It begs the question, that if the jury finds against Oracle, the jury is defacto unreasonable!
"We've taken your normal Slashdot, and replaced it with one in which a poster correctly uses the phrase "begs the question". Let's see if anyone notices!"
If I get a defective product from Amazon, they send me a new one before asking for the return.
Well, they used to at least. Last week I received a defective SD card reader. Amazon didn't even offer a replacement - they merely emailed the shipping label and told me my card would be credited when they received the item. That I have Prime and have been a customer for more than 15 years makes this response not very encouraging, especially in conjunction with the increasing number of items that don't get two-day shipping.
I had to do it for some smartcard authoring software
My particular cross to bear was talking to a bunch of custom onboard hardware and external industrial hardware (PLCs and such), but the need for bit-level coding was pretty similar. I haven't made any real effort to learn/use VB.NET simply because it doesn't do anything C# doesn't, isn't used nearly as much, and as you mention, it's not the same language as VB6, so why bother?
Although I don't regret seeing VB6 go away, I will say that I never experienced any compiler/environment bugs with it, and generating a setup file was absolute cake. The VBRUN dependency wasn't too bad, either - it sure beat having to pull an entire.NET distribution down if the machine didn't have whatever version you targeted.
I've heard that phrase from sales executives and non-technical managers, but never from a developer.
For sure. Most developers I know have their own personal battle scars from users doing weird, unexpected stuff to break things. "I don't need to validate this function input - it should always be valid coming in." "Yeah, well you should probably do it anyway." Sure enough, an exception ends up in the logs at some point.
And if you needed more than what the Turbo line offered, Borland C++ was a much easier product to work with than the early versions of Visual C++. It made a huge difference being able to run the debugger on a second (text-only) display when working with Windows code.
The.NET versions of VB were VB in name only. You generally couldn't just load a VB6 program into VB7 or subsequent versions and have it run as-is, even with the upgrade wizard. That's not to say that the newer versions weren't a lot more useful, though.
The hope of the public at large is that this draws honorable people to those organizations, and that at worst, only a few bad apples will exist. In this environment, self inspection and whistleblowing works.
Except for the fact that it doesn't. There are plenty of "honorable" people that believe the ends justify the means, and I believe that's largely what we have here. Too many people think that peoples' safety is more important than their freedom, and it's acceptable to break the law "if it saves the life of just one child".
I've likened working with VB6 to trying to perform surgery with boxing gloves on. It's great for building UIs, but for getting anything of real substance done I either had to write a DLL in C/C++ that got called from VB code, or write an OCX/ActiveX control if it needed to have some kind of UI. It worked reasonably well, but could sometimes be a pain to maintain. Probably the most frustrating thing about VB6 was the total lack of support for unsigned integers, which made writing bit-manipulation code tedious at times.
To contrive an example, then, if a Frenchman in London buys a phone that was manufactured in Japan from parts fabricated in China from raw materials mined in Australia, using designs licensed from a company in Ireland who in turn licensed them from an American company, why does the United States get all of the taxes?
Because the other countries involved got their taxes when the materials or labor were purchased from those other companies, as part of the purchase price. What's left is income, and it's reasonable to expect that if it's an American company, that the U.S. would get the taxes on that income (profit). Similarly, I would expect that a Japanese company that had a physical presence in the U.S. would still pay income taxes to Japan. Even if the American company isn't located within U.S. borders, it still gains a benefit from the U.S. government in the form of military, diplomatic, legal/court, and other services. The expenses it incurs to its host country would in turn be paid by local property taxes, utility taxes, etc.
I have no objection to a net resource that is not accurate (that pretty much describes the whole Internet universe, in my opinion) but I am uncomfortable with a resource that claims accuracy, but can't actually reach that goal, and worse, as in this example, actually promotes nonsense.
This is pretty much my take on it too. I got into an minor edit skirmish a few years ago regarding Disney World's monorail system. My problem was that most of the authoritative references are copyrighted by Disney and not for distribution outside the company. So, even though I'd worked there for many years, had been a trainer, and knew the trains and system inside and out, it didn't matter because someone found some content on some Disney fan site (that also happened to be inaccurate) and wanted to continually invalidate my corrections with the aforementioned inaccurate (but attributable) info. I just said "fuck it" and haven't even looked at the article since then, and take most things on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Being able to attribute sources doesn't make a lick of difference if the info is wrong to begin with.
And on top of that, they use so much damned white space that a Skype window that should be able to be parked in a tiny little corner instead takes up a quarter of your display.
Sure they are. Kansas City International contracts with Akal Security for screening services, and had used another private contractor for years prior. There are still a few TSA agents at the airport as Akal works under federal oversight, but the screening personnel themseves are Akal employees. I saw it myself when I flew through there back in November.
