I consider the freedom of speech necessarily and sufficiently to be a freedom to hear. Statements made in the context of affecting public policy should be usable by all, both supporters and opponents. I get to decide whether I believe it's wingnuttery or the honest voice from the wilderness.
I suppose I should mod up and not affirm. California charges use tax for resident's purchases that come from out of state. Enforcement is via honor system, so I'm sure a lot of people are overlooking.
The City of Costa Mesa in the great County of Orange to the south have declared themselves a "rule of law" city. While undocumented immigrants are their nominative target, I expect any moment they will focus their laser beam attentions on use tax violators, especially as it involves a city revenue stream. And... oh, my producers tell me that since it's their anti-tax constituents who are ignoring that law, the odds fall somewhere short of "not bloody likely."
No, the people behind the lawsuit are interested in collecting some money, preferably via settlement because they don't really want the jury to hear the answer to the question: "so, why didn't you return your phone and get your money back?"
La Jolla. Like Pico, Sepulveda, Alvarado, Santa Monica, and Beverly Drive, it is a street in Los Angeles. La Brea (Tar Pits) [Tar Pits!] is both street and famous tar pits. Figueroa (as in Felix Figueroa) is also an LA street.
In his times, he could have given Todd Rundgren a call for hints as to cutting edge engineering. It was Rundgren who seemed to be the examplar of artist/engineer deluxe. Would he hire a programmer? That's almost like, in the 70s, hiring an electrical engineer to build an effects pedal. I think Zappa would have found that a distraction from his main mission, which was to make challenging music without wandering too far afield from rock and blues. Let someone else produce an effect box and then see if it serves his purposes well.
One thing I'm certain of, Zappa would have had zero tolerance and have applied maximum loudness and torque for anyone Napstering/Limewiring his tracks. I would imagine the hypothetical 21st century Frank would have put out a suite of scathing songs called "Freetard Anal Ants" or some such.
Hang on. When a customer asks for your assistance in making sure their books are clean to their satisfaction, you give them attitude? If I was on the other end of that snark, I'd, say, "Ha, ha, that line about Dell, that's such a good one. Now we'll just be suspending process for payment until you get us that W-9. You have a nice day." I'd then probably do what I could to get you off of the approved vendor list. Yeah, I'm paid to push the paper and I expect that the people who want our money, the vendors, make it as easy as possible for me to process their billings, and that means clean, clear invoices and paper work. I'm not sure where pissing me off as I stare at your unpaid invoice is that bright an idea.
As to the original point, it has been suggested to me by the CPAs who have overseen my employers' books that we may feel confident that any transaction covered by sales tax is being reported properly and W-9/1099s are not necessary. For the record, where there is some ambiguity about whether a service vendor is a corporation, I get a W9 so I have on file their affirmation that they are incorporated. I've worked for S corps and when asked for a W9, I send it cheerfully.
Dynamically duck-typed superset of C with optional garbage collection that compiles to native assembly versus versus static typed, managed, and garbage-collected language that compiles to byte-code.
Well, they do both have "C" in the name, so there's that to be said for their innate compatibility.
Upon reflection, if it was a paid app, Apple would refund the entirety of the purchasers' money to them and not turn over any proceeds to the copyright holder or the FSF. I regret that I didn't think that through prior to posting.
Maybe so, but Apple is likely to pull it from those who downloaded it and take it out of the App store and send a letter to the FSF describing the infringement as inadvertent and fingering the person who submitted it and did not tell the truth when describing the app's licensing.
If a paid app, all the moneys collected will be turned over to the FSF or the copyright holder (whichever is easier) and Apple's 30% cut will be reimbursed from the submitters' other app incomes, if any. If none, then maybe Apple will sue the submitter, and I expect that they will be banned for life from the App store no matter what. A suit for damages will only occur if the legal costs wouldn't swallow up the claim.
Now, if it turned out that the submitter did this as a trap, i.e., knew the licensing was GPL, put it in so Apple would distribute it, dropped the dime to the FSF, then that makes it interesting. There's a concept called misuse of copyright. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it would apply.
There will be a big stink and noise (it will be very similar to what happened with Amazon and "1984," when Amazon learned that it had been misled about its rights to distribute that work), but really, if the FSF wanted to sue for infringement, where's the harm after those remediation steps are taken? Only those people who jailbroke their Apple devices will still be the beneficiary of the infringement and Apple cannot be faulted for infringing uses when the device has had its copyright enforcement mechanisms disabled. Apple will have done all it could in order to put the situation back as it should have been, which is the app should not have been in the App store and should not be on Apple devices via Apple's distribution.
