Good question. I suppose it depends on whether each Unix distro uses a TCP stack implemented to-the-spec, which is 30 years old. If they are, then yes, the *nix OSes would be affected as well.
I do realize Intellisense doesn't fit the typical description of a wizard; I guess what I was getting at is that any tool used to generate code can be a good thing. Wizards included.
Not all wizards are bad. When machines do things for us, there's the benefit that the machine will do it the same way time, whereas human coding is error prone and different every time. Intellisense (auto-complete) is one such "wizard" feature I love about IDEs, and I've found VS's auto-complete to be superior to several other IDEs I've tried. Other wizards such as Eclipse's "Add a class" wizard and Visual Studio 2005's properties & settings UI are examples of useful wizards that save time and are tedious for a human to do.
What you're really arguing is that real developers should understand what's going on under the hood. Yes, that is a valid, up to a point. Eventually, the software & hardware worlds begin to blur, and frankly, I don't care how a particular piece of hardware handles my register variables, simply because I'm almost always coding for a variety of hardware.
Also, I would argue this book is not targetted at "real" developers. VB jokes aside, a book shouting at you "write a program now!" is probably geared more towards hobbyist devs, and people new to VB & programming in general.
Sure. But I guess we're getting off my original point, which was just to correct the poster who implied there would be a fee associated with using the current MS Office file formats, which is not the case.
Except as provided below, Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas.
In other words, we have patents on the schemas you need to license. We hereby grant you a royalty-free license.
One can be paranoid as much as one wants to be, it makes little difference to me. I just wanted to correct the original poster who implied there would be a fee associated with using the Office schemas, which isn't true at this point.
According to this post by a Microsoft employee, the format is free to use. In his next post, Brian points out that the license is perpetual; that is, it cannot be changed once granted. He cites the license itself, which says, that the license is perpetual for everyone, and is only terminable if the individual sues Microsoft over patent infringement claims relating to reading or writing of Office Schemas.
Re:Dvorak also said cable modems were stupid
on
Prepping For The 360
·
· Score: 1
I hate to bring the John C. Dvorak mockery to an end, but he has also predicted some unlikely things that came true, including Apple's migration to x86.
Still, he seems to say more than he knows, resulting in foot-in-mouth on numerous occassions.
Video killed the radio star. Internet killed the video star. RIAA killed the internet star. Boat's in the water. Cage's in the water. Shark's in the water. You're in the cage? Shark's in the cage. Farewell and adieu to you fair spanish ladies...
I'm not against evolution. In fact, for creationists, rapid mutation and speciation is an important point in the creationists' argument for a young earth. However, goo-to-you evolution, that is, evolution where new genetic information is introduced, causing the specie to evolve into a new specie that can no longer mate with its former species, has not been proved or even reproduced by humans attempting to synthetically induce cross-specie evolution.
I don't really care for your mocking. If only a single person knows the truth, that is still the truth, isn't it?
Of course, the real proponents of goo-to-you, abiological evolution (that is, evolution where life suddenly came from a non-living thing via a set of bizarre natural circumstances, as is being taught in school) are secularists that reject God. It's just one of those things where on the surface it's all about science, but behind the thin veil there is an acknowledged and purposeful rejection of God. This is evidenced by the fact that we have IDists claiming, "OK, we'll give you evolution. But God must've started life, or set the process into motion, or helped along the process at some point, since it is biologically impossible for life to come from nothing." And yet here the secular camp shows their true color, rejecting the notion that God has anything to do with, well, anything, because underneath it all, the secular camp really doesn't want to believe in God. That's what the whole argument comes down to, the age old humanity pitted against God. It's just a matter of choice between the sides, then taking all the superficial scientific arguments to use for justification of your rejection of God (or better yet, hope on the middle of the fence and call it theistic evolution, it'll ease your conscience).
I would venture a guess that God doesn't care too much about the opinions of men, even if it's a half-hearted acknowledgement of God, which Intelligent Design appears to be.
I'm not here to stomp on your views on ID, whatever your views on it. This is just my 2 cents, but forcing people who don't believe in God to make some sort of acknowledgement of God in a classroom isn't a good idea, wouldn't you agree? I can't imagine secularists teaching ID favorably; in fact, I'd rather they not even teach it. Instead, I say let children be taught whatever science believes at the time, with the disclaimer of, "Hey, this is our best guess as to how this happened."
Getting back on your subject, I think God cares less about forcing school teachers to talk about ID, and more about we (parents) teaching our kids our faith and values, showing them how to act by living godly lives ourselves. I can't imagine Jesus being up in arms over forcing schoolteachers to teach ID alongside evolution, honestly, I really can't imagine Christ doing that.
