doing this at the behest of the telephone companies.
All the evil is coming into the pipe _after_ android, down in the boot loaders and the skins.
And Google doesn't actually have the Apple Fanboy features that Apple has. Google knows that they will be held to some account by their fickle fan base if the screw up or let their brand get _too_ tarnished by the handset cartel.
It is a given that "Apple can do no wrong" as far as an Apple Fanboy is concerned. Google has simply not done wrong enough yet to deserve derision as far as Android is concerned.
Not the same thing at all. In fact, there are legions of people waiting to catch Google out to crucify them.
The "horizontal" lines rise to the right to indicate the rise of tone. The second vertical line is drawn to a higher baseline, also to indicate the rising tone.
Now...
The pound sign, aka the octothorpe or number sign:
The two "vertical" lines are usually rendered leaning right (but pure vertical is okay). The horizontal lines are truely horizontal and are drawn to the same right-hand and left-hand bounds.
Now: "#" that isn't a "sharp", its a "pound", or number sign, or octothorp or cross hatch. Period.
So this: "C#" is "see pound"...
Sorry, its just the facts man.
(And yes, its a sad fact that looks like a troll or a flame-bait, but that isn't technically my fault. Talk to the "wince" people... 8-)
A musical sharp sign has two vertical lines, the second drawn higher from the baseline than the first, the "horizontal" lines incline. All of this is intended to indicate the half-tone rise of the notes so designated.
I am, and was, fully aware of the usage and intent that "C-#" was supposed to be "see sharp" as in music.
If you examine a sharp sign, it is two horizontal lines and two vertical lines, the _second_ vertical line is _higher_ than the first, in indication that the tone is supposed to be higher than the actual note by a half-tone. The "sharp" indication, which really only exists in the musical clef, is _distinct_ from this symbol "#".
In the octothorp, there are two horizontal lines, and two vertical lines. The vertical lines are the same height and drawn from the same baseline. They are usually slanted such that there are no right angles.
In no case have you ever seen "C#" written as "see sharp". That leaves "see number-sign, see-octothorpe" or "see-pound".
There is a unicode symbol for "sharp", it is \u266f, as opposed to 0x23, the "pound sign".
Seriously, there is a _huge_ difference in symbolism.
It's not _my_ fault that the same people who named a mobile platform "wince", named a language "see pound" while failing to be clever.
The _English_ pound, as in pounds-sterling, as in money, is the cursive ell with a bar.
The pound, as in weight, as in 16 ounces, is a cross-hatch.
That makes "#" a pound.
It could also be number sign.
Technically it's an octothorp used to designate numbers or weights.
The language is c-pound. Or c-octothorp, or c-numbersign.
I can explicitly say that I wrote down the Letter "C" followed by a cursive ell with a line through it with the express purpose of naming a language "see fog" but the symbol would persist in being an english pound sterling.
The problem is that nowhere is "#" a "sharp" except in musical notation.
It's see-pound... 8-)
(yes, this is flamebait... but the language is burning rubbish full of patent bombs. Sometimes it _takes_ flamebait to make people see the fire ready to burn them to death. 8-)
Jave was released under GPL (eventually) and under an open source-ish license before that. C-pound has never been released under any license but Microsoft's "it's all mine and we can sue you any time we want" license.
The fact that Microsoft knows it is wisest to let you get a code base together based on Mono before they swoop in with and pull an Oracle America on your ass is obvious. And if anybody had ever really taken C-pound mainstream enough to be a real competitor to Java, they would have don so already.
Us open source weasels have been warning you for years. It was dumb to set your hair on fire by using Java, now you are suggesting putting the fire out with a sledge hammer by switching to Mono...
Since C-pound(*) is patent encumbered it doesn't matter that mono is open source, it still exists at the whim of Microsoft. Do the research before you offer it as a viable alternative to Jave. Microsoft actually has a stronger claim over C-pound than Oracle has over Java because Microsoft never released any part of the specification or library definition under any license but their own, and never issued a covenant to share the patents or otherwise "not to sue" infringers.
