I work in it all the time so maybe I just don't notice, but when reading other people's C++ code, it becomes painfully obvious that it is way too complicated and difficult to read.
Are there any other compiled Object Oriented Hybrid languages out there with better syntax?
Nope. At no point does your source code touch their source code, if you link at runtime instead of compile time.
The key phrase here is into other free programs. 1) Your program is not Free (in the meaning that the FSF means the word) and 2) at no point are your binaries mixed with their binaries. Theirs are completely self-contained within the DLL binary.
You don't even need to distribute your code with their library. Distribute them separately and there can be no confusion regarding licenses at all.
Build the component as a dynamic linked library and release those changes. Use the new library in your closed source app with no fear from the GPL gestapo.
With the library safely locked into its own binary, you don't have to worry about the code infecting your code.
You do have to release the code to the modified library, though.
It's much more likely that artists (in the painting/sculpting sense) get laid on average infinity times more often than geeks. This leaves them little time to devote to creating art for its own sake.
False positives are fine, though a failure rate of 50% is clearly way too high. False positives mean that in those cases a suspect was actually identified correctly.
It is the false negatives that are truly scary. If a known terrorist sympathizer can board a plane without setting off any signals then it is clearly a useless product.
Luckily, humans have the ability to fuzzily predict terrorist-like behavior (now that everyone's on high alert, that is).
If patented code is contributed to a BSD project but is not licensed back to you in reciprocation, then:
1) you still have the original code, and 2) it is unclear how the patented code was 'contributed' to the project in the first place.
Rather, it seems that the people who developed the patented code did exactly what they are allowed, which is they used the BSD code freely.
In the end, no one is deprived anything by using the BSD code. The source to the public code is still available, and the binaries that the new code is based on is available from the company that developed the new code.
There's also an 'm' and an 'e' in 'team', a point frequently overlooked by those who would sell you silly platitudes about 'teamwork' and 'cooperation'.
China is only concerned with insular affairs. Take the recent N. Korean incident with the Japanese embassy into consideration. If the Japanese had paid attention to Chinese international relations with regard to the outside world, they would have realized that the Chinese government has no real empathy nor special hatred for any other country's citizens.
The Korean War is a very good example of this attitude. China early on made it clear to the American government that any incursion onto Chinese soil would result in retaliation, but implicit in the statement was that they would not retaliate against anything short of a physical incursion. Thus when the U.S. pushed deep into N.Korea, they didn't find any Chinese resistance. It wasn't until they decided to push into Chinese territory that the Chinese tanks rolled onto the scene and beat the U.S. forces back to the 32nd Parallel. If the strategists had paid enough attention, the Korean penninsula would be unified under a democratic government.
What is the point of all this? Well, it's that China couldn't care less about anything other than itself. It cares about Taiwan because it believes that it is just a rogue state that has strayed and needs to be brought back into the fold. It cares about open markets because it knows that the influx of Western money is the key to supporting its teetering government. It cares about its international pride, thus supplying the impetus to upgrade its rocket launching capabilities and suggesting Chinese moon bases.
It does not care about other countries except in relation to how they affect the motherland. In the previously mentioned case of the N.Korean refugees, if the Japanese had taken the Chinese attitude into consideration, they could have avoided the stupid mistakes of publicly demanding the return of the refugees and instead worked with the Chinese government in secret, like the Nixon administration did in opening China to foreign markets, to get them back.
So the bottom line of all this is that China doesn't have the urge to become the star at the center of the world stage. It is quite content to be all powerful in its sphere of influence, which is militarily all of Asia and economically global. It has never stepped beyonds its own perceived borders since the Cultural Revolution. China knows its priorities and none of them include risking its military for foreign conquest or supporting foreign countries. The support for such military actions is non-existant among the populace and has little to no support in the government. That's what 5,000 years of History will do to a country.
The only thing that seems to motivate the Chinese is the prospect of making a mint off the West and on the backs of its citizens. Like Japan after WWII, they have in place programs to strengthen business and keep their economy growing. However, China will not go to war to settle international trade disputes because such a course of action would be completely contrary to the actions of an international trade partner. If China were to upset the U.S. they would lose their largest trading partner and would risk the collapse of their economy and subsequently their government.
No, unless China's government is replaced by a modern, moderate, socialist democratic government they will never become the world power you imagine they will be. The government as it stands is too focused on maintaining itself and too oblivious to outside events that they can't ever become de-stultified enough to allow its citizens the requisite freedoms to become a world superpower.
If they had a colonial history like Russia this would be a different conversation. They do not have the evangelical Communist spirit that characterized the Russian system, the system that brought to loggerheads the Soviets and the Americans. The fact is that except for occasional stupidity on the Americans' part, China and the U.S. have never come to blows.
