This isn't a templates vrs derivation question, because you're using a template regardless. It's a question of whether or not you want to the requirement that objects being tested need to implement == to be enforced in code or socially. (Well, it's still socially even if you make the VBC, because they just might have not inherited from your class).
Parent is modded down, but while he's totally incorrect from a technical point of view, from a marketing/product line standpoing he's correct - XP is an upgrade/migration from 9x, not 2k.
On the other hand, the fact that it's there and you know it's over 2 years old and hasn't been fixed is a vast improvement on not tracking it at all, which seems to be the problem.
Texas still believes that it's an independent country, and GWB think's he's the president of it. Like when he makes speeches about how you don't mess with Texas:P And, (when he was Governor of Texas) about how Texas wasn't bound by an international treaty since Texas didn't sign it:P
You're just making my point, which is that the use of viral is because of your own objections the the GPL, not because it's neccesarily the most correct. You feel that the GPL is, in fact, negative, and therefore use a negative word to describe it. Maybe we could call it a "terrorist" license instead.
How about "community"? Or "shared"? Or "open"? All of those things are at least as accurate as viral. Viral is used when you want to denigrate the GPL, the others when you're advocating it. It's pretty clear what side anyone who descripes it as viral is on. Viral implies alot of things that the GPL is not - it implies, first off, that it's harmfull, which it certainly isn't, it implies that it's actively malicious, which it isn't, and it implies a contagion that doesn't exist.
On to the second point. You must not have been paying attention all the times there's been stories about companies breaking the GPL. If you (illegally) include GPL code in your release without providing the source, then you aren't going to be forced to release your source. It's one possible solution, and, in many cases, not even the most likely. Your code doesn't magically spread throught the internet. You become liable to civil prosecution, and when you lose your court case (for the sake of argument), you'll be subject to a variety of penalties. One of those penalties may be the forced release of your source code.
It's a sticky question, and one that makes your analgy incorrect. Here's the difference: You can call readline all you like, if you're just calling an executable and getting the result. Readline could be replaced transparently with something that gave the same input and output. That's like having a like in your book to a different book. On the other hand, if you link against the readline library, then your code is actually a part of readline (or readline is part of your code, depending on how you look at it). If you edit readline.so, then your app will fail. This is more like reprinting the part of the book you're referring to inline with your own book.
The actual legalities are even more complex, because software isn't like a book, and theres all kinds of issues with dynamic linking versus static linking, and there's been no legal test of these issues.
The use of "viral" to describe the GPL is hyperbole - viral has negative connotations that don't apply at all. Oh, and including GPL libraries in your code doesn't make your code GPL - it just makes it illegal if your code isn't (or GPL compatible). That's not quite the same thing.
In a company of any reasonable size, they'll have documented build procedures. In fact, probably automated ones. Support is the least of the reasons why companies don't like customers building from source.
H1-B isn't supposed to be about cheap labor, it's supposed to be about expediting immigration for a massively growing industry that didn't have enough workers. Indian programmers are more than welcome to compete with me, if they go through the green card process like everyone else. H1-Bs are fast tracked in and it's illegal and immoral to replace native workers with them.
I can. It's easy to do stuff like that when you're just looking at numbers on a balance sheet. And you'd be AMAZED at how self-centered some people can be, and for some reason buisness and upper managment attracts these people.
That may very well be true, but the parent is talking about moving work to non-industrial nations (I don't think he really meant China), or at least nations who's industry consists mainly of foreign plants. Anyway, it doesn't really matter if they work longer shifts if you can get more shits for a hundredth the cost.
You're looking at some of the wrong games, then. I got as into Deus Ex and Thief as I ever did into Loom or Ultima. (*adore Loom*)
Nothing inherently wrong with the FPS game format, or with great-looking 3d graphics. If Thief 3 looks as good as Unreal 2 or Unreal Tournament, I'll be one mighty happy man. (The whole time I was playing Unreal 2, I kept looking at these amazing lights and sounds and beautful textures and wishing that I was playing a game where they mattered)
Assuming that by CASE you meant RAD, I'd still disagree with you. I hate VB and can certainly do GUI layout in it faster than I can in C++. Maybe if I used C++ builder, but I detest it, so no.
