Instead of betting, why not look it up for yourself? BTW, I've written oop in straight c - it's not that hard. Anyone who thinks that c can't do oop should ask themselves why not - and give it a try.
Where is the difference between "I can just compile, if I missed something I'll get warnings" and running the script? Zero.
Really? So you'd rather wait until a user reports a weird bug that is oh-so-hard-to-duplicate because a type got changed on the fly? Not too smart.
If all you know is how to write scripts, you're not a real programmer. Tsk, tsk.
And if you use a compiled language for every single thing, you're incredibly leet, and totally not wasting time.
Your "rebuttal" is anything but - I never said that you have to use a compiled language for every single thing. Real programmers have options that script kiddies don't. Ever hear of "the right tool for the job?"
Actually, you're both wrong. Assembler was the first language you could implement object-oriented methodoligies in. Borland described it in their Turbo Assembler manuals, for example, and if yuo look around the net, you'll find plenty of ways to do it - same as you can do OOP in straight c - you just need tp pass an explicit pointer tho this as your first parameter.
It is trivially true that any program you can write in [language X] you can also write in assembler, and therefore C. If the entire field of programming languages could be summarized like this, why aren't we all using assembler?
We all are - just that in 99.999% of the cases, it's hidden away by the implementation, since your cpu won't run anything except binary opcodes anyway.
Throw in that 99.99% of "programmers" don't know assembler, and aren't even comfortable with anything except scripting languages, and now you see why most development sucks.
Scripting languages encourage sloppy programming - you can always just edit the script and run... and if it works, what the heck, right? After all, it's not like you have any strict type checking because it's just a stupid script. You don't need to declare your variables - it'll create them on the fly - and even change their type without warning you.
If all you know is how to write scripts, you're not a real programmer. Tsk, tsk.
No - that's what we have treaties for. If something is illegal in both countries, either country can take action on their own soil. The domain might be owned by a Canadian, but the registrar is in the US.
Same as if you registered a car in the US and drove it to Canada and let the plates expire. The Canuck cops will pull you off the road, even though it's not even registered in Canada.
Or if a.ca domain was being used for illegal stuff out of the US - Canada can simply get a court order demanding that CIRA pull the.ca registration. (Yes, in Kanuckistan, we still mostly respect the rule of law, despite the crap Harper's gang is pulling, so you'd actually have to get a court order).
It's kind of hard for me to be overpaid when i don't get paid anything. I used to have an overpaid job but unlike most people I tend to take action based on my beliefs and couldn't justify staying in such a job.
So, you've risen to your level of incompetence (Peter Principle) and are happy that you're now being paid exactly what you're worth. Nothing.
And when you get sick and die because after all, you can do it all yourself (you can just borrow the "Open Heart Surgery for Dummies" from the library), the problem will have solved itself.
I'll stick with such "luxuries" as modern medicine.
BTW - did you make your own cpu, your own ram, and your own hard disk? Thought not.
Why - anyone who's used any of them already knows how bad they are... unless that's the only experience they have. If all you've ever eaten is crap, you wouldn't know good food if you saw it.
Poor performance. No pre-processor. Inconsistent syntax. Lack of proper scoping. Auto-vivication of variables. Changing of a variable's type on the fly. Runtime-only error checking. Scripting languages suck, and they contaminate everything they touch. And you can throw perl in there as well. It really does look like line noise.
Got you beat by a mile - Seagate 320 gig - 11 out of 14 failed within 6 months. The first 4 (bought in 2 different cities) were DOA or died within minutes. The trend continued with the replacements.
Lower wages in one portion of a field tend to depress wages further up the line. In other words, if wages for entry-level jobs drop by 90%, then that puts pressure on the next tier in 4 ways:
1. Local talent no longer has access to those entry-level jobs, so no job path to the next level jobs
2. Local talent no longer has access to those entry-level jobs, so no experience - "to get a job you need experience, to get experience you need a job";
3. Jobs one or more levels higher now also experience downward wage pressures.
4. It makes it even easier to lay off someone as they age, since there's a larger pool of cheap talent globally.
So the natural tendency is for wage erosion to creep higher up as time goes by - to the point that we're now seeing employers trying to hire programmers in North America for $300 a week - and people desperate enough to apply for those jobs.
