Nice slippery slope fear-mongering. Nothing in the article said anything about one BT packet being able to put you in jail. It is irrelevant to the issue.
The fact is you are *knowingly* abetting in illegal activities when you join a BitTorrent hosting copyrighted material. If part of the file is verifiably authentic, then it can be used to prove innocence or guilt. Are you actually trying to argue that a 'legitimate' BT packet (such as one belonging to a Linux ISO) might somehow also work in the context of an 'illegitimate' torrent? Even if there was the technical possibility (TCP connections pretty much rule out the possibility of rogue packets arriving, not to mention the BT protocol itself probably is sequenced), an investigation would show innocence - all further packets coming from that computer would *not* work in the torrent!
This isn't a question of semantics. Take responsibility for what you do. Do you really believe you can argue, "but your Honor, 0's and 1's aren't copyrighted! That is all I was handing out to other clients!" You'd get your ass laughed out of court. The only reason those arguments even show up around here is because they are what people want to hear.
If this were a Microsoft product, the consensus would not be nearly so optimistic. Between this and the 19 holes recently fixed, looks like Apple doesn't exactly have a sparkling record when it comes to security anymore. Much better than Windows, but then again pretty much everything is.
Re:The performance of compiled code
on
A Review of GCC 4.0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Exactly. You couldn't distinguish an app compiled with frame pointers disabled from one with frame pointers enabled. The reason I point this particular optimization out is that it makes life hell for developers if you end up sending a core dump file in. This is a net loss in my book, since open source software evolves rapidly and being able to assist in reporting bugs is vital.
How is pointing out that one optimization people crow about is largely ineffective being an asshole?
The amusing thing is that people are actually annoyed when I point out that omitting the frame pointer is a micro-optimization that provides minimal gain.
Probably because execution speed is objective and therefore suitable for chest-thumping. You do not see nearly as many people advertising the clarity of their code in the same way.
(Well, maybe the Java crowd at times, but they tend to confuse having only one way to do things with clarity.)
Re:The performance of compiled code
on
A Review of GCC 4.0
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It is because it is easier to delve into needlessly technical aspects afforded by compiler settings and 'optimizations' than it is to admit that one's algorithm is not sound. Kids running Gentoo delude themselves into thinking that omitting the frame pointer on compiles is going to make a massive difference in terms of performance, and fail to remember it makes bug hunting far more difficult when applications crash. Additionally, the 5% gain mentioned can be a severe overstatement. I frequent a game programming board, and the widespread use of C++ has led to an abundance of nano-optimization threads, the most amusing of which was an attempt to optimize strlen().
Optimizing every single line of code is a complete waste of time, since the 80/20 rule generally applies. Use a profiler to determine where that 20% is.
Concur. For a site that is "news for nerds," it is amazing that so few of them lack the ability to create a logical argument. The only thing they have going for them is their spelling and grammar isn't as piss-poor as it is on the mainstream sites. It is at an eighth grade level instead of a fifth grade one.:)
Of course it can have all the keyboard shortcuts you want. The problem is, it doesn't completely conform to the platform it is running on -- it just tries to do a 'good enough' job. For example, focus behavior in a file selector dialog is mostly correct in Java 1.5 - but it isn't completely the same as the native Win32 dialog.
The problem is it inflicts the fact that it is its own 'platform' on us, the users. I want a program that behaves like all my other programs, not does its own thing because marketing idiots have an agenda to push. If I wanted cheap-feeling, half-assed GUIs I'd use KDE.
C++ takes quite a bit of flak on here, mostly because it doesn't try to be a 'pure' language. It is obvious that people don't understand it by the comments. (Then again, if people only talked about what they understood, the net would be a very quiet place.)
News flash: most software that I've seen and written benefits from multiple paradigms: procedural for basic algorithm implementation, OOP for the architecture, and generic programming as glue code (generic programming annihilates OOP in terms of code reuse, and you typically don't pay a performance penalty for it.) There are other paradigms, but I don't have enough experience to comment on the efficiency of them. C++ is one of the few languages that gives the aforementioned paradigms a presence and trusts the programmer to choose. You may think this is 'bloated,' but nothing is further from the truth: the overall mantra of C++ is, "you only pay for what you use."
