It was definitely NOT worth the time to read - and I think doing so may have killed a few brain cells... my guess is the author re-read their own article LOTS of times.
Amazon, Facebook and Google are considering a coordinated a coordinated blackout of the internet
No Amazon, no Facebook? I'd be willing to forgo Google in return. But then...
"When the home pages of Google.com, Amazon.com, Facebook.com, and their Internet allies simultaneously turn black with anti-censorship warnings that ask users to contact politicians about a vote in the U.S. Congress the next day on SOPA,"
... in other words, it's not really a blackout. It's just hype to make it look like they're "doing something about it."
And they complain about the OWS protesters not having their act together...
he did claim that Linux's competitor to Firefox used WebKit
Of course, the REAL fail is thinking that there's such a thing as "the linux browser". Linus Torvalds doesn't make browsers, and there are plenty of "Linux browsers" out there. Arora (QT4), Chrome, Galeon, Firefox, Konq, links, lynx, reKonq, Seamonkey, all sorts of plasma mini-browsers, whatever... you get the picture:-)
I have never heard of the UI of a handheld application requiring significant processor resources
Graphical rendering of your screen is most processor-intensive part of the unit. It's why iPhones and iPads have a dedicated GPU What - you think those page wipes and zooming were done by the main cpu? That would be a cpu made with unobtainium.
Because WebKit is stil broken for some basic functionality, like applying CSS3 transforms after scaling at a factor of less than 1:1 - something that Firefox, Opera, and even IE9 get right..
It's one thing to have a web browser that needs to scale at less than 1:1 - you can call the OS to handle it. But what if the web browser IS the OS? Then you are, as some slashdotters would put it, boned.
. What the hell do you people think these folks did in their coding years? 9-5'ers?
We were younger and stupider then. Now, unless there's serious equity involved, forget it, Charlie Brown. There are too many places that "assume" you'll do the extra hours at no extra cost. Let them hire extra bodies instead. That management, after all these decades, STILL hasn't got a clue as to how to allocate manpower is indicative of how badly we need a union.
The foreigner cannot ENFORCE a judgment from a court outside the US. The US will say "Sorry, our laws don't allow statutory awards for non-registered copyrights." Same as other civil acts such as recognizing same-sex marriages outside the US by states that don't allow it.
Wait a few years... there used to be a slogan (before your time) - "Don't trust anyone over 30." Today, it's "Don't hire anyone over 30 to write code - we can get someone younger, cheaper, and willing to work the extra hours for free, and they will have even worse spelling and math skills than we do. Hiring one of those old farts will just make us look bad by comparison."
The original poster might as well slit their wrists now if they really believe that they can go back to coding after so many years out of it. The first tthree questions would be
Q1 "Why did you get out of it in the first place?
Q2 "So why do you want to get back in now?"
Q3: "Why should we even look at you when you've got no recent experience?"
BTW - the job market is NOT "strong for programmers" unless your definition of "strong" == "willing to work even longer hours for a lot less than the person we used to have before we burned them out." Especially programmers > 50.
The failure was technical - the political and economic failures that led up to it are another matter. For example, the failure to build the seawall higher (it was on their todo list - as in "we'll do it some time in the future") was both economic and political, but the fallout (pun intended) wasn't limited to just political or economic.
The switch statement is implemented by many compilers as a goto to those labels in cases where the target elements are not "equally spaced". When the targets (the labeled statements) are all one exactly after the other, (1, 2, 3, 4...) it's a simple matter of implement a switch by just doing some pointer arithmetic in a branch table. However, many switch statements are NOT contiguous (for example: 0:, 1:,2:, 42:, 666:, -1: (with a fall-through to default:), so they have to be implemented with a series of CMP and JE ADDR instructions instead - and guess what the JMP ADDR target is... it's your goto label:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with GOTO, and it doesn't necessarily lead to spaghetti code, just like not using GOTO doesn't guarantee that your code won't be an ungodly mess. It's all up to the programmer.
In cases of languages such as javascript that don't have a goto, you can get most of the same flexibility by implementing a global STACK array, a global THIS, and a separate global FUNCS array, and pushing and popping objects (esp. your local equivalent of THIS) off the STACK and functions off FUNCS, and making the default operand always be the global THIS array. So, while you may not be able to GOTO, you can achieve the same convenience (and make your code a lot more generic in the process).
Where's the tidal wave and SIX nuclear power plants in Japan about to do the China Syndrome stories? Or is it because Godzilla didn't put in an appearance? I mean, really, this is a tech failure that literally put hundreds of millions of people at risk, forced several countries to change their energy plans to depend more on greenhouse-gas-emitting power, and it's not even half a sentence?
