This is only because of the idiotic US Patent system that microsoft has to buy a bunch of dumb patents because if they didn't some moronic company would come along sueing them for having a web browser that supports plugins.
The first company who actually has any of the songs i want from any of the artists I like gets my business. I've basically tried Emusic, which actually did have good stuff. But MusicMatch had almost nothing, only top40 stuff it seemed (which you can just pick up from a music store or download from Kazaa or eDonkey). Makes me wonder if Itunes is/will be just as bad.
Not to be too negative, but the idea of relying on an IDE for code maintenance and documentation is crazy. Not everyone using/supporting your code will even use an IDE, much less the same one you do. There is some sound reasoning behind self-documenting code, just as long as it's taken with a grain of salt, much like everything else in the world.
Actually, most likely they WILL all be using the same IDE. Plus, you can't write everything to be backwards compatible to some hungarian notation geek who insists on coding everything in notepad. I agree with parent post 100%.
You can write bad code in any language. I don't see how your statement and the prvious sentence can both be true unless you equate it to some individuals are capable of programming and some are not, but, at some point in time, we had to be "told" how to write programs which kind of invalidates your statement.
Not exactly sure what you are saying here. But by when I say how to program, I am speaking of style. Which is what the interview is about.
The other point is, there are a number of rules that you can use that if abided by will have fewer chances of error.
Yes. My point is that by telling everyone to use this same rule doesn't improve or change the language. And that it is perfectly fine to not use this rule since the rule is not part of the language.
Seriously, you can't seriously improve a language by telling people how to program with it. You also don't know if these so-called style improvements help anyone at all. This is just like Hungarian notation, where people stupidly decided they wanted to know the type of a variable by looking at its name. The C++ language is what it is. Whatever you can do with it is what it is. You can't make C++ into Java by telling people what they can't do. This is why C++ is not Java. The "problems" in its design are part of the language.
This may seem interesting, but speech recognition would not work because you would end up transmitting the wrong message most of the time with it. It just doen't work good enough to be used like this. Test it yourself. Get AIM, a text-to-speech program, and a speech recognition program and see how accurate it can be.
I actually just cancelled my membership not long ago a bit before my 3 month subscription was up. After my 3 months was up, they pretty much ignored the cancellation and charged me for another month. I had to contact customer support again to get it removed.
Is this a joke? You claim there is no legal reason to use 15 gigs, but then go on to list several obvious legal reasons. For your information, the "Legal" internet has way more than 3 gigs of content a month.
The key scene to Episode III, of course, is an action sequence consisting of Natalie Portmen pouring hot grits down Darth Vader's pants during a sword fight with yoda. But yet this wasn't represented in any of the pictures...Okay nevermind.
Many people don't know this, but Bush's origional tax plan listed the actual names of the people getting a cut, and was written on a posterboard in magic marker.
Is this one of those things where the goverment tells us not to do it, but deep down they really WANT us to do it and KNOW we will do it anyway? Like $peeding?
The current RIAA System:
1. Person 1-9 buys Britney Spears.
2. For their work in getting 9 out of 10 people to buy her cd and making her so popular, record companies get paid.
3. Person 10 buys a little known independent cd direct from artist.
4. Person 1-9 never heard of 10's artist, but 10 has heard of Britney Spears.
The new System:
1. Person 1-9 gives all their digital gift to Britney Spears (including YOU!).
2. For their work in getting 9 out of 10 people to give her all their digital cash and making her so popular, record companies get paid.
3. Person 10 gives all their digital cash to a little known independent artist.
4. Person 1-9 never heard of 10's artist, but 10 has heard of Britney Spears.
Possibly this wouldn't be such a big problem if a more relevant credit history was availiable to people without haivng to pay, wait, and damage their credit just to get a report.
...A talking apple is suing Apple Computers for using the name Macintosh. As its primary defense, Apple Computers pointed out that the apple in question was actually a fiji, and had no such ownership of the trademark. The Apple lawyers had a hard time proving their case, however, as the apple's main defense was to turn into an inanimate object every time a question was asked...
Mother: Okay, so what do I owe you?