Wearing a suit and tie is just trying too hard -- there's some reason you're doing that and it causes me to wonder about form vs. function.
Yeah, there's a reason - it says that you understand that their time is valuable to them and that they're willingly choosing to spend it talking to you, so you took some time yourself to at least make yourself presentable. It's a display of basic respect.
No, I didn't write the article, but thanks for the link - that's very helpful! I have one of the 2Wire/Pace i3812V modems, which is quite possibly the crappiest piece of networking gear to hit the market. I'll get on the horn with AT&T and see if they can replace it with a Motorola. I suspect it's the 3812 that's causing my service interruptions, since they're pretty well known for having poorly-written firmware, and my outages usually resolve themselves within a couple of minutes. It's frustrating to lose the connection and look up to see that infamous flashing red light, and AT&T claims there's nothing wrong with the line.
My particular beef with AT&T is that the crappy 2wire RG won't pass IPv6 properly to/from my router. It delegates the space like it's supposed to and my router gets a valid IPv6 address, but AT&T's modem just won't pass any traffic. Apparently you're not supposed to use a downstream router and are expected to just plug your gear directly into the RG. On top of that, a recent firmware upgrade blocks protocol 41 traffic "for security reasons" on my particular RG model, so 6in4 tunnels don't work either. Interestingly, this protocol 41 issue doesn't appear to affect their legacy DSL network, just uVerse.
I don't think QoS in and of itself violates the idea of net neutrality, so long as it's done in a manner that ignores who the traffic is going between. Certain types of traffic are more time-dependent than others (VoIP for instance), so I don't really have a problem with prioritizing the *type* of traffic. I do have a problem with the ISP prioritizing VoIP/video traffic involving their own services over that involving outside providers.
Slashdot Mirror
It begs the question, that if the jury finds against Oracle, the jury is defacto unreasonable!
"We've taken your normal Slashdot, and replaced it with one in which a poster correctly uses the phrase "begs the question". Let's see if anyone notices!"
[thumbs up!]
Posts like this show why "divide and conquer" continues to work.
Could be. We don't get Coke as an option on the website either, but that might use a geolocated IP to determine what gets shown.
Okay, actually looked at the link now. Our local Papa John's only offers Pepsi products, so this may not be a nationwide thing.
Pixdis Lucmar - isn't he a character in one of the new Star Wars productions?
Or a Coke at Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, or KFC.
If I get a defective product from Amazon, they send me a new one before asking for the return.
Well, they used to at least. Last week I received a defective SD card reader. Amazon didn't even offer a replacement - they merely emailed the shipping label and told me my card would be credited when they received the item. That I have Prime and have been a customer for more than 15 years makes this response not very encouraging, especially in conjunction with the increasing number of items that don't get two-day shipping.
I had to do it for some smartcard authoring software
.NET distribution down if the machine didn't have whatever version you targeted.
My particular cross to bear was talking to a bunch of custom onboard hardware and external industrial hardware (PLCs and such), but the need for bit-level coding was pretty similar. I haven't made any real effort to learn/use VB.NET simply because it doesn't do anything C# doesn't, isn't used nearly as much, and as you mention, it's not the same language as VB6, so why bother?
Although I don't regret seeing VB6 go away, I will say that I never experienced any compiler/environment bugs with it, and generating a setup file was absolute cake. The VBRUN dependency wasn't too bad, either - it sure beat having to pull an entire
I've heard that phrase from sales executives and non-technical managers, but never from a developer.
For sure. Most developers I know have their own personal battle scars from users doing weird, unexpected stuff to break things. "I don't need to validate this function input - it should always be valid coming in." "Yeah, well you should probably do it anyway." Sure enough, an exception ends up in the logs at some point.
And if you needed more than what the Turbo line offered, Borland C++ was a much easier product to work with than the early versions of Visual C++. It made a huge difference being able to run the debugger on a second (text-only) display when working with Windows code.
Like VB 14, included in VS2015? :)
.NET versions of VB were VB in name only. You generally couldn't just load a VB6 program into VB7 or subsequent versions and have it run as-is, even with the upgrade wizard. That's not to say that the newer versions weren't a lot more useful, though.
The
The hope of the public at large is that this draws honorable people to those organizations, and that at worst, only a few bad apples will exist. In this environment, self inspection and whistleblowing works.
Except for the fact that it doesn't. There are plenty of "honorable" people that believe the ends justify the means, and I believe that's largely what we have here. Too many people think that peoples' safety is more important than their freedom, and it's acceptable to break the law "if it saves the life of just one child".
