Remember back in 1964 when the price of silver exceeded the face value of both United States and Canadian coins? The US made it illegal to melt US coinage, and Canada did the same for their own, lower silver content coinage. Anyone care to guess what happened next.
(Hint: Each country only made it illegal to melt their own coinage.)
Reminds me of when a company in the 70's built a solid-state swapping "drum" memory system for IBM S/370 mainframes. Of course, that one wouldn't fit in a 2.5" form factor.
Cairo will 'bring modern, hardware-accelerated 2D-graphics capabilities to the whole of the Web without requiring proprietary plug-ins or rendering obsolete the broad and rich set of Web-authoring techniques developed over the past decade.'
Not if you're still running: Windows 95, 98, or ME, or OS X 10.2 or earlier.
...if businesses using Linux were to suddenly find themselves without support one day because their Linux partner has just lost a legal battle against Microsoft, they probably wouldn't like it as much.
One way to screw spammers would be for everyone to click on their links, then not buy anything. Spammers are paid by click-through counts. If companies start getting a lot of false click-throughs that they have to pay for, they'll soon either lower what they pay, or use other methods of bringing traffic to their sites. Lowered pay hurts the spammers when everyone then stops clicking through. The general concept is that if you can't ignore them, then bury them instead.
The first part is understanding how to solve the problem. This has nothing to do with the programming language you're using. You need to understand the problem well enough to break it down to the small, simple steps -- every one of them -- necessary to move from your input to your output.
The second part is then being able to express your solution in the necessary programming language.
While part 2 is different for every programming language, part 1 is always the same. What steps have to be taken to solve your problem. This means that you need a mind that likes always solving new puzzles. Programmers learn more than most other occupations because you have to know a good amount about someone else's occupation before you can program a solution for them.
While some basic techniques are necessary to every programmer, like how to program and utilize a data sort properly, I would say the best thing for any programmer is to work on how to solve each new problem they face. The programming language(s) you've already learned will guide you to know how much detail you solution needs to have, after which it's just your natural talent in this area. Some people are more cut out for this than others because of how they view and attack new problems. You may come to find that this really isn't your best field, but it sure is a fun one for people who like puzzles.
One clue: If every time you look at something new, the first question that comes to your mind is: "Okay, now how can I solve this on a computer?" then you're on the right track.
As for MASM, I was rather fond of it. I definitely wouldn't call it 'awful'. Was it really necessary for your argument to put it down, or do you think that on Slashdot saying something negative about a Microsoft product lends credibility to your argument?
MASM was never best of breed. Not until it was the only breed left.
And as for your cheap shot of putting down Microsoft because they're Microsoft, I only put them down when they deserve it -- and killing a superior product deserves it. I don't have to invent reasons to put Microsoft down -- they give me plenty of good ones for free.
This isn't correct. The Statute of Anne was passed in the UK in 1710. It "created a 21 year term for all works already in print at the time of its enactment and a 14 year term for all works published subsequently."
Point taken. However, the Constitution only enshrined in law the concepts that those in the New World were escaping from in Europe. Oppressive copyright was one of them, and the attempt was made to not let it happen here. And they succeeded for nearly 225 years too.
You just need your state to declare its entire population as it's militia. After all, that's what the militia used to be.
It's the asshats who claim that...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, who are the entire problem here. Just who are "the people". And why aren't they the very same "the people" who are mentioned 3 other places in the Constitution?
Also, why do they want to take my guns away? I'd rather not find out.
One thing the American revolution changed was the European practice of the time (circa 1776 and back to Gutenberg at least) of Forever Copyrights. Publishing houses of the time owned copyrights in perpetuity, and if they didn't want to republish a book, it didn't get republished. The American Constitution changed that with its grant of rights for a limited period of time only.
Now the content industries seem trying to push us back to those bad old days once more. It was a bad idea then. It's still a bad idea now. And the worst idea of all is making them retroactive. Those works were already created. They don't need this extension to encourage that creative effort. Even if the laws were changed, they should only apply to new works.
As for Sir Paul, he should just shut the F* up! He's made his pile and can't claim poverty in my eyes. In fact, I rather like him less today than yesterday due to his participation in all this.
Unlike DSL and Cable, AOL remains primarily a dial-up network. And when you look at the number of different users who had that dynamic IP address over the days of the subpoena, it got passed around a lot!
