Since the U.S. (and many other countries) uses the name "Burma", due to not recognizing the Military Junta that currently rules this country, should/. not follow suit?
THe problem with frameworks is they make easy things trivial and medium to hard things impossible.
It would seem to me that that depends on the framework and how extensible the framework is (and how well the person using it knows how to extend the framework). Assuming the framework selected for a given task is basically appropriate for the task at hand, when a "hard" problem that requires you to violate assumptions of that framework pops up - write a plugin for the framework to encapsulate the chunk of differing assumptions and provide the necessary functionality, and continue to use the framework and its assumptions in areas where they are appropriate.
This is completely off-topic (or perhaps slightly on-topic, regarding the effectiveness of your development methodology), but your software is fantastically useful (and perfectly functional, I've never had an issue) - I don't know how I ever lived without it.
Frameworks take all the hardship out of writing code!!!
Question: How smart do you think it is to hire a coder who hates to code? It is like hating a singer who hates to sing, a spokeperson who doesn't like talking.
There are no silver bullets, but there are lots of wheels out there - they don't need to be reinvented for every project. Question: How smart do you think it is to hire a coder who hates to use frameworks, and loves to roll his own for every new project?
I have read that because one's fingers travel a physically greater distance on QWERTY than on Dvorak, QWERTY causes more strain on the user than Dvorak does, though I've never really experienced any strain from typing on a keyboard that was not solved by keeping my elbows at a good height (but then, I'm in my late twenties, perhaps with 10 more years of QWERTY I will change my tune). The stats I've seen on master QWERTY typists vs Dvorak typists showed that the actual wpm advantages are very minimal (2-3 wpm). I've also tried Dvorak a couple of times, but couldn't really take the hit to productivity caused by the amount of time it would take me to unlearn QWERTY and get to decent speeds on Dvorak.
QWERTY. A typing arrangement that was meant to be slow.
That is a common misconception. The QWERTY arrangement was designed to put common "chords" at opposite sides of the keyboard, so that the hammers on a typewriter wouldn't catch on each other and jam. So while, theoretically, QWERTY is _slightly_ slower than other layouts, the reality is that the speed difference is never more than a couple wpm. The layout was designed because people were too fast for the hardware of the time, but it did not solve the problem by slowing typists down; rather it accommodated their speed.
Plastic? I was under the impression that it's white paint on glass. I can see getting that to be completely opaque to be a moderately difficult task, particularly at the thicknesses they're working with.
He's not getting in trouble for modding his own devices. He's in trouble for selling the service of modding other people's devices to run any code whatsoever, including pirated/backup games. If I offer a similar service for, say, satellite receivers that allowed one to decrypt every stream coming down from the bird, would anyone be surprised/angered if I/my business were treated the same way?
Admittedly, in this case, the line is less clear, as modding the XBox does allow one to add functionality to the device without infringing on any copyright, while at the same time making it trivial to pirate xbox games. Is jail time a reasonable punishment for providing this service? I don't think so. Is Microsoft being evil and unreasonable for trying to shut down this guy's business (and, by extension, others' comparable businesses)? Again, I don't think so. They're not really going about it the right way; but they're doing what a corporation does - attempting to protect their bottom line, which in the XBox case means making sure that people still pay the Microsoft tax on games they play on their XBox.
Another poster put it in terms that made it quite clear how exactly equal 0.999... is to 1, by framing it as 1/3 = 0.333..., 2/3 = 0.666..., 0.333... + 0.666... = 0.999... and 1/3 + 2/3 = 1. I thought it made the reality quite clear.
Journalists are often prone to relativism simply because it allows them to make slightly more sensational claims in order to draw eyeballs. 17 miles up is closer to space than the vast majority of things on earth have been, so as far as they're concerned, it might as well be space.
I remember one of the things they were pushing as a feature of those early, pre-acquisition builds was destructible terrain. I was disappointed it never made it into the game.
Text messages make much more sense for bite sized pieces of information than voicemail does. Voicemail takes an order of magnitude more time to communicate something like "meet me at the corner of 1st and 3rd" - the receiver can consume that message in about 1 second, versus the minimum of 15-30 it would take to access and listen to the same set of words spoken by an individual; not to mention that when speaking people tend to pad their language with pleasantries (further increasing the overhead).
