In a real-time chat scenario, I can (almost) understand the use of some of these abbreviations, especially if you're a slow typist. But not in a paper. I mean, sure, "Dr." has become an accepted abbreviation for the much-longer "doctor" (however, note the use of the period to signify that it's an abbreviation). But it's just pure laziness to type "2" instead of "to". I mean, come on, it's two goddamned letters! Is it really that difficult?
And whose idea was it to create the "@" abbreviation? Seriously, who was it that thought "at" is such a horribly long word that it needs its own special symbol to abbreviate it?
What they need to do is introduce typing classes early on in school, like shortly after printing is introduced.
A wrapper to cycle through 2 POKE commands to set the background/border colors? That would be faster? I think not!
No, seriously, I wasn't writing ML code. I never got around to learning that. I always just dabbled in BASIC. BASIC was fun. ML was work. Of course, today, I prefer languages that are more "work". I'd choose C++ over some crap like Visual BASIC anyday, even with the nostalgia factor of working with a language that still has all those same functions I used to use on my C-64 (if only you could POKE and PEEK, though! Man, that would make me smile).
I started writing 20% of games in the early 80's, on my VIC-20 and later my Commodore 64. Sometimes I didn't even have a game idea, I'd just start writing the program, setting up standard variables like SC (for score) and HS (for high score), and creating the opening screen that let you select to start the game. I never started by putting ideas on paper, I always dove right into code. I'd start with:
10 POKE 53280,0:POKE 53281,0
to turn the screen black. Then I'd go, "now what?".
Sadly, I'm still writing 20% games to this day. My latest attempt, however, is the first one that is actually starting on paper. Strangely, at 30 years of age, I'm still under the delusion that I'll actually finish this one.
"Does anyone REALLy backup their games / CD's before use?"
Yes, some people do. But even if nobody did, so what? The fact that someone could use a modded PS to play copied games (thus committing a crime) is actually irrelevant to the argument. Yes, modding a PS or PS2 provides you with the ability to play "pirated" games. So what? Studying martial arts provides you with the ability to kill someone with your bare hands. Studying martial arts is not a crime. Killing someone with your bare hands is.
Illegal copying of games is, well, illegal. Doing something that provides the ability to commit a crime is not, or at least should not be, a crime. Actually committing the crime, is a crime. How hard is this for people to understand? There are legitimate uses for mod chips. If people use their mod chips to commit a crime, then punish them for committing that crime. But don't punish people for doing something that could allow them to commit a crime.
That is a really bad headline. Not only does it call the PlayStation a "PS/2", but the guy didn't go to jail. He received a fine and a year of probation.
However, I disagree that it's "disingenuous for the writers of this article to call it a conviction for selling mod-chips". The fact is, he was convicted for selling mod-chips. Yes, he was also convicted of selling copied games, but that doesn't render the other charges meaningless. Headlines aren't meant to tell the whole story. They're meant to pique your curiosity. The article is supposed to provide the details.
Please do it. Seriously. That's an awesome idea. I want to see this happen. I'd do it myself, but I'm a lazy bastard and would never get around to it. Oh ya, and I can't write to save my life. So please do it.
SQL Server 7.0 & 2000 Bug
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 1
Not so much my favourite as just one that has always really annoyed me. In Enterprise Manager for Microsoft SQL Server 7.0, after creating/editing a table, if you click the Close (X) button without saving your changes first, it prompts you to save your changes. Now, in most applications (definitely in the ones I design), the message box will provide three options: "Yes", "No", and "Cancel". Clicking "Yes" will save the changes and close the window. Clicking "No" will ignore the changes and close the window. Clicking "Cancel" will not close the window at all, allowing you to continue. That last option is quite handy if you happen to click close by mistake. However, in Enterprise Manager, the options are "Yes", "No", and "Help".
Unfortunately, "Help" doesn't provide the kind of help that you need when you're in a situation where you've accidentally clicked close, but don't want to answer "Yes" because the changes you've made aren't correct. So, you click "No", and then start over.
When I first got SQL Server 2000, I went immediately into Enterprise Manager to see if they'd fixed that.
Alas, they had not.
