Wow, Delphi had generics, extension methods and a query system?
I'm not trolling, but I had no idea. Can anyone verify this? I don't have any experience in Delphi and the Wikipedia entry is not much help.
In any case, I'm pretty excited about the new features, as they were the exact things that I often needed but did not have. And it's about time we got querying in-language (although anonymous methods can also do the job most of the time).
I 'read on' but I didn't see any justification for your 'Java is useless' conclusion.
My brother uses Java exclusively. The whole company he works at does. Most companies that do web applications use Java. In fact, I've been studying here in the US for a year and only met people who worked with either Java or.NET.
So, no, Java is not useless.
(I'm not actually a Java evangelist/apologist/whatever, I've gone from C++ to C# and prefer both to Java. But let's stick to the facts shall we?)
Perhaps, but even with this device you would not have "essentially unlimited O2". The device requires a battery to operate, and when the battery runs out of juice, you stop getting air.
I think it's reasonable to expect batteries that can last a few days, which *is* essentialy unlimited O2, considering other limiting factors (dehydration, exhaustion)
Hey, does anyone know if is this the 'asu_tempe' network we're talking about? It sounds like a different thing.
asu_tempe works fine for downtown cafes (Mill Ave.) but that's about it. There's also a number of other networks there, but nothing on my part of town.
I'm surprised (or maybe I missed something). Why is noone asking the real questions here?
Sure, Firefox had two security flaws. Okay. HOW were those vulnerabilites found? Were they found because Firefox is an open-source program, and has the 'many eyes' advantage? Were the people who found them going through the code, evaluating and auditing it function-by-function is search of flaws?
Or were they testing against it in the traditional way, the way IE vulnerabilities were found? Or maybe a combination of the two?
The article doesn't say, but I believe this is more important to know than the current count on a Firefox/IE vulnerability pissing match. It's the best example (or counter-example) of open-source security in action that we have. If anyone can supply this information, I (and others, perhaps) will be most grateful.
I can't really testify myself, but a couple of friends of mine swear that having two CPUs on a Windows machine (that supports it, of course) makes a night/day difference for the GUI. It makes sense in a way, that those 100% CPU moments will not kill the swiftness of the GUI anymore, but can anyone else confirm it? If this is true, I really hope to see a similar boost with dual core.
And even if you do have all those nanowires in your brain, the way it currently works means that no information actually comes back to the brain, and you'll have to coordinate your limb using your vision or other senses. Kind of like when you sleep on your arm.
I'm in no way an expert at these things, but I'd guess that sending back sensor data is possible and maybe even feasible right now, but much more dangerous and ethically challenged. Peeking is pretty safe, poking is not.
Especially when they first said it would be dropped from longhorn? I call Bull..
It has been dropped from Longhorn. WinFS is now an entirely separate project and, simply, all connections that existed between Longhorn and WinFS are being removed.
Just because Longhorn has very hard deadlines doesn't mean that masses of MS developers swarmed into the project, like some sort of a really nerdy LOTR scene. WinFS was shown the door regarding Longhorn inclusion, but that doesn't mean the WinFS team was dismantled. It will continue, but with slightly different targets and no consumer-side deadline.
I don't see why it's hard to see how a company can work two projects in parallel, especially a company the size of Microsoft. They probably have hundreds.
I'd given it some thought, and wondered why one couldn't build a GUI such that some small 'notifications' window was in the lower/upper left/right that displays things that would normally be pop-ups.
I thought of that too, and I think that the 'Quake message' will work quite well for notifications. In fact, the 'fun' project me and some of my friends intend to waste our time on will have such an output method for 'events' grouped and filtered from several sources, and can be file modifications, event log updates, etc.
I would link to the SF.NET project, but frankly there's nothing to see there yet.
Don't worry, I haven't missed the point, I just oversimplified a weeee bit. I'm sorry if I confused some people. I'm still reading though, but his theory does make a lot of sense. A lot more sense than years of engineering for a computer than can walk.
Not that his theory being true would make things dramatically easier, but I think it's that first step towards creating intelligence. A framework, as he puts it. Still, I haven't finished the book, and I intend to go through all criticisms of it before I put any more energy to it.
Read Jeff Hawkin's "On Intelligence". You'll thank me for it.
Except if you already have, of course. He argues that intelligence is the ability make predictions of the future. This is very simplified, it'll make more sense in the book. Even if you don't agree with him, it still should be rather obvious by now (2005!) that throwing unbelievably complex algorithms and astronomical number of computer cycles is NOT the way to go for developing real intelligence.
I apologize. What I meant is, it's not a term many software companies would agree with. IBM, Apple and RedHat, have a business model that allows such liberties with code because money is made elsewhere. This is not true for all software companies, especially custom software makers. The point of a commercial GPL would be to encourage those companies to provide code and freedom to the buyer without risking losing their market share or being forced to an open-source business model. Maybe limit distribution to 'internal', or something more complicated on non-overlapping target markets.
So, again, what would you change about the GPL to make it "commercial", since you can already make the receipt of sources and binaries contingent on purchase?
The fact that once someone purchases your software, he is given the right to distribute his derived work for free. Quote from the FSF:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Copy code, slightly modify, provide for free. Not a term commercial software companies would agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
Finish reading the summary, please. That's a description of push-scanning, while Android and Google can provide pull-scanning.
I find it interesting how monkeys can be compared to day traders. I think to goes to show how similar us humans really are to other animals.
I think it simply goes to show how similar day traders are to monkeys.
Yes.
Wow, Delphi had generics, extension methods and a query system?
I'm not trolling, but I had no idea. Can anyone verify this? I don't have any experience in Delphi and the Wikipedia entry is not much help.
