"All free software" is the enemy of "mostly free software", just like in most things in life. Redhat/Fedora Linux makes persons/companies think "I can make some simple changes to satisfy my business needs. Maybe the requirement to release source code if I distibute the stuff to other people is not so bad, since I am already getting a good value using it myself". Debian will make people think "well, I tried to install an OS, but I can't get the stuff to run, because it doesn't support NVIDIA cards. Isn't it one of the most common brands anyway? I guess I'll just stick with Windows."
If you want to make the best contribution to your cause, advocate a small improvement that is likely to be accepted by at least 10% of people/users. Enough said.
1. Finding the object, discovering exactly what it is and honestly reporting the findings and...
2. Not using any public/tax money to do so, unless there was evidence this is a historically interesting object, not a rock or a pile of trees.
I am agnostic, but if there is a huge ancient boat on top of the mountain with comprehensive animal DNA samples, I say research every atom of it. And if there is real scientific evidence for God (as opposed to "this couldn't possibly evolve...") I will listen. I will decide separately where he/she/they are still alive and weather they should be worshiped, critisized or just studied as a scientific fact.
"Learn to make bread by harvesting the grain, grinding it on a windmill and showling wood in the oven"
"Learn to drive a car by manually injecting gas into the engine"
"Learn to program by manually connecting different parts of your computer with wires"
Granted, you will graduate with a very deep understanding of how things work. Except for little things like finding a job and actually enjoying doing something because you can easily solve cool problems. I say, use the most powerful/easy tools possible to solve really complex and interesting math problems. If people get interested, they will always learn more than if you force them. Look at those race car drivers...
Ok, this just goes to show how useless is SAT
on
TI-84 Plus Released
·
· Score: 1
If it's a test of memorizing things and learning to calculate in your head, they shouldn't allow any electronic devices, or give everyone a very basic one with arithmetics and a few functions. On the other hand, if it's a test on how well you can do the job with proper tools, they should have desktops with Mathematica and Webster dictionary. I guess it's actually a test on "how far can I bend the rules without getting caught". Now I understand it's suitable for MBAs, but lets give those Mathematica desktops to airplane designers, heart doctors and the like...
Relax, iTMS already lets you do anything you would want by burning a CD-RW and ripping it again. Save your energy from obnoxious forms of DRM, like software copy protection.
And if you find a way to eliminate the extra inconvinient step, just enjoy it quietly, don't break the copyright law and don't encourage other people to break it. This way both you and Apple will be happy. Shhhh...
C# is allright, unless you have to write both Java and C# versions of the same library, in which case you'll have nothing but choice words for Microsoft, Sun and their lawsuits..Net class libraries and especially System.Windows.Forms on the other hand... yuck! Just try to write a resizable form and compare the process with visual constraints of Interface Builder/MacOSX.
If they just served MP3 files, people would have a tendency to just give everyone a copy of their whole collection or add it to share list on LimeWire. As it is, if you just copy a file to another machine, it tells you to authorize it, and you can only authorize 3 machines at a time. You get to burn CDs for your friends, but this form of sharing is both smaller in scale and closer to fair use. They would have to incur another round of compression artifacts and enter track names manually to re-rip the CD, making unlimited further copying unlikely.
Now, let's say someone breaks the DRM. First, you will need to scour chinese warez sites to download the program. Then, it's not going to be integrated with iTunes. You would still need to run it every time you buy new music. If you are just using it to listen to your stuff on an mp3 player, you are okay. But otherwise, you will be constantly reminded you are doing something you are not supposed to do. As well you should be.
The only problem is that DMCA has no exceptions for legal applications. You should be able to publish source code for a DVD player for Linux, an iTunes plugin to download to mp3 players and so on. If you release a pre-made warez toolkit and document it as such though.. well you deserve what you get.
Maybe PNG is a great standard, but it didn't catch up among web users, because text and sometimes images on web sites matter whereas the exact transparency of the images doesn't. If it was that important, people wouldn't mind installing another browser to view those sites. In the worst case, someone could write a mozilla plugin for IE. After all, people do install flash, Java or Quicktime to view specific websites.