The other point is typography was a (still not completed) after-thought. At the outset html was for replicating the scientific paper and HTML's terseness and simplicity was its strength. Control for layout was given to the client browser and academic papers could be read in Mosaic or in lynx; one need not worry about what the user was using. Tables and images were added later because these are needed for academic writing. Because there is a standard flow of information in the academic paper and because the entire paper is the singular object of interest, the need to break up presentation with content wasn't manifest.
The web took off, and, as is human nature, folks looked at this low cost communication medium as an opportunity for commerce. Now, that brings in security, authenticity, state, content/presentation separation and typography. Persuasive communication is very important to effecting a sale. Persuasive communication is structured and in the specific cases of visual advertising, the movement of the eye and the rhythm of presentation matters a lot. Now page hosts had to have a large degree of certainty that the elements of their page did not more around as they were transmitted to their visitors, even though the heterogeneity of the client machine was and is a complication. The grid is a fundamental graphic design and was not (is not?) available explicitly in html and the later css. So, designers went and hacked the best alternative, using the <table> element. We also had spacer or invisible.gif, a one pixel by one pixel non-visible <img> element. I've always been a hand-coder, so I have no idea if the professional tools of fifteen years ago were using the hacks in order to provide a rigid structure to the page. I do know, from helping co-workers learning Dreamweaver, that ten years ago the font stuff was still being set per paragraph.
Incidentally, Flash provided a grid which helped it spread and why it is (my opinion, formed in the days of dial-up) overused.
As for the op, I'm okay with it being a jungle out there. While the computing analog of the strong man brings with it consistency, places where it happened also demonstrate how often power corrupts. Sun wanted everyone to use java, but didn't want java to be of more benefit to another vendor's products. Understandable, but it should seem obvious that their motive conflicted with the write-once run-anywhere mission. Everyone uses their products to cross-promote other products of theirs. Thus, the browser wars and the remaining inconsistencies in document models and rendering, like so many trenches, craters and unexploded ordnance in the 1920s Belgian countryside.
Any way, the web is what it is. As the world wide web was an outgrowth from academic communication, vendor neutrality is in its DNA, to use a cliched construction of the day. And there is a lot of bad web design/interactivity implementation out there. Oh indeedy, some clients will have and are going to pay to have their prior designers' works unraveled. Some of that is a natural consequence of multitudes shooting at a moving target. Some of that is because the clients didn't spend the money at the outset to hire someone who would do it correctly.
That wasn't Jobs' argument. Jobs said a deployment of Flash without hardware acceleration quickly drains the battery. Remember how, famously, Apple has phased out the changeable battery, so they may figure that they have no room for fooling around regarding this matter. He also said that Flash was designed for browser plus mouse. And he said that Apple believes that when developers arrive at a platform through cross-platform tools, customers get least common denominator functionality. Jobs did say, as a counter to Adobe's assertion that Flash was a standard, that HTML5, javascript, and CSS are standards, Flash is proprietary. Seems about right to me. Now we know Jobs is not concerned with customer freedom on the mobile devices because Apple's bread is buttered when it delivers simple consistent devices that are easy to operate and which do what they say they will.
Customers who prefer to exercise their freedom to tinker have other devices to choose from. That looks to me an excellent environment for maximum customer satisfaction.
It may be fair to say the EFF is using this as an opportunity to take some of spotlight, while the tech world is focused on these parties. That's fine, I believe in the EFF's fundamental philosophies and do not want GNU/GPL tools to disappear or be co-opted. I think it is a bit misguided and counter-productive to insist that everyone march to the same drummer.
Bad news, everybody, unlike with "Futurama," the lead sentence does not write itself.
You have my sympathy and it's times like these that I call upon the power of IT, Instant Tautology. If and only if one is a geek, than one's favorite non-sci-fi show is "The IT Crowd." Not your favorite non-sci-fi, not a geek, ipso facto, and please stand over there with the nerds or the norms. Thenk you.
Thinking about comedies, episodes of Monty Python, I Love Lucy, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, WKRP in Cincinnati, SCTV, Seinfeld, Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In have been as funny as the funniest of "The IT Crowd." One wonders if a single person having many months to write 3 hours per season makes a difference when ranking it among situation comedies in which teams of writers had a few weeks to write 10-13 hours. How would one compare "The IT Crowd" to a favorite drama or mini-series?
Then again, it certainly occurs to me that picking apart a harmless bit of hyperbole is tres geeky.
Why, no. You'd get a bad grade nonetheless of your originality because the predicate portion of the for loop should be i == 10;.
Now, if a lot of people made that same mistake and there was a correlation between where they sat or what fraternity they pledged, that might make it flaggable.
