Well... I'm sure it's a bit more complex... otherwise the cigarette companies might have "free giveaways" of their product to kids to get them hooked...
Or maybe they never thought of that? (I somehow doubt it)
I don't particularly like JAVA (or any pure OO language) as a first language.
People who are just learning how to program, and in many cases, are just learning how the computer really works, are just not ready to be taught about classes.
And you can't do a damn thing in Java without knowing about classes. Yes, you can say "just type these 5 lines at the top and don't worry about what they mean" -- and that works... sorta...
Really you want a simple language, where you just write your code. Honestly, I can think of no better choice than some variant of BASIC.
I learned with QBASIC, and it was very easy... just write your code... no magic stuff you don't understand.
When you're ready to deal with the concept of a function, you can create them. When you're not, you can ignore them and write all your code in the "main module" or whatever they call the global code...
You can't do any OO in QBASIC, though... but again, I wouldn't have a first programming course that even touched OO. I've seen courses that did, and they had one of two outcomes:
a 40%+ failure rate or a huge number of people who passed the class knowing less than nothing.
Meanwhile, in courses that did not, you can usually get at least 2/3 to 3/4 of the class to actually learn the basic fundamentals of programming successfully in a single course.
Then have the second course introduce OO, and use a completely different language.
Despite the fact I'll probably be modded troll or something, I see C# as a very good choice for that second course. Java would work rather well. C++ could work, but then you are stuck either with terminal-only programs or very complex and nonstandard GUI class libraries / toolkits...
Either way, I'd shy away from Visual Basic. VB.NET is a much more OO language, but I'd steer clear of that too... it's... funky... they tried too hard to make it OO that looks *just* like VB
you are also towing a very fine line... it's all a matter of whether you think you could explain the concept of a patch to a nontechnical judge and/or jury.
Oh, I think it's a pathetic patent that should never have been granted.
Not saying anything about that...
What I am saying is that if you develop your dynamic site so that it only produces XHTML, you really ought to be protected from this patent.
As I understand it, patents cover precisely what they claim -- the whole battle is supposed to be the inventor trying to get as broad of a claim as possible, and the USPTO is supposed to try to get as specific of a claim as possible, and they're suppsoed to meet in the middle.
Doesn't work so well anymore, but I still am fairly certain that if the claim is specific on a certain point, then you are only infringing the patent if your "competing invention" meets that claim/criteria/what-have-you.
Or, at least, that's how it was explained to me, using Kodak and Polaroid cameras waaay back when as an example...
Actually, frequently stuff in mountain time airs at the same time it does in Eastern and Pacific -- that is, a show that is aired at "7, 6 central" is frequently at 7:00 Mountain time.
But sometimes, they do it the other way, and a show airing at "7, 6 central" will be at 6:00 Mountain time.
And, sometimes, it's not rebroadcast at all, and so it airs at 5 Mountain time instead...
Or at least, that's how it was last time I checked...
I didn't really like that book, though I've found very similar quotes in more recent stuff that I do read.
I didn't know this originated with Rand, though I'm not in the least bit surprised. (I assume it originated here, or did someone else popularize this thought about too many laws).
There's a quote from Terry Goodkind's Soul of the Fire which was similar and good, but different.
I don't have the book at work, so I can't give you the quote, but the jist (sp?) is this:
Unenforced laws are wonderful things, because if you have loads of unenforced laws, you'll inevitably have loads of law-breakers, and then, when someone becomes a problem, you decide to enforce a few of them, and the problem goes away.
Incidentally, ever seen a list of absurd laws still on the books in various jurisdictions? I wonder what would happen if a female the government wanted to get rid of were to be arrested for driving in San Francisco without a man walking in front carrying a lantern. (Assuming that particular absurd law I read about is actually a law... I haven't checked snopes in awhile, and I forget... and now I can't find the right snopes page... oh well).
yeah, but we could start a legal defense fund, and between all of us, we could probably come up with 3 or 4 hours worth of a real lawyer's time for help...
