Nonsense. By that argument, when you go into a shop and buy a shirt, you should pay for the shop assistant's time separately, and rental on the space you occupy in the shop separately, and fees for processing your credit card separately.
I had a look at them a few days ago, and I had no idea how to interpret the graphs. If I'm tech savvy and I don't know what they mean, God help the average person.
I don't know how it is in the US, but in some countries, all drivers must be insured against hurting third parties. You lament about how if an Uber driver hits you they are less insured than a taxi. That's cold comfort when 99% of the cars are neither a taxi nor Uber, yet they might hit you.
Yeah but... if it could be considered negligence of Google not to do a certain thing because it is their responsibility to do such a thing, then they wouldn't wait for the court to tell them to do it. They'd just do it. The very fact that they refuse point blank to do it without a court compelling them to do it, seems to indicate they don't think fiddling with people's mail boxes in any circumstances is "exercising ordinary care". And rightly so, I think.
Nothing in the story I saw said that Google disabled the email account until the court could rule on it. Maybe they did, but I didn't see it. The story said GS tried to contact the owner but they didn't reply. Presumably if they'd been listening they could have read the offending email, and then you'd be at their mercy of good will.
Um.. but no energy could be released from such a star surely, since fusion of anything heavier than iron produces no energy, but actually takes energy. The only way it could produce energy then would be fission. But I'm skeptical about whether a star in such circumstances would really light up, or would just be a sphere of dead metal.
My question is, what law gives a court the right to do such thing? While there may well be laws that compel companies to keep their own data private, I find it hard to believe there is a law that gives a court the right to undelete stuff in a scenario like this. Courts don't tend to do stuff no matter how reasonable unless there is some law that says they should.
The disturbing thing about this is that the real owner of that mail box, whoever he may be, doesn't get to show up in court and put forward his viewpoint.
Why blame the DNS service for illegal activity? Are we going to blame GoDaddy for every domain it issues to someone who infringes the law? Are going to blame Verizon for hosting it? IANA for issuing them an IP address? Microsoft for selling them an OS to run on their server? It seems to me the DNS host is the least likely port of call for assigning blame. And if there is blame to assign them, then it should go through proper channels, just like I wouldn't ask a judge to shut the doors at Redmond because someone abused their products, and they are refusing to patch windows XP.
This is outrageous, and what's worse, once the public believes the police will lie to secure the verdict they want, the confidence in the entire justice system is undermined.
So before, ONLY the washington redskins could use this marks, but now EVERYONE can use them, now their protection is removed. This helps the supposed problem?
Errm, as far as I know, in Apple's version of Objective-C you are never supposed to call myObject.someMethod() unless it is an accessor. i.e. it returns a value and has no arguments. In that case, and only in that case it is equivalent to [myObject someMethod]. Your notes look wrong to me.
There's nothing mysterious about it. The Apple compiler I think even lets you mix C++ and Objective-C in the one source file. You just write your business logic in C or C++ and call it from your gui code in objective-C. As long as your business logic is easily callable from a C interface, it isn't hard. Of course, mixing languages is always painful to some extent.
I don't see why QT can't support this. Swift and Objective-C objects map 1:1. Objective-C objects are just blobs of memory to other C-like languages. You'll be able to wrap all method calls with C wrappers.
Will it be easy? No. But it won't be any harder than it was with Objective-C. It's always hard to wrap an object framework with a foreign language.
As for Metro, I'd imagine it would be possible IF Microsoft allowed you to run non-Metro programs from their app store. I know nothing about it, but I suspect they might not. Would it be easy to wrap Metro? No, pretty hard. But it doesn't sound impossible. If there's a C interface, use that. If not, you feed method calls to the Metro engine as text strings.
Well, um, Objective-C is very dynamic by nature. This is useful when you want to do dynamic linking to new versions of libraries, or plugin style libraries with known interfaces, and so forth. It's a feature, and its pretty useful. I never heard of anyone saying it was a security issue.