I know lots of people who switched to Opera because of more fundamental problems, like popups and excessive Active X prompts. But an image with non-transparent background? No way!
I used to write in FORTRAN and assembler. And then I tried C and realized I don't have to switch languages so much to do system-level programming and besides preprocessor and generic for loops are neat.
Then for the longest time I refused to touch C++, because I could do everything with structs, function pointers and longjmp. Now I look at my old code and think "what the hell...?".
A lot of fads do make you more productive if you really get into the mindset and learn the available tools. So far, I am holding out against Perl, anything that starts with X and ends with L, complicated forms of source control, formal design procedures and modeling tools. I also tried Java and wish it didn't miss so many essential C++ features (like reference function parameters and automatic destructors for local variables) to make using it such a trade off. I tried C# and many features are still missing and others feel like they were slapped on rather than a natural part of the language.
... like they have for a spam fighters and for physics. Also, wait until the language is tremendously popular before claiming K&R fame and calling it "D". Even Microsoft is more humble.
Probably the language's greatest goal is the elimination of archaic and/or needlessly complicated features. For instance, D does away completely with the C preprocessor, relying instead on built-in versioning capabilities. Forward declarations are out the window on the same token. Also, it replaces the often-complicated multiple inheritance of C++ with Java's single inheritance and interfaces.
Thank you very much, but we can already write a program without using the features we don't like. If that's a primary goal of your language (as opposed to side effect of offering some advanced features like GC), I think I'll pass.
Besides, multiple inheritence is useful and meaningful when your object really both an InputStream and an OutputStream. Duplicating default code or having a A where every method calls B->method is just silly.
As for C preprocessor, it can be used to do enormous work in a page of code. Like auto-generating stubs for hundred functions that get a mutex, call the original function which is not thread safe, release the mutex and return the original function's results. There are solutions for each specific use, for example Aspect-based programming. But there is still a need for a tool that can more safely extend language's grammer without writting a complete parser first. Until then, let's just use the only one available, but only when templates, aspects and such don't solve the problem. In fact, I want JPP, especially for #ifdef.
But in C++, library writers can write libraries that take care of their own garbage even when used by careless users, because the compiler will automatically call class destructors which can do clean-up. (Yes, except in the case of derived classes -- the writer of the derived class has to explicitly write a dtor to ensure the parent class dtor is called).
Huh? C++ always calls parent/member destructors implicitely. What you may need to do is to declare parent destructor as virtual.
std::auto_ptr<foo> pfoo( new foo );   pfoo->do_Stuff();   return;
This is a bad example of auto_ptr, as you could just allocate foo on stack. At least give something with an if statement that calls different constructors.
So why complicate things with garbage collector and tracking down circular references and unpredictable pauses? Garbage collection is a bad answer for non-trivial programs, and pretty much necessary for trivial programs.
Non-trivial programs tend to call hundreds of trivial libraries, which in turn are likely to have much better feature set, robustness and in some cases performance (shared structures vs copy) than if garbage collection was not available.
You must really like paying $5-$10 per month, even when you are not using the service at all. Or loosing quality through double conversion (burning a CD and then re-ripping to mp3). As for me, I would check out their free trial, if it doesn't demand my credit card number right away, but it tells me "RealRhapsody music service is not available for Macintosh users". So much for "portable across many platforms", huh?
The way people are talking here, it is ok if you bought a box of GPL software, decided it had commercial potential then released it.
No, the way people are talking here, you got a box of GPL software, made changes and then installed a binary copy on your friend's machine, but intended for your own use only. Then, you refused to release the changes, saying it's fair use, not redistribution.
There are all kinds of rights users get in addition to license - fair use, first sale doctrine, lemon law. It's good we have those and we need some more. Like escrow of a decryption program in case Apple stops supporting iTMS and people need to transfer music to another machine.
Apple needs some new 3rd party support, with Microsoft, Adobe, Palm and many smaller companies dropping Mac versions of their product. On their home turf, under MacOSX, iTunes is well entrenched and they have nothing to fear from Real. Just look at Windows/WMP, and it is a lesser product.