The corollory is - Don't assume just because a lawyer tells you something, that it's true. Remember, in any court case, half the time they're proven wrong. Don't ask the lawyer for advice - TELL him or her what you want done. If they can't do it, find another lawyer.
So simply tell the company to p*** up a rope - it's your property, and if they have a beef let THEM make the first move. 99% of the time, that's the end of it.
The other 1%, it depends on what the judge had for breakfast.
I can't tell if you are stupid or a liar. I have to assume a liar, as if you were as stupid as necessary for that analogy to make sense to you, you'd be unable to operate a computer. It's theft because you have lost something. You had $5000 in your account. It's gone now.
And you call ME stupid? I wrote that the bank doesn't keep the physical money in your account - it's just bits in a database. If you REALLY believe that they actually keep your money in some physical account, you have NO clue as to how banks work.
NOTHING physical is stolen when your account is emptied by a thief - it's just some bits that are flipped. So again, given that there is NOTHING physical, how is it any more theft than stealing software is theft? In both ways, neither you nor the bank were deprived of "bits" - but you were both certainly robbed of "something" - and that's why we call it theft in both cases.
I didn't say they wouldn't - I wrote that LEDs and CF bulbs are not suited for certain environments, such as fridges and ovens. CFs fail in both, LEDs fail in the oven. Both need incandescent bulbs.
He'd be shocking animals to death with the new lightbulbs, suing Westinghouse and Tesla and everyone else, and in general acting like any other a$$hole - because that's what he was, and that's what he did, as well as cheating Tesla out of $$$ - all putting the "Con" in "Con Edison."
And they recognize stealing, as well as "intellectual property rights" such as territories, and social hierarchies.
Territories are not intellectual property.
Really? So things like country boundaries actually existed before we drew them? Wow. Celebrating New Years early, are we?
Placement within a social hierarchy is not intellectual property.
To the contrary, it is exclusively intellectual. There is no physical characteristic, such as skin color, that determines that one person should be the slave, and the other the master.
In the current case, what was taken was of far greater value than just the software license - they used the stolen software to develop a competing product quicker. So yes, the damages were far greater than what the judge knocked it down to.
So again, they stole something they didn't have a right to, and there was significant economic loss - not "just" the license fee.
I demonstrated that your original position - that property rights were created by human laws - was wrong. Simple observations of territorial animals shows otherwise. Since your premise was manifestly in error, why not admit that "IP" is not just a human concept? And that "copyright infringement" is the real artificial construct, as opposed to stealing - the taking of something that is not yours without permission?
Do you now have a copy? Yes. So, how do you magically get it without "taking" it? Did you just "think about wanting it" and it suddenly materialized?
I have every right to set limits on what you do with software I write, same as I have every right to set limits on whether you can come into my home, or use my bathroom, or raid my fridge.
Don't like the limits? Then don't use the software, don't visit me, go pee somewhere else, and stay out of my fridge.
Here in Kanuckistan, there's no "simple traffic ticket" for driving while drunk - it's always a criminal offense. However, you're liable for accidents you cause, whether you're drunk or sober. You can be totally sober and run into a parked car and be responsible for the damages.
Slashdot Mirror
It was definitely NOT worth the time to read - and I think doing so may have killed a few brain cells ... my guess is the author re-read their own article LOTS of times.
No Amazon, no Facebook? I'd be willing to forgo Google in return. But then ...
And they complain about the OWS protesters not having their act together ...
Of course, the REAL fail is thinking that there's such a thing as "the linux browser". Linus Torvalds doesn't make browsers, and there are plenty of "Linux browsers" out there. Arora (QT4), Chrome, Galeon, Firefox, Konq, links, lynx, reKonq, Seamonkey, all sorts of plasma mini-browsers, whatever ... you get the picture :-)
Graphical rendering of your screen is most processor-intensive part of the unit. It's why iPhones and iPads have a dedicated GPU What - you think those page wipes and zooming were done by the main cpu? That would be a cpu made with unobtainium.
Because WebKit is stil broken for some basic functionality, like applying CSS3 transforms after scaling at a factor of less than 1:1 - something that Firefox, Opera, and even IE9 get right..
It's one thing to have a web browser that needs to scale at less than 1:1 - you can call the OS to handle it. But what if the web browser IS the OS? Then you are, as some slashdotters would put it, boned.
We were younger and stupider then. Now, unless there's serious equity involved, forget it, Charlie Brown. There are too many places that "assume" you'll do the extra hours at no extra cost. Let them hire extra bodies instead. That management, after all these decades, STILL hasn't got a clue as to how to allocate manpower is indicative of how badly we need a union.