RIAA: Let me see...$150,000 [click click] times 951 [click click]...carry the two...Comes to...$142,650,000 dollars.
Mother: Did you say 142 MILLION?
RIAA: Yes.
Mother: I'm leaving.
RIAA: Wait! Wait!
Mother: What?
RIAA: I mean 142 million in make-believe money.
Mother: Hmm... Still sounds still a little steep.
RIAA: But everyone has unlimited make-believe money.
Mother: But 142 million is too much.
RIAA: Okay. Then how much can you afford?
Mother: $3000 maybe.
RIAA: Thats all? Well....Okay...We'll do $3000 I guess...
Mother: But my makebelieve purse is in the car. So can you loan me $3000? In make-believe money of course.
RIAA: Why not just pay me in make-believe make-believe money?
Mother: [thinks] Okay here.
RIAA: [quickly stashes $1000 of it into pocket] Well this settles it then. You are free to go.
[One Hour Later]
NEWS: Slashdot: RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Dowloader for $2000.
Imagine if William Gibson wrote a James Bond adventure in which a sexual tigress seduces Bond into a Caribbean political crisis, requiring a nighttime scuba-dive into a sunken treasure-wreck, and then a voodoo ceremony that reads like a nightmare acid trip
...Then imagine a Beowulf cluster of William Gibsons writing sexual James Bond nightmare voodoo adventures while scuba diving with a Caribbean tiger who happens to be on acid.
Patents are forcing software to take steps backwards and not forward, I just hope the companies realise the potential damage they are doing before it becomes too late.
The patent holding companies are not going to care if they are making money. The government has to step in, not the companies themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only because of the idiotic US Patent system that microsoft has to buy a bunch of dumb patents because if they didn't some moronic company would come along sueing them for having a web browser that supports plugins.
The first company who actually has any of the songs i want from any of the artists I like gets my business. I've basically tried Emusic, which actually did have good stuff. But MusicMatch had almost nothing, only top40 stuff it seemed (which you can just pick up from a music store or download from Kazaa or eDonkey). Makes me wonder if Itunes is/will be just as bad.
Not to be too negative, but the idea of relying on an IDE for code maintenance and documentation is crazy. Not everyone using/supporting your code will even use an IDE, much less the same one you do. There is some sound reasoning behind self-documenting code, just as long as it's taken with a grain of salt, much like everything else in the world.
Actually, most likely they WILL all be using the same IDE. Plus, you can't write everything to be backwards compatible to some hungarian notation geek who insists on coding everything in notepad. I agree with parent post 100%.
Lets convert all of our Cheap Windows Machines to Expensive OSX Mac boxes running Virual PC running Windows 2000 running Microsoft Office.
You can write bad code in any language. I don't see how your statement and the prvious sentence can both be true unless you equate it to some individuals are capable of programming and some are not, but, at some point in time, we had to be "told" how to write programs which kind of invalidates your statement.
Not exactly sure what you are saying here. But by when I say how to program, I am speaking of style. Which is what the interview is about.
The other point is, there are a number of rules that you can use that if abided by will have fewer chances of error.
Yes. My point is that by telling everyone to use this same rule doesn't improve or change the language. And that it is perfectly fine to not use this rule since the rule is not part of the language.
Seriously, you can't seriously improve a language by telling people how to program with it. You also don't know if these so-called style improvements help anyone at all. This is just like Hungarian notation, where people stupidly decided they wanted to know the type of a variable by looking at its name. The C++ language is what it is. Whatever you can do with it is what it is. You can't make C++ into Java by telling people what they can't do. This is why C++ is not Java. The "problems" in its design are part of the language.
This may seem interesting, but speech recognition would not work because you would end up transmitting the wrong message most of the time with it. It just doen't work good enough to be used like this. Test it yourself. Get AIM, a text-to-speech program, and a speech recognition program and see how accurate it can be.
He recognizes the fatal user flaw of not applying patches and introduced an educational plan to help correct this
So you're saying you can DIE from this?
I actually just cancelled my membership not long ago a bit before my 3 month subscription was up. After my 3 months was up, they pretty much ignored the cancellation and charged me for another month. I had to contact customer support again to get it removed.
