What's wrong with Objective-C? How about the fact that it's based on C! How about the amazingly painful object initialization semantics? How about the fact that properties are locked by default? How about the fact that calling a method on a NULL pointer doesn't crash!
I am amazed that anybody thinks highly of this language. Just read the language spec and count the WTFs. I mean, C and C++ at least have the excuse of being around since forever and letting you write almost 100% optimal code. But as you point out, Objective-C doesn't even produce optimal code, and it wouldn't be around at all if Apple hadn't gone down to the cemetery and resurrected its decaying body.
But you don't have to believe me. If Objective-C was so great, it'd be used outside the Apple platform. It's not.
We've seen open platforms dwindle in past years. PC gaming is in decline. Most consoles need all manner of hack and mod to run home brew content. Hell even GPS APIs (like TomToms) have been discontinued on newer models
That's an exagguration. For one, "most consoles" do not need hack and mod to run homebrew. You can write your own games, TODAY, for the Xbox 360 using Visual Studio, and upload them to Xbox Live where you have access to a huge market approaching the size of the iPhone market. There's minimal screening done on these apps beyond basic "does it crash when I play it" type checks. One "community" game as they call it on the x360 is based around farting. The PS3 has Linux.
The GPS thing is entirely about revenue streams... it costs a ton of money to create digital maps, and TomTom like devices are a significant source of the revenue for them. Providing open APIs to do turn by turn GPS directions isn't going to happen whilst these devices pay the bills at the data providers.
Finally, that said, the App Store model for the iPhone is the Wrong Way(tm). Look at Android. I've been very happy with the 1.5 cupcake update. It resolves a lot of the problems the platform had.
The Pirate Party aren't revolutionaries because they aren't fighting for anything in particular, just against something (which is almost as vague). In the case of the American revolution they had quite specific ideas about how things should work, not just "down with England". And actually revolutionaries also excuse themselves from polite society, so I'm not sure what your point is anyway.
Comparing copyright law to the jim crow laws is pretty far out. Those laws applied to everyone at all times. Copyright law applies to you the moment you decide to copy something provided to you by somebody else. Don't like it? Go get your content elsewhere, nobody is forcing you to listen/watch the "media conglomerates" products.
The equivalent would have been if there were bus companies that made non-whites sit at the back, but others that didn't, in which case the obvious solution is to boycott the buses which did. If the masses support you, problem solved.
People could do this today, copyright is amazingly flexible as the GPL shows, nobody is required to use it. But they don't... see above.
You've got to be kidding me. Your answer to "create free content" is "what if I get sued" ?
Free content is already worked out. There's tons of freely licensed music, books, software, even movies out there today and people are not getting sued for plagiarism. This is way different to the time when Stallman started and these licenses did not exist. It didn't stop him. Why do you fall at the first hurdle? I guess you are proving the guys point.... it's easier to sit around and think of reasons not to do the work.
Nothing would change because it's only one guy doing it. And also because it's not clear what the guy wants. End to copyright? Free shit for everyone? That's an extreme demand that the majority just don't support, so it's never going to be mass rallies in favor of that. But the moment you accept you need some copyright, you accept that you need some enforcement as well. You can argue about the length of time it lasts, or what rights it gives exactly, but I don't see any rallies or protests in favor of repealing copyright because that's such a minority position.
No, obviously, it might raise the profits of the hardware manufacturer assuming they don't subsidise the hardware cost with game sales, but it reduces the profits of the game developers. Not sure what's so hard to see about this?
Re:How is this news?
on
Bringing Up Bill
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think it's pretty clear that organizations, even big ones, tend to reflect the personalities of their leaders - especially when those leaders have strong personalities. This is very visible with Microsoft, Apple and Google. They're very different companies and I think that's largely down to the way Jobs, Gates and L&S are as people.
Microsoft and Apple are both pretty darn important, and I think Jobs and Gates have pretty darn similar personalities. They both seem to be hyper-aggressive, very controlling A-types who don't think twice about intimidating their "minions". I think that also sums up Microsoft and Apple as companies. So studying Gates can tell us more about the Microsoft of the 90s, which is an interesting topic for anyone in the tech industry.
On the other side: people who make things that can be easily copyright infringed.
Which group do you think is bigger? This isn't a Slashdot specific thing, although the intricacy of the (usually wafer thin) arguments reaches unparalleled heights here. The real reason is simple: people want things for free. Stuff like DRM, bullying lawyers etc came after the wide spread abuse already existed, but nobody who enjoys pirated material wants to admit that, and now the direct consequences of their own actions have become the very means they use to justify those actions. A paradox!
That's incredibly retarded. I listen to lots of musicians that produce music which can't be performed live (unless by "perform" you mean put a disc in a CD player). Your paragraph about software developers doesn't even make sense, what does "implementing the tools you have created" even mean in the context of a game programmer?
It's these kind of ultra-flimsy rationalizations that makes people who support piracy look like weak minded fools.
If all your code is free, by definition you aren't a "programmer by trade". People who are "programmers by trade" typically expect to get paid for their work - hopefully for them they sell software to businesses, or their code runs where it can't be pirated.