Before bringing on another worker, an employer must be convinced that the added productivity will exceed the added cost (this includes not just wages, but all payroll taxes and other benefits.) So if an unskilled worker is capable of delivering only $6 per hour of increased productivity, such an individual is legally unemployable with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
False premise. The employer also has the option of figuring out a way to increase that same job's productivity so that it now becomes profitable to hire someone at the higher wage.
For example, introducing air conditioning into assembly plants can increase productivity AND reduce defects, and save more than enough money to offset the cost of AC, leaving more money for wages.
Investing in more training and things like feedback circles can show similar increases.
Putting in a system so workers are rewarded for suggestions that are adopted will pay back more than the cost of the rewards paid out, while increasing the business' competitiveness, again allowing for higher wages and higher profits.
The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive there is to increase productivity rather than treat people as a source of cheap labour - in other words, the higher the minimum wage, the more productive a business is per worker.
No, I didn't skip your post, and I was quite able to understand it. I just disagree with it. Neither globalization nor political and social reforms will take into account the cost of externalities, which is why we need to re-instate trade and tariff barriers.
Companies that want to avoid the trade and tariff barriers would incur the same total costs - if they want to avoid the barriers, they can pay an equivalent wage (wages+benefits+other external costs) in the offshore country. THAT would do more to improve worker conditions in the rest of the world than any amount of hollowing out our own economies will do.
None of those barriers has done much except slow down the shift. Even language is no longer a barrier, now that computers can translate stuff so easily.
You missed the point - any job that can be outsourced somewhere cheaper will be. So instead of paying someone $10 an hour in a first world country, they go where they can pay 1/10 that.
Welcome to the face of globalization, where the rush to the bottom has given us jobs that pay only 1/10 of a McJob.
We've already seen this with programers. If it's in an O'Reilly book, it will be outsourced, crowd-sourced, off-shored, whatever it takes to drive the cost to as near to zero as possible.
Welcome to the future, brought to you by the internet and the law of unintended consequences.
Shutting down the site was legal - both according to Canadian law and to American law. Bodog was offering illegal gambling to both Canadians and Americans. Your argument would be akin to saying "well, we can't shut down a bar because it knowingly allows under-age drinking.
Re-implementing something doesn't necessarily mean a complete re-write. All they need to do is replace ONLY a portion of the code - just the sections that are themselves creative and not "scene a faire" material. This results in a new implementation that is binary-compatible with the original, so stop being a total freetard.
it's very easy to get around the restrictions of the GPL and take any gpl'd code and legally create a closed-source version
Your answer - rewrite it entirely - has nothing to do with your claim - that you can "take any" code.
Nowhere do I say that you have to do a complete rewrite - trying to "win" by putting words in my mouth won't work.
Can you give an example where a substantial portion of GPLv3 software package sufficient to be clearly subject to copyright has been taken and used as you describe.
Any gplv3 program - just because the package in its entirety is subject to copyright doesn't mean that individual portions of it are, same as a phone book or book of recipes can be, but the individual addresses and phone numbers, or recipes, may not be.
No, your weak claim that taking something without the owners' permission isn't stealing is the lie.
Example from the non-virtual world - you take someone's car without their permission and return it a few hours later. They still have their car, but you're still a thief.
Another example - you photograph the questions for an upcoming test so you can cheat. You use this to get ahead of someone who doesn't cheat, so you get a scholarship they would have won. Not only have you stolen the questions, you've also stolen the scholarship.
I dump a load of garbage in your parking space - you still have your parking space... but in real terms, I've stolen the use of your parking space from you. Now, you get fined by the city for having a bunch of garbage in your parking spot. You also have to pay to have it cleaned up. So, I've stolen money from you as well, and transferred it to me (I own the company that you pay to do the clean-up, and I'm also an elected official at CrookesVille). But - you still have your original parking spot, so I didn't "really" steal anything from you, right? And all those parking tickets you had to pay because your spot was full of garbage? They don't count either, right?