Plus, Apple is a publicly traded company. If the deal is signed, then it has to promptly tell its shareholders and the general investor. Somebody who heard something juicy at the water cooler and who takes the rumors/inside information public, treating negotiations, due diligence, and closing as a fait accompli is doing something incredibly, obviously wrong. "Malice or stupidity" debate wrong.
I would expect his current employers would have been the ones to read him the riot act and it is they that made him fix that LinkedIn post. With insider trading liability and the deal on the line, I'd expect the leaker to be terminated shortly.
You know, something else comes to mind: could these things have appeared on April 1 and disappeared April 2?
And in Hawaii, no people of Japanese origin or ancestry were taken to camps. There were too many. Senator Inouye (I read an autobiograhical article of his in the 1960s in Reader's Digest) says their radios were confiscated and the population was told there were things they could not do, but they got to keep their property and stay in their homes.
Seeing the different treatment for the people in Hawaii and for people whose origins went to the European Axis nations, the Sansei and the Nisei of the West Coast are fairly well convinced that at its heart, the internment was initiated by racist opportunists who seized upon a national emergency to convince authorities to expel a successful group of economic competitors. Those who disagree with that assertion claim the internment was strictly motivated by war necessities.
The big picture lesson I learned when back in the 70s when I studied the period and heard from the people who were interned, is that people who want to infringe on individual rights, who want a loosening of privacy or due process safeguards and who want a streamlined granting of public sector contracts (to them or their friends) know that getting the government to declare something a war is the most effective means. Because, in a real war, reasonable people accept those things as temporary necessities.
Returning to our Census Bureau and World War II and the hysteria on the West Coast and what it means today, I say fill out the census. Long after we're gone, the details will become available to researchers and their understanding of who we were and how we lived will be better. Aggregate statistics are helpful for our contemporary understanding of who we are. Plus, don't for a second think that the Census data is the only way for identifying people to round up. At the very least, there are those other tried and true methods, making lists from public sources and paying bounties to informants.
Went to high school with the guy. If he remembers me, it's only as that dude every one in Chess Club could beat with time enough in a lunch period to start another match.
It seems to me that the history of software architecting has been to write things that were kinda close to correct and then punt on the final polishing until the hardware caught up. One reason why software and computers are so widely loved and respected. From the original article, I suppose the argument is being made that all the folks adding cores should take a break. However, looking at the speculation in the article, there seems also to be the suggestion that by adding more and more cores, each process may be given its own cpu. While this would allow for more simultaneous independent processes, each process still takes as long to complete. There are two things which could cause the user to press the "This Sucks*" button, their music stutters, i.e., a particular process doesn't have the resources it needs, or the user has to go to the meeting but the computer hasn't finished rendering the hand-out, i.e., a particular process requires a certain number of clock ticks.
At its heart, a processor does two things, count and compare. Feeding the jobs to the processors so there's few moments of inactivity is, I believe, an NP problem, which means the better algorithms get the right answer a lot of the time. One could do better if one could predict the length and number of jobs that will enqueue, but, being able to predict in that way seems to contradict the results from The Halting Problem. So, my educated guess would be that 100% efficiency is an unobtainable limit. Now imagine that we are talking about a desktop and the computer is waiting for me to type, read, and type again. Could the system have devoted more resources to housekeeping during the millions and maybe billions of cycles between the events I initiate? Sure, but who's to say that the next event occurs in 0.75 seconds or 20 minutes (because I went and had a snack or got a phone call). Context switching will always have a cost and my tasks will be the ones I notice as slow or unresponsive. Operating systems are written to give me the illusion that it gets right on the things I ask.
The article suggests there's a "Field of Dreams" effect regarding hardware and that this is a problem. I remember being taught that anything one may do in hardware one may do in software and vice versa. So, it makes sense to me that hardware folks should build the best processors they can imagine and left the software people figure out utilization tactics and strategies.
That, though, leads me to the other big hairball. Legacy software. We have concurrency/parallel sensitive languages. We have semantics that have been added to existing languages so that blocks of code may be noted by the runtime and distributed to the good-enough and sometimes best choice among available processors. But, where's the business case for hiring programmers to go back, rewrite and re-debug old software to identify the blocks? This point applies to the new wished-for architecture as well, if it existed. What are the odds that C will be the best higher level language for the bare-metal systems programming in this new hardware architecture? (What about real-world patent/marketing issues with a new architecture and, by this, I ask unless it was invented by Intel, wouldn't Intel do everything in their power to kill it?) Would it be fair to say that one problem with a pc on every desktop is that when the pc needs to be changed, it takes forever?