Their iPod is their only "Pod" thing so saying someone is trying to create confusion by calling a projector a "Video Pod" is a real stretch.
Let's see - iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, iPod Classic, iPod Touch. Only the iPod Shuffle and the iPod Nano currently qualify as "mp3 players". The other two are most definitely also video players, and one of them also happens to be a handheld computer. I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to consider the possibility that the Video Pod somewhat dilutes the iPod brand, particularly for those members of the general population on the left hand side of the bell curve. The Video Pod's name is close enough to Apple's brand that it can very likely benefit from a halo effect of the popularity of the iPod brand. Whether or not that's enough for Apple to be (legally) in the right I can't say.
As an aside, I googled "video pod" sans quotes, just to see exactly what the "infringing" device was (I can't tell if it's intended as a portable video projector, or what) and I stumbled upon this link from 2005 explicitly referring to the then newly released (fifth generation) iPod as the "Video Pod," (though this site is clear to point out that iPod Video was never it's official name, and I'm pretty sure that "Video Pod" wasn't either, though the first link shows a fairly clear example of an argument to be made in favor of brand dilution in this particular case).
Either way, what does seem pretty obvious is that all those ridiculous patents you see in patent lawsuits are, in fact, bad patents.
What seems obvious is that the *majority* of ridiculous patents are, legally, bad patents. This doesn't seem to suggest that *all* bad patents are caught by the judicial filter. It's a minor nitpick, for sure, but I'm 100% certain that the number of "bad patents" that have held up in court is non-zero.
I'd love to see the Business Software Alliance go after these guys
It would be a bloodbath - the BSA guys can only muster the support of the US Marshals. Somehow I don't think they'd come equipped with armed attack drones.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the U.S. (and many other countries) uses the name "Burma", /. not follow suit?
due to not recognizing the Military Junta that currently rules this country,
should
Burma shave.
THe problem with frameworks is they make easy things trivial and medium to hard things impossible.
It would seem to me that that depends on the framework and how extensible the framework is (and how well the person using it knows how to extend the framework). Assuming the framework selected for a given task is basically appropriate for the task at hand, when a "hard" problem that requires you to violate assumptions of that framework pops up - write a plugin for the framework to encapsulate the chunk of differing assumptions and provide the necessary functionality, and continue to use the framework and its assumptions in areas where they are appropriate.
This is completely off-topic (or perhaps slightly on-topic, regarding the effectiveness of your development methodology), but your software is fantastically useful (and perfectly functional, I've never had an issue) - I don't know how I ever lived without it.
Frameworks take all the hardship out of writing code!!! Question: How smart do you think it is to hire a coder who hates to code? It is like hating a singer who hates to sing, a spokeperson who doesn't like talking.
There are no silver bullets, but there are lots of wheels out there - they don't need to be reinvented for every project. Question: How smart do you think it is to hire a coder who hates to use frameworks, and loves to roll his own for every new project?
I have read that because one's fingers travel a physically greater distance on QWERTY than on Dvorak, QWERTY causes more strain on the user than Dvorak does, though I've never really experienced any strain from typing on a keyboard that was not solved by keeping my elbows at a good height (but then, I'm in my late twenties, perhaps with 10 more years of QWERTY I will change my tune). The stats I've seen on master QWERTY typists vs Dvorak typists showed that the actual wpm advantages are very minimal (2-3 wpm). I've also tried Dvorak a couple of times, but couldn't really take the hit to productivity caused by the amount of time it would take me to unlearn QWERTY and get to decent speeds on Dvorak.
QWERTY. A typing arrangement that was meant to be slow.
That is a common misconception. The QWERTY arrangement was designed to put common "chords" at opposite sides of the keyboard, so that the hammers on a typewriter wouldn't catch on each other and jam. So while, theoretically, QWERTY is _slightly_ slower than other layouts, the reality is that the speed difference is never more than a couple wpm. The layout was designed because people were too fast for the hardware of the time, but it did not solve the problem by slowing typists down; rather it accommodated their speed.
Plastic? I was under the impression that it's white paint on glass. I can see getting that to be completely opaque to be a moderately difficult task, particularly at the thicknesses they're working with.
Mmm - I think you can actually own an F-16 (or an FA-18, or a MiG, all of which come up on eBay from time to time). You just can't arm it.