On Windows, iPod users new to digital music will just install whatever is on the CD. On the other hand, a huge number of users already installed real player to watch some video from a web site. Also, it's a popular format for Chinese audio books and movies, I guess because it's easy/quick to make a small file that doesn't suck that badly. If they start to promote iPod with flashing tray icons and the biggest clickable icon on their home page ("download RealPlayer Plus with iPod mini for just $249, get 100 free songs") users who are already into this kind of stuff just might bulge.
Yes, so now I can be guilty of manslaughter if I was going 35 in a 25MPH zone, when someone stepped out from between two parked cars. Whereas eyewitness accounts would still say I was going with a reasonable speed.
Go to a pharmacy and explain why "Long Drugs" brand mouth wash comes in the same shape bottle, has the same color and shows a similar label as Listerin. Obviously making a product similar (but still easily distinguishable) is a valid way to suggest to customers you might use it as a replacement for another, more famous, product in every other area. Why should software monopolies get a special treatment?
Joe Sixpack goes to Best Buy to buy a hardware upgrade for his computer. He is looking for a PC, but sees a G5 tower, that has a similar rectangular shape, keyboard and a mouse, is somewhat more expensive but looks way cooler. He assumes that "Mac" is just a more premium version of "PC" (which is essentially correct) and is essentially tricked into buying "Mac" when what he needs is a "PC".
It's easy to protect monopolies by making sure their customers are not even tempted to look at other products that are simular, and named/shaped to empasize that. It's way harder to offer an explanation on the store shelf or offer refund to a small number of customers who buy a wrong product.
But it marks a blow to an investigative technique that has been routinely used by law enforcement, employers, ISPs and others, who often use video tape or other means to track criminals in chat rooms. This also has troublesome implications [for employers] monitoring of email and other forms of electronic communications.
This is a good thing - punish people for crimes or for not doing their job, not for words. As for chat rooms, well you shouldn't be saving (or at least publishing) logs if you think the other person will object. Of course, hopefully jail sentence will only be imposed if someone can demonstrate serious harm.
Slashdot Mirror
"All free software" is the enemy of "mostly free software", just like in most things in life. Redhat/Fedora Linux makes persons/companies think "I can make some simple changes to satisfy my business needs. Maybe the requirement to release source code if I distibute the stuff to other people is not so bad, since I am already getting a good value using it myself". Debian will make people think "well, I tried to install an OS, but I can't get the stuff to run, because it doesn't support NVIDIA cards. Isn't it one of the most common brands anyway? I guess I'll just stick with Windows."
If you want to make the best contribution to your cause, advocate a small improvement that is likely to be accepted by at least 10% of people/users. Enough said.
1. Finding the object, discovering exactly what it is and honestly reporting the findings and...
2. Not using any public/tax money to do so, unless there was evidence this is a historically interesting object, not a rock or a pile of trees.
I am agnostic, but if there is a huge ancient boat on top of the mountain with comprehensive animal DNA samples, I say research every atom of it. And if there is real scientific evidence for God (as opposed to "this couldn't possibly evolve...") I will listen. I will decide separately where he/she/they are still alive and weather they should be worshiped, critisized or just studied as a scientific fact.
"Learn to make bread by harvesting the grain, grinding it on a windmill and showling wood in the oven"
"Learn to drive a car by manually injecting gas into the engine"
"Learn to program by manually connecting different parts of your computer with wires"
Granted, you will graduate with a very deep understanding of how things work. Except for little things like finding a job and actually enjoying doing something because you can easily solve cool problems. I say, use the most powerful/easy tools possible to solve really complex and interesting math problems. If people get interested, they will always learn more than if you force them. Look at those race car drivers...
If it's a test of memorizing things and learning to calculate in your head, they shouldn't allow any electronic devices, or give everyone a very basic one with arithmetics and a few functions. On the other hand, if it's a test on how well you can do the job with proper tools, they should have desktops with Mathematica and Webster dictionary. I guess it's actually a test on "how far can I bend the rules without getting caught". Now I understand it's suitable for MBAs, but lets give those Mathematica desktops to airplane designers, heart doctors and the like...