While typing this post, I discovered an interesting quirk that I had never noticed before. There is an animated advertisement at the top of this page. I'm using IE, and if I have the advertisement visible while I'm typing, my cursor blinks frantically. If I scroll down far enough that the advertisement is no longer visible, my cursor blinks at a normal rate.
I don't think there is a definite "this is what you should do in this situation" answer. It's a case by case thing.
My personal experience is that I received an offer that was an 18% increase on my salary at that time, and I had just had a salary increase 3 months prior, so I wasn't expecting another one, so I went to my boss, who was one of the company's owners, and explained the situation. I was completely honest with him, explaining that I was not unhappy with my job, nor had I been looking for another job, but this opportunity found its way to my Inbox, and it was such a good opportunity that I had to at least consider it. I told him I hadn't made a decision yet, which was the truth. He asked me how much I had been offered, and I told him truthfully, and without hesitation he offered to match it, with a comment that he had recently been discussing with the other owner the fact that they both felt I was underpaid, so this was a perfect opportunity to rectify that situation. I considered this, and decided to accept his offer. I received a counter-counter offer for a mere 2.5% over the previous offer, which I promptly and curteously turned down.
The important points in my story are that this was a small company, where management treated employees like human beings, not human resources. Everyone knew everyone else fairly well. As a result, I believed him that he genuinely felt I deserved the salary increase, and I had no concerns about the future of our relationship, personal or professional. He knew I was simply faced with a business decision to go elsewhere, and he made a business decision to try to keep me.
A year and a half later, another generous offer found its way to my Inbox, and I ended up accepting that one. The company was not doing as well financially by that time, so there was simply no money for a counter-offer (in fact the company's first ever lay-offs happened 2 days after I left), but even if there had been, I would have felt strange going through that process a second time.
So, you have to guage your relationship with the company and your employer, as well as guage what type of person your employer is. If he's a vindictive sort, he may fire you the day after you accept his counter-offer. There are far too many vindictive idiots like that in the business world. But if he's a good business person, he'll realize that you are simply doing what's in your best interest, and he will do what is in the company's best interest, which will likely be to try to keep you.
Ok, fair enough. Some software vendors (albeit far too few) do provide a money-back guarantee. That was a poor example. I was actually more criticizing the inference being made in the paper that there were some sort of quality and/or liability guarantees made in proprietary software warranties. The paper criticizes open source software for not providing those types of guarantees, while ignoring the fact that proprietary software does not either.
Anyway, I have to admit, I was unaware of Microsoft's money-back guarantee, and I am impressed to learn that they have one. Thanks for the tip.
The "Matrix Universe" is the real universe. So I'm guessing they'll render the entire world in a 3D model. And maybe at the start of the game, it'll ask you were you live in real life, and then it'll place your character in whatever your hometown is, standing right in front of the virtual version of your house. Then you'll wander inside and head towards the room where your computer is, and there you'll see yourself sitting on front of a computer, and if you get real close to it, you'll see that on the computer monitor is a 3D model of the room you're in, with you looking over your own shoulder at a monitor, on which there's a 3D model of the room you're in, with you looking over.....
This is decided by how you establish the relationship between yourself and your client. If you are being hired to write code, you are the client's employee, and everything you create while under his employ belongs to him, not you. He should, in that case, be paying you for your time. If he is simply buying a product from you, then you should set a price, probably fixed, regardless of the time it takes you, and then that is the price for the product. In that case, the code belongs to you, and you license the product to him. Now, you have every right to open the source after selling it to him. However, to do so would make you a complete scumbag, and if I were the client, I'd kick your sorry ass for doing it.:)
He thinks he's buying a product from you, not subsidizing your personal open source development. I'm curious, how do you feel that this will be in his best interests? His best interest would be for you to become his hire, develop the product, and walk away leaving all your work in his posession.
"Therefore you have taken the data without their permission."
Nope. Didn't take anything. Only copied it. If I go to the public library, borrow a book, take the book home, sit down with a pencil and a huge stack of paper, and write out the entire book word for word by hand, then return the book to the library, have I stolen the book? I have made an exact duplicate of the content of the book. I lost out on the packaging (the cover, the bound pages, the specific font used, etc), just like a software pirate loses out on the packaging (the box art, the manuals, the picture stamped on the CD), but I have a perfect copy of the content (assuming I didn't make any mistakes in my writing). Did I steal the book? Am I a thief? Did I just cost the author/publisher $39.95 (or whatever the book sells for in stores)?- There's no such thing as a "right to profit".