Recommending a run to C-pound because of Jave mis-deeds is like recommending jumping into shark infested water to avoid the ongoing mauling of ship-rats.
(*) In order it to be a "sharp" the symbol in use must be (1) in italics, and (2) in a musical clef. In Microsoft's language definition it is neither, that makes those two vertical and two horizontal lines a "pound" no matter how much they want you to call it a "sharp".
ASIDE: Yes, you think it was clever calling it "see-sharp", but these are the same people who named their mobile operating system "wince", they are not that smart when it comes to basic language... 8-)
The Immaculate Conception was the conception of _Mary_ conception so that she would not be burdened by Original Sin, leaving her a suitable vessel for her to carry The Christ Child. It's "Mary _of_ the Immaculate Conception, or _who_ _was_ immaculately conceived.
That isn't even my mythos, but it always amazes me how many people don't have the first clue about the facts of their own. Wasn't there a post here recently that said the people who know the least about faith are the faithful, or maybe it was that the people who know the most about religion were the atheists and agnostics.
So by one view all animals are immaculately conceived since animals don't have original sin. By another the poster is simply wrong. By all views this is kinda a non-story.
The snake suffered or gave example of androgenesis which is a completely different thing all together.
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus brought us "tactics", and Strategos, plural strategoi Attic-Ionic (Greek: , pl. ; Doric Greek: , stratagos; literally meaning "army leader") brought us "strategy".
Strategic planning is _all_ about logistics. Your comment seems to infer a distinction that doesn't exist there.
Strategy is getting you units to the right places with the correct intelligence and provisioned and equipped for their task.
Tactics is executing your task in the best possible manner, with contingencies considered and ready for the fact that no plan survives contact with the enemy.
For instance, while people often (mis)describe Chess as strategic, it is mostly tactical. The only vaguely strategic element of chess is that there is a hierarchy of threat used as "support" for a piece. e.g. if you take my knight with your queen, the rook that covers it will get her. This is pure tactics.
Most "real time strategy" games actually fail utterly to be strategic in any form. They have economy and they have tactics, but they lack all forms of proper strategy. You don't ever have to "supply" your units, so you never have to have "supply lines". That means that you don't really have to control an area of the map in a proper sense.
Were I to make StarCraft actually strategic:
Zerg would only take orders if there were a sufficient number of overlords "close enough" to the units in question to pass those orders. There would also have to be a chain of overlords to bridge the distance between a hive and the directing overlord in question. Units not directly under control would drift, do random things, and possibly squabble. Unit groups under "insufficient control" would get sloppy. If an overlord becomes isolated from all hives it and its units will become defensive and put out a "distress call", and some hive will extend an overlord chain towards that position. Said chain would unreel from the base (closest overlord would advance to a controlling position, the ones behind it would move as well, and back near the base a new overlord would be dispatched to fill the trailing gap etc.) A set of units can be tied to a particular overlord and then given "standing orders" to guard or patrol, such a unit will persist in this action without further control (e.g. it can be isolated deliberately or accidentally) but its orders cannot be changed at all until a control conduit is restored.
The Terran forces would have (automagic) runner units that would resupply field units. There would be no build cost for these guys, and there would be a good number of them as they would appear on demand. But they would be destroyable. The player could assign particular supply depots to particular units if he would like, and drop routing flags that the runners would "want" to run between. Each supply depot would be able to generate a particular amount of supplies per minute, but they could charge like batteries and there would be an default "expected peak demand" based on proximity and or tuneables. It would therefore be useful to have supply depots near combat locations. As units run out of supplies their fire rates slow and eventually stop. A unit can be flagged "do not resupply" and will receive no runners (needed for ghosts etc so that the runners don't reveal the ghost) but when the unit goes hungry it will be useless until the flag is removed and a runner reaches it. "Priority supply target" can be set for the reverse condition so that a main defensive position can be maintained "at all costs" etc.
