If nothing else, showing that you have a broader interest than just.NET gives the impression that you're not just in this for the 9-5 but actually have a genuine desire to learn.
Why this? I've been around in the development scene for over a decade now, more or less, I've done PHP, Python etc, I've done MySQL, Postgres, I've done Linux, AIX, the various BSDs.
You know what I do these days in my "9 to 5"?.Net.
You know what I do these days in my own time, for my own projects?.Net.
According to you, that shows I do not have a genuine desire to learn. Why is that? What about.Net doesn't allow someone to have a genuine desire to learn? Do I have to continue to learn "other" stuff? Why?
Also, quite a lot of the other items in your list were direct carry ons from licensed copies of the original design - the J-11B was a development from the licensed J-11 that the Chinese were allowed to build under license, the J-7 was built with Soviet approval, the J-8 was a new build aircraft that relied heavily on the J-7 for initial capability, later developing more away from the J-7.
The J-10 was not a Eurofighter copy, it was a carry on from the Israeli Lavi project, which was itself built on the F-16. There was a lot of criticism of Israel after they handed the Lavi project lock stock and barrel to China despite it containing lots of classified American technology.
The difference is that when the A320 entered the market, it did not compete against the original 737 (-100 and -200), it competed against the pretty much brand new 737 that had been released at the start of the 1980s (the -300, -400, -500 "Classic" series) - and Boeing found itself in a position where they had to rapidly respond with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800 and -900) early in the 1990s.
The A320 competed nicely because it came to the market because it had a technological edge that even the brand new 737 Classic series didnt have.
However, the C919 is coming to market with yesterdays technology, not tomorrows. It has no advantage other than price - but that may be enough for smaller airlines that would normally buy older used aircraft (African and Asia Pacific regionals for example - lots of airlines there that run 20+ year old aircraft into the ground).
ITAR can be easy to get around - China already produces (via a final assembly line) their own Airbus A319/A320/A321 series aircraft under license from Airbus for the Chinese market (which is why you see lots of Chinese orders going to Airbus these days) and Airbus, despite being an European country, can still fall foul of the ITAR limitations.
McDonnell Douglas setup an MD-90 final assembly in China during the 1990s, so basically large scale technology transfer has already happened despite ITAR limitations.
The way I see it playing out (I'm a.Net developer that works heavily in the London, UK market) is Java becoming the Cobol of the future in that it takes the position of the top end of the enterprise market (London Stock Exchange level of operation) while.Net takes a significant chunk of Javas small to medium enterprise work (we sell a heck of a lot of ASP.Net sites, no one asks us for Java even tho we have the capability and we get a few PHP/Python/Ruby queries, again even tho we have the capability).
We aren't talking about legal consequences, we are talking about the law not stopping other people from enacting certain consequences.
For example, why shouldn't an employer be allowed to sack an employee that's bad mouthing the company publicly? That's precisely the issue at question here - if you badmouth someone, why should they continue to benefit you?
Bollocks, none of what you have said is true. An employer cannot simply sell you to another company as an asset (without selling the entire company to new owners, so the asset here is again not you). An employer cannot force you to do any labour, you can refuse at will - depending on the terms of your contract, that could even mean your employer has no recourse if the work he is requiring you to do sits outside that of your defined role (I as a web developer cannot be made to clean the toilets, I could refuse and if my employer took any action against me whatever then a tribuneral would rule in my favour and award me damages, my position back and other things). An employee who walks away could be sued for breach of contract, but this would take a particularly vindictive employer, and in any case the employer would be highly unlikely to win if the work requested falls outside that of the job you are employed to do.
Your last statement is the most ludicrous of all - just because you cannot walk into another job and thus are unwilling to quit your current one does not remove that option from you, and thus you are not a slave.
Shouldn't the concept of consequence be part of the checks and balances involved in making the moral and ethical decision on whether or not you carry out the act of speech?
No, HTML5 does not do most of what Flash does, it currently does a subset - a very nice subset, but a subset none-the-less.
Lets see a HTML equivilent of Desktop Tower Defence. Oh, wait, no ones written one yet, despite there being hundreds of Flash versions.
You also seem to mistake me for someone that hasn't written anything in HTML5 - well, I have, quite a bit actually, so I'm in a damn good position to have an opinion on the matter.
You can do what you like with it, but Microsoft still doesn't have to condone your actions or even support them in any way. Their intention with this product is X while your intention is Y, but how you achieve Y is up to you.