With this much space, I can backup all my vhs head-cleaner tapes to dv format!
Is this a joke? You claim there is no legal reason to use 15 gigs, but then go on to list several obvious legal reasons. For your information, the "Legal" internet has way more than 3 gigs of content a month.
The key scene to Episode III, of course, is an action sequence consisting of Natalie Portmen pouring hot grits down Darth Vader's pants during a sword fight with yoda. But yet this wasn't represented in any of the pictures...Okay nevermind.
What we're trying to drive for is an environment in which legitimate online music can flourish
But wait...wouldn't this involve actually releasing a online music service, or did they somehow find a way around that step?
Many people don't know this, but Bush's origional tax plan listed the actual names of the people getting a cut, and was written on a posterboard in magic marker.
A desktop computer at the price of a laptop! Where can I buy!!?
This article claims some kind of software based 8:1 compression scheme on binary data. Am i reading this wrong or does this seem a bit like nonsense?
Is this one of those things where the goverment tells us not to do it, but deep down they really WANT us to do it and KNOW we will do it anyway? Like $peeding?
The current RIAA System:
1. Person 1-9 buys Britney Spears.
2. For their work in getting 9 out of 10 people to buy her cd and making her so popular, record companies get paid.
3. Person 10 buys a little known independent cd direct from artist.
4. Person 1-9 never heard of 10's artist, but 10 has heard of Britney Spears.
The new System:
1. Person 1-9 gives all their digital gift to Britney Spears (including YOU!).
2. For their work in getting 9 out of 10 people to give her all their digital cash and making her so popular, record companies get paid.
3. Person 10 gives all their digital cash to a little known independent artist.
4. Person 1-9 never heard of 10's artist, but 10 has heard of Britney Spears.
Possibly this wouldn't be such a big problem if a more relevant credit history was availiable to people without haivng to pay, wait, and damage their credit just to get a report.
...A talking apple is suing Apple Computers for using the name Macintosh. As its primary defense, Apple Computers pointed out that the apple in question was actually a fiji, and had no such ownership of the trademark. The Apple lawyers had a hard time proving their case, however, as the apple's main defense was to turn into an inanimate object every time a question was asked...
Mother: Okay, so what do I owe you?
RIAA: Let me see...$150,000 [click click] times 951 [click click]...carry the two...Comes to...$142,650,000 dollars.
Mother: Did you say 142 MILLION?
RIAA: Yes.
Mother: I'm leaving.
RIAA: Wait! Wait!
Mother: What?
RIAA: I mean 142 million in make-believe money.
Mother: Hmm... Still sounds still a little steep.
RIAA: But everyone has unlimited make-believe money.
Mother: But 142 million is too much.
RIAA: Okay. Then how much can you afford?
Mother: $3000 maybe.
RIAA: Thats all? Well....Okay...We'll do $3000 I guess...
Mother: But my makebelieve purse is in the car. So can you loan me $3000? In make-believe money of course.
RIAA: Why not just pay me in make-believe make-believe money?
Mother: [thinks] Okay here.
RIAA: [quickly stashes $1000 of it into pocket] Well this settles it then. You are free to go.
[One Hour Later]
NEWS: Slashdot: RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Dowloader for $2000.
This is a bug which while in existance in your code has no effect until you happen to notice it, in the code.
Uh... So you are saying that every bug is your Favorite Bug...Okay.
Imagine if William Gibson wrote a James Bond adventure in which a sexual tigress seduces Bond into a Caribbean political crisis, requiring a nighttime scuba-dive into a sunken treasure-wreck, and then a voodoo ceremony that reads like a nightmare acid trip
...Then imagine a Beowulf cluster of William Gibsons writing sexual James Bond nightmare voodoo adventures while scuba diving with a Caribbean tiger who happens to be on acid.
Patents are forcing software to take steps backwards and not forward, I just hope the companies realise the potential damage they are doing before it becomes too late.
The patent holding companies are not going to care if they are making money. The government has to step in, not the companies themselves.
What exactly is the thinking behind these juries which award judgements on stupid patents like these? Happens all the time.