For the Protoss, any unit that leaves the field of a Pylon would gain a chain of lights (destroyable micro pylons) to power it. Isolated pylons would generate their fixed power. The first time a unit moves to an isolated pylon its chain of lights would span to that pylon, connecting it to the grid. Any unit that isn't "locked" to a pylon would automatically re-anchor its chain to the last pylon it was powered by. Units within one-light of the nearest pylon don't need the light (to reduce graphics loa
Slashdot Mirror
yes, but you don't have a catchy name for your tech places like our Silicon Forest over in Redmond, and so your politicians haven't started running on platforms like Strengthening Copyright Legislation like they have here in King County WA...
Your IT sector isn't really entrenched until the local politicians start advertising their corporate pandering as if it were a universal social goal.
(only half a smiley face there...)
So you are saying that once your tech sector becomes entrenched they will push Oregon to be just as stupid as Washington has become. 8-)
...by which we ensure we are governed no _better_ than we deserve.
The grandparent poster is not "funny" he's "correct".
The U.S. was supposed to be a "representative democracy" not a "democracy" in an attempt to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The fact that both corporate interests and modern sound-byte media have caused the thing "represented" to no longer be "the general welfare" and instead to be the "corporate welfare" and the "sound-byte of momentary passion" is where things have failed.
The U.S. of A. was always supposed to be a Socialist regime (e.g. union for the ultimate good of the people). Our stupid electorate however cannot tell that apart from National Socialism (union for the ultimate good of the nation) or Soviet Socialism (union for the good of the bureaucracy). Nor do they understand the difference between "unionism" (voluntary commitment to common goals) and "fascism" (compulsory commitment to uniformly dictated structures).
This leads to some oddities. By definition if you think "my country right or wrong" then you are a National Socialist. And if you believe in the unrestrained free market you are an Anarchist.
We often describe a collapsed and irredeemable social construct by saying "it is just a popularity contest". Keep that in mind the next time you look at any election campaign.
Anarchy is good for the web and "the internets", just as it is good for the high seas. Since there are no whales or fisheries in the internet, and there is no real chance of _actual_ piracy or salvage, that anarchy is good. As soon as people try to turn the high-seas of the internet into territory and real estate things will fall to pieces.
ya know, this would work, if and only if no people were involved.
The last time I took a Taxi the driver was "oh so clever" by shifting into Park every time we were at a light. That way I had to pay for the drive and the "minimum" waiting time. I didn't feel like calling the cops so he got away with it.
So yes, ban cars as long as whatever you replace them with is automated.
Plus I could go out and get wasted with friends without having to worry about how I was going to get home safely. Hell, I wouldn't even have to worry about parking. I would get out and press "park" on my key fob and my car would just drive off. When I was ready to leave I'd press "pick me up" and my car would show up, at which point I would get in and press "home".
I can simulate this with a Taxi, but the meat bags running the Taxi regularly rip me off by doing things like shifting into Park while at red lights so that I get charged for "waiting time" or taking non-optimal routes. With a self driving car I can have safety and security at a known price.
The problem with most public transport is the part where they turn it off or put it in the hands of idiots when you need it most. DC closes the subway before the bars close to keep the drunks out of the system. Seattle installed light rail to the airport to cater to the visitors and then shuts off the good buses at 6pm because "the commute hours are over".
I'd like to see cars barred from "downtown city" streets, with large "welcome to the city" garages on the outskirts and competent 24hr in-town transit.
Or I'd like to see 100% automation required for downtown vehicles.
But no, lets get people to hold their cell phones out the window of their car when they want to send or receive a text...
Jut the other day some girl prevented her own post-rape murder by convincing the idiot criminal that she had to "check in with her sister", and then proceeded to call 911 and fake a conversation with enough information to have the cops reach them as they turned onto the deserted dirt road in the mountains outside provo.
