Get a recording of the congressional inquiries earlier this week. In particular, listen to Charlie Rangel's questions. They make the situation pretty clear.
Hardware in space is NOT the same as hardware inside a box on your desk. Ignoring nasty things like radiation flipping bits (we can reduce that to negligable), you have beautiful stuff like heat stress on structural parts, vibrations at both launch and atmospheric entry, and, of course, an inevitable collision with a big, hard planet. Hardware fails. Perhaps this is a subcase of "human error" (the humans, after all, chose what hardware to send), but in that case there's no such thing as something that's not human error.
That's like saying all numbers in file names should be zero-padded to eight digits, because otherwise foo2 and foo10 aren't sorted correctly... no, the solution is to use more intelligent sorting, not to prevent logical naming.
I meant by people. ISO dates are/easier/ to parse by a computer than what I proposed (which is, incidentally, what most international companies I've worked for use).
I'm sorry, but ISO dates still take more energy to parse. Why not just use 1 May 2004, or May 1 2004? Doesn't matter what you're used to, it's immediately comprehendable.
Mostly, I agree with you. But do realize that the advantage of distributing the whole package is that the distributor doesn't need to know what version all customers are using. 1.0 is released, everyone gets it. It's found to have a bug. 1.0.1 comes out, then 1.0.2.... so there are three versions in the wild, if not everyone upgrades perfectly. Release three patches, and QA three different things, or release 1.0.3 as a complete package, so everyone who does update now has the exact same thing?
The best recipe there is is your spice shelf and your tongue. Great cooking (as opposed to baking) comes from trying out new things, not being afraid to experiment, and knowing what effect your tools (ingredients) will have -- and this only comes with experience. Much like coding, actually.
But they're (again) doing one of the things they were convicted for, using internal, unpublished APIs and going out of there way (presumably) to make those APIs accessible to their competitors..NET deals with the problem by flipping a magic flag; Java doesn't have that option.
Doesn't GCC build trampolines under the stack? Under what conditions does it do this on x86? How many applications built with GCC are going to suddenly break?
Interesting. Best answer I've heard yet. But there's no area code 101 (I think...) so the 10-10 prefix still uniquely identifies that type of call. Ditto 011 for long distance.
Slashdot Mirror
They were discussed in classes at both universities I attended, too...
Yes, but the ink would run out almost immediately.
Get a recording of the congressional inquiries earlier this week. In particular, listen to Charlie Rangel's questions. They make the situation pretty clear.
Anyone who hasn't read this paper, should.
Pointing out, once again, the difference between a college and a university.
Hardware in space is NOT the same as hardware inside a box on your desk. Ignoring nasty things like radiation flipping bits (we can reduce that to negligable), you have beautiful stuff like heat stress on structural parts, vibrations at both launch and atmospheric entry, and, of course, an inevitable collision with a big, hard planet. Hardware fails. Perhaps this is a subcase of "human error" (the humans, after all, chose what hardware to send), but in that case there's no such thing as something that's not human error.
Not a troll, actually curious... why do you say no iodine? What makes that a more relevant statement, than, say, no rutherfordium?
Yup. And everyone else is entitled to do whatever they can do drive such assholes out of business.
Meanwhile, over in the mac world, each of the last three major OS releases has been faster and less resource-hungry than the previous.
That's like saying all numbers in file names should be zero-padded to eight digits, because otherwise foo2 and foo10 aren't sorted correctly... no, the solution is to use more intelligent sorting, not to prevent logical naming.
I meant by people. ISO dates are /easier/ to parse by a computer than what I proposed (which is, incidentally, what most international companies I've worked for use).
What language are the code comments in?
What language are the meetings conducted in?
Why not use that language for month names?
Way to totally miss the point of a rather humorous post.
I'm sorry, but ISO dates still take more energy to parse. Why not just use 1 May 2004, or May 1 2004? Doesn't matter what you're used to, it's immediately comprehendable.
I'm not sure microsofties have peers.
Mostly, I agree with you. But do realize that the advantage of distributing the whole package is that the distributor doesn't need to know what version all customers are using. 1.0 is released, everyone gets it. It's found to have a bug. 1.0.1 comes out, then 1.0.2.... so there are three versions in the wild, if not everyone upgrades perfectly. Release three patches, and QA three different things, or release 1.0.3 as a complete package, so everyone who does update now has the exact same thing?
An increased rate of tax enforcement is exactly equivalent to an increased tax rate in its effect upon consumers.
I can just see the ad copy trying to draw in investors. "Eolas -- somewhat less scummy than SCO."
Exactly. So the patent should never have been issued in the first place. Un-issuing it is NOT equivalent, or acceptable.
P No. 1234567 A machine that does nothing
Hmph! I've got my prior art right here! Let's see... last week's project submission for an OS class.
The best recipe there is is your spice shelf and your tongue. Great cooking (as opposed to baking) comes from trying out new things, not being afraid to experiment, and knowing what effect your tools (ingredients) will have -- and this only comes with experience. Much like coding, actually.
But they're (again) doing one of the things they were convicted for, using internal, unpublished APIs and going out of there way (presumably) to make those APIs accessible to their competitors. .NET deals with the problem by flipping a magic flag; Java doesn't have that option.
Doesn't GCC build trampolines under the stack? Under what conditions does it do this on x86? How many applications built with GCC are going to suddenly break?
It's interesting to note, however, that the cat looks much more surprised by this experiment than the elephant. Who would have guessed?
Interesting. Best answer I've heard yet. But there's no area code 101 (I think...) so the 10-10 prefix still uniquely identifies that type of call. Ditto 011 for long distance.