Reporter: "So you're saying that these are unreleased tracks that were made before Michael Jacksons' death?"
Sony: "No, no - these are tracks from the LATE Michael Jackson!"
Reporter: "You mean, this is stuff from AFTER he died?"
Sony: "Exactly! This is music he created after death."
Reporter: "That's didiculous! How can he write music if he's dead?"
Sony: "He's de-composing, duh!"
Sony: "It's all in the contract. When you sign with us, we really do own your soul!"
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of betting, why not look it up for yourself? BTW, I've written oop in straight c - it's not that hard. Anyone who thinks that c can't do oop should ask themselves why not - and give it a try.
Really? So you'd rather wait until a user reports a weird bug that is oh-so-hard-to-duplicate because a type got changed on the fly? Not too smart.
Your "rebuttal" is anything but - I never said that you have to use a compiled language for every single thing. Real programmers have options that script kiddies don't. Ever hear of "the right tool for the job?"
Actually, you're both wrong. Assembler was the first language you could implement object-oriented methodoligies in. Borland described it in their Turbo Assembler manuals, for example, and if yuo look around the net, you'll find plenty of ways to do it - same as you can do OOP in straight c - you just need tp pass an explicit pointer tho this as your first parameter.
We all are - just that in 99.999% of the cases, it's hidden away by the implementation, since your cpu won't run anything except binary opcodes anyway.
Throw in that 99.99% of "programmers" don't know assembler, and aren't even comfortable with anything except scripting languages, and now you see why most development sucks.
Scripting languages encourage sloppy programming - you can always just edit the script and run ... and if it works, what the heck, right? After all, it's not like you have any strict type checking because it's just a stupid script. You don't need to declare your variables - it'll create them on the fly - and even change their type without warning you.
If all you know is how to write scripts, you're not a real programmer. Tsk, tsk.
Same as if you registered a car in the US and drove it to Canada and let the plates expire. The Canuck cops will pull you off the road, even though it's not even registered in Canada.
Or if a .ca domain was being used for illegal stuff out of the US - Canada can simply get a court order demanding that CIRA pull the .ca registration. (Yes, in Kanuckistan, we still mostly respect the rule of law, despite the crap Harper's gang is pulling, so you'd actually have to get a court order).
So, you've risen to your level of incompetence (Peter Principle) and are happy that you're now being paid exactly what you're worth. Nothing.
And when you get sick and die because after all, you can do it all yourself (you can just borrow the "Open Heart Surgery for Dummies" from the library), the problem will have solved itself.
I'll stick with such "luxuries" as modern medicine.
BTW - did you make your own cpu, your own ram, and your own hard disk? Thought not.
Poor performance. No pre-processor. Inconsistent syntax. Lack of proper scoping. Auto-vivication of variables. Changing of a variable's type on the fly. Runtime-only error checking. Scripting languages suck, and they contaminate everything they touch. And you can throw perl in there as well. It really does look like line noise.
Decreasing the total amount of $$$ that the population takes home is a lose-lose game.
How do you justify you getting even the minimum wage? Or (to quote Isaac Asimov), "How do you justify your existence?"
It's not the companies that paid for the infrastructure and schooling, so your point is ... pointless?
India had schools long before the Internet enabled companies to offshore so much more stuff.
Got you beat by a mile - Seagate 320 gig - 11 out of 14 failed within 6 months. The first 4 (bought in 2 different cities) were DOA or died within minutes. The trend continued with the replacements.
1. Local talent no longer has access to those entry-level jobs, so no job path to the next level jobs
2. Local talent no longer has access to those entry-level jobs, so no experience - "to get a job you need experience, to get experience you need a job";
3. Jobs one or more levels higher now also experience downward wage pressures.
4. It makes it even easier to lay off someone as they age, since there's a larger pool of cheap talent globally.
So the natural tendency is for wage erosion to creep higher up as time goes by - to the point that we're now seeing employers trying to hire programmers in North America for $300 a week - and people desperate enough to apply for those jobs.