With this jamming technology in place she'd be another corpse in a shallow grave in the mountains.
Life isn't safe. No technology that isolates people will ever make it safer. And the kind of idiot who would be texting in his car will just keep on texting, knowing that he can stack up several and then wave the phone out the window (e.g. outside the Faraday cage containing the jamming signal) to press send. yea, that sounds safer...
Whites First Law of Unintended Consequences: Your clever idea is full of fail... The more clever the idea, the more fail it can contain.
And the ??AA is stealing our cultural legacy. They deserve no constitutional or legal protection.
Stop Draconian Restriction Mechanisms whether they are technological or political.
Your OSX analogy is false, and a straw man to boot.
I don't insist that it has to be Oh Ess Ecks because the upper case X _IS_ the correct symbol for the roman numeral representing the value ten. (it isn't "10" by the way, it's ten, but that's beside the point.)
So there is nothing wrong with either statement regarding "OSX" and calling it "ten" or "Ecks"
But Dude, "#" is not and never was a sharp, it's a pound, or a number sign, or octothorpe. A sharp is, and always has been _completely_ dissimilar to a pound sign. In size, sharp is smaller; in baseline sharp is higher, in slant sharp is upright and lines that rise to the right.
If you argue that "#" is "sharp" then cleary "Q" and "O" are the same glyph, numeral one (1) and lower case ell (l) are identical, and "3" and "e" are interchangeable. But they aren't.
"All their documentation" calling the pound in C-pound a sharp don't make it so.
They botched.
And you have swallowed that botch like a good little camper. 8-)
And yes, now I am just greifing you, accuracy and correctness are clearly not things you care about.
Why should I? We both know I am right. It's C-pound, or C-numbersign, or C-octothorpe. In no case is it C-sharp.
I give technical citations, you give excuses.
Unless you claim that I can write "A b Tire" and have it mean "a flat tire" because ascii doesn't have a the musical "flat" so I had no possibility of clarity...
The objection is, to my understanding, that "Exhibit 'J'" doesn't consist of any of the actual source code at all. It's got nothing to do with the headers or locations. Exhibit "J" is a decompile. To that end it has all the expressive part stripped. It may be that both halves of the comparison are decompiled from their respective objects using the same tool.
This would naturally strip the result of any indicators as to whether any code was copied because the _tool_ would pick the variable names, and the indenting style and so on.
So consider two implementations of some function "int add_two_integers(int, int)".
One guy goes in for the one-liner: "int add_two_integers(int l, int r) { return l+r; }"
Another guy does the long haul: /* giant copyright notice */ /* motivation for writing code */ /*specific integer sizes selected to constrain results within 32 bits for sure */ /*with comments and everything */
int32
add_two_integers(int32 Left, int32 Right)
{
return (Left + Right);
}
In no way did either party "copy" the other.
But you compile both on a 32-bit platform, then decompile them both, and then say look, that second guy just stole the first guy's code.
The outcome of the above would be different code were both compiled for, say, an amd64. The intent is clearly different. The amount of effort clearly different again. The actual act of copying isn't even in question when the source is examined.
But cook it right and use decompiles and whatnot and you produce a misleading sense of similarity.
So don't go looking at the files from the two distributions and how similar or different they are. The objection is to the particular details of an exhibit we don't have that has, according to Google, been produced or redacted or just plain old manipulated to remove the obvious dissimilarities in a way that Google thinks the court should see as dishonest or biased against a correct finding of fact.
Microsoft could indeed (re)sell you a copy of OSX if they possessed one...
It's like Microsoft demanding you pay Microsoft a license fee for OSX in order for you to buy Windows, but in return for that license fee for OSX you get... nothing... Well you get a paper from Microsoft that says that as far as they are concerned it's okay if you get OSX by some other means and then use it. But since Microsoft doesn't have any stake in OSX that paper doesn't actually mean anything.