Or, we could do the typical/. thing and just send him 2TB of material useful for being his own lawyer...
Oh, and there's every chance it might survive a court review. And not because of evil corporations or any of that...
Have you ever noticed how bad the average individual is when it comes to figuring out computers? Ever had to answer user's questions that make it absolutely clear that they see a computer as a magic box?
Ever find a user that answers "PowerPoint" when you ask where they saved a file?
Ever had a similar question come up after the 25th time you politely described the differences between a computer, a file, a program, and a hard drive?
What makes you think the courts are any better. People don't understand technology, but they are afraid of hackers. Until we change that, we're pretty much without hope. The courts, try as they might, simply can't understand what we're talking about in some of these cases, and so the conclusion (that we're wrong) is blatantly obvious.
Why is everyone so up-in-arms about the whole GTA/Hot Coffee thing? Because they don't really understand what we mean when we say "you have to hack at the game to get that stuff" and instead hear something like "my kid could push some buttons and see that stuff"
(Granted that in GTAs case, the devs probably expected (possibly hoped) that the hack would be found. But that's not the point here, the point is people don't understand software, so they don't really understand software being used in a manner the developer didn't intend).
I might go beat the crap out of whoever did it. I might kill him/her. I would definitely *want* revenge.
That DOES NOT make revenge "right" and it definitely doesn't make the institutionalization of vengence right.
There's a difference between what I want and what is right.
Knowing the difference requires intelligence. Heeding the difference requires character and integrity.
I do know I have sufficient intelligence to know what's right in your hypothetical situation. I do NOT know whether I possess the requisite character and integrity. I like to think so, but thankfully it has never been put to the test.
these days, software EULAs generally say only one user on only one computer, and limit one activation (if you reinstall, they don't guarantee you'll be allowed to use it).
I have some software for which I have 10 licenses... and the terms are rediculous I may install on up to 10 computers provided that I am the only person that ever uses any of those 10 computers.
Or, better, how about the EULA for the copy of Windows XP that comes with the computer: Only one computer. When the OEM installs the software, the license is "bound" to that computer. If you stop using that computer, you can not "unbind" the license -- and so are not permitted to use it on a different computer. You must repurchase.
You can get a super-discounted copy of Windows XP with any "non-peripheral" hardware. For instance, a video card. But then, your license of Windows XP is bound to that video card -- you can install that copy on only one computer ever, and that computer must retain that video card for all time. If you separate the video card from the machine, you will no longer have all the parts required to have a valid license.
The software doesn't try to technologically enforce that restriction, but read the EULA. It's in there.
I actually have... my linux box (RH Enterprise 3 WS) seems to crash if I leave it alone for about 32 hours. No errors are logged anywhere, and even moving the mouse periodically to get the screensaver to ask for password will prevent it.
Actually, as I'm certain that many 14 year old kids are smart enough to know the difference between "real" and "fake", and as I would probably know enough about a close relative to know whether they are one of the 14-year-old kids that can handle it, and as I know GTA can be extremely entertaining, I really might go and buy it for a 14-year-old family member.
I would "ignore" the rating, the box art, and the idiots in Congress who want to tell me what I can and can't buy.
Microsoft does not write drivers, generally speaking.
Microsoft *does* offer hardware companies access to Microsoft engineers on a contract basis for writing, testing, and debugging drivers. They charge [some unknown amount] for those services.
Microsoft also [probably for a fee, I don't know] offer a driver certification program.
If you can make your driver pass their driver certification, you are allowed to put the "Designed for Windows XP" logo on your product. If it does not, you may not.
If your driver does not pass the certification, then it will be an "unsigned" driver (like almost all nVidia and AIi drivers), and users will get a warning when installing it.
Installing an unsigned driver automatically sets a system restore point if you have system restore enabled and it is functioning properly.
Microsoft does provide some basic drivers, such as the drivers for a generic USB Mass Storage device, or for a generic USB Human Interface Device, and a few other items.
