**With all the weight saved, get a better/larger battery
What weight savings? With a slideout keyboard, your so-called "dumb phone" (with high-quality camera, bluetooth, speakerphone, usb, and mp3/ogg playback!!!) will easily weight more than an iphone.
I'm not sure what you are trying to point out with this example. An optimizing compiler likely optimizes away the constructor code. Why would the program stop inside the Foo constructor?
Relax. I mean you no harm. I was merely pointing out that your earlier statement, "100% not true for LINUX/UNIX" was, it seemed to me, incorrect. I displayed code that, on my Linux box, demonstrated my point. The language spec does, as you correctly claim, leave it to the compiler the details of how to implement this.
Compile and run this on your Linux box. This is common enough that it's good to know what happens under the hood. In particular, consider the code path that would have to be taken in order to call global constructors *without* using pre-main hooks. (Note: I had to play with angle/square brackets to get the include line to stay untouched by html.)
#include [cstdio]
class Foo { public:
Foo() {
puts("Before main.\n");
} };
static Foo gFoo;
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
puts("In main."); }
No, this system is designed to the resolve "single vehicle incidents", where typically a soccer mom on the phone (irresponsible) driver loses control of the vehicle
> Wouldn't it be infinitely cheaper and just as effective at keeping the upgrade treadmill running and the pirated copys stopped to merely upload maps and textures, rather than trying to run a whole video connection across the net?
The video-connection approach means any game engine can be adapted to or built for this model fairly easily without any specialized content download infrastructure.
Write songs that are catchy enough to be picked up by ad agencies to be used in TV commercials. Best if they have choruses about freedom, cars, or hair. Niche songs might obscurely allude to feminine pads.
"What if it's pre-IPO (in other words, as it stands today) Facebook? There IS no board of directors yet...there are no shareholders, because there is no stock."
I don't think you know much about how private corporations work. Facebook has all of these things: directors, shares, and shareholders.
The Forbes article smells like a Wired or Fast Company article from 1999. It even uses the much loved phrase of that time, "paradigm shift." And then there's this nugget:
"It’s a lot easier to start asking Siri for information instead of typing search terms into a box compared to thousands of enterprises ceasing to upgrade to the next version of Windows."
> People that don't want children seem somewhat selfish to me.
I've heard this before and don't understand it even a little. Not having children is like not collecting stamps for me. It doesn't interest me in the slightest. Quite the contrary, I find it irrational and self-centered when people claim their having children will improve the "way of life, genes, and moral values" of the population by adding a drop of water to a pool of over 6.5 x 10^9 humans, a number that is growing by over 250 every single minute of every day.
You can have a mich more direct effect on humanity, if that is your life's goal, by participating directly. The famous people who changed the course of history, from Aristotle to Shakespeare to Edison, did so via their work, not by making babies.
Agile doesn't solve this problem. The situation is almost certainly that upper management is unwilling to either properly staff the projects or adjust expectations of delivery dates. The solution is to try to educate them. They will not listen. Soon enough, every project is the number one priority, with an emphasis on a given project that shifts daily/weekly at the whim of the CXO. Eventually, you and your coworkers will jump off that sinking ship.
The submitter, who works for itworld, sent a link to slashdot with an itworld article that has no source material nor citations of where the story was sourced. The only actual journalism that anyone has done on this appears to come from:
"All corporations do is pass their tax costs on to the price of their goods."
Taxes are charged on earnings, not revenues. A corporation can reach the break-even point of revenues and expenses based on pricing without considering taxes at all. When a company considers pricing where taxes are concerned (i.e. when they are profitable), it becomes a matter of maximizing after-tax profits. In other words, the producer aims for the price point at which they will reap the most rewards. This is generally identical to the price point that they would reap the most rewards if there were no tax at all to consider.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems every single anti-commenting post in this thread is posted AC. There's a reason for this.
**With all the weight saved, get a better/larger battery
What weight savings? With a slideout keyboard, your so-called "dumb phone" (with high-quality camera, bluetooth, speakerphone, usb, and mp3/ogg playback!!!) will easily weight more than an iphone.
I'm not sure what you are trying to point out with this example. An optimizing compiler likely optimizes away the constructor code. Why would the program stop inside the Foo constructor?
Relax. I mean you no harm. I was merely pointing out that your earlier statement, "100% not true for LINUX/UNIX" was, it seemed to me, incorrect. I displayed code that, on my Linux box, demonstrated my point. The language spec does, as you correctly claim, leave it to the compiler the details of how to implement this.