Now if you replace the copyright/patent (improperly "intellectual property") bits of the claim with the word/idea "Safety" the nature of this as a "protection racket" becomes clear.
You pay Oracle some money to protect you from any claims Oracle might make against you for things Oracle doesn't own...
You pay (entity) some money for protect you from any (action) (entity) might take against you for things (entity) doesn't otherwise have any right to influence (like your kneecaps or your store-front downtown).
[See "The SCO Group".]
Does that mean that the string "a b c" is "a sharp c" because I said so?
No. Because that isn't the meaning of the symbol "b". It is _necessary_ to misuse "b" in a musical context if you are stuck with ASCII encoding.
Microsoft was not so stuck. They either didn't know, or didn't care, that they were naming the language C-pound.
The license to pretend that some things are actually something else has its limits. The numeral three isn't the letter "e" no matter how many people write "l33t".
Deep in your soul you know I am right, else you would have stopped two messages ago... you are a C-pounder. And every time you preface a function with square-bracketed config directive looking thingies, your soul dies just a little more. Pounding it deeper into ignominy.
Lack of choice in ascii for a sharp is sad. And Even here in SlashDot I cannot post the unicode character for sharp.
But in no case does that mean that Microsoft named the language "C-sharp" when they put the letter C and followed it by a Pound Sign.
In _their_ materials they had the full choice to use an actual sharp. heck, they got the little "tm" trademark symbol in there, and they used the proper circle-c instead of the legally junct "(c)" construct.
So what they did was name the language "see pound" on purpose, or due to incompetence, because they were trying to be "clever" instead of "clear".
The fact that there are limits to the ascii character set that people evade typographically is completely beside the point. Microsoft wasn't limited to the ascii character set when they decided to call the language C-pound. Windows had unicode support by default by then.
They just did it because they are dumb.
It was an _utter_ fail on their part.
Apologize for it all you like. Justify it all you like. It's still C-pound.
And yes, I will accept C-numbersign and C-octothorpe as valid aliases, since both are also correct... C-pound is shorter and more obviously in line with the awful language constructs in use, so it is my preferred.
It is, however, by no reading, a "sharp" and it was pretty blunt of them to try to make it one. 8-)
It's "C pound", live with it... 8-)
Just like (c) isn't the circle-c for copyright and it has no legal meaning no matter how many people put it in their code, this thing ==> # == is not a sharp. Ever.
He didn't actually say anything negative about android. It's the handset manufacturers that are doing this at the behest of the telephone companies.
All the evil is coming into the pipe _after_ android, down in the boot loaders and the skins.
And Google doesn't actually have the Apple Fanboy features that Apple has. Google knows that they will be held to some account by their fickle fan base if the screw up or let their brand get _too_ tarnished by the handset cartel.
It is a given that "Apple can do no wrong" as far as an Apple Fanboy is concerned. Google has simply not done wrong enough yet to deserve derision as far as Android is concerned.
Not the same thing at all. In fact, there are legions of people waiting to catch Google out to crucify them.
Eh, nothing I can do about that, and at least "GIMP" means something: "GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program..."
What is "C pound" supposed to mean? 8-)
Pay close attention to the symbol names in the index entries part of the table.
The musical sharp sign:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/266f/index.htm
The "horizontal" lines rise to the right to indicate the rise of tone. The second vertical line is drawn to a higher baseline, also to indicate the rising tone.
Now...
The pound sign, aka the octothorpe or number sign:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/23/index.htm
The two "vertical" lines are usually rendered leaning right (but pure vertical is okay). The horizontal lines are truely horizontal and are drawn to the same right-hand and left-hand bounds.
Now: "#" that isn't a "sharp", its a "pound", or number sign, or octothorp or cross hatch. Period.
So this: "C#" is "see pound"...
Sorry, its just the facts man.
