Check your history. Gun control comes from early attempts to stem the flow of guns (then popular, and *very* available) into the hands of "Free Blacks". Similar to the poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, on and on.
atriusofbricia speaks more truth than you, masterzora are willing or able to accept.
I so *TOTALLY* agree! We put our snail mail in envelopes... does that automatically make us some kind of terrorist or anarchist because our local postal (read "federal employees") cannot read what is in the envelope easily?
The funny thing I find in that assumption is that the people making it (the government) are *more* likely to use encryption for dishonest reasons than the average joe (anybody remember the CIA drugs for guns scandals?? Do you think their communications were unencrypted?).
The high jump? Probably caused by more of the free clients supporting encryption. I would wager that most people who engage in file sharing merely use the client they find most useful. If it supports encryption, good. If it doesn't, so what? I doubt they are attempting to "push the envelope", but are trying to share files. If encryption is in the mix... it is probably only a by product and not the original intention.
I'm sorry, but C is just a poor choice for ensuring correctness.
Far too true, however for working with flexible or hazy requirements or looking to make code that is fast, C is very hard to beat. Also, just because this is true today, doesn't make it something that will be true forever.
F... "hey, you know what? You're ALL right". I'm being facetious, and the C standard has done a great job in promoting C, but the C standard has really not evolved very far in terms of guaranteeing semantics.
Once again, totally on the money. The standards group was too concerned to fix things like bitfields to make them useful, or standardize the method of determining the size of an "int". I think the standard evolved more to making the compiler writers happy than to make any real effort at fixing vague semantics that are quite prevalent and cause any number of problems.
But, if you're trying to verify code that's already been written, either by hand or via some automated tool like a static analyzer, it is painful.
This is so true that it is painful to hear! I worked a couple of years with a tool to analyze code for customers. The variability in the compilers, environments, implementation details, user hacks, or compiler switches that affect code is dizzying. Has anyone else enjoyed the declaration "char myvar[0]" construct?
However, before you condemn all of the analysis tools, check out tools that perform "semantic analysis" (that what it was called when I was there) of C code. You may be pleasantly surprised. But it is still a challenge to wholly analyze any project. C++ is hideously complex, as is Ada (even the more recent revision, Ada95 I think).
Once again, no panacea of code correctness tools, but with the body of work that has been placed in C; it would be foolish to just "walk away". I've worked with a number of languages; both object oriented and procedural. Many arcane assembly languages as well. In my work, I've come to the simple conclusion that *ALL* languages have issues in many areas. Something like the old adage "all dogs have fleas"...
Wow. First, let's clear the air. Morality has absolutely *nothing* to do with this. NOTHING. Please get that correct first. Business models are designed to make money by offering something that someone wants. It is that simple. Going by your post, it would be immoral to leave the room when the adverts arrive for television programs; or even scan the radio channels during commercial breaks.
We filter *everything*. If the business model doesn't work, it doesn't work. Whining that it is "immoral" to not view adverts because a freely offered web page has the ads clipped from it is plainly stupid. Take the corners of Las Vegas in the evening as an example. People stand there and offer various cards for "evening companionship" to all passersby. Would they whine if someone took a card (freely offered by any of these vendors), and clipped the ads from them to only keep the picture?
Even viewed from other angles, the argument is fallacious. If that form of advertising is not working for you, choose another. If your sole goal is to present free information to all passersby, then do so. If your goal is to make money, and the offering of free web pages have their ads blocked... move on. Examples of this on the web are rampant. You log in to purchase items from many web vendors. If you do not read their adverts, so what? They don't care. Newegg never complains to me that while purchasing my new hard drive that I blocked the other adverts along with my purchase. If they did, I just wouldn't buy anything there and move on to a vendor who was not confused about their ultimate goal.
So tell me again why a browser that blocks images is a "gray area"? Since no morality is involved (see above paragraph) it just means that the user wishes to use a perfectly valid browser to enjoy what internet content interests them. Ad content does not interest me, and I block almost all of it. I watch television (what little I do watch) via Tivo. The adverts are annoying (usually oppressively loud after a quiet portion of a program), and I am uninterested in their content. I pay a cable provider, who in turn pays the originator of the program.
The same applies to the internet. I pay a provider to get information I wish. If I need to support sites that I enjoy special content from, I do so. If their only manner of gaining revenue is from the adverts, *and* they are giving the pages away in hopes of you paying attention; tough. Poor business decisions are not my problem. It is the responsibility of a good business to decide their ultimate goal, and format their decisions to accomplish that. A local store gives free samples on the weekends to anyone who visits. They don't complain when you don't buy the product, nor when you do not even inquire as to the company that provides the sample.
Sorry. Fire and nuclear fusion are different processes entirely (oxidation is not the same as nuclear fusion).