In any case, I'm pretty excited about the new features, as they were the exact things that I often needed but did not have. And it's about time we got querying in-language (although anonymous methods can also do the job most of the time).
I wouldn't call web application development an 'extremely specific thing'. I would be closer to the truth if I called it 'half the software industry'.
I 'read on' but I didn't see any justification for your 'Java is useless' conclusion. .NET.
My brother uses Java exclusively. The whole company he works at does. Most companies that do web applications use Java. In fact, I've been studying here in the US for a year and only met people who worked with either Java or
So, no, Java is not useless.
(I'm not actually a Java evangelist/apologist/whatever, I've gone from C++ to C# and prefer both to Java. But let's stick to the facts shall we?)
Perhaps, but even with this device you would not have "essentially unlimited O2". The device requires a battery to operate, and when the battery runs out of juice, you stop getting air.
I think it's reasonable to expect batteries that can last a few days, which *is* essentialy unlimited O2, considering other limiting factors (dehydration, exhaustion)
Hey, does anyone know if is this the 'asu_tempe' network we're talking about? It sounds like a different thing.
asu_tempe works fine for downtown cafes (Mill Ave.) but that's about it. There's also a number of other networks there, but nothing on my part of town.
So is Longhorn.
He can't write an interesting story to save his life.
Oh hell yes he can write an interesting story. What he cannot write is dialogue.
I'm surprised (or maybe I missed something). Why is noone asking the real questions here?
Sure, Firefox had two security flaws. Okay. HOW were those vulnerabilites found? Were they found because Firefox is an open-source program, and has the 'many eyes' advantage? Were the people who found them going through the code, evaluating and auditing it function-by-function is search of flaws?
Or were they testing against it in the traditional way, the way IE vulnerabilities were found? Or maybe a combination of the two?
The article doesn't say, but I believe this is more important to know than the current count on a Firefox/IE vulnerability pissing match. It's the best example (or counter-example) of open-source security in action that we have. If anyone can supply this information, I (and others, perhaps) will be most grateful.
I can't really testify myself, but a couple of friends of mine swear that having two CPUs on a Windows machine (that supports it, of course) makes a night/day difference for the GUI. It makes sense in a way, that those 100% CPU moments will not kill the swiftness of the GUI anymore, but can anyone else confirm it? If this is true, I really hope to see a similar boost with dual core.
It's that emoticon!
How long before he's replaced entirely by his own program to cut down on staff costs?
Technophobia? In Slashdot, of all places?
Because it's harder. Many more nanowires needed.
And even if you do have all those nanowires in your brain, the way it currently works means that no information actually comes back to the brain, and you'll have to coordinate your limb using your vision or other senses. Kind of like when you sleep on your arm.
I'm in no way an expert at these things, but I'd guess that sending back sensor data is possible and maybe even feasible right now, but much more dangerous and ethically challenged. Peeking is pretty safe, poking is not.
Especially when they first said it would be dropped from longhorn? I call Bull..
It has been dropped from Longhorn. WinFS is now an entirely separate project and, simply, all connections that existed between Longhorn and WinFS are being removed.
Just because Longhorn has very hard deadlines doesn't mean that masses of MS developers swarmed into the project, like some sort of a really nerdy LOTR scene. WinFS was shown the door regarding Longhorn inclusion, but that doesn't mean the WinFS team was dismantled. It will continue, but with slightly different targets and no consumer-side deadline.
I don't see why it's hard to see how a company can work two projects in parallel, especially a company the size of Microsoft. They probably have hundreds.
I'd given it some thought, and wondered why one couldn't build a GUI such that some small 'notifications' window was in the lower/upper left/right that displays things that would normally be pop-ups.
I thought of that too, and I think that the 'Quake message' will work quite well for notifications. In fact, the 'fun' project me and some of my friends intend to waste our time on will have such an output method for 'events' grouped and filtered from several sources, and can be file modifications, event log updates, etc.
I would link to the SF.NET project, but frankly there's nothing to see there yet.
A squad with a few Auto-Cannons can easily take care of a bunch of Floaters, especially if you've got Personal Armour.
[To non-X-com mods, it's an injoke, not offtopic.]
Shiggity-shiggity Shwa!
It's Mono 1.2, not 2.0, that's coming on May.
Don't worry, I haven't missed the point, I just oversimplified a weeee bit. I'm sorry if I confused some people. I'm still reading though, but his theory does make a lot of sense. A lot more sense than years of engineering for a computer than can walk.
Not that his theory being true would make things dramatically easier, but I think it's that first step towards creating intelligence. A framework, as he puts it. Still, I haven't finished the book, and I intend to go through all criticisms of it before I put any more energy to it.
Read Jeff Hawkin's "On Intelligence". You'll thank me for it.
Except if you already have, of course. He argues that intelligence is the ability make predictions of the future. This is very simplified, it'll make more sense in the book. Even if you don't agree with him, it still should be rather obvious by now (2005!) that throwing unbelievably complex algorithms and astronomical number of computer cycles is NOT the way to go for developing real intelligence.
Get a laptop!
I apologize. What I meant is, it's not a term many software companies would agree with. IBM, Apple and RedHat, have a business model that allows such liberties with code because money is made elsewhere. This is not true for all software companies, especially custom software makers.
The point of a commercial GPL would be to encourage those companies to provide code and freedom to the buyer without risking losing their market share or being forced to an open-source business model. Maybe limit distribution to 'internal', or something more complicated on non-overlapping target markets.
So, again, what would you change about the GPL to make it "commercial", since you can already make the receipt of sources and binaries contingent on purchase?
The fact that once someone purchases your software, he is given the right to distribute his derived work for free. Quote from the FSF:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Copy code, slightly modify, provide for free. Not a term commercial software companies would agree with.