Part of "what it all comes down to" is that because they've never been challenged before for distribution channels, they haven't bothered to create services to take advantage of current technology even when those could help them. On the few occasions I used Napster or similar services it was either to listen to a few songs from groups or albums I hadn't heard before to find out whether I wanted to buy the music OR to get copies of songs on albums I already own when I was away from my physical CDs. These are both legitimate services that the recording/distribution/publishing industries (whomever you want to blame) don't offer. I'm no enemy of music publishers; I have over 500 CDs most of which I've purchased new.
As far as "socking it to 'The Man'", I think that's more true than you give it credit. The publishing industries have been gouging consumers since the beginning. How much of that $15 you pay for a new CD do you think actually gets to the artist? I don't mind paying for the music, but very little of the cost of a CD goes to compensate those who actually make the music. I don't care about the physical media, and the production of that and the packaging and distribution of the physical storage is most of the cost. The technology is there; I should be able to pay something more like $5.00 to get the right to download an album and then do with what I please (within normal copyright restrictions) of which only a small fraction would have to go to distribution. But that isn't going to happen, because the artists have contracts with record companies, and record companies have no desire to make less money.
Hopefully what has been going on in this realm recently will show that consumers want a different type of service, but I'm afraid that all that the record companies are seeing is piracy and all they will do is make the problem worse by making music even harder to listen to.
By "application level thing" I meant something which doesn't necessarily (and probably doesn't) have anything whatsoever to do with the.NET architecture and therefore can't be used as an argument for it.
pps: There is one cool thing about.NET: Supposedly you can extend say a C++ class using VB or C# or whatever..NET has a common runtime library that allows you to inherit and
extend object using a language that the original object was not written in.
There is nothing here that either isn't just an application level thing that can be done with any language/runtime/etc (5-6), is just a workaround for a poorly designed OS (7), or isn't already done with Java bytecode (1-4).
While the JVM instruction set does favour the Java language and object orientation, there is nothing stopping anyone from writing compilers from [probably] any language to Java bytecode. I've done it, as well as lots of other people/groups...
From the bit of reading I did of MS documentation for this, I haven't found anything that the.NET architecture will be able to do that the JVM can't do other than direct memory access. There are some differences between the.NET architecture and the JVM that will make life easier for those making other languages work in it (yes, programs written in languages other than Java can be run in the JVM too), but nothing more..NET will even have some of the same annoyances as the Java architecture, like no multiple inheritance...
Notre Dame once had an ASCII version of a cam that was watching the dome of a building on campus. You could even telnet to some port of some system to see a "movie" of the last 24 hours or so of feed. I think I remember seeing it 5 or 6 years ago...
no, what i was saying was that you would "create a file" on the filesystem called "textquery". the SQL filesystem would then replace that with a directory of files representing records. or something. there are lots of different ways to do the details...
You can give just about anything a filesystem interface, its just a matter of how good the implementation is and how useful it is.
There have already been even FTP and HTTP filesystems for several operating systems if memory serves, and I know there have been a couple other odd ones for BeOS. I nearly did a database FS for Be a few years ago myself.
Speaking of which, this would be much easier to implement (filesystems are simple to write) and more useful IMHO (because there are already standard APIs to query filesystems and support any number of attributes for files at the OS-Filesystem level) to do for BeOS.
I'm sure it can be done for linux too, but I have doubts as to the usefulness of it under any OS, much less one where you don't have the luxury of being able to utilize existing attribute support.
It might give some shortcuts for reading, but writing will likely be very complicated. I don't see a good way to do anything along the lines of joins either. The idea of using "." files/directories will help provide some of that I suppose. Permissions will also be a problem, though I guess you could just go by login name.
A good reason to have filesystem interfaces to complex resources (like FTP, HTTP, databases, etc) is that it is easy to access things on a filesystem from within just about every programming language on every platform. However, by forcing the normal interfaces to those resources down into what can be done to a filesystem some things also become very complicated. To do those more complicated things will either mean complicated interfaces or programs that give the filesystem information through some other means (ioctl?) or perhaps writing commands to a file within that filesystem ("cat 'SELECT blah FROM blahtable' >/mnt/mysql/queries/testquery" and then looking in/mnt/mysql/queries/testquery/ for the result set, for example).
In short, I'm sure it'll be very fun to implement and be an interesting toy which may even have some uses...
Re:Would have expected a better RPN comment from /
on
William Hewlett Dead
·
· Score: 1
Greetings fellow Rose alumnus...
I graduated recently (2000), and I can safely say I didn't participate in or witness any calculator races during my time there. Whether that is due to the majority of sizable calculations being done with Maple on a laptop/PC now or the fact that Rose has been coed for the past many years now I can't say.
Of course, there are still lots of calculators in use around campus. I know I was able to convince at least a couple people to buy HPs by showing them The Way Of RPN...
Let's see, the Bush administration is going to be much easier on corporations, and I've heard comments directly related to the still ongoing MS antitrust situation. MS is doing the software for the voting machines. Now, if that whole antitrust case were to get thrown out, I wonder who the software would be favoring...
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe... Either that or they'll patent the fungus, then alter it so that it only eats CDRs.
Oh great... Just when sendmail starts to get all the bugs worked out...