I've likened working with VB6 to trying to perform surgery with boxing gloves on. It's great for building UIs, but for getting anything of real substance done I either had to write a DLL in C/C++ that got called from VB code, or write an OCX/ActiveX control if it needed to have some kind of UI. It worked reasonably well, but could sometimes be a pain to maintain. Probably the most frustrating thing about VB6 was the total lack of support for unsigned integers, which made writing bit-manipulation code tedious at times.
To contrive an example, then, if a Frenchman in London buys a phone that was manufactured in Japan from parts fabricated in China from raw materials mined in Australia, using designs licensed from a company in Ireland who in turn licensed them from an American company, why does the United States get all of the taxes?
Because the other countries involved got their taxes when the materials or labor were purchased from those other companies, as part of the purchase price. What's left is income, and it's reasonable to expect that if it's an American company, that the U.S. would get the taxes on that income (profit). Similarly, I would expect that a Japanese company that had a physical presence in the U.S. would still pay income taxes to Japan. Even if the American company isn't located within U.S. borders, it still gains a benefit from the U.S. government in the form of military, diplomatic, legal/court, and other services. The expenses it incurs to its host country would in turn be paid by local property taxes, utility taxes, etc.
The solution is to set-up another verifiable resource. Then cite it.
I had thought about doing that at the time, but it just wasn't worth the effort. Screw 'em - they can have their "verified" but incorrect sources.
I have no objection to a net resource that is not accurate (that pretty much describes the whole Internet universe, in my opinion) but I am uncomfortable with a resource that claims accuracy, but can't actually reach that goal, and worse, as in this example, actually promotes nonsense.
This is pretty much my take on it too. I got into an minor edit skirmish a few years ago regarding Disney World's monorail system. My problem was that most of the authoritative references are copyrighted by Disney and not for distribution outside the company. So, even though I'd worked there for many years, had been a trainer, and knew the trains and system inside and out, it didn't matter because someone found some content on some Disney fan site (that also happened to be inaccurate) and wanted to continually invalidate my corrections with the aforementioned inaccurate (but attributable) info. I just said "fuck it" and haven't even looked at the article since then, and take most things on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Being able to attribute sources doesn't make a lick of difference if the info is wrong to begin with.
No reason to upgrade except to get the shiny new UI only available in the new version.
And then they ruined even that starting with Win8.
And on top of that, they use so much damned white space that a Skype window that should be able to be parked in a tiny little corner instead takes up a quarter of your display.
and for PCs we had GEM long before windows. Not sure about Amiga and Atari ST, if they were not before windows they certainly were very close in time.
GEM (February), Windows (November), the Amiga (July), and the ST (June) all came out in 1985.
They aren't. It's a bluff.
Sure they are. Kansas City International contracts with Akal Security for screening services, and had used another private contractor for years prior. There are still a few TSA agents at the airport as Akal works under federal oversight, but the screening personnel themseves are Akal employees. I saw it myself when I flew through there back in November.
Why on earth would it be illegal?
This is why.
Wearing a suit and tie is just trying too hard -- there's some reason you're doing that and it causes me to wonder about form vs. function.
Yeah, there's a reason - it says that you understand that their time is valuable to them and that they're willingly choosing to spend it talking to you, so you took some time yourself to at least make yourself presentable. It's a display of basic respect.
No, I didn't write the article, but thanks for the link - that's very helpful! I have one of the 2Wire/Pace i3812V modems, which is quite possibly the crappiest piece of networking gear to hit the market. I'll get on the horn with AT&T and see if they can replace it with a Motorola. I suspect it's the 3812 that's causing my service interruptions, since they're pretty well known for having poorly-written firmware, and my outages usually resolve themselves within a couple of minutes. It's frustrating to lose the connection and look up to see that infamous flashing red light, and AT&T claims there's nothing wrong with the line.
My particular beef with AT&T is that the crappy 2wire RG won't pass IPv6 properly to/from my router. It delegates the space like it's supposed to and my router gets a valid IPv6 address, but AT&T's modem just won't pass any traffic. Apparently you're not supposed to use a downstream router and are expected to just plug your gear directly into the RG. On top of that, a recent firmware upgrade blocks protocol 41 traffic "for security reasons" on my particular RG model, so 6in4 tunnels don't work either. Interestingly, this protocol 41 issue doesn't appear to affect their legacy DSL network, just uVerse.
I don't think QoS in and of itself violates the idea of net neutrality, so long as it's done in a manner that ignores who the traffic is going between. Certain types of traffic are more time-dependent than others (VoIP for instance), so I don't really have a problem with prioritizing the *type* of traffic. I do have a problem with the ISP prioritizing VoIP/video traffic involving their own services over that involving outside providers.