Okay, since you're apparently just read Googlwatch (who can't even look up democracy in a dictionary, apparently), rather than thinking about it, here's a quick rundown on how and why Google ranks pages like this:
Say you've got this vast sea of text files, all of which have content about something. You want to provide a way to search these files. So, you index all the words on the page (paying special attention to meta tags, and maybe words in title tags). This is what the early search engines did, and it worked great until people relized they can draw more traffic by just adding every keyword they could think of to the meta tags. So you need a better way, instead of relying on a page to be honest about it's contents.
So Google came up with a pretty clever solution. It weights the keywords that other sites link to you with, as well as the contents of those sites. So if you sell custom car parts, and you're linked from a site that sells import car parts, then you're going to be ranked higher on searches for car parts. On top of that, sites that are linked by lots of other sites are high traffic sites. This means they tend to be the most popular, and therefore (probably) the most relevent. So you then take this concept and apply it recursively to the entire set of documents you're indexing, and you get a pretty good rating of sites that're relevent.
One of the reasons why this technique pisses off the people behind Googlewatch is that it means you can't get a high ranking unless other people think your page is usefull and relevant. It's true that this means it's hard to get enough critical mass for a high page rank. On the other hand, if you're the only one who things your site is relevent, it probably isn't.
Something you'll find repeated a number of times at places like the links in the post is that XML sucks, BUT the political advantages of widespread adoption may outweigh it's technical weaknesses. That doesn't mean that something not-sucky that achieves widespread use wouldn't be better. Oh, and tell your perl dude that someone has written an XML module, check CPAN. Although he's got an excellent point, in that a simple data model is better than a complex one.
An even BETTER solution is to use a standardized data format that doesn't add 30% overhead to all your files because of syntatical bloat, and that actually has a finalized, unambiguous spec so that there aren't 40 million ill-formed parsers out there.
You know, using VB is just code reuse. It's just reusing more code than you're use to. It's got some serious strengths. The app you write in a couple days the VB programmer can toss out after lunch. How about data aware controls? Those are a pain in the ass in C/C++, although you can make it easier by using third party components. Like ActiveX controls. Which are a pain in C/C++, but are painless in VB. On the other hand, your code won't be small, and you'll be linking to a massive runtime, and you're using a language who's syntax makes me feel dirty.
Oh, and if you're making web-based apps, wtf are you using C for?
You don't need good documentation - you just need "professional" looking documentation, because everyone just buys the Dummies book, or YourApp in 24 hours or whatever.
There's a long Islamic tradition of mild drug use - opium, marijuana, and (most famously) hashish. It's hardly a violation of thier ethics to sell it. That said, I seriously doubt that a whole lot of the money that American prep kids spend on mild drugs goes to them, although I certainly don't have the full facts available. But then again, neither does anyone else.
I was also under the impression that the major piracy houses in places like Malaysia were actually semi-legitimate companies - that they operated openly, since it's not illegal there. They might very well still have ties to organized crime, which might in turn have ties to various terrorist groups, but it's not any different than a Mafia boss owning a nice resturaunt.
This comes up alot. It's because the GPL does not restrict any of your normal rights under copyright law, but rather grants you additional rights if you agree to it. You can choose to not agree to the GPL and yet still retain the use of any GPL code or program. This is not the case with your typical EULA (which is presented to you as a pre-condition of usage), or of website terms of service (which couldn't have any signifigant legal weight, since theres not even the token agreement of an EULA).
Re:Separating Content from Presentation a Good Thi
on
Office 2003 and XML
·
· Score: 1
And, of course, sometimes your content IS the presentation. This sometimes slips by the SGML people, but one of the reasons people spend time doing formatting at all is because they want something to look a specific way. You wouldn't want the mona lisa to be reduced to /> </painting>
You're only actually decreasing your profit if you would have bought the product. Again, this doesn't excuse piracy, but it does mean that the actual losses to piracy are much, much smaller than the number of pirated copies. I have a fair amount of cracked software - some of it's demo versions I've cracked because I like to evaluate full functionality, some of it's stuf I downloaded just to look at, and a VERY small percentage of it is software that I needed and use but didn't feel like paying for. That small percentage is the only part I actually "stole" - as in, took something of value from someone who was entitled to it (And, for what it's worth, I do like to pay for it, it was more a decision based on convenience and tight funds, and I have every intention of paying for them as time goes on. I know it's still illegal, but I'm trying to assuage my conscience here.)