In the case of both ATi and nVidia, the last time I checked, they had employees that worked full-time inside the Microsoft facility so that they could have access to all the testing & driver development resources.
If you're really in to it, go get some/all of the Windows XP DDK (Driver Development Kit) and... erm... have fun!
The general idea goes something along the lines of "Why should the government care what kinds of videogames I buy, regardless of who I am?"
We have this thing in our constitution called freedom of speech which is supposed to guarantee that anyone can "say" (includes music, written word, art,...) anything they please, and the government isn't allowed to have an opinion on it.
You could imagine, for instance, a new law saying "Books that portray the President of the United States in a negative light are age-restricted, and it is a federal offense to sell or otherwise provide these items to anyone under the age of 115."
Now, granted, that's a perversely extreme take on this, but it is a slippery slope. As soon as the government is allowed to determine what is "appropriate" for people to say, or for people to hear, the government can start attacking freedom by hiding "unpleasant truths".
And the trouble with freedom is that it can be taken away with the pen, but usually requires the sword to regain.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... I'm sure it's a bit more complex... otherwise the cigarette companies might have "free giveaways" of their product to kids to get them hooked...
Or maybe they never thought of that? (I somehow doubt it)
I don't particularly like JAVA (or any pure OO language) as a first language.
People who are just learning how to program, and in many cases, are just learning how the computer really works, are just not ready to be taught about classes.
And you can't do a damn thing in Java without knowing about classes. Yes, you can say "just type these 5 lines at the top and don't worry about what they mean" -- and that works... sorta...
Really you want a simple language, where you just write your code. Honestly, I can think of no better choice than some variant of BASIC.
I learned with QBASIC, and it was very easy... just write your code... no magic stuff you don't understand.
When you're ready to deal with the concept of a function, you can create them. When you're not, you can ignore them and write all your code in the "main module" or whatever they call the global code...
You can't do any OO in QBASIC, though... but again, I wouldn't have a first programming course that even touched OO. I've seen courses that did, and they had one of two outcomes:
a 40%+ failure rate or a huge number of people who passed the class knowing less than nothing.
Meanwhile, in courses that did not, you can usually get at least 2/3 to 3/4 of the class to actually learn the basic fundamentals of programming successfully in a single course.
Then have the second course introduce OO, and use a completely different language.
Despite the fact I'll probably be modded troll or something, I see C# as a very good choice for that second course. Java would work rather well. C++ could work, but then you are stuck either with terminal-only programs or very complex and nonstandard GUI class libraries / toolkits...
Either way, I'd shy away from Visual Basic. VB.NET is a much more OO language, but I'd steer clear of that too... it's... funky... they tried too hard to make it OO that looks *just* like VB
you are correct.
you are also towing a very fine line... it's all a matter of whether you think you could explain the concept of a patch to a nontechnical judge and/or jury.
Oh, I think it's a pathetic patent that should never have been granted.
Not saying anything about that...
What I am saying is that if you develop your dynamic site so that it only produces XHTML, you really ought to be protected from this patent.
As I understand it, patents cover precisely what they claim -- the whole battle is supposed to be the inventor trying to get as broad of a claim as possible, and the USPTO is supposed to try to get as specific of a claim as possible, and they're suppsoed to meet in the middle.
Doesn't work so well anymore, but I still am fairly certain that if the claim is specific on a certain point, then you are only infringing the patent if your "competing invention" meets that claim/criteria/what-have-you.
Or, at least, that's how it was explained to me, using Kodak and Polaroid cameras waaay back when as an example...
6 Billion * 0.0001 = 600,000.
The patent specifically limits itself to sites that dynamically generate HTML.
Simple solution, use XHTML.
One word: hackers
why not lightmeters instead?
Actually, frequently stuff in mountain time airs at the same time it does in Eastern and Pacific -- that is, a show that is aired at "7, 6 central" is frequently at 7:00 Mountain time.