It's not simple at all. Copy protection consists of two parts - detecting a pirated copy and then obfuscating/protecting the code that detects a pirated copy. That's pretty much it. Obviously, the cracked versions from the server side are going to look a lot like the regular versions. Blizzard put a ton of effort into this for WoW to find modified versions of the game from the server side, but they have enormous resources to throw at the problem.
Doesn't matter if they wouldn't have bought it. It costs them money to have a player, in server costs and tech support costs. They'd much rather have no piracy and much less sales I'm sure - it'd just work out better financially.
Strawman alert. He never claimed he should get money for the rest of his life. Nobody claims that. He should maybe get money for as long as people are finding it useful, up to a certain limit (like 20-30 years, perhaps).
You fucking what? I'm making the argument that copyright is a violation of civil rights and you're countering it with "I happen to like Lost".. and I am the one cheapening it?
"Only on slashdot" nicely sums up pseudo-intellectual arguments that compare copyright infringement to some kind of vaguely specified violation of civil rights. You know what? 99.9% of the population don't give a shit about this kind of argument. They do like TV shows like Lost, and accept that copyright law exists to encourage the creation of such things, they also accept that they are breaking the law when they download it - they just don't care. It's only on Slashdot that you get these bizarre rationalizations.
If you illegaly download copyrighted things, you aren't some kind of freedom fighter. You're a criminal. Get over yourself.
That's pretty lame. To Joe Sixpack the words "virus" and "malware" are equivalent. Deal with it - Apple have been using misleading advertising for many years. It's nothing new (remember the G4 is a supercomputer ads?)
No, you clearly can. Android shows what permissions an app needs at install time. If a user installs Final Cut Pro and the OS tells them "This app wants to be able to send email faster than once a minute", they might have a fighting chance of going "uhhhhh... no". But OSX, Linux and Windows aren't designed this way. Android is, although it doesn't actually have this theoretical email permission just a catch-call "access the internet" permission which is too vague to be useful imo.
The pRNG was disabled in the openssl library, thus compromising any system using keys generated by that library. That is a major, major hole and has nothing to do with sshd initialization scripts (where did you get that from anyway?)
It's absurd pedanticism. If Apple says "MacOS X is the easiest to use operating system in the world" do people respond with, no, the operating system that runs my car is easier to use? No they don't because that's obviously comparing apples to oranges. Trying to make a marketing dude look bad by comparing a production desktop OS like Windows to OpenVMS is just time wasting.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with Objective-C? How about the fact that it's based on C! How about the amazingly painful object initialization semantics? How about the fact that properties are locked by default? How about the fact that calling a method on a NULL pointer doesn't crash!
I am amazed that anybody thinks highly of this language. Just read the language spec and count the WTFs. I mean, C and C++ at least have the excuse of being around since forever and letting you write almost 100% optimal code. But as you point out, Objective-C doesn't even produce optimal code, and it wouldn't be around at all if Apple hadn't gone down to the cemetery and resurrected its decaying body.
But you don't have to believe me. If Objective-C was so great, it'd be used outside the Apple platform. It's not.
Interestingly, it does exist in the PC world ... on Linux.
-- signed, guy who had his LGPLd software rejected from the ubuntu repositories because it did not align with their technical goals
That's an exagguration. For one, "most consoles" do not need hack and mod to run homebrew. You can write your own games, TODAY, for the Xbox 360 using Visual Studio, and upload them to Xbox Live where you have access to a huge market approaching the size of the iPhone market. There's minimal screening done on these apps beyond basic "does it crash when I play it" type checks. One "community" game as they call it on the x360 is based around farting. The PS3 has Linux.
The GPS thing is entirely about revenue streams ... it costs a ton of money to create digital maps, and TomTom like devices are a significant source of the revenue for them. Providing open APIs to do turn by turn GPS directions isn't going to happen whilst these devices pay the bills at the data providers.
Finally, that said, the App Store model for the iPhone is the Wrong Way(tm). Look at Android. I've been very happy with the 1.5 cupcake update. It resolves a lot of the problems the platform had.
The Pirate Party aren't revolutionaries because they aren't fighting for anything in particular, just against something (which is almost as vague). In the case of the American revolution they had quite specific ideas about how things should work, not just "down with England". And actually revolutionaries also excuse themselves from polite society, so I'm not sure what your point is anyway.
Comparing copyright law to the jim crow laws is pretty far out. Those laws applied to everyone at all times. Copyright law applies to you the moment you decide to copy something provided to you by somebody else. Don't like it? Go get your content elsewhere, nobody is forcing you to listen/watch the "media conglomerates" products.
The equivalent would have been if there were bus companies that made non-whites sit at the back, but others that didn't, in which case the obvious solution is to boycott the buses which did. If the masses support you, problem solved.
People could do this today, copyright is amazingly flexible as the GPL shows, nobody is required to use it. But they don't ... see above.
You've got to be kidding me. Your answer to "create free content" is "what if I get sued" ?