Which frameworks? Cocoa in particular, but basically their entire OS-X stack.
The problem it solves is that Objective-C has its peculiarities: no garbage collection, named parameters, etc etc, and there aren't any other languages I can think of that are modern, full featured, and have those peculiarities. Without those peculiarities they'd have to rewrite Cocoa, and all their apps, and it wouldn't be easy for developers to make a slow transition.
Define proprietary. Java is pretty much proprietary, even though its been copied by now. C# is proprietary, but its been copied too. Actually, I'd have to dispute your claim that proprietary languages don't do well.
Yeah but MS hadn't redesigned their windows programming framework since the early 90s. They had to improve on a win32 C API that was truly awful. Apple on the other hand had its NeXT inspired gui framework which people actually LIKED. Nobody was really falling over themselves to throw it away, because it was pretty nice, even with all its faults.
I think there is a bit more to it than merely compiler expediency. Objective-C is very Smalltalk like, and no doubt the designers were inspired. In any case, the compiler can't be too stupid, because square brackets have meaning in C as well.
The reason why to create a new language is that the basic model of Objective-C needed to be retained for backwards compatibility. They tried to bolt garbage collection onto Objective-C, and I actually thought it was OK, but I gather they had a lot of problems, and it was buggy. Similarly, Objective-C assumes a lot of things about how objects work and stuff that you can't map precisely to any other language. A compromise, yes. But its never been easy for an OS to support any and every programming language. OSes and their native language tend to be pretty tightly integrated, unfortunately. But if you think the problems are so easy to overcome, feel free to integrate your favourite language on top. I think it won't be easy.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. By that argument, when you go into a shop and buy a shirt, you should pay for the shop assistant's time separately, and rental on the space you occupy in the shop separately, and fees for processing your credit card separately.
I had a look at them a few days ago, and I had no idea how to interpret the graphs. If I'm tech savvy and I don't know what they mean, God help the average person.
I don't know how it is in the US, but in some countries, all drivers must be insured against hurting third parties. You lament about how if an Uber driver hits you they are less insured than a taxi. That's cold comfort when 99% of the cars are neither a taxi nor Uber, yet they might hit you.
That's an interesting interpretation of what happened.
I was also wondering why they said she was unconscious but not asleep. What is the technical difference that allows them to make this distinction?
All the more market share that will go to Google Cardboard instead!
If that was true, then birds would be a dire hazard.
I can't think of any military ship that would be anywhere near a quarter of a million tons.
They don't flag the FreeBSDers for closer monitoring. They just send them straight to Guantanamo Bay.
Yeah but... if it could be considered negligence of Google not to do a certain thing because it is their responsibility to do such a thing, then they wouldn't wait for the court to tell them to do it. They'd just do it. The very fact that they refuse point blank to do it without a court compelling them to do it, seems to indicate they don't think fiddling with people's mail boxes in any circumstances is "exercising ordinary care". And rightly so, I think.
Nothing in the story I saw said that Google disabled the email account until the court could rule on it. Maybe they did, but I didn't see it. The story said GS tried to contact the owner but they didn't reply. Presumably if they'd been listening they could have read the offending email, and then you'd be at their mercy of good will.
Um.. but no energy could be released from such a star surely, since fusion of anything heavier than iron produces no energy, but actually takes energy. The only way it could produce energy then would be fission. But I'm skeptical about whether a star in such circumstances would really light up, or would just be a sphere of dead metal.
My question is, what law gives a court the right to do such thing? While there may well be laws that compel companies to keep their own data private, I find it hard to believe there is a law that gives a court the right to undelete stuff in a scenario like this. Courts don't tend to do stuff no matter how reasonable unless there is some law that says they should.
The disturbing thing about this is that the real owner of that mail box, whoever he may be, doesn't get to show up in court and put forward his viewpoint.