When my system is blazingly fast for VS2010 usage, Fireworks CS3 usage, video editing and shit like that, but iTunes drags its butt along the floor like an abused puppy, I really do not think that its Windows at fault here.
And I'm a developer with over a decade of experience total, and about 3 years of Windows development experience, along with OSX, iPhone and other experience in the mix.
iTunes has to use the central registry for anything *shared*, but if access to filetype information or mimetype associations is slowing iTunes down then iTunes is badly written, as that is not something that iTunes should be needing to check for each and every action the user takes.
iTunes is at fault here whichever way you try and cut it. Its a poorly written piece of shit.
Because you can do the bits that functional languages are good at in F#, and the bits traditional languages are good at in C#, and call one from the other without having to resort to the traditional inter-language calling methods like COM et al (not sure if I have the right example there, I never did modern application development before C#).
Literally, with C# and F# you can just define classes in either and call them in the other language directly.
Thats what sets this apart from Ocaml, and thats why people use it over Ocaml on.Net.
Except that HTML5 currently doesn't cover a significant proportion of Flash functionality, even if you limit yourself to just video playback, with some significant parts even being dropped from the spec (video cue points being one of them) and some not even mentioned (progressive stream bitrate adaptation).
HTML5 might be 'the future', but its not 'the now', or even 'the tomorrow' with regard to being a Flash replacement.
Oh, and there are no 'tools' to learn to use, only a language - heres a hint, a significant proportion of Flash is not created by straight coding.
*I* have huge issues with people proclaiming HTML5 is the Flash replacement of choice, although I have never developed in Flash (although I sit next to a Flash developer), and I do a lot of HTML5 stuff for the iPhone - but I think you are going to try and spin my response as a fanboi or shill post anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
And why doesn't my C#, VB.Net, WPF, WCF, ASP.Net and other stuff already show that?
If nothing else, showing that you have a broader interest than just .NET gives the impression that you're not just in this for the 9-5 but actually have a genuine desire to learn.
Why this? I've been around in the development scene for over a decade now, more or less, I've done PHP, Python etc, I've done MySQL, Postgres, I've done Linux, AIX, the various BSDs.
You know what I do these days in my "9 to 5"? .Net.
You know what I do these days in my own time, for my own projects? .Net.
According to you, that shows I do not have a genuine desire to learn. Why is that? What about .Net doesn't allow someone to have a genuine desire to learn? Do I have to continue to learn "other" stuff? Why?
The purpose of a benchmark is to try and show performance when running the benchmark - if you think its anything else, then you are deluding yourself.
If you want to see real world results, then use the real world.
That said, everyone is presenting a case here without any real evidence, this is nothing more (currently) than hype on the articles part.
I distinctly remember this being heavily discussed in the last few IE9 benchmark stories as well, so its not new and its not necessarily cheating.
Also, quite a lot of the other items in your list were direct carry ons from licensed copies of the original design - the J-11B was a development from the licensed J-11 that the Chinese were allowed to build under license, the J-7 was built with Soviet approval, the J-8 was a new build aircraft that relied heavily on the J-7 for initial capability, later developing more away from the J-7.
The J-10 was not a Eurofighter copy, it was a carry on from the Israeli Lavi project, which was itself built on the F-16. There was a lot of criticism of Israel after they handed the Lavi project lock stock and barrel to China despite it containing lots of classified American technology.
The difference is that when the A320 entered the market, it did not compete against the original 737 (-100 and -200), it competed against the pretty much brand new 737 that had been released at the start of the 1980s (the -300, -400, -500 "Classic" series) - and Boeing found itself in a position where they had to rapidly respond with the 737NG (-600, -700, -800 and -900) early in the 1990s.
The A320 competed nicely because it came to the market because it had a technological edge that even the brand new 737 Classic series didnt have.
However, the C919 is coming to market with yesterdays technology, not tomorrows. It has no advantage other than price - but that may be enough for smaller airlines that would normally buy older used aircraft (African and Asia Pacific regionals for example - lots of airlines there that run 20+ year old aircraft into the ground).
ITAR can be easy to get around - China already produces (via a final assembly line) their own Airbus A319/A320/A321 series aircraft under license from Airbus for the Chinese market (which is why you see lots of Chinese orders going to Airbus these days) and Airbus, despite being an European country, can still fall foul of the ITAR limitations.
McDonnell Douglas setup an MD-90 final assembly in China during the 1990s, so basically large scale technology transfer has already happened despite ITAR limitations.
Or just hold them to the original quote?