You can bitch all you want about the importance of language purity and point to languages like Smalltalk or Java as an example of how software should be coded. I'll ask you to point me to popular desktop software that is written in these languages. C++ is the archetype of a hardcore language - a huge learning curve, but insanely powerful in the right hands. It is also really dangerous in the wrong hands.
Like operating systems, all programming languages suck in some way. Its up to you to choose the least sucky one for the problem at hand. I enjoy writing native, minimal dependency desktop applications in a language that has excellent tool support, can interface directly with OS APIs, and doesn't talk down to me. C++ fits the bill most closely, but I've been told I'd like O'Caml as well.
C++ isn't going anywhere. The fact that so many people don't understand it or the place that it occupies only strengthens my resume.
I concur, Java pretty much missed the boat for desktop apps. Not that I mind - I hate how they refuse to adopt native widgets, instead pushing their own cheap imitations that lack all the keyboard shortcuts, font anti-aliasing, and solid feel that native widgets have. Most stuff doesn't use SWT, either. Between the horrid UI and a language that loves to hamstring the programmer, I have to say good riddance.
This is just because IE uses windowless controls - each UI element on the page isn't backed up by an actual window handle (it would be trivial to exhaust GDI handles and launch a denial of service attack if it wasn't this way.)
UI code shouldn't be intermingled with the actual logic. This is basic software engineering. XUL could be nothing more an option; instead it is the only option, and it is clunky.
Even on Windows, Firefox's GUI doesn't feel completely 'right.' Really, I wish they'd ditch the XUL crap and just use platform native look and feel libraries. XUL solves a problem that doesn't exist.
So basically, you'd rather Apple be able to lock your purchased AAC files to be only playable on iPods because they haven't engaged in overtly monopolistic behavior? What if you want to switch to another player? Or your iPod breaks? How fair is it that you have to buy another iPod?
It isn't.
Like I said, the only reason you people are not screaming for interoperability is because you're fans of them. Personally, I'll take open standards, heck, its not like any of us would be hurt if Apple had to open up their DRM.
Just because Apple is behind this proprietary DRM scheme doesn't in any way make it acceptable DRM. It is just DRM that sucks less. It still locks you in to a certain platform and forces you to perform contortions in order to unlock the file. If this article was about Microsoft, I'm quite certain everyone would be screaming their heads off about how this should have been done six months ago because anything they ever do is automatically evil. Napster isn't being altruistic by any means, they're just trying to loosen Apple's choke hold on online music. But I can't see how you'd oppose this, because it lets consumers shop around instead of being wedded to one service. Competition will become stiffer, and the online services will be able to compete on a level playing field.
I'm sure someone will tell me that the market should decide. Fair enough, but funny how that reasoning is contingent upon the company being discussed.
This is the collective realization that MMO developers are coming to - not every gamer enjoys the mindless, automated, watered down combat that is associated to these games. I despise it: it takes no skill whatsoever, with advancement being based solely on how much time you spend in the game. Concessions are ALWAYS made to players on laggy links, too; as a result you'll have people exploiting this to cheat death.
WoW's proponents argue for things like quests and instanced dungeons, but it strikes me as an MMO that isn't as annoying as other ones. That doesn't make it a GOOD game, it just makes it suck less than the alternatives.
Amusing that you argue the inherent superiority of low-level languages while ignoring the fact that many UNIX utilities that are written in C started when C was considered a high-level language.
It's all relative. Let people use what they want. I don't understand the pissing match people get into with languages. C isn't fun, its inexpressive. Sure, you can boil everything down to structs and function pointers, but that doesn't mean you should. I prefer a nicely decomposed system that uses several paradigms (including procedural, OOP and hints of functional) in a language like C++. I don't have to feel quite as hamstrung by the language, and can often achieve better performance than the equivalent C version through tricks like static polymorphism. Of course, anytime I mention a performance boost over C, everyone starts crying about how complicated it is.
Then again, this is Slashdot, and I've seen morons write web services in C and brag about it.
Replace "Java" with "ActiveX" in your post and you know the Slashbots would be in a uproar. We need to quit blurring the line between desktop and web applications, because its confusing the average user.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice slippery slope fear-mongering. Nothing in the article said anything about one BT packet being able to put you in jail. It is irrelevant to the issue.