But sometimes, they do it the other way, and a show airing at "7, 6 central" will be at 6:00 Mountain time.
And, sometimes, it's not rebroadcast at all, and so it airs at 5 Mountain time instead...
Or at least, that's how it was last time I checked...
I didn't really like that book, though I've found very similar quotes in more recent stuff that I do read.
I didn't know this originated with Rand, though I'm not in the least bit surprised. (I assume it originated here, or did someone else popularize this thought about too many laws).
There's a quote from Terry Goodkind's Soul of the Fire which was similar and good, but different.
I don't have the book at work, so I can't give you the quote, but the jist (sp?) is this:
Unenforced laws are wonderful things, because if you have loads of unenforced laws, you'll inevitably have loads of law-breakers, and then, when someone becomes a problem, you decide to enforce a few of them, and the problem goes away.
Incidentally, ever seen a list of absurd laws still on the books in various jurisdictions? I wonder what would happen if a female the government wanted to get rid of were to be arrested for driving in San Francisco without a man walking in front carrying a lantern.
(Assuming that particular absurd law I read about is actually a law... I haven't checked snopes in awhile, and I forget... and now I can't find the right snopes page... oh well).
yeah, but we could start a legal defense fund, and between all of us, we could probably come up with 3 or 4 hours worth of a real lawyer's time for help...
/. thing and just send him 2TB of material useful for being his own lawyer...
Or, we could do the typical
Oh, and there's every chance it might survive a court review. And not because of evil corporations or any of that...
Have you ever noticed how bad the average individual is when it comes to figuring out computers? Ever had to answer user's questions that make it absolutely clear that they see a computer as a magic box?
Ever find a user that answers "PowerPoint" when you ask where they saved a file?
Ever had a similar question come up after the 25th time you politely described the differences between a computer, a file, a program, and a hard drive?
What makes you think the courts are any better. People don't understand technology, but they are afraid of hackers. Until we change that, we're pretty much without hope. The courts, try as they might, simply can't understand what we're talking about in some of these cases, and so the conclusion (that we're wrong) is blatantly obvious.
Why is everyone so up-in-arms about the whole GTA/Hot Coffee thing? Because they don't really understand what we mean when we say "you have to hack at the game to get that stuff" and instead hear something like "my kid could push some buttons and see that stuff"
(Granted that in GTAs case, the devs probably expected (possibly hoped) that the hack would be found. But that's not the point here, the point is people don't understand software, so they don't really understand software being used in a manner the developer didn't intend).
Anyway
</RANT>
If my kid was raped, or my mom was beaten...
I might go beat the crap out of whoever did it. I might kill him/her. I would definitely *want* revenge.
That DOES NOT make revenge "right" and it definitely doesn't make the institutionalization of vengence right.
There's a difference between what I want and what is right.
Knowing the difference requires intelligence. Heeding the difference requires character and integrity.
I do know I have sufficient intelligence to know what's right in your hypothetical situation. I do NOT know whether I possess the requisite character and integrity. I like to think so, but thankfully it has never been put to the test.
these days, software EULAs generally say only one user on only one computer, and limit one activation (if you reinstall, they don't guarantee you'll be allowed to use it).
I have some software for which I have 10 licenses... and the terms are rediculous I may install on up to 10 computers provided that I am the only person that ever uses any of those 10 computers.
Or, better, how about the EULA for the copy of Windows XP that comes with the computer: Only one computer. When the OEM installs the software, the license is "bound" to that computer. If you stop using that computer, you can not "unbind" the license -- and so are not permitted to use it on a different computer. You must repurchase.
You can get a super-discounted copy of Windows XP with any "non-peripheral" hardware. For instance, a video card. But then, your license of Windows XP is bound to that video card -- you can install that copy on only one computer ever, and that computer must retain that video card for all time. If you separate the video card from the machine, you will no longer have all the parts required to have a valid license.
The software doesn't try to technologically enforce that restriction, but read the EULA. It's in there.
