I would say with a 50% larger population compared to the US the market for products that are needed by almost every office worker should be a lot larger than the one in the US even if the companies employing these workers might not generate the same profit as the US.
Nobody forced them to produce the movie that way. You know, a while ago there were these directors that knew how to avoid an expensive special effect in a way so the viewer doesn't even notice. They (and not only the directors) knew how to entertain the people without throwing vast amounts of money at the problem. And if you need a special effect it doesn't have to be ultra-realistic to be convincing. Most classics in movie history don't entertain the viewers with special effects (or top-class 20 million/movie actors for that matter), they do it with an actual interesting and/or funny story.
I had to study to become a programmer. I have to keep studying to stay current as a programmer so that I have marketable skills. What would be my motivation to put in that work if I were only paid the same as the guy who picks up my trash cans? For me, there would be none.
Actually in a communist society people like you without any motivation to work other than money would be the ones to pick up the trash cans of those that do their work and learn how to do it better because they are interested in that field. The only problem was/is that we need (and needed when communism was first tested) much more dull jobs than interesting jobs but the more automated our low-qualification jobs get the higher the percentage of interesting jobs.
Simple, nobody produces no-support, no-next-versions-necessary software because they want to have something to sell you tomorrow too.
Another example: In the last years almost nobody produces something that lasts much longer than their stated warranty because they want to sell you the next one ASAP.
Why should they tell the management their ideas for improved efficiency? In our current society this is usually paid back in layoffs (which either affect the person with the improvement idea directly or through social pressure from their peers)
Then I think you'll see a whole lot more Java apps.
Hopefully, then we will see something portable (so don't say.NET now) built with the experience from Java and other cross-platform toolkits to suit the needs of end users and programmers better than Java does.
Because you don't trust the manufacturer regarding features of their product. Not with software, not with hardware, not with cars, appliances,...
Theses people want to sell it to you, they will tell you anything if they think it helps in convincing you to buy their product, especially with software, where the EULA basically states: "If it does not do anything, it is not our fault..."
Bad idea. That way you lose all the solutions for problems that bothered you for hours but seem obvious once you get away from the code for a few minutes.
Everything you can do in those languages i can do in perl, with style...
Yeah, you can do it, but can you recognize everything when you see it as other people's perl code (say, a library you want to use, without documentation)?
Building something that is called FS (filesystem) but actually works on top of the real (in-kernel)filesystem and runs in userspace doesn't count as microkernel architecture.
Inflated for propaganda reasons is probably closer to the truth. This is almost always the case when statistics are flawed in the direction convenient for the one publishing them.
I believe he also tried to say: Remove code that does more bad than good. Good examples are the Office macros or hidden file extensions or even clickable (executable) attachments, not to mention auto-executing code in emails.
The problem with statically typed languages is usually that they don't encourage (understatement) refactoring when it would be necessary due to initial design errors. The advantages of static typing are few compared to typechecks when appropriate in dynamically typed languages (close to the code that actually uses the value, not everywhere where it is just passed on). Of course you might be talking about weakly vs. strongly typed languages. Here I agree that the latter are much better for large projects.
Then it fails, the admin checks wether it needs additional rights and what rights and adds those right (and only those rights). Still much better security than "default permit all" or "click here to allow program x to do y"
We shouldn't forget that Windows probably has thousands of undiscovered privilege escalation flaws because everyone runs as Admin anyway and nobody (or a relatively small number of people) looks for those because of that.
I don't know about American Universities but here in Germany the theoretical courses are the only ones that have long-time-useful information. The practical courses focus mostly on technologies that will be outdated when I leave college. They also usually focus on details that won't stick in my head after the test because they are easily re-discoverable via Google. The theoretical courses are the ones that enable me to read about new stuff and actually understanding what it does as they are the timeless background for all of CS.
Actually I would prefer laws written in a formal language that leaves absolutely no interpretations. That formal language could then be taught to every child in school (it should be simple enough for that).
the English army was fully-equipped, trained, and organised. then a 'bunch' of civilian fought against it after a tea party in Boston...