The fact is you are *knowingly* abetting in illegal activities when you join a BitTorrent hosting copyrighted material. If part of the file is verifiably authentic, then it can be used to prove innocence or guilt. Are you actually trying to argue that a 'legitimate' BT packet (such as one belonging to a Linux ISO) might somehow also work in the context of an 'illegitimate' torrent? Even if there was the technical possibility (TCP connections pretty much rule out the possibility of rogue packets arriving, not to mention the BT protocol itself probably is sequenced), an investigation would show innocence - all further packets coming from that computer would *not* work in the torrent!
This isn't a question of semantics. Take responsibility for what you do. Do you really believe you can argue, "but your Honor, 0's and 1's aren't copyrighted! That is all I was handing out to other clients!" You'd get your ass laughed out of court. The only reason those arguments even show up around here is because they are what people want to hear.
Nice ad hominem attack. Attack the argument, not the person.
All I'm asking the parent for is proof of this. If they cannot produce proof, then they shouldn't have posted in the first place.
Specifically, what undisclosed features does MSVC leverage? I'd like to know.
If this were a Microsoft product, the consensus would not be nearly so optimistic. Between this and the 19 holes recently fixed, looks like Apple doesn't exactly have a sparkling record when it comes to security anymore. Much better than Windows, but then again pretty much everything is.
Exactly. You couldn't distinguish an app compiled with frame pointers disabled from one with frame pointers enabled. The reason I point this particular optimization out is that it makes life hell for developers if you end up sending a core dump file in. This is a net loss in my book, since open source software evolves rapidly and being able to assist in reporting bugs is vital.
How is pointing out that one optimization people crow about is largely ineffective being an asshole?
Yup, but not a ton. Where do I score on the survey?
The amusing thing is that people are actually annoyed when I point out that omitting the frame pointer is a micro-optimization that provides minimal gain.
All hail the placebo effect.
Probably because execution speed is objective and therefore suitable for chest-thumping. You do not see nearly as many people advertising the clarity of their code in the same way.
(Well, maybe the Java crowd at times, but they tend to confuse having only one way to do things with clarity.)
It is because it is easier to delve into needlessly technical aspects afforded by compiler settings and 'optimizations' than it is to admit that one's algorithm is not sound. Kids running Gentoo delude themselves into thinking that omitting the frame pointer on compiles is going to make a massive difference in terms of performance, and fail to remember it makes bug hunting far more difficult when applications crash. Additionally, the 5% gain mentioned can be a severe overstatement. I frequent a game programming board, and the widespread use of C++ has led to an abundance of nano-optimization threads, the most amusing of which was an attempt to optimize strlen().
Optimizing every single line of code is a complete waste of time, since the 80/20 rule generally applies. Use a profiler to determine where that 20% is.
Logic only decreases the effectiveness of the argument, you see. Better to just appeal to emotion, y'know?
Concur. For a site that is "news for nerds," it is amazing that so few of them lack the ability to create a logical argument. The only thing they have going for them is their spelling and grammar isn't as piss-poor as it is on the mainstream sites. It is at an eighth grade level instead of a fifth grade one. :)
Of course it can have all the keyboard shortcuts you want. The problem is, it doesn't completely conform to the platform it is running on -- it just tries to do a 'good enough' job. For example, focus behavior in a file selector dialog is mostly correct in Java 1.5 - but it isn't completely the same as the native Win32 dialog.
The problem is it inflicts the fact that it is its own 'platform' on us, the users. I want a program that behaves like all my other programs, not does its own thing because marketing idiots have an agenda to push. If I wanted cheap-feeling, half-assed GUIs I'd use KDE.
C++ takes quite a bit of flak on here, mostly because it doesn't try to be a 'pure' language. It is obvious that people don't understand it by the comments. (Then again, if people only talked about what they understood, the net would be a very quiet place.)
News flash: most software that I've seen and written benefits from multiple paradigms: procedural for basic algorithm implementation, OOP for the architecture, and generic programming as glue code (generic programming annihilates OOP in terms of code reuse, and you typically don't pay a performance penalty for it.) There are other paradigms, but I don't have enough experience to comment on the efficiency of them. C++ is one of the few languages that gives the aforementioned paradigms a presence and trusts the programmer to choose. You may think this is 'bloated,' but nothing is further from the truth: the overall mantra of C++ is, "you only pay for what you use."