To be a world superpower, a country must be able to look beyond its borders and protect, threaten, or in some other way affect other countries' internal affairs. To date, China has done nothing of the sort with any affect. They are neither a stabilizing force in their region (India vs. Pakistan, civil war in Indonesia, N.Korea vs. S.Korea, etc.), nor a destabilizing force anywhere in the world. In toto the Chinese effects do not extend past its borders.
China will never be a superpower along the lines of America or the U.S.S.R. for two reasons. First is that they do not have the military might to seriously threaten the principal global superpower, the United States. Second, the future of the Chinese government is wholly based on its ability to generate capital through open trade with the international community. If the first problem is corrected, the backlash of the U.S. would be to withdraw financial support of the country, causing the government to lose its ability to keep its citizens sedate. If the second problem were solved by the admission of Western-style freedoms, it would mean a peaceful transition from the old hard-fisted totalitarian government to a new open-handed democratic beauracracy which would be very encouraging for trade and peace worldwide. But such a course of action would also be an admission of China's own failure to govern themselves well for the last 50-odd years, and as a result put them in a subordinate position much like Germany or Britain to the U.S.
Re:Heres the post everyone should read first
on
Mozilla RC3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, yes and no. If you know that some published standard is *not* supported by the market leading web browser (certain XHTML pages I've seen are horribly rendered by IE), why would you persist in writing the code?
Obviously you would not want to write code that breaks on your target audience's web browser, no matter what the standard says.
Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent
on
Mozilla RC3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
A: Palm is great, it does everything I need.
B: Palm sucks, you obviously have no idea what you're missing out on by avoiding the iPaq.
C: My friend had a Cassiopeia and it sucked.
B: Shut up, you're talking about 5 year old technology.
A: What else would I need to use my *Personal Digital Assistant* for? It's not supposed to be an all-in-one computer, you know.
C: My Palm III is still ticking! When it runs out I'm going to run out and buy it all over again.
A: It's a testament to Palm's greatness.
B: What greatness? Palm has a backward OS running on backward hardware doing things that can be accomplished with a pocket notebook for 45 cents.
A: Can a pocket notebook sort and group contacts?
D: My Newton is better than all of your crappy devices. It had handwriting recognition befo...
A,B,C (together): Shut up, dinosaur.
B: Anyway, if you feel that that device is good for you, Palm user, then so be it. Next time you're at CompUSA give the iPaq a whirl.
A: Fuck off Micro$oft luser. The day I use M$ technology is the day I get laid.
I work in it all the time so maybe I just don't notice, but when reading other people's C++ code, it becomes painfully obvious that it is way too complicated and difficult to read.
Are there any other compiled Object Oriented Hybrid languages out there with better syntax?
Nope. At no point does your source code touch their source code, if you link at runtime instead of compile time.
The key phrase here is into other free programs. 1) Your program is not Free (in the meaning that the FSF means the word) and 2) at no point are your binaries mixed with their binaries. Theirs are completely self-contained within the DLL binary.
You don't even need to distribute your code with their library. Distribute them separately and there can be no confusion regarding licenses at all.
Build the component as a dynamic linked library and release those changes. Use the new library in your closed source app with no fear from the GPL gestapo.
With the library safely locked into its own binary, you don't have to worry about the code infecting your code.
You do have to release the code to the modified library, though.
It's much more likely that artists (in the painting/sculpting sense) get laid on average infinity times more often than geeks. This leaves them little time to devote to creating art for its own sake.
Are those little faces various representations of RMS? I'm serious!
Take a look at this screenshot and tell me that hobbyists can't make games with as much quality and well-done graphics as the pros.
Yeah. Those bombings never seem to happen anymore.
Alternate arms. Use lube. Loosen your grip.
Better yet, get a girl to do the hand work for you.
Here's what Jill Nelson thinks.
Would you feel better with the explosives container found lodged in your ass at the crash site?
False positives are fine, though a failure rate of 50% is clearly way too high. False positives mean that in those cases a suspect was actually identified correctly.
It is the false negatives that are truly scary. If a known terrorist sympathizer can board a plane without setting off any signals then it is clearly a useless product.
Luckily, humans have the ability to fuzzily predict terrorist-like behavior (now that everyone's on high alert, that is).
If patented code is contributed to a BSD project but is not licensed back to you in reciprocation, then:
1) you still have the original code, and
2) it is unclear how the patented code was 'contributed' to the project in the first place.
Rather, it seems that the people who developed the patented code did exactly what they are allowed, which is they used the BSD code freely.
In the end, no one is deprived anything by using the BSD code. The source to the public code is still available, and the binaries that the new code is based on is available from the company that developed the new code.
Alex Chiu is great not because he invented his device alone, but because he stood on the toes of the great.
I'm glad that here on Slashdot we can discuss this open and honest, ending the day feeling not bad but happy.