Personally, I don't worship Lucas. I kind of think he's a twit. Granted, if I ever met him, I'd be rather star-struck and would thank him for making a bunch of movies that have brought me much enjoyment over the course of many years. But I'd still think he's a twit.
I'd bet that a lot of what made Star Wars good is a combination of dumb luck, the contributions of others, and the fact that it appealed to kids. Anything that kids like is likely going to stay with them for the rest of their lives. Which is perfect from a marketing perspective. I don't like Star Wars today because it's good, I like Star Wars today because it's been ingrained in me since I was 5-years old that Star Wars is good.
And having talent like Harrison Ford, and brilliant writers like Leigh Brackett definitely helps.
"The Empire Strikes Back... is malodorous offal... everything is stale, limp, desperately stretched out, and pretentious.. Harrison Ford (Han) offers loutishness for charm and becomes the epitome of the interstellar drugstore cowboy. Mark Hamill (Luke) is still the talentless Tom Sawyer of outer space - wide-eyed, narrow-minded, strait-laced. Worst of all is Carrie Fisher, whose Leia is a cosmic Shirley Temple but without the slightest acting ability or vestige prettiness." (John Simon in National Review, June 13, 1980)
IANAL, but I believe that even if the company owned the CD's they would still need to pay some sort of licensing fee if they wanted to "broadcast" the songs to their employees. Setting up a server for the whole company to access the MP3's is not quite on the same level as, say, lending a CD to a friend (which is legal).
BTW, as a side note, it seems to me that if this company were in Canada, they could have gotten away with this. Since each person accessing an MP3 on the server is actually making a personal copy of the MP3 file, and since doing so is legal in Canada as long as the copy is for personal (read: "non-commercial") use, I think that their would be no law being broken here.
And, given the choice, would you rather have a child the natural way, or a clone of someone with admirable genes?
Human beings are notoriously selfish. Most people, given the choice, want a child that is genetically "their own", and therefore will likely choose not to have a cloned baby unless they feel they have no other choice. That's why this debate even exists in the first place. Infertile couples want to be parents. There are plenty of parentless children in the world waiting to be adopted. But, for most couples, that's just not good enough. The baby has to be their genetic creation. So techniques such as in-vitro fertilization, and now cloning, are created, so all the selfish people out there can have their own children, instead of having to resort to "somebody else's rejects".
So, in answer to your question, if the technique is perfected, the vast majority of fertile couples will have children the "old-fashioned" way. The vast majority of infertile couples will clone based on their own DNA.
- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
...but they can ask what you were doing trying to circument a copy protection device, which (thanks to the DMCA) is a criminal offence.
Except that the DMCA would not apply in this case, as the DMCA is, fortunately, only American law, and these copy-protected CDs, according to the article, have been released in "Germany and several other European countries".
Besides, there is a difference between "who you are" and "what you are currently doing". In other words, a shirtless person who wants to enter a store that bans shirtless people can put a shirt on and enter. An Asian person who wants to enter a store that bans Asians cannot just put on white skin and enter. He's outta luck.
Slashdot Mirror
And whose idea was it to create the "@" abbreviation? Seriously, who was it that thought "at" is such a horribly long word that it needs its own special symbol to abbreviate it?
What they need to do is introduce typing classes early on in school, like shortly after printing is introduced.
... which is precisely the point. "Correctly issued" patents will, theoretically, do nothing of the kind.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
No, seriously, I wasn't writing ML code. I never got around to learning that. I always just dabbled in BASIC. BASIC was fun. ML was work. Of course, today, I prefer languages that are more "work". I'd choose C++ over some crap like Visual BASIC anyday, even with the nostalgia factor of working with a language that still has all those same functions I used to use on my C-64 (if only you could POKE and PEEK, though! Man, that would make me smile).
10 POKE 53280,0:POKE 53281,0
to turn the screen black. Then I'd go, "now what?".
Sadly, I'm still writing 20% games to this day. My latest attempt, however, is the first one that is actually starting on paper. Strangely, at 30 years of age, I'm still under the delusion that I'll actually finish this one.
I'll never learn.