Free content is already worked out. There's tons of freely licensed music, books, software, even movies out there today and people are not getting sued for plagiarism. This is way different to the time when Stallman started and these licenses did not exist. It didn't stop him. Why do you fall at the first hurdle? I guess you are proving the guys point .... it's easier to sit around and think of reasons not to do the work.
Nothing would change because it's only one guy doing it. And also because it's not clear what the guy wants. End to copyright? Free shit for everyone? That's an extreme demand that the majority just don't support, so it's never going to be mass rallies in favor of that. But the moment you accept you need some copyright, you accept that you need some enforcement as well. You can argue about the length of time it lasts, or what rights it gives exactly, but I don't see any rallies or protests in favor of repealing copyright because that's such a minority position.
No, obviously, it might raise the profits of the hardware manufacturer assuming they don't subsidise the hardware cost with game sales, but it reduces the profits of the game developers. Not sure what's so hard to see about this?
I think it's pretty clear that organizations, even big ones, tend to reflect the personalities of their leaders - especially when those leaders have strong personalities. This is very visible with Microsoft, Apple and Google. They're very different companies and I think that's largely down to the way Jobs, Gates and L&S are as people.
Microsoft and Apple are both pretty darn important, and I think Jobs and Gates have pretty darn similar personalities. They both seem to be hyper-aggressive, very controlling A-types who don't think twice about intimidating their "minions". I think that also sums up Microsoft and Apple as companies. So studying Gates can tell us more about the Microsoft of the 90s, which is an interesting topic for anyone in the tech industry.
On one side: copyright infringers.
On the other side: people who make things that can be easily copyright infringed.
Which group do you think is bigger? This isn't a Slashdot specific thing, although the intricacy of the (usually wafer thin) arguments reaches unparalleled heights here. The real reason is simple: people want things for free. Stuff like DRM, bullying lawyers etc came after the wide spread abuse already existed, but nobody who enjoys pirated material wants to admit that, and now the direct consequences of their own actions have become the very means they use to justify those actions. A paradox!
That's incredibly retarded. I listen to lots of musicians that produce music which can't be performed live (unless by "perform" you mean put a disc in a CD player). Your paragraph about software developers doesn't even make sense, what does "implementing the tools you have created" even mean in the context of a game programmer?
It's these kind of ultra-flimsy rationalizations that makes people who support piracy look like weak minded fools.
If all your code is free, by definition you aren't a "programmer by trade". People who are "programmers by trade" typically expect to get paid for their work - hopefully for them they sell software to businesses, or their code runs where it can't be pirated.
How are they supposed to avoid that?
It's not simple at all. Copy protection consists of two parts - detecting a pirated copy and then obfuscating/protecting the code that detects a pirated copy. That's pretty much it. Obviously, the cracked versions from the server side are going to look a lot like the regular versions. Blizzard put a ton of effort into this for WoW to find modified versions of the game from the server side, but they have enormous resources to throw at the problem.
Doesn't matter if they wouldn't have bought it. It costs them money to have a player, in server costs and tech support costs. They'd much rather have no piracy and much less sales I'm sure - it'd just work out better financially.
No, it indicates a piracy rate of around 80-90% which is in line with what other game developers report, regardless of ship dates.
Torrents or TPB aren't copyrightable works, they are statements of fact and facts cannot be copyrighted. Nice try though.
Strawman alert. He never claimed he should get money for the rest of his life. Nobody claims that. He should maybe get money for as long as people are finding it useful, up to a certain limit (like 20-30 years, perhaps).
Copyright laws weren't passed yesterday for some political reason. They have been around a lot longer than the pirate bay or Blizzard.
"Only on slashdot" nicely sums up pseudo-intellectual arguments that compare copyright infringement to some kind of vaguely specified violation of civil rights. You know what? 99.9% of the population don't give a shit about this kind of argument. They do like TV shows like Lost, and accept that copyright law exists to encourage the creation of such things, they also accept that they are breaking the law when they download it - they just don't care. It's only on Slashdot that you get these bizarre rationalizations.
If you illegaly download copyrighted things, you aren't some kind of freedom fighter. You're a criminal. Get over yourself.
That's pretty lame. To Joe Sixpack the words "virus" and "malware" are equivalent. Deal with it - Apple have been using misleading advertising for many years. It's nothing new (remember the G4 is a supercomputer ads?)
Because that worked so well for Microsoft.
No, you clearly can. Android shows what permissions an app needs at install time. If a user installs Final Cut Pro and the OS tells them "This app wants to be able to send email faster than once a minute", they might have a fighting chance of going "uhhhhh ... no". But OSX, Linux and Windows aren't designed this way. Android is, although it doesn't actually have this theoretical email permission just a catch-call "access the internet" permission which is too vague to be useful imo.
The pRNG was disabled in the openssl library, thus compromising any system using keys generated by that library. That is a major, major hole and has nothing to do with sshd initialization scripts (where did you get that from anyway?)
It's absurd pedanticism. If Apple says "MacOS X is the easiest to use operating system in the world" do people respond with, no, the operating system that runs my car is easier to use? No they don't because that's obviously comparing apples to oranges. Trying to make a marketing dude look bad by comparing a production desktop OS like Windows to OpenVMS is just time wasting.