There's also an 'm' and an 'e' in 'team', a point frequently overlooked by those who would sell you silly platitudes about 'teamwork' and 'cooperation'.
You're saying the Lone Inventors are dead?
Thanks for spoiling it all Chris!
China is only concerned with insular affairs. Take the recent N. Korean incident with the Japanese embassy into consideration. If the Japanese had paid attention to Chinese international relations with regard to the outside world, they would have realized that the Chinese government has no real empathy nor special hatred for any other country's citizens.
The Korean War is a very good example of this attitude. China early on made it clear to the American government that any incursion onto Chinese soil would result in retaliation, but implicit in the statement was that they would not retaliate against anything short of a physical incursion. Thus when the U.S. pushed deep into N.Korea, they didn't find any Chinese resistance. It wasn't until they decided to push into Chinese territory that the Chinese tanks rolled onto the scene and beat the U.S. forces back to the 32nd Parallel. If the strategists had paid enough attention, the Korean penninsula would be unified under a democratic government.
What is the point of all this? Well, it's that China couldn't care less about anything other than itself. It cares about Taiwan because it believes that it is just a rogue state that has strayed and needs to be brought back into the fold. It cares about open markets because it knows that the influx of Western money is the key to supporting its teetering government. It cares about its international pride, thus supplying the impetus to upgrade its rocket launching capabilities and suggesting Chinese moon bases.
It does not care about other countries except in relation to how they affect the motherland. In the previously mentioned case of the N.Korean refugees, if the Japanese had taken the Chinese attitude into consideration, they could have avoided the stupid mistakes of publicly demanding the return of the refugees and instead worked with the Chinese government in secret, like the Nixon administration did in opening China to foreign markets, to get them back.
So the bottom line of all this is that China doesn't have the urge to become the star at the center of the world stage. It is quite content to be all powerful in its sphere of influence, which is militarily all of Asia and economically global. It has never stepped beyonds its own perceived borders since the Cultural Revolution. China knows its priorities and none of them include risking its military for foreign conquest or supporting foreign countries. The support for such military actions is non-existant among the populace and has little to no support in the government. That's what 5,000 years of History will do to a country.
The only thing that seems to motivate the Chinese is the prospect of making a mint off the West and on the backs of its citizens. Like Japan after WWII, they have in place programs to strengthen business and keep their economy growing. However, China will not go to war to settle international trade disputes because such a course of action would be completely contrary to the actions of an international trade partner. If China were to upset the U.S. they would lose their largest trading partner and would risk the collapse of their economy and subsequently their government.
No, unless China's government is replaced by a modern, moderate, socialist democratic government they will never become the world power you imagine they will be. The government as it stands is too focused on maintaining itself and too oblivious to outside events that they can't ever become de-stultified enough to allow its citizens the requisite freedoms to become a world superpower.
If they had a colonial history like Russia this would be a different conversation. They do not have the evangelical Communist spirit that characterized the Russian system, the system that brought to loggerheads the Soviets and the Americans. The fact is that except for occasional stupidity on the Americans' part, China and the U.S. have never come to blows.
To be a world superpower, a country must be able to look beyond its borders and protect, threaten, or in some other way affect other countries' internal affairs. To date, China has done nothing of the sort with any affect. They are neither a stabilizing force in their region (India vs. Pakistan, civil war in Indonesia, N.Korea vs. S.Korea, etc.), nor a destabilizing force anywhere in the world. In toto the Chinese effects do not extend past its borders.
China will never be a superpower along the lines of America or the U.S.S.R. for two reasons. First is that they do not have the military might to seriously threaten the principal global superpower, the United States. Second, the future of the Chinese government is wholly based on its ability to generate capital through open trade with the international community. If the first problem is corrected, the backlash of the U.S. would be to withdraw financial support of the country, causing the government to lose its ability to keep its citizens sedate. If the second problem were solved by the admission of Western-style freedoms, it would mean a peaceful transition from the old hard-fisted totalitarian government to a new open-handed democratic beauracracy which would be very encouraging for trade and peace worldwide. But such a course of action would also be an admission of China's own failure to govern themselves well for the last 50-odd years, and as a result put them in a subordinate position much like Germany or Britain to the U.S.
Are you a long time resident of Philly? Is the smell a result of the age of the city?
And they couldn't have simply released the new technology into the public domain thereby nullifying any patent attempt by a competitor?
As long as you smell the hypocrisy the RedHat is cooking!
Is he a loan officer? He may yet be Satan.
Well, yes and no. If you know that some published standard is *not* supported by the market leading web browser (certain XHTML pages I've seen are horribly rendered by IE), why would you persist in writing the code?
Obviously you would not want to write code that breaks on your target audience's web browser, no matter what the standard says.
How about Google?
Why would a web developer be more concerned with standards than with reaching his target audience?