Yes, some people do. But even if nobody did, so what? The fact that someone could use a modded PS to play copied games (thus committing a crime) is actually irrelevant to the argument. Yes, modding a PS or PS2 provides you with the ability to play "pirated" games. So what? Studying martial arts provides you with the ability to kill someone with your bare hands. Studying martial arts is not a crime. Killing someone with your bare hands is.
Illegal copying of games is, well, illegal. Doing something that provides the ability to commit a crime is not, or at least should not be, a crime. Actually committing the crime, is a crime. How hard is this for people to understand? There are legitimate uses for mod chips. If people use their mod chips to commit a crime, then punish them for committing that crime. But don't punish people for doing something that could allow them to commit a crime.
However, I disagree that it's "disingenuous for the writers of this article to call it a conviction for selling mod-chips". The fact is, he was convicted for selling mod-chips. Yes, he was also convicted of selling copied games, but that doesn't render the other charges meaningless. Headlines aren't meant to tell the whole story. They're meant to pique your curiosity. The article is supposed to provide the details.
"Submarine patents", hey? Hmmm..... I wonder if anyone's patented that idea..... (runs off to call his lawyer).
Please do it. Seriously. That's an awesome idea. I want to see this happen. I'd do it myself, but I'm a lazy bastard and would never get around to it. Oh ya, and I can't write to save my life. So please do it.
Unfortunately, "Help" doesn't provide the kind of help that you need when you're in a situation where you've accidentally clicked close, but don't want to answer "Yes" because the changes you've made aren't correct. So, you click "No", and then start over.
When I first got SQL Server 2000, I went immediately into Enterprise Manager to see if they'd fixed that.
Alas, they had not.
While typing this post, I discovered an interesting quirk that I had never noticed before. There is an animated advertisement at the top of this page. I'm using IE, and if I have the advertisement visible while I'm typing, my cursor blinks frantically. If I scroll down far enough that the advertisement is no longer visible, my cursor blinks at a normal rate.
Cool.
My personal experience is that I received an offer that was an 18% increase on my salary at that time, and I had just had a salary increase 3 months prior, so I wasn't expecting another one, so I went to my boss, who was one of the company's owners, and explained the situation. I was completely honest with him, explaining that I was not unhappy with my job, nor had I been looking for another job, but this opportunity found its way to my Inbox, and it was such a good opportunity that I had to at least consider it. I told him I hadn't made a decision yet, which was the truth. He asked me how much I had been offered, and I told him truthfully, and without hesitation he offered to match it, with a comment that he had recently been discussing with the other owner the fact that they both felt I was underpaid, so this was a perfect opportunity to rectify that situation. I considered this, and decided to accept his offer. I received a counter-counter offer for a mere 2.5% over the previous offer, which I promptly and curteously turned down.
The important points in my story are that this was a small company, where management treated employees like human beings, not human resources. Everyone knew everyone else fairly well. As a result, I believed him that he genuinely felt I deserved the salary increase, and I had no concerns about the future of our relationship, personal or professional. He knew I was simply faced with a business decision to go elsewhere, and he made a business decision to try to keep me.
A year and a half later, another generous offer found its way to my Inbox, and I ended up accepting that one. The company was not doing as well financially by that time, so there was simply no money for a counter-offer (in fact the company's first ever lay-offs happened 2 days after I left), but even if there had been, I would have felt strange going through that process a second time.
So, you have to guage your relationship with the company and your employer, as well as guage what type of person your employer is. If he's a vindictive sort, he may fire you the day after you accept his counter-offer. There are far too many vindictive idiots like that in the business world. But if he's a good business person, he'll realize that you are simply doing what's in your best interest, and he will do what is in the company's best interest, which will likely be to try to keep you.
Anyway, I have to admit, I was unaware of Microsoft's money-back guarantee, and I am impressed to learn that they have one. Thanks for the tip.
"Open source code is not guaranteed nor does it come with a warranty."
I guess that's in contrast to proprietary software, which comes with a money-back guarantee, and free on-site repairs if any bugs are found.
Will whore for karma.