Here's the point. Accounts and passwords get stolen/guessed/written on post-it notes, and the like. While a DSL/Cable company has a reasonable likelihood of knowing whose on the other end of the wire, this isn't true in dial-up. Anyone could have called in and used this person's username/password without likelihood of detection until the lawsuit arrived.
Unless they're logging caller-id -- and even that can be spoofed -- AOL can't even prove who the actual user of the account at that time was, let alone if file downloading or uploading was occurring. So how this does constitute evidence of anything?
And add that to the boilerplate common to the complaints that the purported infringement is continual and ongoing, where the IP log shows that every user of that IP address disconnected within minutes or hours at most. And I'm sure that even if there was infringement before, it rather stopped by the time the lawsuit arrived. Yet the lawsuits maintain it is still ongoing, and no efforts were made to even ask you to stop before filing suit.
And don't even mention the claim that the harm is irreparable and cannot be compensated in terms of money alone, but that the Settlement Center was willing to settle for a few thousand dollars anyway, and one is left to wonder just what kind of Fantasyland[tm] our court system really is. Outlandish and unsupportable claims seem the norm there, items that would better be part of some theater production on stage.
All this gives me a greater fear of our civil court systems at least than I've ever felt before. And I'll likely continue to have that fear until such claims as these are routinely tossed out the very moment they're first submitted -- along with punishing severely the people who have submitted them!
I liked uTorrent because it wasn't Bittorrent. An alternative supplier with a great client who wasn't in bed with the MPAA. Makes me wonder if MPAA money was behind this acquisition.
Reminds me of the time when Microsoft couldn't compete with another x86 assembler on the market. They bought it out, and rather than use it to replace the relatively awful MASM, killed it instead.
Will uTorrent face the same fate? Can we all make money by writing a better BT than BT and taking money for it afterwards now?
They're just not going to leave the poor guy alone. He embarrassed them, and they're going to make him pay and pay and pay. It looks a lot like getting on the wrong side of the RIAA. They can be entirely wrong, but it costs you a fortune and year(s) of your life to win, and then they only pay a pittance for all their unwarranted grief at best.
One of these days (years?) the RIAA is going to realize they've awakened the sleeping giant. The only reason they have the limited - note the use of the word limited - monopoly of copyright is because the people, through their government, gave it to them. (Actually they gave it to the artists who created the works in the first place, but that's another argument for another day.) And what the people give, the people can take back if they're too abused by it. I wouldn't mind seeing that day arrive.
Slashdot Mirror
(Hint: Each country only made it illegal to melt their own coinage.)
Given that it should have no spin-up lag, and most people turn off their POST memory testing, I rather expect you're right.
Reminds me of when a company in the 70's built a solid-state swapping "drum" memory system for IBM S/370 mainframes. Of course, that one wouldn't fit in a 2.5" form factor.
Oh, wow! Earth has earthquakes. Titan has earth... er titanquakes. THEY'RE BOTH ALIKE! LET'S COLONIZE!
What BT speeds can you get with other devices similarly situated?
Not if you're still running: Windows 95, 98, or ME, or OS X 10.2 or earlier.
But who would they be angry at if this happened?
For my whole life I've been immensely distrustful of any survey or poll that didn't include me in its sample.
If it makes them cheaper, then I'm all for it!
One way to screw spammers would be for everyone to click on their links, then not buy anything. Spammers are paid by click-through counts. If companies start getting a lot of false click-throughs that they have to pay for, they'll soon either lower what they pay, or use other methods of bringing traffic to their sites. Lowered pay hurts the spammers when everyone then stops clicking through. The general concept is that if you can't ignore them, then bury them instead.
If it's 500X faster at .5 power, does that mean it needs 250X the power of flash for a much shorter duration?
The first part is understanding how to solve the problem. This has nothing to do with the programming language you're using. You need to understand the problem well enough to break it down to the small, simple steps -- every one of them -- necessary to move from your input to your output.
The second part is then being able to express your solution in the necessary programming language.
While part 2 is different for every programming language, part 1 is always the same. What steps have to be taken to solve your problem. This means that you need a mind that likes always solving new puzzles. Programmers learn more than most other occupations because you have to know a good amount about someone else's occupation before you can program a solution for them.