You can bitch all you want about the importance of language purity and point to languages like Smalltalk or Java as an example of how software should be coded. I'll ask you to point me to popular desktop software that is written in these languages. C++ is the archetype of a hardcore language - a huge learning curve, but insanely powerful in the right hands. It is also really dangerous in the wrong hands.
Like operating systems, all programming languages suck in some way. Its up to you to choose the least sucky one for the problem at hand. I enjoy writing native, minimal dependency desktop applications in a language that has excellent tool support, can interface directly with OS APIs, and doesn't talk down to me. C++ fits the bill most closely, but I've been told I'd like O'Caml as well.
C++ isn't going anywhere. The fact that so many people don't understand it or the place that it occupies only strengthens my resume.
I concur, Java pretty much missed the boat for desktop apps. Not that I mind - I hate how they refuse to adopt native widgets, instead pushing their own cheap imitations that lack all the keyboard shortcuts, font anti-aliasing, and solid feel that native widgets have. Most stuff doesn't use SWT, either. Between the horrid UI and a language that loves to hamstring the programmer, I have to say good riddance.
This is just because IE uses windowless controls - each UI element on the page isn't backed up by an actual window handle (it would be trivial to exhaust GDI handles and launch a denial of service attack if it wasn't this way.)
UI code shouldn't be intermingled with the actual logic. This is basic software engineering. XUL could be nothing more an option; instead it is the only option, and it is clunky.
Even on Windows, Firefox's GUI doesn't feel completely 'right.' Really, I wish they'd ditch the XUL crap and just use platform native look and feel libraries. XUL solves a problem that doesn't exist.
Evidently it is when one's belief system centers around hatred of a corporate entity.
Move on with your lives people.
So basically, you'd rather Apple be able to lock your purchased AAC files to be only playable on iPods because they haven't engaged in overtly monopolistic behavior? What if you want to switch to another player? Or your iPod breaks? How fair is it that you have to buy another iPod?
It isn't.
Like I said, the only reason you people are not screaming for interoperability is because you're fans of them. Personally, I'll take open standards, heck, its not like any of us would be hurt if Apple had to open up their DRM.
Wow, talk about an about-face of thought.
Just because Apple is behind this proprietary DRM scheme doesn't in any way make it acceptable DRM. It is just DRM that sucks less. It still locks you in to a certain platform and forces you to perform contortions in order to unlock the file. If this article was about Microsoft, I'm quite certain everyone would be screaming their heads off about how this should have been done six months ago because anything they ever do is automatically evil. Napster isn't being altruistic by any means, they're just trying to loosen Apple's choke hold on online music. But I can't see how you'd oppose this, because it lets consumers shop around instead of being wedded to one service. Competition will become stiffer, and the online services will be able to compete on a level playing field.
I'm sure someone will tell me that the market should decide. Fair enough, but funny how that reasoning is contingent upon the company being discussed.
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that someone defends Java by saying Ruby On Rails is all hype and buzz?
Pot, meet the kettle.
This is the collective realization that MMO developers are coming to - not every gamer enjoys the mindless, automated, watered down combat that is associated to these games. I despise it: it takes no skill whatsoever, with advancement being based solely on how much time you spend in the game. Concessions are ALWAYS made to players on laggy links, too; as a result you'll have people exploiting this to cheat death.
WoW's proponents argue for things like quests and instanced dungeons, but it strikes me as an MMO that isn't as annoying as other ones. That doesn't make it a GOOD game, it just makes it suck less than the alternatives.
Amusing that you argue the inherent superiority of low-level languages while ignoring the fact that many UNIX utilities that are written in C started when C was considered a high-level language.
It's all relative. Let people use what they want. I don't understand the pissing match people get into with languages. C isn't fun, its inexpressive. Sure, you can boil everything down to structs and function pointers, but that doesn't mean you should. I prefer a nicely decomposed system that uses several paradigms (including procedural, OOP and hints of functional) in a language like C++. I don't have to feel quite as hamstrung by the language, and can often achieve better performance than the equivalent C version through tricks like static polymorphism. Of course, anytime I mention a performance boost over C, everyone starts crying about how complicated it is.
Then again, this is Slashdot, and I've seen morons write web services in C and brag about it.
Replace "Java" with "ActiveX" in your post and you know the Slashbots would be in a uproar. We need to quit blurring the line between desktop and web applications, because its confusing the average user.