Part of "what it all comes down to" is that because they've never been challenged before for distribution channels, they haven't bothered to create services to take advantage of current technology even when those could help them. On the few occasions I used Napster or similar services it was either to listen to a few songs from groups or albums I hadn't heard before to find out whether I wanted to buy the music OR to get copies of songs on albums I already own when I was away from my physical CDs. These are both legitimate services that the recording/distribution/publishing industries (whomever you want to blame) don't offer. I'm no enemy of music publishers; I have over 500 CDs most of which I've purchased new.
As far as "socking it to 'The Man'", I think that's more true than you give it credit. The publishing industries have been gouging consumers since the beginning. How much of that $15 you pay for a new CD do you think actually gets to the artist? I don't mind paying for the music, but very little of the cost of a CD goes to compensate those who actually make the music. I don't care about the physical media, and the production of that and the packaging and distribution of the physical storage is most of the cost. The technology is there; I should be able to pay something more like $5.00 to get the right to download an album and then do with what I please (within normal copyright restrictions) of which only a small fraction would have to go to distribution. But that isn't going to happen, because the artists have contracts with record companies, and record companies have no desire to make less money.
Hopefully what has been going on in this realm recently will show that consumers want a different type of service, but I'm afraid that all that the record companies are seeing is piracy and all they will do is make the problem worse by making music even harder to listen to.
Read the article I linked to. It started out as "Wolfenstein 3D: Part II" though yes, it didn't end up as exactly a sequel...
...and it is called Rise of the Triad
It was also a Pat Paulsen presidental campaign slogan...
Remember, your older boss could have started getting experience even younger than you did.
[fill in the blank]
Found it: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/dotnet/cpapndx/_ cor_interface_type_inheritance.htm
Could be, though I did read another document somewhere in the C# or .NET documentation that said the same thing (though I don't know what it was)...
I didn't either until I read this. Granted, C# != .NET, but why would they not allow multiple inheritance in C# if it could be done in the runtime?
Sorry for my poor choice of words.
.NET architecture and therefore can't be used as an argument for it.
By "application level thing" I meant something which doesn't necessarily (and probably doesn't) have anything whatsoever to do with the
There is nothing here that either isn't just an application level thing that can be done with any language/runtime/etc (5-6), is just a workaround for a poorly designed OS (7), or isn't already done with Java bytecode (1-4).
While the JVM instruction set does favour the Java language and object orientation, there is nothing stopping anyone from writing compilers from [probably] any language to Java bytecode. I've done it, as well as lots of other people/groups...
From the bit of reading I did of MS documentation for this, I haven't found anything that the .NET architecture will be able to do that the JVM can't do other than direct memory access. There are some differences between the .NET architecture and the JVM that will make life easier for those making other languages work in it (yes, programs written in languages other than Java can be run in the JVM too), but nothing more. .NET will even have some of the same annoyances as the Java architecture, like no multiple inheritance...
Notre Dame once had an ASCII version of a cam that was watching the dome of a building on campus. You could even telnet to some port of some system to see a "movie" of the last 24 hours or so of feed. I think I remember seeing it 5 or 6 years ago...
...to go to jail over this issue.
or a modem
well, yeah.
s/cat/echo/ in my comment.
no, what i was saying was that you would "create a file" on the filesystem called "textquery". the SQL filesystem would then replace that with a directory of files representing records. or something. there are lots of different ways to do the details...
You can give just about anything a filesystem interface, its just a matter of how good the implementation is and how useful it is.
/mnt/mysql/queries/testquery" and then looking in /mnt/mysql/queries/testquery/ for the result set, for example).
There have already been even FTP and HTTP filesystems for several operating systems if memory serves, and I know there have been a couple other odd ones for BeOS. I nearly did a database FS for Be a few years ago myself.
Speaking of which, this would be much easier to implement (filesystems are simple to write) and more useful IMHO (because there are already standard APIs to query filesystems and support any number of attributes for files at the OS-Filesystem level) to do for BeOS.
I'm sure it can be done for linux too, but I have doubts as to the usefulness of it under any OS, much less one where you don't have the luxury of being able to utilize existing attribute support.
It might give some shortcuts for reading, but writing will likely be very complicated. I don't see a good way to do anything along the lines of joins either. The idea of using "." files/directories will help provide some of that I suppose. Permissions will also be a problem, though I guess you could just go by login name.
A good reason to have filesystem interfaces to complex resources (like FTP, HTTP, databases, etc) is that it is easy to access things on a filesystem from within just about every programming language on every platform. However, by forcing the normal interfaces to those resources down into what can be done to a filesystem some things also become very complicated. To do those more complicated things will either mean complicated interfaces or programs that give the filesystem information through some other means (ioctl?) or perhaps writing commands to a file within that filesystem ("cat 'SELECT blah FROM blahtable' >
In short, I'm sure it'll be very fun to implement and be an interesting toy which may even have some uses...
What I'd like to know is whether lower radiation phones would make a difference...
Greetings fellow Rose alumnus...
I graduated recently (2000), and I can safely say I didn't participate in or witness any calculator races during my time there. Whether that is due to the majority of sizable calculations being done with Maple on a laptop/PC now or the fact that Rose has been coed for the past many years now I can't say.
Of course, there are still lots of calculators in use around campus. I know I was able to convince at least a couple people to buy HPs by showing them The Way Of RPN...
Let's see, the Bush administration is going to be much easier on corporations, and I've heard comments directly related to the still ongoing MS antitrust situation. MS is doing the software for the voting machines. Now, if that whole antitrust case were to get thrown out, I wonder who the software would be favoring...