The MiniMSFT blog you link to has a tendancy to report the negatives only. For instance, the blog post links to Wesner Moise's post regarding some VS 2005 bugs he'd found. What is not as well publicized is Wesner's next post, in which he says,
"Despite the few hiccups, I am enjoying VS 2005 and have been able to work with it productively. VS 2005 is stable and performant, and it's better to have it arrive now rather than later. The runtime is solid, and various products across Microsoft and outside also depend on it being delivered on a timely basis."
Yes, I've found a few minor hiccups in VS2005 as well. But honestly, it's nothing like MiniMSFT would have it seem. I can't speak for everyone, but VS2005 has been solid for us since RTM (we were a MS beta tester from Beta 1 through RTM), and we're very happy with its current form.
I do realize the distance would remain constant. What I'm trying to figure out is, if the constant c, which is the speed of light in a vacuum, is used to determine how distant an object is in light years (i.e., how many years it would take light to reach that distant object), then "light year" estimations could be quite wrong if naturally occurring substances can slow or hasten the speed of light, is that right? I guess I'm saying that if we can't assume the speed of light to be constant, then the estimations of time and aging (i.e. "light years in the distance") cannot be very accurate. We cannot assume, for instance, that a star has been shining for any exact number of years just because we know it to be very distant from Earth.
Thanks. Forgive my ignorance, but I often hear from astronomists, "this star is 5 million light years away", for example. Doesn't the use of the phrase "light years" imply the use of the speed of light?
If this can be done using "standard materials", as the article mentions, one wonders if our calculated estimates of distance to stars could be off, considering all the unknowns outside the solar system. I imagine that even if there is a small modification to the speed of light coming from stars, our estimation of distance from stars and other celestial bodies (and likewise, our estimation of how long the star has been shining in order to reach our eyes on earth) would be greatly affected.
In other words, if there are natural materials that can speed up or slow down the speed of light, then we can only judge star distance with the asterisk of "provided the speed of light from the source to the destination remains constant".
Ah, but saying, "I have a problem with encouraging the breaking of a law" implies you have a moral or ethical objection to it. Do you? If one has a moral objection to breaking a law, it is foolish to ignore the morality of that law.
Slashdot Mirror
Good question. I suppose it depends on whether each Unix distro uses a TCP stack implemented to-the-spec, which is 30 years old. If they are, then yes, the *nix OSes would be affected as well.
I really need to hit preview more often. I meant to say "TCP stack itself". :-p
Let's not forget that this limitation is a limitation of TCP itself as implemented in the 30 year old spec. See this /. post for more info.
I do realize Intellisense doesn't fit the typical description of a wizard; I guess what I was getting at is that any tool used to generate code can be a good thing. Wizards included.
Not all wizards are bad. When machines do things for us, there's the benefit that the machine will do it the same way time, whereas human coding is error prone and different every time. Intellisense (auto-complete) is one such "wizard" feature I love about IDEs, and I've found VS's auto-complete to be superior to several other IDEs I've tried. Other wizards such as Eclipse's "Add a class" wizard and Visual Studio 2005's properties & settings UI are examples of useful wizards that save time and are tedious for a human to do.
What you're really arguing is that real developers should understand what's going on under the hood. Yes, that is a valid, up to a point. Eventually, the software & hardware worlds begin to blur, and frankly, I don't care how a particular piece of hardware handles my register variables, simply because I'm almost always coding for a variety of hardware.
Also, I would argue this book is not targetted at "real" developers. VB jokes aside, a book shouting at you "write a program now!" is probably geared more towards hobbyist devs, and people new to VB & programming in general.
Sure. But I guess we're getting off my original point, which was just to correct the poster who implied there would be a fee associated with using the current MS Office file formats, which is not the case.
You conveniently omit the very next sentence,
Except as provided below, Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas.
In other words, we have patents on the schemas you need to license. We hereby grant you a royalty-free license.
One can be paranoid as much as one wants to be, it makes little difference to me. I just wanted to correct the original poster who implied there would be a fee associated with using the Office schemas, which isn't true at this point.
One could make the same argument against OpenOffice, since there is no guarantee that OOo will always support it.
According to this post by a Microsoft employee, the format is free to use. In his next post, Brian points out that the license is perpetual; that is, it cannot be changed once granted. He cites the license itself, which says, that the license is perpetual for everyone, and is only terminable if the individual sues Microsoft over patent infringement claims relating to reading or writing of Office Schemas.
I hate to bring the John C. Dvorak mockery to an end, but he has also predicted some unlikely things that came true, including Apple's migration to x86.
Still, he seems to say more than he knows, resulting in foot-in-mouth on numerous occassions.
Good article here on that subject.
Video killed the radio star. Internet killed the video star. RIAA killed the internet star. Boat's in the water. Cage's in the water. Shark's in the water. You're in the cage? Shark's in the cage. Farewell and adieu to you fair spanish ladies...