He's not getting in trouble for modding his own devices. He's in trouble for selling the service of modding other people's devices to run any code whatsoever, including pirated/backup games. If I offer a similar service for, say, satellite receivers that allowed one to decrypt every stream coming down from the bird, would anyone be surprised/angered if I/my business were treated the same way?
Admittedly, in this case, the line is less clear, as modding the XBox does allow one to add functionality to the device without infringing on any copyright, while at the same time making it trivial to pirate xbox games. Is jail time a reasonable punishment for providing this service? I don't think so. Is Microsoft being evil and unreasonable for trying to shut down this guy's business (and, by extension, others' comparable businesses)? Again, I don't think so. They're not really going about it the right way; but they're doing what a corporation does - attempting to protect their bottom line, which in the XBox case means making sure that people still pay the Microsoft tax on games they play on their XBox.
But "bible" is a completely appropriate term in this case. It tells you a great many details about something that was completely fabricated by humans.
Comcast owns NBC.
Except that in Starcraft, you can kite your scissors (and other micro) and still beat rock.
Starcraft is only rock-paper-scissors if you don't scout.
Well - I'm not worried until the genetic engineers breed and train mutalisks for our robotic overlords to micromanage.
Another poster put it in terms that made it quite clear how exactly equal 0.999... is to 1, by framing it as 1/3 = 0.333..., 2/3 = 0.666..., 0.333... + 0.666... = 0.999... and 1/3 + 2/3 = 1. I thought it made the reality quite clear.
Journalists are often prone to relativism simply because it allows them to make slightly more sensational claims in order to draw eyeballs. 17 miles up is closer to space than the vast majority of things on earth have been, so as far as they're concerned, it might as well be space.
"... Apple does know a thing or two about developing closed software packages"
Because Microsoft and Adobe are such bastions of open software...
This one was.
I remember one of the things they were pushing as a feature of those early, pre-acquisition builds was destructible terrain. I was disappointed it never made it into the game.
Text messages make much more sense for bite sized pieces of information than voicemail does. Voicemail takes an order of magnitude more time to communicate something like "meet me at the corner of 1st and 3rd" - the receiver can consume that message in about 1 second, versus the minimum of 15-30 it would take to access and listen to the same set of words spoken by an individual; not to mention that when speaking people tend to pad their language with pleasantries (further increasing the overhead).
Their iPod is their only "Pod" thing so saying someone is trying to create confusion by calling a projector a "Video Pod" is a real stretch.
Let's see - iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, iPod Classic, iPod Touch. Only the iPod Shuffle and the iPod Nano currently qualify as "mp3 players". The other two are most definitely also video players, and one of them also happens to be a handheld computer. I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to consider the possibility that the Video Pod somewhat dilutes the iPod brand, particularly for those members of the general population on the left hand side of the bell curve. The Video Pod's name is close enough to Apple's brand that it can very likely benefit from a halo effect of the popularity of the iPod brand. Whether or not that's enough for Apple to be (legally) in the right I can't say.
As an aside, I googled "video pod" sans quotes, just to see exactly what the "infringing" device was (I can't tell if it's intended as a portable video projector, or what) and I stumbled upon this link from 2005 explicitly referring to the then newly released (fifth generation) iPod as the "Video Pod," (though this site is clear to point out that iPod Video was never it's official name, and I'm pretty sure that "Video Pod" wasn't either, though the first link shows a fairly clear example of an argument to be made in favor of brand dilution in this particular case).
We will have to agree to disagree, as neither of us can provide sufficient evidence to back up our claims. Go ad hominem yourself.
Either way, what does seem pretty obvious is that all those ridiculous patents you see in patent lawsuits are, in fact, bad patents.
What seems obvious is that the *majority* of ridiculous patents are, legally, bad patents. This doesn't seem to suggest that *all* bad patents are caught by the judicial filter. It's a minor nitpick, for sure, but I'm 100% certain that the number of "bad patents" that have held up in court is non-zero.
I'd love to see the Business Software Alliance go after these guys
It would be a bloodbath - the BSA guys can only muster the support of the US Marshals. Somehow I don't think they'd come equipped with armed attack drones.
The good news: Such as catastrophe just be enough to take Jersey Shore off the air.
No, they'll just change the title to Pennsylvania Shore.