(And yes, its a sad fact that looks like a troll or a flame-bait, but that isn't technically my fault. Talk to the "wince" people... 8-)
If you think I am wrong about "C#" being read "see pound" please check the unicode symbol definitions:
A pound/octothorp/number sign has horizontal lines a two (usually slanting) vertical lines drawn from the same baseline:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/23/index.htm
vs.
A musical sharp sign has two vertical lines, the second drawn higher from the baseline than the first, the "horizontal" lines incline. All of this is intended to indicate the half-tone rise of the notes so designated.
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/266f/index.htm
You will node the "Index Entries" in both.
The name is "see pound"... sorry, just a fact.
I am, and was, fully aware of the usage and intent that "C-#" was supposed to be "see sharp" as in music.
If you examine a sharp sign, it is two horizontal lines and two vertical lines, the _second_ vertical line is _higher_ than the first, in indication that the tone is supposed to be higher than the actual note by a half-tone. The "sharp" indication, which really only exists in the musical clef, is _distinct_ from this symbol "#".
In the octothorp, there are two horizontal lines, and two vertical lines. The vertical lines are the same height and drawn from the same baseline. They are usually slanted such that there are no right angles.
In no case have you ever seen "C#" written as "see sharp". That leaves "see number-sign, see-octothorpe" or "see-pound".
There is a unicode symbol for "sharp", it is \u266f, as opposed to 0x23, the "pound sign".
Seriously, there is a _huge_ difference in symbolism.
It's not _my_ fault that the same people who named a mobile platform "wince", named a language "see pound" while failing to be clever.
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/23/index.htm
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/266f/index.htm
Intentions only take you so far when you make an epic screw-up. They named it something, but it wasn't "see sharp". 8-)
The _English_ pound, as in pounds-sterling, as in money, is the cursive ell with a bar.
The pound, as in weight, as in 16 ounces, is a cross-hatch.
That makes "#" a pound.
It could also be number sign.
Technically it's an octothorp used to designate numbers or weights.
The language is c-pound. Or c-octothorp, or c-numbersign.
I can explicitly say that I wrote down the Letter "C" followed by a cursive ell with a line through it with the express purpose of naming a language
"see fog" but the symbol would persist in being an english pound sterling.
The problem is that nowhere is "#" a "sharp" except in musical notation.
It's see-pound... 8-)
(yes, this is flamebait... but the language is burning rubbish full of patent bombs. Sometimes it _takes_ flamebait to make people see the fire ready to burn them to death. 8-)
Seriously, Patent issues abound. How is mentioning them a troll?
Or do you object to the name C-pound?
Jave was released under GPL (eventually) and under an open source-ish license before that. C-pound has never been released under any license but Microsoft's "it's all mine and we can sue you any time we want" license.
The fact that Microsoft knows it is wisest to let you get a code base together based on Mono before they swoop in with and pull an Oracle America on your ass is obvious. And if anybody had ever really taken C-pound mainstream enough to be a real competitor to Java, they would have don so already.
Us open source weasels have been warning you for years. It was dumb to set your hair on fire by using Java, now you are suggesting putting the fire out with a sledge hammer by switching to Mono...
Since C-pound(*) is patent encumbered it doesn't matter that mono is open source, it still exists at the whim of Microsoft. Do the research before you offer it as a viable alternative to Jave. Microsoft actually has a stronger claim over C-pound than Oracle has over Java because Microsoft never released any part of the specification or library definition under any license but their own, and never issued a covenant to share the patents or otherwise "not to sue" infringers.
Recommending a run to C-pound because of Jave mis-deeds is like recommending jumping into shark infested water to avoid the ongoing mauling of ship-rats.
(*) In order it to be a "sharp" the symbol in use must be (1) in italics, and (2) in a musical clef. In Microsoft's language definition it is neither, that makes those two vertical and two horizontal lines a "pound" no matter how much they want you to call it a "sharp".