Why blame the DNS service for illegal activity? Are we going to blame GoDaddy for every domain it issues to someone who infringes the law? Are going to blame Verizon for hosting it? IANA for issuing them an IP address? Microsoft for selling them an OS to run on their server? It seems to me the DNS host is the least likely port of call for assigning blame. And if there is blame to assign them, then it should go through proper channels, just like I wouldn't ask a judge to shut the doors at Redmond because someone abused their products, and they are refusing to patch windows XP.
You can't get an expensive watch to last 5 years? OMG, what is wrong with you?
Yeah, because it is e-paper like a kindle. Which is fine for some things, but not others.
This is outrageous, and what's worse, once the public believes the police will lie to secure the verdict they want, the confidence in the entire justice system is undermined.
So before, ONLY the washington redskins could use this marks, but now EVERYONE can use them, now their protection is removed. This helps the supposed problem?
Errm, as far as I know, in Apple's version of Objective-C you are never supposed to call myObject.someMethod() unless it is an accessor. i.e. it returns a value and has no arguments. In that case, and only in that case it is equivalent to [myObject someMethod]. Your notes look wrong to me.
There's nothing mysterious about it. The Apple compiler I think even lets you mix C++ and Objective-C in the one source file. You just write your business logic in C or C++ and call it from your gui code in objective-C. As long as your business logic is easily callable from a C interface, it isn't hard. Of course, mixing languages is always painful to some extent.
I don't see why QT can't support this. Swift and Objective-C objects map 1:1. Objective-C objects are just blobs of memory to other C-like languages. You'll be able to wrap all method calls with C wrappers.
Will it be easy? No. But it won't be any harder than it was with Objective-C. It's always hard to wrap an object framework with a foreign language.
As for Metro, I'd imagine it would be possible IF Microsoft allowed you to run non-Metro programs from their app store. I know nothing about it, but I suspect they might not. Would it be easy to wrap Metro? No, pretty hard. But it doesn't sound impossible. If there's a C interface, use that. If not, you feed method calls to the Metro engine as text strings.
Well, um, Objective-C is very dynamic by nature. This is useful when you want to do dynamic linking to new versions of libraries, or plugin style libraries with known interfaces, and so forth. It's a feature, and its pretty useful. I never heard of anyone saying it was a security issue.
Which frameworks? Cocoa in particular, but basically their entire OS-X stack.
The problem it solves is that Objective-C has its peculiarities: no garbage collection, named parameters, etc etc, and there aren't any other languages I can think of that are modern, full featured, and have those peculiarities. Without those peculiarities they'd have to rewrite Cocoa, and all their apps, and it wouldn't be easy for developers to make a slow transition.
Define proprietary. Java is pretty much proprietary, even though its been copied by now. C# is proprietary, but its been copied too. Actually, I'd have to dispute your claim that proprietary languages don't do well.
Yeah but MS hadn't redesigned their windows programming framework since the early 90s. They had to improve on a win32 C API that was truly awful. Apple on the other hand had its NeXT inspired gui framework which people actually LIKED. Nobody was really falling over themselves to throw it away, because it was pretty nice, even with all its faults.
I think there is a bit more to it than merely compiler expediency. Objective-C is very Smalltalk like, and no doubt the designers were inspired. In any case, the compiler can't be too stupid, because square brackets have meaning in C as well.
The reason why to create a new language is that the basic model of Objective-C needed to be retained for backwards compatibility. They tried to bolt garbage collection onto Objective-C, and I actually thought it was OK, but I gather they had a lot of problems, and it was buggy. Similarly, Objective-C assumes a lot of things about how objects work and stuff that you can't map precisely to any other language. A compromise, yes. But its never been easy for an OS to support any and every programming language. OSes and their native language tend to be pretty tightly integrated, unfortunately. But if you think the problems are so easy to overcome, feel free to integrate your favourite language on top. I think it won't be easy.