Yeah, I remember them shooting down the A-bombs with their guns, that must have been quite a firework...
the French Armée Royale was very powerful. then a bunch of guys fought against it after a visit of the Bastille jail...
All those french Jets and Bombers defending the bastille bunker a quarter of a mile underground were no match for those semi-automatic private guns either I guess...too bad we don't know the details because it was too long ago...
Slashdot Mirror
It works if your marketing department is big enough (see Java).
I would say with a 50% larger population compared to the US the market for products that are needed by almost every office worker should be a lot larger than the one in the US even if the companies employing these workers might not generate the same profit as the US.
And how do they know how many bits are ones and how many are zeroes? I don't think the numbers are exactly equal at any given time.
Nobody forced them to produce the movie that way. You know, a while ago there were these directors that knew how to avoid an expensive special effect in a way so the viewer doesn't even notice. They (and not only the directors) knew how to entertain the people without throwing vast amounts of money at the problem. And if you need a special effect it doesn't have to be ultra-realistic to be convincing. Most classics in movie history don't entertain the viewers with special effects (or top-class 20 million/movie actors for that matter), they do it with an actual interesting and/or funny story.
Simple, nobody produces no-support, no-next-versions-necessary software because they want to have something to sell you tomorrow too.
Another example: In the last years almost nobody produces something that lasts much longer than their stated warranty because they want to sell you the next one ASAP.
Why should they tell the management their ideas for improved efficiency? In our current society this is usually paid back in layoffs (which either affect the person with the improvement idea directly or through social pressure from their peers)
I think it would be nice to have for materials in 3D modeling, not just the color but reflection, transparency and texture could be captured too.
Because you don't trust the manufacturer regarding features of their product. Not with software, not with hardware, not with cars, appliances,...
Theses people want to sell it to you, they will tell you anything if they think it helps in convincing you to buy their product, especially with software, where the EULA basically states: "If it does not do anything, it is not our fault..."
Bad idea. That way you lose all the solutions for problems that bothered you for hours but seem obvious once you get away from the code for a few minutes.
Building something that is called FS (filesystem) but actually works on top of the real (in-kernel)filesystem and runs in userspace doesn't count as microkernel architecture.
Inflated for propaganda reasons is probably closer to the truth. This is almost always the case when statistics are flawed in the direction convenient for the one publishing them.
I believe he also tried to say: Remove code that does more bad than good. Good examples are the Office macros or hidden file extensions or even clickable (executable) attachments, not to mention auto-executing code in emails.
The problem with statically typed languages is usually that they don't encourage (understatement) refactoring when it would be necessary due to initial design errors. The advantages of static typing are few compared to typechecks when appropriate in dynamically typed languages (close to the code that actually uses the value, not everywhere where it is just passed on). Of course you might be talking about weakly vs. strongly typed languages. Here I agree that the latter are much better for large projects.
Then it fails, the admin checks wether it needs additional rights and what rights and adds those right (and only those rights). Still much better security than "default permit all" or "click here to allow program x to do y"
I believe it is easier to abandon Windows than it is to transform all idiots into knowledgeable, conservative, pragmatic persons...
We shouldn't forget that Windows probably has thousands of undiscovered privilege escalation flaws because everyone runs as Admin anyway and nobody (or a relatively small number of people) looks for those because of that.
I don't know about American Universities but here in Germany the theoretical courses are the only ones that have long-time-useful information. The practical courses focus mostly on technologies that will be outdated when I leave college. They also usually focus on details that won't stick in my head after the test because they are easily re-discoverable via Google. The theoretical courses are the ones that enable me to read about new stuff and actually understanding what it does as they are the timeless background for all of CS.
Someone should invent something other than WORM paper media before you do that.
Actually I would prefer laws written in a formal language that leaves absolutely no interpretations. That formal language could then be taught to every child in school (it should be simple enough for that).