* A performance monitoring and adaptation mechanism suggested in the article. Which reminds me, how much of our desktops' poor performance may be laid to network latency, congestion, and the economics of bandwidth capacity?
There goes the whole franchised violent video games tourneys in Swiss minarets with the local bankers sending corroborating info to the IRS/DHS business model. Back to the drawing board.
There is one gray area. Utility code that the developer has been maintaining that gets included in the deliverable. For example, I have a java class I call SimpleDate. It essentially wraps java.util.GregorianCalendar, but it has these bits of convenience: the months are 1-based and dates are primarily treated as a tuple (year, month, date). It isn't adequate for an international company operating in disparate time zones, but it's fine for a small US business.
So I use it for a project. It doesn't seem right that it gets walled off to me as part of the work-for-hire code I delivered. Since it makes the deliverable work, it certainly isn't right for me to go back and demand more money for a license for essential code I incorporated without discussion before hand. I handle this issue by giving the client a non-exclusive license to my library code at no extra charge. Pre-existing code, sure, that makes sense. What if the client's project reveals a bug in my library code? What if I extend my library code's api specifically because of something I needed for the job that didn't look to be a one-off bit of functionality? Does your agreement grab that from me and I need to negotiate a license for that method's reuse?
Now, I've been working with architects for the past two decades. This has colored my way of looking at code. Architects keep the copyright on their drawings. So they are distributing something that looks like source code. The client hires a contractor who takes the drawings and builds the building. In dim light, with eyes squinted, that kinda looks like compilation. As part of the drawing set, there are elements, known as details, that show very clearly things that are tricky to build. Architects reuse their details all the time. That looks like module/class code reuse to me. If the architect delivers drawings that make the client happy, then the client will come back for remodels and/or give a good recommendation, which is why one very, very rarely hears of another architect demanding to be paid for base drawings when the client remodels. When faced with that charge, the client could pay for field measurements (re-engineering) or pay the first architect. I looked at it this way, we could never live off the royalties from the plans and enforcing the copyrights would mean we lost a chance to design for that client again and we lost the word-of-mouth benefit.
Do I need to say that an architect who proposed that the client owed additional fees were the building to be used commercially, would be laughed out of the office.
Back to your situation, maybe there is a gentleman's agreement to look the other way regarding the contractor's library code that gets incorporated in their deliverable to you and regarding abstractions and patterns the contractor identified in the course of delivering your job that they develop later.
F# as the same kind of thing, but with first-class IDE and debugging support
Aha! Right there is the problem. The first-class IDE is Windows-only.
I do use Haskell. TextEdit and emacs work well enough. May I suggest that a good REPL, strong type system, and pure functional style mean that debugging is a different process than watching memory locations change value for imperative languages. I've checked out OCaml, but its notation - call me shallow - meant I went back to lisp and shortly after embraced Haskell. I'm also told the book I used as guide, "Practical OCaml Programming," is notoriously poorly written.
Since F# borrows heavily from OCaml for notation, its superior use case is for developing on Windows for Windows using a functional style and that really implies that the clients are going to be running a desktop application. While no language that actually does something can be totally pure, I thought some of F#'s FP goodness was undercut via the interaction with DLLs and.net objects. On the other hand, it does resolve the foreign interface problem that non-C languages have, but pretty much only for Windows.
As a practical consideration, over the years, there have been many periods of significant length when mono and fsharp would not compile on OS X via Macports. No complaints: everyone's a volunteer and I'm hitching a free ride. But, at some point one stops paying attention. Looking at the state of the art today, scala and clojure offer nice integration with existing code (read gui widgets) and as they rely on a jvm are cross-platform. The one little ugly part to those implementations is that the jvm cannot do automatic tail recursion, so the programmer has to be aware of stack issues and use workaround functions for recursion.
Howard Hawks gave his interviewers lots of bs, but this one was true. He hated the good guy drawing first scenario. He reasoned that if the bad guy was really a badass, the good guys put them down, quickly and with prejudice. Indeed the original Han-shot-first scenario was lifted straight out of two of Hawks' films.
Here's another thing Hawks said that I believe. He goes and sees "High Noon," and it pisses him off that Gary Cooper's character is going around asking for help. Hawks basically thinks that the sheriff is the professional and amateurs would be more likely to gum things up as help. So, he writes "Rio Bravo," where a US Marshall has to hold a prisoner and when the town folk offer to help, that's essentially what John Wayne says as he declines their offer.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider the freedom of speech necessarily and sufficiently to be a freedom to hear. Statements made in the context of affecting public policy should be usable by all, both supporters and opponents. I get to decide whether I believe it's wingnuttery or the honest voice from the wilderness.