They would offshore for the same reason given for H1-B visas - no local talent available.
False premise. The employer also has the option of figuring out a way to increase that same job's productivity so that it now becomes profitable to hire someone at the higher wage.
For example, introducing air conditioning into assembly plants can increase productivity AND reduce defects, and save more than enough money to offset the cost of AC, leaving more money for wages.
Investing in more training and things like feedback circles can show similar increases.
Putting in a system so workers are rewarded for suggestions that are adopted will pay back more than the cost of the rewards paid out, while increasing the business' competitiveness, again allowing for higher wages and higher profits.
The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive there is to increase productivity rather than treat people as a source of cheap labour - in other words, the higher the minimum wage, the more productive a business is per worker.
No, I didn't skip your post, and I was quite able to understand it. I just disagree with it. Neither globalization nor political and social reforms will take into account the cost of externalities, which is why we need to re-instate trade and tariff barriers.
Companies that want to avoid the trade and tariff barriers would incur the same total costs - if they want to avoid the barriers, they can pay an equivalent wage (wages+benefits+other external costs) in the offshore country. THAT would do more to improve worker conditions in the rest of the world than any amount of hollowing out our own economies will do.
None of those barriers has done much except slow down the shift. Even language is no longer a barrier, now that computers can translate stuff so easily.
We have anti-dumping laws for a reason. The same laws should be extended to off-shoring.
You missed the point - any job that can be outsourced somewhere cheaper will be. So instead of paying someone $10 an hour in a first world country, they go where they can pay 1/10 that.
Welcome to the face of globalization, where the rush to the bottom has given us jobs that pay only 1/10 of a McJob.
We've already seen this with programers. If it's in an O'Reilly book, it will be outsourced, crowd-sourced, off-shored, whatever it takes to drive the cost to as near to zero as possible.
Welcome to the future, brought to you by the internet and the law of unintended consequences.
Shutting down the site was legal - both according to Canadian law and to American law. Bodog was offering illegal gambling to both Canadians and Americans. Your argument would be akin to saying "well, we can't shut down a bar because it knowingly allows under-age drinking.
An example where someone got substantial benefits? Android.
Re-implementing something doesn't necessarily mean a complete re-write. All they need to do is replace ONLY a portion of the code - just the sections that are themselves creative and not "scene a faire" material. This results in a new implementation that is binary-compatible with the original, so stop being a total freetard.
Nowhere do I say that you have to do a complete rewrite - trying to "win" by putting words in my mouth won't work.
Any gplv3 program - just because the package in its entirety is subject to copyright doesn't mean that individual portions of it are, same as a phone book or book of recipes can be, but the individual addresses and phone numbers, or recipes, may not be.
No, your weak claim that taking something without the owners' permission isn't stealing is the lie.
Example from the non-virtual world - you take someone's car without their permission and return it a few hours later. They still have their car, but you're still a thief.
Another example - you photograph the questions for an upcoming test so you can cheat. You use this to get ahead of someone who doesn't cheat, so you get a scholarship they would have won. Not only have you stolen the questions, you've also stolen the scholarship.
I dump a load of garbage in your parking space - you still have your parking space ... but in real terms, I've stolen the use of your parking space from you. Now, you get fined by the city for having a bunch of garbage in your parking spot. You also have to pay to have it cleaned up. So, I've stolen money from you as well, and transferred it to me (I own the company that you pay to do the clean-up, and I'm also an elected official at CrookesVille). But - you still have your original parking spot, so I didn't "really" steal anything from you, right? And all those parking tickets you had to pay because your spot was full of garbage? They don't count either, right?
Reporter: "So you're saying that these are unreleased tracks that were made before Michael Jacksons' death?"
Sony: "No, no - these are tracks from the LATE Michael Jackson!"
Reporter: "You mean, this is stuff from AFTER he died?"
Sony: "Exactly! This is music he created after death."
Reporter: "That's didiculous! How can he write music if he's dead?"
Sony: "He's de-composing, duh!"
Sony: "It's all in the contract. When you sign with us, we really do own your soul!"
And nothing of value was lost ...