Now, as for the tax - I'm not German, but if I was, I'd be pissed. I'm still pissed over the blank media tax - basically, it's government support for the industry. It's abhorrent, because the public doesn't get any value from this - it's just throwing money away. We could just give it away on street corners and it would be a better use of it. Now, if you actually get something BACK for the tax, like limits on what copy protection can and cannot do (not being able to interfere with error correction would be a good start. Fuck off, SafeDisc!), maybe some clarification on legally black but morally light grey areas like abandonware and "24 hour rule", then I could see it. Heck, if it meant the end of safedisc, I'd almost pay it with a smile.
Microsoft DOES do this - a local college near my town just issued a press release where MS is basically funding their compsci department, and now all the classes will be taught on Windows machines using MS tools. I'm sure they aren't the only ones.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't a templates vrs derivation question, because you're using a template regardless. It's a question of whether or not you want to the requirement that objects being tested need to implement == to be enforced in code or socially. (Well, it's still socially even if you make the VBC, because they just might have not inherited from your class).
Parent is modded down, but while he's totally incorrect from a technical point of view, from a marketing/product line standpoing he's correct - XP is an upgrade/migration from 9x, not 2k.
On the other hand, the fact that it's there and you know it's over 2 years old and hasn't been fixed is a vast improvement on not tracking it at all, which seems to be the problem.
Texas still believes that it's an independent country, and GWB think's he's the president of it. Like when he makes speeches about how you don't mess with Texas :P And, (when he was Governor of Texas) about how Texas wasn't bound by an international treaty since Texas didn't sign it :P
I bet she downloads MP3s, too. It's cool how class differences make for different laws! Woo democracy!
You're just making my point, which is that the use of viral is because of your own objections the the GPL, not because it's neccesarily the most correct. You feel that the GPL is, in fact, negative, and therefore use a negative word to describe it. Maybe we could call it a "terrorist" license instead.
On to the second point. You must not have been paying attention all the times there's been stories about companies breaking the GPL. If you (illegally) include GPL code in your release without providing the source, then you aren't going to be forced to release your source. It's one possible solution, and, in many cases, not even the most likely. Your code doesn't magically spread throught the internet. You become liable to civil prosecution, and when you lose your court case (for the sake of argument), you'll be subject to a variety of penalties. One of those penalties may be the forced release of your source code.
The actual legalities are even more complex, because software isn't like a book, and theres all kinds of issues with dynamic linking versus static linking, and there's been no legal test of these issues.
The use of "viral" to describe the GPL is hyperbole - viral has negative connotations that don't apply at all. Oh, and including GPL libraries in your code doesn't make your code GPL - it just makes it illegal if your code isn't (or GPL compatible). That's not quite the same thing.
In a company of any reasonable size, they'll have documented build procedures. In fact, probably automated ones. Support is the least of the reasons why companies don't like customers building from source.
H1-B isn't supposed to be about cheap labor, it's supposed to be about expediting immigration for a massively growing industry that didn't have enough workers. Indian programmers are more than welcome to compete with me, if they go through the green card process like everyone else. H1-Bs are fast tracked in and it's illegal and immoral to replace native workers with them.
I can. It's easy to do stuff like that when you're just looking at numbers on a balance sheet. And you'd be AMAZED at how self-centered some people can be, and for some reason buisness and upper managment attracts these people.
That may very well be true, but the parent is talking about moving work to non-industrial nations (I don't think he really meant China), or at least nations who's industry consists mainly of foreign plants. Anyway, it doesn't really matter if they work longer shifts if you can get more shits for a hundredth the cost.
Nothing inherently wrong with the FPS game format, or with great-looking 3d graphics. If Thief 3 looks as good as Unreal 2 or Unreal Tournament, I'll be one mighty happy man. (The whole time I was playing Unreal 2, I kept looking at these amazing lights and sounds and beautful textures and wishing that I was playing a game where they mattered)
Assuming that by CASE you meant RAD, I'd still disagree with you. I hate VB and can certainly do GUI layout in it faster than I can in C++. Maybe if I used C++ builder, but I detest it, so no.