That issue aside, DirectX was a MS offshoot of many existant (however little known) toolkits used by *many* game publishers to bring different games to market. Don't think so? Look at any of the DOS games and look into the credits. All of the later games used toolkits like "Smacker" (I think that is correct) and others to bring their video and audio components together at a higher abstraction level. DirectX was an attempt to bring the game developers to them on the Windows platforms instead of DOS. Make no mistake about it. DirectX is more "evolution than revolution".
I would make the same comment about Xbox Live. Another revenue stream play. Nothing new, just combining ideas from other companies into something that can be sold.
Don't be deceived. There is nothing wrong with this strategy as it makes good products, and raises the bar for others. That is almost always a good thing for customers. The real complaint here is that MS is using what would normally be considered to be "apple polishing", and calling it "innovation". *That* is the issue. Their stand on their products as "innovation" is deliberately deceptive.
Even the PowerPoint thing. Do you think that Halo is the same before MS as after? Do you consider Age of Empires II to be an innovation of Age of Empires I? Powerpoint is in the same place. Purchased before it became a big commercial entity, and the ideas refined over a period of time as it is deployed. Sane and good business strategy, but is it innovation?
1. DirectX
Anyone ever heard of OpenGL? Id Software surely has and promoted it heavily against DirectX for years before
largely conceding the issue.
2. Xbox Live!
Since the Xbox is largely a Wintel computer, it seems that the offshoot of that would be to emulate other games that have
online aspects. Look at Blizzard. Warcraft anyone?
3. ASP
Apache allowed scripts to varying degrees. DHTML? Javascript? Both predate ASP. I am not terribly familiar
with ASP, but I believe that DHTML with perl bindings can do the same job. Nothing new to see here. Move along.
4. Powerpoint
Anyone remember "Forethought"? Another MS purchase.
5. Optical Mice
Puhleeze... Anyone remember Sun Microsystems? Maybe Xerox? Am not sure when Logitech made the leap.
Seriously, look up all of your technologies in the Wikipedia. All have precursors. Some of the precursors were arguably
better than their MS replacement. Especially in the DirectX arena. Id Software did a number of papers on the failings
of early DirectX in relation to OpenGL. Most of the things you mention were either purchases by MS, or things that they
believed that had to be "embraced and extended".
However, I do agree with your last statement. MS did realize that the money was largely to be made in
software and that hardware would erode in value. Not being tied to anything other than a generic "platform"
was a good call. However, there is plenty of prior art here too, CP/M was somewhat hardware agnostic... and predates even DOS.
Slashdot Mirror
Check your history. Gun control comes from early attempts to stem the flow of guns (then popular, and *very* available) into the hands of "Free Blacks". Similar to the poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, on and on. atriusofbricia speaks more truth than you, masterzora are willing or able to accept.
The funny thing I find in that assumption is that the people making it (the government) are *more* likely to use encryption for dishonest reasons than the average joe (anybody remember the CIA drugs for guns scandals?? Do you think their communications were unencrypted?).
-----------------
Yeah, yeah. I need a cool sig.
The high jump? Probably caused by more of the free clients supporting encryption. I would wager that most people who engage in file sharing merely use the client they find most useful. If it supports encryption, good. If it doesn't, so what? I doubt they are attempting to "push the envelope", but are trying to share files. If encryption is in the mix... it is probably only a by product and not the original intention.
Far too true, however for working with flexible or hazy requirements or looking to make code that is fast, C is very hard to beat. Also, just because this is true today, doesn't make it something that will be true forever.
F... "hey, you know what? You're ALL right". I'm being facetious, and the C standard has done a great job in promoting C, but the C standard has really not evolved very far in terms of guaranteeing semantics.Once again, totally on the money. The standards group was too concerned to fix things like bitfields to make them useful, or standardize the method of determining the size of an "int". I think the standard evolved more to making the compiler writers happy than to make any real effort at fixing vague semantics that are quite prevalent and cause any number of problems.
But, if you're trying to verify code that's already been written, either by hand or via some automated tool like a static analyzer, it is painful.This is so true that it is painful to hear! I worked a couple of years with a tool to analyze code for customers. The variability in the compilers, environments, implementation details, user hacks, or compiler switches that affect code is dizzying. Has anyone else enjoyed the declaration "char myvar[0]" construct?
However, before you condemn all of the analysis tools, check out tools that perform "semantic analysis" (that what it was called when I was there) of C code. You may be pleasantly surprised. But it is still a challenge to wholly analyze any project. C++ is hideously complex, as is Ada (even the more recent revision, Ada95 I think).