I suppose I should mod up and not affirm. California charges use tax for resident's purchases that come from out of state. Enforcement is via honor system, so I'm sure a lot of people are overlooking.
The City of Costa Mesa in the great County of Orange to the south have declared themselves a "rule of law" city. While undocumented immigrants are their nominative target, I expect any moment they will focus their laser beam attentions on use tax violators, especially as it involves a city revenue stream. And... oh, my producers tell me that since it's their anti-tax constituents who are ignoring that law, the odds fall somewhere short of "not bloody likely."
No, the people behind the lawsuit are interested in collecting some money, preferably via settlement because they don't really want the jury to hear the answer to the question: "so, why didn't you return your phone and get your money back?"
La Jolla. Like Pico, Sepulveda, Alvarado, Santa Monica, and Beverly Drive, it is a street in Los Angeles. La Brea (Tar Pits) [Tar Pits!] is both street and famous tar pits. Figueroa (as in Felix Figueroa) is also an LA street.
I looked at the summary, was wondering what's the advantage over TerraSoft's YDL, the os formerly known as Yellow Dog Linux.
When I saw the 30 minute limit thing, I realized clearly what was the disadvantage compared to YDL.
In his times, he could have given Todd Rundgren a call for hints as to cutting edge engineering. It was Rundgren who seemed to be the examplar of artist/engineer deluxe. Would he hire a programmer? That's almost like, in the 70s, hiring an electrical engineer to build an effects pedal. I think Zappa would have found that a distraction from his main mission, which was to make challenging music without wandering too far afield from rock and blues. Let someone else produce an effect box and then see if it serves his purposes well.
One thing I'm certain of, Zappa would have had zero tolerance and have applied maximum loudness and torque for anyone Napstering/Limewiring his tracks. I would imagine the hypothetical 21st century Frank would have put out a suite of scathing songs called "Freetard Anal Ants" or some such.
Hang on. When a customer asks for your assistance in making sure their books are clean to their satisfaction, you give them attitude? If I was on the other end of that snark, I'd, say, "Ha, ha, that line about Dell, that's such a good one. Now we'll just be suspending process for payment until you get us that W-9. You have a nice day." I'd then probably do what I could to get you off of the approved vendor list. Yeah, I'm paid to push the paper and I expect that the people who want our money, the vendors, make it as easy as possible for me to process their billings, and that means clean, clear invoices and paper work. I'm not sure where pissing me off as I stare at your unpaid invoice is that bright an idea.
As to the original point, it has been suggested to me by the CPAs who have overseen my employers' books that we may feel confident that any transaction covered by sales tax is being reported properly and W-9/1099s are not necessary. For the record, where there is some ambiguity about whether a service vendor is a corporation, I get a W9 so I have on file their affirmation that they are incorporated. I've worked for S corps and when asked for a W9, I send it cheerfully.
Dynamically duck-typed superset of C with optional garbage collection that compiles to native assembly versus versus static typed, managed, and garbage-collected language that compiles to byte-code.
Well, they do both have "C" in the name, so there's that to be said for their innate compatibility.
Upon reflection, if it was a paid app, Apple would refund the entirety of the purchasers' money to them and not turn over any proceeds to the copyright holder or the FSF. I regret that I didn't think that through prior to posting.
Maybe so, but Apple is likely to pull it from those who downloaded it and take it out of the App store and send a letter to the FSF describing the infringement as inadvertent and fingering the person who submitted it and did not tell the truth when describing the app's licensing.
If a paid app, all the moneys collected will be turned over to the FSF or the copyright holder (whichever is easier) and Apple's 30% cut will be reimbursed from the submitters' other app incomes, if any. If none, then maybe Apple will sue the submitter, and I expect that they will be banned for life from the App store no matter what. A suit for damages will only occur if the legal costs wouldn't swallow up the claim.
Now, if it turned out that the submitter did this as a trap, i.e., knew the licensing was GPL, put it in so Apple would distribute it, dropped the dime to the FSF, then that makes it interesting. There's a concept called misuse of copyright. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it would apply.
There will be a big stink and noise (it will be very similar to what happened with Amazon and "1984," when Amazon learned that it had been misled about its rights to distribute that work), but really, if the FSF wanted to sue for infringement, where's the harm after those remediation steps are taken? Only those people who jailbroke their Apple devices will still be the beneficiary of the infringement and Apple cannot be faulted for infringing uses when the device has had its copyright enforcement mechanisms disabled. Apple will have done all it could in order to put the situation back as it should have been, which is the app should not have been in the App store and should not be on Apple devices via Apple's distribution.
Let me put in a cheer for the "Alice in Wonderland" he annotated.