True, but there's also a glut of programmers over 40 ... it's not 1999 any more.
Though I do agree, "I could care less" means you DO care at least a tiny bit.
The foreigner cannot ENFORCE a judgment from a court outside the US. The US will say "Sorry, our laws don't allow statutory awards for non-registered copyrights." Same as other civil acts such as recognizing same-sex marriages outside the US by states that don't allow it.
The original poster might as well slit their wrists now if they really believe that they can go back to coding after so many years out of it. The first tthree questions would be
Q1 "Why did you get out of it in the first place?
Q2 "So why do you want to get back in now?"
Q3: "Why should we even look at you when you've got no recent experience?"
BTW - the job market is NOT "strong for programmers" unless your definition of "strong" == "willing to work even longer hours for a lot less than the person we used to have before we burned them out." Especially programmers > 50.
The failure was technical - the political and economic failures that led up to it are another matter. For example, the failure to build the seawall higher (it was on their todo list - as in "we'll do it some time in the future") was both economic and political, but the fallout (pun intended) wasn't limited to just political or economic.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with GOTO, and it doesn't necessarily lead to spaghetti code, just like not using GOTO doesn't guarantee that your code won't be an ungodly mess. It's all up to the programmer.
In cases of languages such as javascript that don't have a goto, you can get most of the same flexibility by implementing a global STACK array, a global THIS, and a separate global FUNCS array, and pushing and popping objects (esp. your local equivalent of THIS) off the STACK and functions off FUNCS, and making the default operand always be the global THIS array. So, while you may not be able to GOTO, you can achieve the same convenience (and make your code a lot more generic in the process).
CF bulbs fail in both, and LEDs fail in the oven.
Call me back when you can get an LED that works in the oven.
Where's the tidal wave and SIX nuclear power plants in Japan about to do the China Syndrome stories? Or is it because Godzilla didn't put in an appearance? I mean, really, this is a tech failure that literally put hundreds of millions of people at risk, forced several countries to change their energy plans to depend more on greenhouse-gas-emitting power, and it's not even half a sentence?
So simply tell the company to p*** up a rope - it's your property, and if they have a beef let THEM make the first move. 99% of the time, that's the end of it.
The other 1%, it depends on what the judge had for breakfast.
And you call ME stupid? I wrote that the bank doesn't keep the physical money in your account - it's just bits in a database. If you REALLY believe that they actually keep your money in some physical account, you have NO clue as to how banks work.
NOTHING physical is stolen when your account is emptied by a thief - it's just some bits that are flipped. So again, given that there is NOTHING physical, how is it any more theft than stealing software is theft? In both ways, neither you nor the bank were deprived of "bits" - but you were both certainly robbed of "something" - and that's why we call it theft in both cases.
I didn't say they wouldn't - I wrote that LEDs and CF bulbs are not suited for certain environments, such as fridges and ovens. CFs fail in both, LEDs fail in the oven. Both need incandescent bulbs.
You've been watching too much "Harry's Law." While there was ONE prosecutor who actually tried to do that, no convictions.
You forgot two common home uses - inside the fridge, and inside the stove. Neither compact florescent nor LED bulbs can stand those environments.
He'd be shocking animals to death with the new lightbulbs, suing Westinghouse and Tesla and everyone else, and in general acting like any other a$$hole - because that's what he was, and that's what he did, as well as cheating Tesla out of $$$ - all putting the "Con" in "Con Edison."
Really? So things like country boundaries actually existed before we drew them? Wow. Celebrating New Years early, are we?
To the contrary, it is exclusively intellectual. There is no physical characteristic, such as skin color, that determines that one person should be the slave, and the other the master.
So again, they stole something they didn't have a right to, and there was significant economic loss - not "just" the license fee.
I demonstrated that your original position - that property rights were created by human laws - was wrong. Simple observations of territorial animals shows otherwise. Since your premise was manifestly in error, why not admit that "IP" is not just a human concept? And that "copyright infringement" is the real artificial construct, as opposed to stealing - the taking of something that is not yours without permission?
I have every right to set limits on what you do with software I write, same as I have every right to set limits on whether you can come into my home, or use my bathroom, or raid my fridge.
Don't like the limits? Then don't use the software, don't visit me, go pee somewhere else, and stay out of my fridge.
Here in Kanuckistan, there's no "simple traffic ticket" for driving while drunk - it's always a criminal offense. However, you're liable for accidents you cause, whether you're drunk or sober. You can be totally sober and run into a parked car and be responsible for the damages.