Compile and run this on your Linux box. This is common enough that it's good to know what happens under the hood. In particular, consider the code path that would have to be taken in order to call global constructors *without* using pre-main hooks. (Note: I had to play with angle/square brackets to get the include line to stay untouched by html.)
#include [cstdio]
class Foo {
public:
Foo() {
puts("Before main.\n");
}
};
static Foo gFoo;
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
puts("In main.");
}
To be fair, Big Huge Games was going to be closed by THQ if they had not been purchased.
"It's way too easy to contribute to making the world shit and then deflect all responsibility" - Anonymous Coward
Indeed.
No, this system is designed to the resolve "single vehicle incidents", where typically a soccer mom on the phone (irresponsible) driver loses control of the vehicle
FTFY ;-)
> Wouldn't it be infinitely cheaper and just as effective at keeping the upgrade treadmill running and the pirated copys stopped to merely upload maps and textures, rather than trying to run a whole video connection across the net?
The video-connection approach means any game engine can be adapted to or built for this model fairly easily without any specialized content download infrastructure.
Write songs that are catchy enough to be picked up by ad agencies to be used in TV commercials. Best if they have choruses about freedom, cars, or hair. Niche songs might obscurely allude to feminine pads.
Crappy unknown bands and crappy low-res iphone photos is where the money is. I'm investing in flea markets next.
The best "dirt" is true. Otherwise, it's not nearly so dirty.
You don't deserve a music-related patent if you can't spell Zeppelin.
"What if it's pre-IPO (in other words, as it stands today) Facebook? There IS no board of directors yet...there are no shareholders, because there is no stock."
I don't think you know much about how private corporations work. Facebook has all of these things: directors, shares, and shareholders.
The Forbes article smells like a Wired or Fast Company article from 1999. It even uses the much loved phrase of that time, "paradigm shift." And then there's this nugget:
"It’s a lot easier to start asking Siri for information instead of typing search terms into a box compared to thousands of enterprises ceasing to upgrade to the next version of Windows."
What?
> People that don't want children seem somewhat selfish to me.
I've heard this before and don't understand it even a little. Not having children is like not collecting stamps for me. It doesn't interest me in the slightest. Quite the contrary, I find it irrational and self-centered when people claim their having children will improve the "way of life, genes, and moral values" of the population by adding a drop of water to a pool of over 6.5 x 10^9 humans, a number that is growing by over 250 every single minute of every day.
You can have a mich more direct effect on humanity, if that is your life's goal, by participating directly. The famous people who changed the course of history, from Aristotle to Shakespeare to Edison, did so via their work, not by making babies.
Yeah, they're just trying to play catch-up with Intellivion's latest technology
Average commute distance in the US is 16 miles. You're not slightly above average. You're way at the far edge of the curve.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&page=1
The US produces the stuff too. We were a net exporter of oil-based fuels last year (for the first time in over 60 years).
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-16/us-oil-boom/52053236/1
Agile doesn't solve this problem. The situation is almost certainly that upper management is unwilling to either properly staff the projects or adjust expectations of delivery dates. The solution is to try to educate them. They will not listen. Soon enough, every project is the number one priority, with an emphasis on a given project that shifts daily/weekly at the whim of the CXO. Eventually, you and your coworkers will jump off that sinking ship.
I can't stand it any more! Three posts in a row! I must say something!
It's "bald faced", not "bold faced"!
OK, I feel a little better.
I learned it on youtube.
The submitter, who works for itworld, sent a link to slashdot with an itworld article that has no source material nor citations of where the story was sourced. The only actual journalism that anyone has done on this appears to come from:
http://www.wort.lu/wort/web/en/luxembourg/articles/2011/05/149560/index.php
This is the link that should have been posted. Seriously, it took me less than a minute to vet this.
"I took a retail job as a life raft."
I would love to be a life raft and get paid for it.
"All corporations do is pass their tax costs on to the price of their goods."
Taxes are charged on earnings, not revenues. A corporation can reach the break-even point of revenues and expenses based on pricing without considering taxes at all. When a company considers pricing where taxes are concerned (i.e. when they are profitable), it becomes a matter of maximizing after-tax profits. In other words, the producer aims for the price point at which they will reap the most rewards. This is generally identical to the price point that they would reap the most rewards if there were no tax at all to consider.