The other point is typography was a (still not completed) after-thought. At the outset html was for replicating the scientific paper and HTML's terseness and simplicity was its strength. Control for layout was given to the client browser and academic papers could be read in Mosaic or in lynx; one need not worry about what the user was using. Tables and images were added later because these are needed for academic writing. Because there is a standard flow of information in the academic paper and because the entire paper is the singular object of interest, the need to break up presentation with content wasn't manifest.
The web took off, and, as is human nature, folks looked at this low cost communication medium as an opportunity for commerce. Now, that brings in security, authenticity, state, content/presentation separation and typography. Persuasive communication is very important to effecting a sale. Persuasive communication is structured and in the specific cases of visual advertising, the movement of the eye and the rhythm of presentation matters a lot. Now page hosts had to have a large degree of certainty that the elements of their page did not more around as they were transmitted to their visitors, even though the heterogeneity of the client machine was and is a complication. The grid is a fundamental graphic design and was not (is not?) available explicitly in html and the later css. So, designers went and hacked the best alternative, using the <table> element. We also had spacer or invisible.gif, a one pixel by one pixel non-visible <img> element. I've always been a hand-coder, so I have no idea if the professional tools of fifteen years ago were using the hacks in order to provide a rigid structure to the page. I do know, from helping co-workers learning Dreamweaver, that ten years ago the font stuff was still being set per paragraph.
Incidentally, Flash provided a grid which helped it spread and why it is (my opinion, formed in the days of dial-up) overused.
As for the op, I'm okay with it being a jungle out there. While the computing analog of the strong man brings with it consistency, places where it happened also demonstrate how often power corrupts. Sun wanted everyone to use java, but didn't want java to be of more benefit to another vendor's products. Understandable, but it should seem obvious that their motive conflicted with the write-once run-anywhere mission. Everyone uses their products to cross-promote other products of theirs. Thus, the browser wars and the remaining inconsistencies in document models and rendering, like so many trenches, craters and unexploded ordnance in the 1920s Belgian countryside.
Any way, the web is what it is. As the world wide web was an outgrowth from academic communication, vendor neutrality is in its DNA, to use a cliched construction of the day. And there is a lot of bad web design/interactivity implementation out there. Oh indeedy, some clients will have and are going to pay to have their prior designers' works unraveled. Some of that is a natural consequence of multitudes shooting at a moving target. Some of that is because the clients didn't spend the money at the outset to hire someone who would do it correctly.
That wasn't Jobs' argument. Jobs said a deployment of Flash without hardware acceleration quickly drains the battery. Remember how, famously, Apple has phased out the changeable battery, so they may figure that they have no room for fooling around regarding this matter. He also said that Flash was designed for browser plus mouse. And he said that Apple believes that when developers arrive at a platform through cross-platform tools, customers get least common denominator functionality. Jobs did say, as a counter to Adobe's assertion that Flash was a standard, that HTML5, javascript, and CSS are standards, Flash is proprietary. Seems about right to me. Now we know Jobs is not concerned with customer freedom on the mobile devices because Apple's bread is buttered when it delivers simple consistent devices that are easy to operate and which do what they say they will.
Customers who prefer to exercise their freedom to tinker have other devices to choose from. That looks to me an excellent environment for maximum customer satisfaction.
It may be fair to say the EFF is using this as an opportunity to take some of spotlight, while the tech world is focused on these parties. That's fine, I believe in the EFF's fundamental philosophies and do not want GNU/GPL tools to disappear or be co-opted. I think it is a bit misguided and counter-productive to insist that everyone march to the same drummer.
Bad news, everybody, unlike with "Futurama," the lead sentence does not write itself.
You have my sympathy and it's times like these that I call upon the power of IT, Instant Tautology. If and only if one is a geek, than one's favorite non-sci-fi show is "The IT Crowd." Not your favorite non-sci-fi, not a geek, ipso facto, and please stand over there with the nerds or the norms. Thenk you.
Thinking about comedies, episodes of Monty Python, I Love Lucy, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, WKRP in Cincinnati, SCTV, Seinfeld, Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In have been as funny as the funniest of "The IT Crowd." One wonders if a single person having many months to write 3 hours per season makes a difference when ranking it among situation comedies in which teams of writers had a few weeks to write 10-13 hours. How would one compare "The IT Crowd" to a favorite drama or mini-series?
Then again, it certainly occurs to me that picking apart a harmless bit of hyperbole is tres geeky.
Why, no. You'd get a bad grade nonetheless of your originality because the predicate portion of the for loop should be i == 10;.
Now, if a lot of people made that same mistake and there was a correlation between where they sat or what fraternity they pledged, that might make it flaggable.