3. Be Poor
4. Don't Profit
I actually have... my linux box (RH Enterprise 3 WS) seems to crash if I leave it alone for about 32 hours. No errors are logged anywhere, and even moving the mouse periodically to get the screensaver to ask for password will prevent it.
no clue why...
Actually, as I'm certain that many 14 year old kids are smart enough to know the difference between "real" and "fake", and as I would probably know enough about a close relative to know whether they are one of the 14-year-old kids that can handle it, and as I know GTA can be extremely entertaining, I really might go and buy it for a 14-year-old family member.
:)
I would "ignore" the rating, the box art, and the idiots in Congress who want to tell me what I can and can't buy.
So there
Oh, come on... it's not flamebait, it's funny
Alas, I have no modpoints today...
-- Andrew
except of course between the death of one apprentice and the finding of the next...
Microsoft does not write drivers, generally speaking.
Microsoft *does* offer hardware companies access to Microsoft engineers on a contract basis for writing, testing, and debugging drivers. They charge [some unknown amount] for those services.
Microsoft also [probably for a fee, I don't know] offer a driver certification program.
If you can make your driver pass their driver certification, you are allowed to put the "Designed for Windows XP" logo on your product. If it does not, you may not.
If your driver does not pass the certification, then it will be an "unsigned" driver (like almost all nVidia and AIi drivers), and users will get a warning when installing it.
Installing an unsigned driver automatically sets a system restore point if you have system restore enabled and it is functioning properly.
Microsoft does provide some basic drivers, such as the drivers for a generic USB Mass Storage device, or for a generic USB Human Interface Device, and a few other items.
In the case of both ATi and nVidia, the last time I checked, they had employees that worked full-time inside the Microsoft facility so that they could have access to all the testing & driver development resources.
If you're really in to it, go get some/all of the Windows XP DDK (Driver Development Kit) and... erm... have fun!
The general idea goes something along the lines of "Why should the government care what kinds of videogames I buy, regardless of who I am?"
...) anything they please, and the government isn't allowed to have an opinion on it.
We have this thing in our constitution called freedom of speech which is supposed to guarantee that anyone can "say" (includes music, written word, art,
You could imagine, for instance, a new law saying "Books that portray the President of the United States in a negative light are age-restricted, and it is a federal offense to sell or otherwise provide these items to anyone under the age of 115."
Now, granted, that's a perversely extreme take on this, but it is a slippery slope. As soon as the government is allowed to determine what is "appropriate" for people to say, or for people to hear, the government can start attacking freedom by hiding "unpleasant truths".
And the trouble with freedom is that it can be taken away with the pen, but usually requires the sword to regain.
So we zealously defend it.
because naturally bluetooth is the only way to have a wireless keyboard and mouse.
The normal wireless devices that cost about $100 less but work perfectly fine obviously don't exist.
I never understood people paying $199+ for a freaking wireless KB & mouse when identical non-bluetooth wireless units are in the $49 - $79 range...
I mean, maybe it has a longer range, but how far from your computer [and thus, your monitor, which is undoubtedly *wired*] do you need to get?
Yeah, you and the other 0.000000000000000003% that actually know what DRM and Trusted Computing are.
Actually, we've gone through several cycles of pretending to care about payola and then giving up again.
This is just the latest. Sony will pay the $10 million, and next Wednesday they'll start the payola again. If they haven't already...
Because the DJs will find enough people willing to fork over the money that they won't play anything else...
The argument goes something like this:
"Surely that WiFi device is connected to an ISP somewhere that grants you access to the Internet, including websites run in other States.
Moreover, there are websites, such as amazon.com, through which you could use that WiFi device to conduct commerce.
Therefore, you are engaging in Interstate Commerce every time you connect to that WiFi device."
I know it's a BS argument, but it'd probably be good enough for the courts these days.
Let *me* know a few weeks or months out, so I can try and get a legal defense fund started...
Just in case the courts are as stupid as everybody else insists on being.