Relax, iTMS already lets you do anything you would want by burning a CD-RW and ripping it again. Save your energy from obnoxious forms of DRM, like software copy protection.
And if you find a way to eliminate the extra inconvinient step, just enjoy it quietly, don't break the copyright law and don't encourage other people to break it. This way both you and Apple will be happy. Shhhh...
C# is allright, unless you have to write both Java and C# versions of the same library, in which case you'll have nothing but choice words for Microsoft, Sun and their lawsuits. .Net class libraries and especially System.Windows.Forms on the other hand... yuck! Just try to write a resizable form and compare the process with visual constraints of Interface Builder/MacOSX.
And for the most obvious users running MacOSX the answer is...?
If they just served MP3 files, people would have a tendency to just give everyone a copy of their whole collection or add it to share list on LimeWire. As it is, if you just copy a file to another machine, it tells you to authorize it, and you can only authorize 3 machines at a time. You get to burn CDs for your friends, but this form of sharing is both smaller in scale and closer to fair use. They would have to incur another round of compression artifacts and enter track names manually to re-rip the CD, making unlimited further copying unlikely.
Now, let's say someone breaks the DRM. First, you will need to scour chinese warez sites to download the program. Then, it's not going to be integrated with iTunes. You would still need to run it every time you buy new music. If you are just using it to listen to your stuff on an mp3 player, you are okay. But otherwise, you will be constantly reminded you are doing something you are not supposed to do. As well you should be.
The only problem is that DMCA has no exceptions for legal applications. You should be able to publish source code for a DVD player for Linux, an iTunes plugin to download to mp3 players and so on. If you release a pre-made warez toolkit and document it as such though.. well you deserve what you get.
They could use a more efficient protocol to talk to each other and route traffic and clients don't have to know any difference. Except for, well, DCC.
Maybe PNG is a great standard, but it didn't catch up among web users, because text and sometimes images on web sites matter whereas the exact transparency of the images doesn't. If it was that important, people wouldn't mind installing another browser to view those sites. In the worst case, someone could write a mozilla plugin for IE. After all, people do install flash, Java or Quicktime to view specific websites.
I know lots of people who switched to Opera because of more fundamental problems, like popups and excessive Active X prompts. But an image with non-transparent background? No way!
I guess you don't keep track of him much then. Not to mention KHTML browser, Samba, Apache...
Is a protected fair use of the original work. I think Apple is out of luck here.
I used to write in FORTRAN and assembler. And then I tried C and realized I don't have to switch languages so much to do system-level programming and besides preprocessor and generic for loops are neat.
Then for the longest time I refused to touch C++, because I could do everything with structs, function pointers and longjmp. Now I look at my old code and think "what the hell...?".
A lot of fads do make you more productive if you really get into the mindset and learn the available tools. So far, I am holding out against Perl, anything that starts with X and ends with L, complicated forms of source control, formal design procedures and modeling tools. I also tried Java and wish it didn't miss so many essential C++ features (like reference function parameters and automatic destructors for local variables) to make using it such a trade off. I tried C# and many features are still missing and others feel like they were slapped on rather than a natural part of the language.
... like they have for a spam fighters and for physics. Also, wait until the language is tremendously popular before claiming K&R fame and calling it "D". Even Microsoft is more humble.
Probably the language's greatest goal is the elimination of archaic and/or needlessly complicated features. For instance, D does away completely with the C preprocessor, relying instead on built-in versioning capabilities. Forward declarations are out the window on the same token. Also, it replaces the often-complicated multiple inheritance of C++ with Java's single inheritance and interfaces.
Thank you very much, but we can already write a program without using the features we don't like. If that's a primary goal of your language (as opposed to side effect of offering some advanced features like GC), I think I'll pass.
Besides, multiple inheritence is useful and meaningful when your object really both an InputStream and an OutputStream. Duplicating default code or having a A where every method calls B->method is just silly.
As for C preprocessor, it can be used to do enormous work in a page of code. Like auto-generating stubs for hundred functions that get a mutex, call the original function which is not thread safe, release the mutex and return the original function's results. There are solutions for each specific use, for example Aspect-based programming. But there is still a need for a tool that can more safely extend language's grammer without writting a complete parser first. Until then, let's just use the only one available, but only when templates, aspects and such don't solve the problem. In fact, I want JPP, especially for #ifdef.