Once again, no panacea of code correctness tools, but with the body of work that has been placed in C; it would be foolish to just "walk away". I've worked with a number of languages; both object oriented and procedural. Many arcane assembly languages as well. In my work, I've come to the simple conclusion that *ALL* languages have issues in many areas. Something like the old adage "all dogs have fleas"...
cheers!
We filter *everything*. If the business model doesn't work, it doesn't work. Whining that it is "immoral" to not view adverts because a freely offered web page has the ads clipped from it is plainly stupid. Take the corners of Las Vegas in the evening as an example. People stand there and offer various cards for "evening companionship" to all passersby. Would they whine if someone took a card (freely offered by any of these vendors), and clipped the ads from them to only keep the picture?
Even viewed from other angles, the argument is fallacious. If that form of advertising is not working for you, choose another. If your sole goal is to present free information to all passersby, then do so. If your goal is to make money, and the offering of free web pages have their ads blocked... move on. Examples of this on the web are rampant. You log in to purchase items from many web vendors. If you do not read their adverts, so what? They don't care. Newegg never complains to me that while purchasing my new hard drive that I blocked the other adverts along with my purchase. If they did, I just wouldn't buy anything there and move on to a vendor who was not confused about their ultimate goal.
So tell me again why a browser that blocks images is a "gray area"? Since no morality is involved (see above paragraph) it just means that the user wishes to use a perfectly valid browser to enjoy what internet content interests them. Ad content does not interest me, and I block almost all of it. I watch television (what little I do watch) via Tivo. The adverts are annoying (usually oppressively loud after a quiet portion of a program), and I am uninterested in their content. I pay a cable provider, who in turn pays the originator of the program.
The same applies to the internet. I pay a provider to get information I wish. If I need to support sites that I enjoy special content from, I do so. If their only manner of gaining revenue is from the adverts, *and* they are giving the pages away in hopes of you paying attention; tough. Poor business decisions are not my problem. It is the responsibility of a good business to decide their ultimate goal, and format their decisions to accomplish that. A local store gives free samples on the weekends to anyone who visits. They don't complain when you don't buy the product, nor when you do not even inquire as to the company that provides the sample.
Why should the internet be different?
Sorry. Fire and nuclear fusion are different processes entirely (oxidation is not the same as nuclear fusion).
That issue aside, DirectX was a MS offshoot of many existant (however little known) toolkits used by *many* game publishers to bring different games to market. Don't think so? Look at any of the DOS games and look into the credits. All of the later games used toolkits like "Smacker" (I think that is correct) and others to bring their video and audio components together at a higher abstraction level. DirectX was an attempt to bring the game developers to them on the Windows platforms instead of DOS. Make no mistake about it. DirectX is more "evolution than revolution".
I would make the same comment about Xbox Live. Another revenue stream play. Nothing new, just combining ideas from other companies into something that can be sold.
Don't be deceived. There is nothing wrong with this strategy as it makes good products, and raises the bar for others. That is almost always a good thing for customers. The real complaint here is that MS is using what would normally be considered to be "apple polishing", and calling it "innovation". *That* is the issue. Their stand on their products as "innovation" is deliberately deceptive.
Even the PowerPoint thing. Do you think that Halo is the same before MS as after? Do you consider Age of Empires II to be an innovation of Age of Empires I? Powerpoint is in the same place. Purchased before it became a big commercial entity, and the ideas refined over a period of time as it is deployed. Sane and good business strategy, but is it innovation?
Hmmm. Let me think...
1. DirectX
Anyone ever heard of OpenGL? Id Software surely has and promoted it heavily against DirectX for years before largely conceding the issue.
2. Xbox Live!
Since the Xbox is largely a Wintel computer, it seems that the offshoot of that would be to emulate other games that have online aspects. Look at Blizzard. Warcraft anyone?
3. ASP
Apache allowed scripts to varying degrees. DHTML? Javascript? Both predate ASP. I am not terribly familiar with ASP, but I believe that DHTML with perl bindings can do the same job. Nothing new to see here. Move along.
4. Powerpoint
Anyone remember "Forethought"? Another MS purchase.
5. Optical Mice
Puhleeze... Anyone remember Sun Microsystems? Maybe Xerox? Am not sure when Logitech made the leap.
Seriously, look up all of your technologies in the Wikipedia. All have precursors. Some of the precursors were arguably better than their MS replacement. Especially in the DirectX arena. Id Software did a number of papers on the failings of early DirectX in relation to OpenGL. Most of the things you mention were either purchases by MS, or things that they believed that had to be "embraced and extended".
However, I do agree with your last statement. MS did realize that the money was largely to be made in software and that hardware would erode in value. Not being tied to anything other than a generic "platform" was a good call. However, there is plenty of prior art here too, CP/M was somewhat hardware agnostic... and predates even DOS.