So you're the SETI at home guy running CP/M
Plus, Apple is a publicly traded company. If the deal is signed, then it has to promptly tell its shareholders and the general investor. Somebody who heard something juicy at the water cooler and who takes the rumors/inside information public, treating negotiations, due diligence, and closing as a fait accompli is doing something incredibly, obviously wrong. "Malice or stupidity" debate wrong.
I would expect his current employers would have been the ones to read him the riot act and it is they that made him fix that LinkedIn post. With insider trading liability and the deal on the line, I'd expect the leaker to be terminated shortly.
You know, something else comes to mind: could these things have appeared on April 1 and disappeared April 2?
And in Hawaii, no people of Japanese origin or ancestry were taken to camps. There were too many. Senator Inouye (I read an autobiograhical article of his in the 1960s in Reader's Digest) says their radios were confiscated and the population was told there were things they could not do, but they got to keep their property and stay in their homes.
Seeing the different treatment for the people in Hawaii and for people whose origins went to the European Axis nations, the Sansei and the Nisei of the West Coast are fairly well convinced that at its heart, the internment was initiated by racist opportunists who seized upon a national emergency to convince authorities to expel a successful group of economic competitors. Those who disagree with that assertion claim the internment was strictly motivated by war necessities.
The big picture lesson I learned when back in the 70s when I studied the period and heard from the people who were interned, is that people who want to infringe on individual rights, who want a loosening of privacy or due process safeguards and who want a streamlined granting of public sector contracts (to them or their friends) know that getting the government to declare something a war is the most effective means. Because, in a real war, reasonable people accept those things as temporary necessities.
Returning to our Census Bureau and World War II and the hysteria on the West Coast and what it means today, I say fill out the census. Long after we're gone, the details will become available to researchers and their understanding of who we were and how we lived will be better. Aggregate statistics are helpful for our contemporary understanding of who we are. Plus, don't for a second think that the Census data is the only way for identifying people to round up. At the very least, there are those other tried and true methods, making lists from public sources and paying bounties to informants.
Went to high school with the guy. If he remembers me, it's only as that dude every one in Chess Club could beat with time enough in a lunch period to start another match.
It seems to me that the history of software architecting has been to write things that were kinda close to correct and then punt on the final polishing until the hardware caught up. One reason why software and computers are so widely loved and respected. From the original article, I suppose the argument is being made that all the folks adding cores should take a break. However, looking at the speculation in the article, there seems also to be the suggestion that by adding more and more cores, each process may be given its own cpu. While this would allow for more simultaneous independent processes, each process still takes as long to complete. There are two things which could cause the user to press the "This Sucks*" button, their music stutters, i.e., a particular process doesn't have the resources it needs, or the user has to go to the meeting but the computer hasn't finished rendering the hand-out, i.e., a particular process requires a certain number of clock ticks.
At its heart, a processor does two things, count and compare. Feeding the jobs to the processors so there's few moments of inactivity is, I believe, an NP problem, which means the better algorithms get the right answer a lot of the time. One could do better if one could predict the length and number of jobs that will enqueue, but, being able to predict in that way seems to contradict the results from The Halting Problem. So, my educated guess would be that 100% efficiency is an unobtainable limit. Now imagine that we are talking about a desktop and the computer is waiting for me to type, read, and type again. Could the system have devoted more resources to housekeeping during the millions and maybe billions of cycles between the events I initiate? Sure, but who's to say that the next event occurs in 0.75 seconds or 20 minutes (because I went and had a snack or got a phone call). Context switching will always have a cost and my tasks will be the ones I notice as slow or unresponsive. Operating systems are written to give me the illusion that it gets right on the things I ask.
The article suggests there's a "Field of Dreams" effect regarding hardware and that this is a problem. I remember being taught that anything one may do in hardware one may do in software and vice versa. So, it makes sense to me that hardware folks should build the best processors they can imagine and left the software people figure out utilization tactics and strategies.
That, though, leads me to the other big hairball. Legacy software. We have concurrency/parallel sensitive languages. We have semantics that have been added to existing languages so that blocks of code may be noted by the runtime and distributed to the good-enough and sometimes best choice among available processors. But, where's the business case for hiring programmers to go back, rewrite and re-debug old software to identify the blocks? This point applies to the new wished-for architecture as well, if it existed. What are the odds that C will be the best higher level language for the bare-metal systems programming in this new hardware architecture? (What about real-world patent/marketing issues with a new architecture and, by this, I ask unless it was invented by Intel, wouldn't Intel do everything in their power to kill it?) Would it be fair to say that one problem with a pc on every desktop is that when the pc needs to be changed, it takes forever?