The "Matrix Universe" is the real universe. So I'm guessing they'll render the entire world in a 3D model. And maybe at the start of the game, it'll ask you were you live in real life, and then it'll place your character in whatever your hometown is, standing right in front of the virtual version of your house. Then you'll wander inside and head towards the room where your computer is, and there you'll see yourself sitting on front of a computer, and if you get real close to it, you'll see that on the computer monitor is a 3D model of the room you're in, with you looking over your own shoulder at a monitor, on which there's a 3D model of the room you're in, with you looking over.....
Hmm, maybe I'll give it a try.
:)
He thinks he's buying a product from you, not subsidizing your personal open source development. I'm curious, how do you feel that this will be in his best interests? His best interest would be for you to become his hire, develop the product, and walk away leaving all your work in his posession.
Ford: You should prepare yourself for the jump into hyperspace; It's unpleasantly like being drunk.
Arthur: What's so unpleasant about being drunk?
Ford: Just ask a glass of water.
Reading the book as a young pup back in the early eighties, it wasn't until I read the book about the 4th time that I actually figured that joke out.
Okay, so anybody care to list some equivalents? I think Electronic Frontier Canada is about the closest we have up here in the frosty north. There's also Electronic Frontiers Australia, and the Global Internet Liberty Coalition. Anyone know any others?
- This sig for sale or rent...cheap
Nope. Didn't take anything. Only copied it. If I go to the public library, borrow a book, take the book home, sit down with a pencil and a huge stack of paper, and write out the entire book word for word by hand, then return the book to the library, have I stolen the book? I have made an exact duplicate of the content of the book. I lost out on the packaging (the cover, the bound pages, the specific font used, etc), just like a software pirate loses out on the packaging (the box art, the manuals, the picture stamped on the CD), but I have a perfect copy of the content (assuming I didn't make any mistakes in my writing). Did I steal the book? Am I a thief? Did I just cost the author/publisher $39.95 (or whatever the book sells for in stores)?- There's no such thing as a "right to profit".
I'd bet that a lot of what made Star Wars good is a combination of dumb luck, the contributions of others, and the fact that it appealed to kids. Anything that kids like is likely going to stay with them for the rest of their lives. Which is perfect from a marketing perspective. I don't like Star Wars today because it's good, I like Star Wars today because it's been ingrained in me since I was 5-years old that Star Wars is good.
And having talent like Harrison Ford, and brilliant writers like Leigh Brackett definitely helps.
"The Empire Strikes Back... is malodorous offal... everything is stale, limp, desperately stretched out, and pretentious.. Harrison Ford (Han) offers loutishness for charm and becomes the epitome of the interstellar drugstore cowboy. Mark Hamill (Luke) is still the talentless Tom Sawyer of outer space - wide-eyed, narrow-minded, strait-laced. Worst of all is Carrie Fisher, whose Leia is a cosmic Shirley Temple but without the slightest acting ability or vestige prettiness." (John Simon in National Review, June 13, 1980)
BTW, as a side note, it seems to me that if this company were in Canada, they could have gotten away with this. Since each person accessing an MP3 on the server is actually making a personal copy of the MP3 file, and since doing so is legal in Canada as long as the copy is for personal (read: "non-commercial") use, I think that their would be no law being broken here.
- There's no such thing as a "right to profit".
Pigs are smarter than dogs. Do you eat them? Just curious.
- Consistency is key.
Human beings are notoriously selfish. Most people, given the choice, want a child that is genetically "their own", and therefore will likely choose not to have a cloned baby unless they feel they have no other choice. That's why this debate even exists in the first place. Infertile couples want to be parents. There are plenty of parentless children in the world waiting to be adopted. But, for most couples, that's just not good enough. The baby has to be their genetic creation. So techniques such as in-vitro fertilization, and now cloning, are created, so all the selfish people out there can have their own children, instead of having to resort to "somebody else's rejects".
So, in answer to your question, if the technique is perfected, the vast majority of fertile couples will have children the "old-fashioned" way. The vast majority of infertile couples will clone based on their own DNA.
- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Except that the DMCA would not apply in this case, as the DMCA is, fortunately, only American law, and these copy-protected CDs, according to the article, have been released in "Germany and several other European countries".
- There's no such thing as a "right to profit".
Besides, there is a difference between "who you are" and "what you are currently doing". In other words, a shirtless person who wants to enter a store that bans shirtless people can put a shirt on and enter. An Asian person who wants to enter a store that bans Asians cannot just put on white skin and enter. He's outta luck.