It's possible that you have completely redeemed Java in all its glory in that paragraph, yet your delivery was abrasive and started with name calling - destroying any benefit your efforts might have had. It's counter productive.
The sarcasm in your initial comment was equally as abrasive, which, I think, led to the abrasiveness of the reply.
That said, like every argument ever about what languages are good, it really just comes to what you finally said, basically that Java is a damn fine language for implementing certain applications, and though it can be used in other contexts, there are sometimes better alternatives.
I do, however, believe that Microsoft should have the freedom to take the code for Firefox, slap an IE logo on it, and call it the next version of Internet Explorer as long as they told the truth: that the code was written by the Firefox team, not Microsoft.
No. Creating content is a service, and they can get paid the same way as anyone else who performs a service: by charging for the work they do.
I am getting very confused trying to reconcile these two quotes. So the Firefox team creates some content - who do they charge for the work they did? Their users, hypothetically. And then the MS team says, look, here's a product made by the FF team, buy it from us. The only way this works for FF is if people value buying the original work. And if MS can market it better, what can FF do? Isn't this exactly why copyright exists? So people can actually charge for the work they do, and other people can't charge for the work someone else did?
Could you provide a different example, or better explain why the above is a good situation?
This distributed work *is* being done so computers can apply your dog tags automatically to other images of dogs. This is just a 'fun' way of getting the massive amount of data needed to do things like that. I'll be impressed when computers are able to tag images without using anything learned from correctly tagged data to do so.
It's not the author's fault when he or she makes an error that neither the computer nor the publisher catch? Might as well say that there's no need for an author to have any command of spelling or grammar whatsoever because someone else will check it for them.
I tend to consider the diction an integral part of the message, myself;
What bothers me more than bad spelling and grammar are the people who complain about other people's errors and then go about making errors of their own. I don't want to pick on the poster because he doesn't seem as arrogant as many grammar nazis, but in the above sentence the word myself is redundant. It serves no purpose there, and it reduces the clarity of the sentence.
The problem with grammar is that it really is subjective. You can't please everyone, because there really is no absolutelu correct of way of writing. We all have our pet peeves, and if we would all just stop whining about them things might be better.
Actually, the people do still have a power. Here's a hypothetical situation: Say a politician has 50 potential voters, and one of those voters donates a few thousand dollars to encourage him to vote a certain way on an issue. Upon hearing this, 40 of the voters write a letter saying that they will not vote for him in the next election if he sides with the one wealthy voter. Which way do you think the politician will go? A politician's elected office is more important than the money he receives, because it is the office that allows him to get this money.
Politicians can get away with what the people allow them to get away with, and no more. To often, people fail to realize this and resort to the old diatribe of "There's nothing I can do."
People need to realize that the current administration is in power because yes, the majority of the country voted that way. That means at least half of the country thinks its views are being represented. Change will only come when they realize that's not the case.
A while ago, there was a Slashdot post about the game RoboCode. It allows people to program tanks in Java and then battle them against others' creations. Being a high school student myself, I can vouch for the interest and amusement of this game. Much of what I know of programming concepts comes from playing it. Best of all, it's very easy to set up and create a simple "bot." A lot of people have been suggesting a robotics competition - RoboCode is probably a more effective and definitely easier way to go. (Yes, there are also fiery explosions. But no boobs.)
See robowiki.net for more information.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible that you have completely redeemed Java in all its glory in that paragraph, yet your delivery was abrasive and started with name calling - destroying any benefit your efforts might have had. It's counter productive.
The sarcasm in your initial comment was equally as abrasive, which, I think, led to the abrasiveness of the reply. That said, like every argument ever about what languages are good, it really just comes to what you finally said, basically that Java is a damn fine language for implementing certain applications, and though it can be used in other contexts, there are sometimes better alternatives.
No, of course not. That would be fraud.
I do, however, believe that Microsoft should have the freedom to take the code for Firefox, slap an IE logo on it, and call it the next version of Internet Explorer as long as they told the truth: that the code was written by the Firefox team, not Microsoft.
No. Creating content is a service, and they can get paid the same way as anyone else who performs a service: by charging for the work they do.
I am getting very confused trying to reconcile these two quotes. So the Firefox team creates some content - who do they charge for the work they did? Their users, hypothetically. And then the MS team says, look, here's a product made by the FF team, buy it from us. The only way this works for FF is if people value buying the original work. And if MS can market it better, what can FF do? Isn't this exactly why copyright exists? So people can actually charge for the work they do, and other people can't charge for the work someone else did? Could you provide a different example, or better explain why the above is a good situation?
Why is it insightful to stereotype Mac users (or even specifically the fanboys) as whiny, shallow, pseudo-intellectual, metrosexual, idiotic, and gay?
This distributed work *is* being done so computers can apply your dog tags automatically to other images of dogs. This is just a 'fun' way of getting the massive amount of data needed to do things like that. I'll be impressed when computers are able to tag images without using anything learned from correctly tagged data to do so.
It's not the author's fault when he or she makes an error that neither the computer nor the publisher catch? Might as well say that there's no need for an author to have any command of spelling or grammar whatsoever because someone else will check it for them.
What bothers me more than bad spelling and grammar are the people who complain about other people's errors and then go about making errors of their own. I don't want to pick on the poster because he doesn't seem as arrogant as many grammar nazis, but in the above sentence the word myself is redundant. It serves no purpose there, and it reduces the clarity of the sentence.
The problem with grammar is that it really is subjective. You can't please everyone, because there really is no absolutelu correct of way of writing. We all have our pet peeves, and if we would all just stop whining about them things might be better.
Actually, the people do still have a power. Here's a hypothetical situation: Say a politician has 50 potential voters, and one of those voters donates a few thousand dollars to encourage him to vote a certain way on an issue. Upon hearing this, 40 of the voters write a letter saying that they will not vote for him in the next election if he sides with the one wealthy voter. Which way do you think the politician will go? A politician's elected office is more important than the money he receives, because it is the office that allows him to get this money. Politicians can get away with what the people allow them to get away with, and no more. To often, people fail to realize this and resort to the old diatribe of "There's nothing I can do." People need to realize that the current administration is in power because yes, the majority of the country voted that way. That means at least half of the country thinks its views are being represented. Change will only come when they realize that's not the case.
A while ago, there was a Slashdot post about the game RoboCode. It allows people to program tanks in Java and then battle them against others' creations. Being a high school student myself, I can vouch for the interest and amusement of this game. Much of what I know of programming concepts comes from playing it. Best of all, it's very easy to set up and create a simple "bot." A lot of people have been suggesting a robotics competition - RoboCode is probably a more effective and definitely easier way to go. (Yes, there are also fiery explosions. But no boobs.) See robowiki.net for more information.