While some basic techniques are necessary to every programmer, like how to program and utilize a data sort properly, I would say the best thing for any programmer is to work on how to solve each new problem they face. The programming language(s) you've already learned will guide you to know how much detail you solution needs to have, after which it's just your natural talent in this area. Some people are more cut out for this than others because of how they view and attack new problems. You may come to find that this really isn't your best field, but it sure is a fun one for people who like puzzles.
One clue: If every time you look at something new, the first question that comes to your mind is: "Okay, now how can I solve this on a computer?" then you're on the right track.
MASM was never best of breed. Not until it was the only breed left.
And as for your cheap shot of putting down Microsoft because they're Microsoft, I only put them down when they deserve it -- and killing a superior product deserves it. I don't have to invent reasons to put Microsoft down -- they give me plenty of good ones for free.
Point taken. However, the Constitution only enshrined in law the concepts that those in the New World were escaping from in Europe. Oppressive copyright was one of them, and the attempt was made to not let it happen here. And they succeeded for nearly 225 years too.
Just another reason not to upgrade to the latest MSOffice. The only difference is that this time it's the Macs that are affected.
You say this like there's something wrong with it. Am I missing something?
It's the asshats who claim that ...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, who are the entire problem here. Just who are "the people". And why aren't they the very same "the people" who are mentioned 3 other places in the Constitution?
Also, why do they want to take my guns away? I'd rather not find out.
Now the content industries seem trying to push us back to those bad old days once more. It was a bad idea then. It's still a bad idea now. And the worst idea of all is making them retroactive. Those works were already created. They don't need this extension to encourage that creative effort. Even if the laws were changed, they should only apply to new works.
As for Sir Paul, he should just shut the F* up! He's made his pile and can't claim poverty in my eyes. In fact, I rather like him less today than yesterday due to his participation in all this.
Unlike DSL and Cable, AOL remains primarily a dial-up network. And when you look at the number of different users who had that dynamic IP address over the days of the subpoena, it got passed around a lot!
Here's the point. Accounts and passwords get stolen/guessed/written on post-it notes, and the like. While a DSL/Cable company has a reasonable likelihood of knowing whose on the other end of the wire, this isn't true in dial-up. Anyone could have called in and used this person's username/password without likelihood of detection until the lawsuit arrived.
Unless they're logging caller-id -- and even that can be spoofed -- AOL can't even prove who the actual user of the account at that time was, let alone if file downloading or uploading was occurring. So how this does constitute evidence of anything?
And add that to the boilerplate common to the complaints that the purported infringement is continual and ongoing, where the IP log shows that every user of that IP address disconnected within minutes or hours at most. And I'm sure that even if there was infringement before, it rather stopped by the time the lawsuit arrived. Yet the lawsuits maintain it is still ongoing, and no efforts were made to even ask you to stop before filing suit.
And don't even mention the claim that the harm is irreparable and cannot be compensated in terms of money alone, but that the Settlement Center was willing to settle for a few thousand dollars anyway, and one is left to wonder just what kind of Fantasyland[tm] our court system really is. Outlandish and unsupportable claims seem the norm there, items that would better be part of some theater production on stage.
All this gives me a greater fear of our civil court systems at least than I've ever felt before. And I'll likely continue to have that fear until such claims as these are routinely tossed out the very moment they're first submitted -- along with punishing severely the people who have submitted them!
I know 6 Imans who ought to be scoring pretty high on this list right about now.
Reminds me of the time when Microsoft couldn't compete with another x86 assembler on the market. They bought it out, and rather than use it to replace the relatively awful MASM, killed it instead.
Will uTorrent face the same fate? Can we all make money by writing a better BT than BT and taking money for it afterwards now?
They're just not going to leave the poor guy alone. He embarrassed them, and they're going to make him pay and pay and pay. It looks a lot like getting on the wrong side of the RIAA. They can be entirely wrong, but it costs you a fortune and year(s) of your life to win, and then they only pay a pittance for all their unwarranted grief at best.
Also, do you miss any important history, or using new items, if you jump from Majora's Mask directly to TP, ignoring WW altogether?
Any differences in game play, aside from the new Wii controller?
One of these days (years?) the RIAA is going to realize they've awakened the sleeping giant. The only reason they have the limited - note the use of the word limited - monopoly of copyright is because the people, through their government, gave it to them. (Actually they gave it to the artists who created the works in the first place, but that's another argument for another day.) And what the people give, the people can take back if they're too abused by it. I wouldn't mind seeing that day arrive.