* A performance monitoring and adaptation mechanism suggested in the article. Which reminds me, how much of our desktops' poor performance may be laid to network latency, congestion, and the economics of bandwidth capacity?
There goes the whole franchised violent video games tourneys in Swiss minarets with the local bankers sending corroborating info to the IRS/DHS business model. Back to the drawing board.
There is one gray area. Utility code that the developer has been maintaining that gets included in the deliverable. For example, I have a java class I call SimpleDate. It essentially wraps java.util.GregorianCalendar, but it has these bits of convenience: the months are 1-based and dates are primarily treated as a tuple (year, month, date). It isn't adequate for an international company operating in disparate time zones, but it's fine for a small US business.
So I use it for a project. It doesn't seem right that it gets walled off to me as part of the work-for-hire code I delivered. Since it makes the deliverable work, it certainly isn't right for me to go back and demand more money for a license for essential code I incorporated without discussion before hand. I handle this issue by giving the client a non-exclusive license to my library code at no extra charge. Pre-existing code, sure, that makes sense. What if the client's project reveals a bug in my library code? What if I extend my library code's api specifically because of something I needed for the job that didn't look to be a one-off bit of functionality? Does your agreement grab that from me and I need to negotiate a license for that method's reuse?
Now, I've been working with architects for the past two decades. This has colored my way of looking at code. Architects keep the copyright on their drawings. So they are distributing something that looks like source code. The client hires a contractor who takes the drawings and builds the building. In dim light, with eyes squinted, that kinda looks like compilation. As part of the drawing set, there are elements, known as details, that show very clearly things that are tricky to build. Architects reuse their details all the time. That looks like module/class code reuse to me. If the architect delivers drawings that make the client happy, then the client will come back for remodels and/or give a good recommendation, which is why one very, very rarely hears of another architect demanding to be paid for base drawings when the client remodels. When faced with that charge, the client could pay for field measurements (re-engineering) or pay the first architect. I looked at it this way, we could never live off the royalties from the plans and enforcing the copyrights would mean we lost a chance to design for that client again and we lost the word-of-mouth benefit.
Do I need to say that an architect who proposed that the client owed additional fees were the building to be used commercially, would be laughed out of the office.
Back to your situation, maybe there is a gentleman's agreement to look the other way regarding the contractor's library code that gets incorporated in their deliverable to you and regarding abstractions and patterns the contractor identified in the course of delivering your job that they develop later.
Functional Programming, unless your etc. did include Lisp/Scheme or OCaml or Haskell.
Some assembly wouldn't hurt.
Why? Different ways of thinking about solutions and it will feed back positively into what you do with the imperative C-like languages you did list.
And is really, really, really proud to fly the Confederate flag.
Aha! Right there is the problem. The first-class IDE is Windows-only.
I do use Haskell. TextEdit and emacs work well enough. May I suggest that a good REPL, strong type system, and pure functional style mean that debugging is a different process than watching memory locations change value for imperative languages. I've checked out OCaml, but its notation - call me shallow - meant I went back to lisp and shortly after embraced Haskell. I'm also told the book I used as guide, "Practical OCaml Programming," is notoriously poorly written.
Since F# borrows heavily from OCaml for notation, its superior use case is for developing on Windows for Windows using a functional style and that really implies that the clients are going to be running a desktop application. While no language that actually does something can be totally pure, I thought some of F#'s FP goodness was undercut via the interaction with DLLs and .net objects. On the other hand, it does resolve the foreign interface problem that non-C languages have, but pretty much only for Windows.
As a practical consideration, over the years, there have been many periods of significant length when mono and fsharp would not compile on OS X via Macports. No complaints: everyone's a volunteer and I'm hitching a free ride. But, at some point one stops paying attention. Looking at the state of the art today, scala and clojure offer nice integration with existing code (read gui widgets) and as they rely on a jvm are cross-platform. The one little ugly part to those implementations is that the jvm cannot do automatic tail recursion, so the programmer has to be aware of stack issues and use workaround functions for recursion.
Howard Hawks gave his interviewers lots of bs, but this one was true. He hated the good guy drawing first scenario. He reasoned that if the bad guy was really a badass, the good guys put them down, quickly and with prejudice. Indeed the original Han-shot-first scenario was lifted straight out of two of Hawks' films.
Here's another thing Hawks said that I believe. He goes and sees "High Noon," and it pisses him off that Gary Cooper's character is going around asking for help. Hawks basically thinks that the sheriff is the professional and amateurs would be more likely to gum things up as help. So, he writes "Rio Bravo," where a US Marshall has to hold a prisoner and when the town folk offer to help, that's essentially what John Wayne says as he declines their offer.