Say you've got this vast sea of text files, all of which have content about something. You want to provide a way to search these files. So, you index all the words on the page (paying special attention to meta tags, and maybe words in title tags). This is what the early search engines did, and it worked great until people relized they can draw more traffic by just adding every keyword they could think of to the meta tags. So you need a better way, instead of relying on a page to be honest about it's contents.
So Google came up with a pretty clever solution. It weights the keywords that other sites link to you with, as well as the contents of those sites. So if you sell custom car parts, and you're linked from a site that sells import car parts, then you're going to be ranked higher on searches for car parts. On top of that, sites that are linked by lots of other sites are high traffic sites. This means they tend to be the most popular, and therefore (probably) the most relevent. So you then take this concept and apply it recursively to the entire set of documents you're indexing, and you get a pretty good rating of sites that're relevent.
One of the reasons why this technique pisses off the people behind Googlewatch is that it means you can't get a high ranking unless other people think your page is usefull and relevant. It's true that this means it's hard to get enough critical mass for a high page rank. On the other hand, if you're the only one who things your site is relevent, it probably isn't.
Something you'll find repeated a number of times at places like the links in the post is that XML sucks, BUT the political advantages of widespread adoption may outweigh it's technical weaknesses. That doesn't mean that something not-sucky that achieves widespread use wouldn't be better. Oh, and tell your perl dude that someone has written an XML module, check CPAN. Although he's got an excellent point, in that a simple data model is better than a complex one.
An even BETTER solution is to use a standardized data format that doesn't add 30% overhead to all your files because of syntatical bloat, and that actually has a finalized, unambiguous spec so that there aren't 40 million ill-formed parsers out there.
You know, using VB is just code reuse. It's just reusing more code than you're use to. It's got some serious strengths. The app you write in a couple days the VB programmer can toss out after lunch. How about data aware controls? Those are a pain in the ass in C/C++, although you can make it easier by using third party components. Like ActiveX controls. Which are a pain in C/C++, but are painless in VB. On the other hand, your code won't be small, and you'll be linking to a massive runtime, and you're using a language who's syntax makes me feel dirty.
Oh, and if you're making web-based apps, wtf are you using C for?
You don't need good documentation - you just need "professional" looking documentation, because everyone just buys the Dummies book, or YourApp in 24 hours or whatever.
You have no such right, under normal copyright law. So the GPL isn't related at all to terms and conditions like these.
I was also under the impression that the major piracy houses in places like Malaysia were actually semi-legitimate companies - that they operated openly, since it's not illegal there. They might very well still have ties to organized crime, which might in turn have ties to various terrorist groups, but it's not any different than a Mafia boss owning a nice resturaunt.
This comes up alot. It's because the GPL does not restrict any of your normal rights under copyright law, but rather grants you additional rights if you agree to it. You can choose to not agree to the GPL and yet still retain the use of any GPL code or program. This is not the case with your typical EULA (which is presented to you as a pre-condition of usage), or of website terms of service (which couldn't have any signifigant legal weight, since theres not even the token agreement of an EULA).
And, of course, sometimes your content IS the presentation. This sometimes slips by the SGML people, but one of the reasons people spend time doing formatting at all is because they want something to look a specific way. You wouldn't want the mona lisa to be reduced to/> </painting>
Now, as for the tax - I'm not German, but if I was, I'd be pissed. I'm still pissed over the blank media tax - basically, it's government support for the industry. It's abhorrent, because the public doesn't get any value from this - it's just throwing money away. We could just give it away on street corners and it would be a better use of it. Now, if you actually get something BACK for the tax, like limits on what copy protection can and cannot do (not being able to interfere with error correction would be a good start. Fuck off, SafeDisc!), maybe some clarification on legally black but morally light grey areas like abandonware and "24 hour rule", then I could see it. Heck, if it meant the end of safedisc, I'd almost pay it with a smile.
Microsoft DOES do this - a local college near my town just issued a press release where MS is basically funding their compsci department, and now all the classes will be taught on Windows machines using MS tools. I'm sure they aren't the only ones.