I'm not against evolution. In fact, for creationists, rapid mutation and speciation is an important point in the creationists' argument for a young earth. However, goo-to-you evolution, that is, evolution where new genetic information is introduced, causing the specie to evolve into a new specie that can no longer mate with its former species, has not been proved or even reproduced by humans attempting to synthetically induce cross-specie evolution.
I don't really care for your mocking. If only a single person knows the truth, that is still the truth, isn't it?
Of course, the real proponents of goo-to-you, abiological evolution (that is, evolution where life suddenly came from a non-living thing via a set of bizarre natural circumstances, as is being taught in school) are secularists that reject God. It's just one of those things where on the surface it's all about science, but behind the thin veil there is an acknowledged and purposeful rejection of God. This is evidenced by the fact that we have IDists claiming, "OK, we'll give you evolution. But God must've started life, or set the process into motion, or helped along the process at some point, since it is biologically impossible for life to come from nothing." And yet here the secular camp shows their true color, rejecting the notion that God has anything to do with, well, anything, because underneath it all, the secular camp really doesn't want to believe in God. That's what the whole argument comes down to, the age old humanity pitted against God. It's just a matter of choice between the sides, then taking all the superficial scientific arguments to use for justification of your rejection of God (or better yet, hope on the middle of the fence and call it theistic evolution, it'll ease your conscience).
I would venture a guess that God doesn't care too much about the opinions of men, even if it's a half-hearted acknowledgement of God, which Intelligent Design appears to be.
I'm not here to stomp on your views on ID, whatever your views on it. This is just my 2 cents, but forcing people who don't believe in God to make some sort of acknowledgement of God in a classroom isn't a good idea, wouldn't you agree? I can't imagine secularists teaching ID favorably; in fact, I'd rather they not even teach it. Instead, I say let children be taught whatever science believes at the time, with the disclaimer of, "Hey, this is our best guess as to how this happened."
Getting back on your subject, I think God cares less about forcing school teachers to talk about ID, and more about we (parents) teaching our kids our faith and values, showing them how to act by living godly lives ourselves. I can't imagine Jesus being up in arms over forcing schoolteachers to teach ID alongside evolution, honestly, I really can't imagine Christ doing that.
The platform itself will be a smashing success within two years. I guarentee it.
If it doesn't, will throw a chair at me, Steve?
The MiniMSFT blog you link to has a tendancy to report the negatives only. For instance, the blog post links to Wesner Moise's post regarding some VS 2005 bugs he'd found. What is not as well publicized is Wesner's next post, in which he says,
"Despite the few hiccups, I am enjoying VS 2005 and have been able to work with it productively. VS 2005 is stable and performant, and it's better to have it arrive now rather than later. The runtime is solid, and various products across Microsoft and outside also depend on it being delivered on a timely basis."
Yes, I've found a few minor hiccups in VS2005 as well. But honestly, it's nothing like MiniMSFT would have it seem. I can't speak for everyone, but VS2005 has been solid for us since RTM (we were a MS beta tester from Beta 1 through RTM), and we're very happy with its current form.
Fine then, I won't pay for your futuristic prosthesis!
Buran! I am your FATHER!!!
Interesting, thanks John.
Harry You
There's gotta be a joke in there somewhere.
I do realize the distance would remain constant. What I'm trying to figure out is, if the constant c, which is the speed of light in a vacuum, is used to determine how distant an object is in light years (i.e., how many years it would take light to reach that distant object), then "light year" estimations could be quite wrong if naturally occurring substances can slow or hasten the speed of light, is that right? I guess I'm saying that if we can't assume the speed of light to be constant, then the estimations of time and aging (i.e. "light years in the distance") cannot be very accurate. We cannot assume, for instance, that a star has been shining for any exact number of years just because we know it to be very distant from Earth.
Thanks. Forgive my ignorance, but I often hear from astronomists, "this star is 5 million light years away", for example. Doesn't the use of the phrase "light years" imply the use of the speed of light?
If this can be done using "standard materials", as the article mentions, one wonders if our calculated estimates of distance to stars could be off, considering all the unknowns outside the solar system. I imagine that even if there is a small modification to the speed of light coming from stars, our estimation of distance from stars and other celestial bodies (and likewise, our estimation of how long the star has been shining in order to reach our eyes on earth) would be greatly affected.
In other words, if there are natural materials that can speed up or slow down the speed of light, then we can only judge star distance with the asterisk of "provided the speed of light from the source to the destination remains constant".
Interesting stuff anyways.
Ah, but saying, "I have a problem with encouraging the breaking of a law" implies you have a moral or ethical objection to it. Do you? If one has a moral objection to breaking a law, it is foolish to ignore the morality of that law.