Huh? C++ always calls parent/member destructors implicitely. What you may need to do is to declare parent destructor as virtual.This is a bad example of auto_ptr, as you could just allocate foo on stack. At least give something with an if statement that calls different constructors.
So why complicate things with garbage collector and tracking down circular references and unpredictable pauses? Garbage collection is a bad answer for non-trivial programs, and pretty much necessary for trivial programs.
Non-trivial programs tend to call hundreds of trivial libraries, which in turn are likely to have much better feature set, robustness and in some cases performance (shared structures vs copy) than if garbage collection was not available.
My free software is using Xcode. If I actually have to use antique UI libraries and perversions like COM, somebody will have to pay for it.
You must really like paying $5-$10 per month, even when you are not using the service at all. Or loosing quality through double conversion (burning a CD and then re-ripping to mp3). As for me, I would check out their free trial, if it doesn't demand my credit card number right away, but it tells me "RealRhapsody music service is not available for Macintosh users". So much for "portable across many platforms", huh?
The way people are talking here, it is ok if you bought a box of GPL software, decided it had commercial potential then released it.
No, the way people are talking here, you got a box of GPL software, made changes and then installed a binary copy on your friend's machine, but intended for your own use only. Then, you refused to release the changes, saying it's fair use, not redistribution.
There are all kinds of rights users get in addition to license - fair use, first sale doctrine, lemon law. It's good we have those and we need some more. Like escrow of a decryption program in case Apple stops supporting iTMS and people need to transfer music to another machine.
Apple needs some new 3rd party support, with Microsoft, Adobe, Palm and many smaller companies dropping Mac versions of their product. On their home turf, under MacOSX, iTunes is well entrenched and they have nothing to fear from Real. Just look at Windows/WMP, and it is a lesser product.
On Windows, iPod users new to digital music will just install whatever is on the CD. On the other hand, a huge number of users already installed real player to watch some video from a web site. Also, it's a popular format for Chinese audio books and movies, I guess because it's easy/quick to make a small file that doesn't suck that badly. If they start to promote iPod with flashing tray icons and the biggest clickable icon on their home page ("download RealPlayer Plus with iPod mini for just $249, get 100 free songs") users who are already into this kind of stuff just might bulge.
Yes, so now I can be guilty of manslaughter if I was going 35 in a 25MPH zone, when someone stepped out from between two parked cars. Whereas eyewitness accounts would still say I was going with a reasonable speed.
Go to a pharmacy and explain why "Long Drugs" brand mouth wash comes in the same shape bottle, has the same color and shows a similar label as Listerin. Obviously making a product similar (but still easily distinguishable) is a valid way to suggest to customers you might use it as a replacement for another, more famous, product in every other area. Why should software monopolies get a special treatment?
Joe Sixpack goes to Best Buy to buy a hardware upgrade for his computer. He is looking for a PC, but sees a G5 tower, that has a similar rectangular shape, keyboard and a mouse, is somewhat more expensive but looks way cooler. He assumes that "Mac" is just a more premium version of "PC" (which is essentially correct) and is essentially tricked into buying "Mac" when what he needs is a "PC".
It's easy to protect monopolies by making sure their customers are not even tempted to look at other products that are simular, and named/shaped to empasize that. It's way harder to offer an explanation on the store shelf or offer refund to a small number of customers who buy a wrong product.
But it marks a blow to an investigative technique that has been routinely used by law enforcement, employers, ISPs and others, who often use video tape or other means to track criminals in chat rooms. This also has troublesome implications [for employers] monitoring of email and other forms of electronic communications.
This is a good thing - punish people for crimes or for not doing their job, not for words. As for chat rooms, well you shouldn't be saving (or at least publishing) logs if you think the other person will object. Of course, hopefully jail sentence will only be imposed if someone can demonstrate serious harm.
Why are you assuming it's necesserily a physical illness?
I am sure they have choice comments about administrators restricting your right to access and modify the source of websites you are using.