The way I see it playing out (I'm a .Net developer that works heavily in the London, UK market) is Java becoming the Cobol of the future in that it takes the position of the top end of the enterprise market (London Stock Exchange level of operation) while .Net takes a significant chunk of Javas small to medium enterprise work (we sell a heck of a lot of ASP.Net sites, no one asks us for Java even tho we have the capability and we get a few PHP/Python/Ruby queries, again even tho we have the capability).
And yet people are strangely willing to trust IBM despite them being much worse than Microsoft in the past.
We aren't talking about legal consequences, we are talking about the law not stopping other people from enacting certain consequences.
For example, why shouldn't an employer be allowed to sack an employee that's bad mouthing the company publicly? That's precisely the issue at question here - if you badmouth someone, why should they continue to benefit you?
Bollocks, none of what you have said is true. An employer cannot simply sell you to another company as an asset (without selling the entire company to new owners, so the asset here is again not you). An employer cannot force you to do any labour, you can refuse at will - depending on the terms of your contract, that could even mean your employer has no recourse if the work he is requiring you to do sits outside that of your defined role (I as a web developer cannot be made to clean the toilets, I could refuse and if my employer took any action against me whatever then a tribuneral would rule in my favour and award me damages, my position back and other things). An employee who walks away could be sued for breach of contract, but this would take a particularly vindictive employer, and in any case the employer would be highly unlikely to win if the work requested falls outside that of the job you are employed to do.
Your last statement is the most ludicrous of all - just because you cannot walk into another job and thus are unwilling to quit your current one does not remove that option from you, and thus you are not a slave.
Shouldn't the concept of consequence be part of the checks and balances involved in making the moral and ethical decision on whether or not you carry out the act of speech?
Name one "business model" that isn't artificially supported by laws?
My immediate thought was, isn't this more like blocking hot linking of images? Plenty of sites do that, it's not a bad thing at all.
No, HTML5 does not do most of what Flash does, it currently does a subset - a very nice subset, but a subset none-the-less.
Lets see a HTML equivilent of Desktop Tower Defence. Oh, wait, no ones written one yet, despite there being hundreds of Flash versions.
You also seem to mistake me for someone that hasn't written anything in HTML5 - well, I have, quite a bit actually, so I'm in a damn good position to have an opinion on the matter.
Its currently no Flash replacement.
Where, precisely, are they saying that? Oh, they aren't ...
I can buy a Picasso and then burn it, but no one has to condone that course of action.
You can do what you like with it, but Microsoft still doesn't have to condone your actions or even support them in any way. Their intention with this product is X while your intention is Y, but how you achieve Y is up to you.
When my system is blazingly fast for VS2010 usage, Fireworks CS3 usage, video editing and shit like that, but iTunes drags its butt along the floor like an abused puppy, I really do not think that its Windows at fault here.
And I'm a developer with over a decade of experience total, and about 3 years of Windows development experience, along with OSX, iPhone and other experience in the mix.
iTunes has to use the central registry for anything *shared*, but if access to filetype information or mimetype associations is slowing iTunes down then iTunes is badly written, as that is not something that iTunes should be needing to check for each and every action the user takes.
iTunes is at fault here whichever way you try and cut it. Its a poorly written piece of shit.
Because you can do the bits that functional languages are good at in F#, and the bits traditional languages are good at in C#, and call one from the other without having to resort to the traditional inter-language calling methods like COM et al (not sure if I have the right example there, I never did modern application development before C#).
.Net.
Literally, with C# and F# you can just define classes in either and call them in the other language directly.
Thats what sets this apart from Ocaml, and thats why people use it over Ocaml on
Not to mention the projects on Codeplex, which is pretty much Windows only...
Its hosted on the .Net platform.
Except that HTML5 currently doesn't cover a significant proportion of Flash functionality, even if you limit yourself to just video playback, with some significant parts even being dropped from the spec (video cue points being one of them) and some not even mentioned (progressive stream bitrate adaptation).
HTML5 might be 'the future', but its not 'the now', or even 'the tomorrow' with regard to being a Flash replacement.
Oh, and there are no 'tools' to learn to use, only a language - heres a hint, a significant proportion of Flash is not created by straight coding.
*I* have huge issues with people proclaiming HTML5 is the Flash replacement of choice, although I have never developed in Flash (although I sit next to a Flash developer), and I do a lot of HTML5 stuff for the iPhone - but I think you are going to try and spin my response as a fanboi or shill post anyway.