ASIDE: Yes, you think it was clever calling it "see-sharp", but these are the same people who named their mobile operating system "wince", they are not that smart when it comes to basic language... 8-)
The Immaculate Conception was the conception of _Mary_ conception so that she would not be burdened by Original Sin, leaving her a suitable vessel for her to carry The Christ Child. It's "Mary _of_ the Immaculate Conception, or _who_ _was_ immaculately conceived.
That isn't even my mythos, but it always amazes me how many people don't have the first clue about the facts of their own. Wasn't there a post here recently that said the people who know the least about faith are the faithful, or maybe it was that the people who know the most about religion were the atheists and agnostics.
So by one view all animals are immaculately conceived since animals don't have original sin. By another the poster is simply wrong. By all views this is kinda a non-story.
The snake suffered or gave example of androgenesis which is a completely different thing all together.
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus brought us "tactics", and Strategos, plural strategoi Attic-Ionic (Greek: , pl. ; Doric Greek: , stratagos; literally meaning "army leader") brought us "strategy".
Strategic planning is _all_ about logistics. Your comment seems to infer a distinction that doesn't exist there.
Strategy is getting you units to the right places with the correct intelligence and provisioned and equipped for their task.
Tactics is executing your task in the best possible manner, with contingencies considered and ready for the fact that no plan survives contact with the enemy.
For instance, while people often (mis)describe Chess as strategic, it is mostly tactical. The only vaguely strategic element of chess is that there is a hierarchy of threat used as "support" for a piece. e.g. if you take my knight with your queen, the rook that covers it will get her. This is pure tactics.
Most "real time strategy" games actually fail utterly to be strategic in any form. They have economy and they have tactics, but they lack all forms of proper strategy. You don't ever have to "supply" your units, so you never have to have "supply lines". That means that you don't really have to control an area of the map in a proper sense.
Were I to make StarCraft actually strategic:
Zerg would only take orders if there were a sufficient number of overlords "close enough" to the units in question to pass those orders. There would also have to be a chain of overlords to bridge the distance between a hive and the directing overlord in question. Units not directly under control would drift, do random things, and possibly squabble. Unit groups under "insufficient control" would get sloppy. If an overlord becomes isolated from all hives it and its units will become defensive and put out a "distress call", and some hive will extend an overlord chain towards that position. Said chain would unreel from the base (closest overlord would advance to a controlling position, the ones behind it would move as well, and back near the base a new overlord would be dispatched to fill the trailing gap etc.) A set of units can be tied to a particular overlord and then given "standing orders" to guard or patrol, such a unit will persist in this action without further control (e.g. it can be isolated deliberately or accidentally) but its orders cannot be changed at all until a control conduit is restored.
The Terran forces would have (automagic) runner units that would resupply field units. There would be no build cost for these guys, and there would be a good number of them as they would appear on demand. But they would be destroyable. The player could assign particular supply depots to particular units if he would like, and drop routing flags that the runners would "want" to run between. Each supply depot would be able to generate a particular amount of supplies per minute, but they could charge like batteries and there would be an default "expected peak demand" based on proximity and or tuneables. It would therefore be useful to have supply depots near combat locations. As units run out of supplies their fire rates slow and eventually stop. A unit can be flagged "do not resupply" and will receive no runners (needed for ghosts etc so that the runners don't reveal the ghost) but when the unit goes hungry it will be useless until the flag is removed and a runner reaches it. "Priority supply target" can be set for the reverse condition so that a main defensive position can be maintained "at all costs" etc.
For the Protoss, any unit that leaves the field of a Pylon would gain a chain of lights (destroyable micro pylons) to power it. Isolated pylons would generate their fixed power. The first time a unit moves to an isolated pylon its chain of lights would span to that pylon, connecting it to the grid. Any unit that isn't "locked" to a pylon would automatically re-anchor its chain to the last pylon it was powered by. Units within one-light of the nearest pylon don't need the light (to reduce graphics loa