Who is this "we"? Perhaps it won't have the slightest effect on 90% of us. Why does this post sound like a Microsoft marketing bulletin with a small addition to try and make it look less obvious?
The technology in C# 3.0 is innovative. It introduces powerful query capabilities into the language that allows you to generically query objects.
These concepts will be included in some way in future languages.
Isn't potentially saving the lives of thousands of people worth it? Or does your concept of economics require people to die so that people do not make too much money?
I predict this thing to become more censored that you can imagine after the first busy body mother finds her son looking at something offensive on the internet.
What happens when children are caught chatting with people innappropriately of the wrong age...
These municipal internet connections will be highly politicized as soon as they become popular and guess what... they may make it unprofitable for a company to provide the access.
So then you are left with government censored internet access with no commercial alternatives.
Please people... let's let private enterprise compete it out.
Ok... You did mention one case where a dumb patent was applied for.
The developer responsible for the application has actually expressed regret that he was involved in it. He mentions that patents like that are necessary to use to defend against patent suits from other parties. A sort of strategy of mutually assured destruction.
But... name one time that Microsoft has ever initiated a patent lawsuit against a competitor. I don't think they ever have.
So it seems to me that you can defend against other companies with a patent portfolio, which is what Microsoft tries to do with its silly patent applications. But to defend against a company that is nothing but a patent lawsuit factory (Eolas), you need actual patent reform.
Ok...
You did mention one case where a dumb patent was applied for. The developer responsible for the application has actually expressed regret that he was involved in it.
He mentions that patents like that are necessary to use to defend against patent suits from other parties. A sort of strategy of mutually assured destruction.
But... name one time that Microsoft has ever initiated a patent lawsuit against a competitor. I don't think they ever have.
So it seems to me that you can defend against other companies with a patent portfolio, which is what Microsoft tries to do with its silly patent applications. But to defend against a company that is nothing but a patent lawsuit factory (Eolas), you need actual patent reform.
It seems pretty consistent and non-evil to me.
"One could argue that an effective dictatorship could be built simply with money."
Go ahead and try. I would love to see what kind of mental acrobatics that would take. Of course... "one" could hypothetically argue anything unconvincingly.
That is very ominous sounding of you. A corporation is a collection of people. A corporation requires people to buy their products and services. A community requires people to volunteer and contribute. Everyone in the chain must produce value to continue.
If this is Microsoft's strategy against open source, then I would say that are going to lose this battle.
With this decision, Microsoft is making it clear that one of their main strategies against the onslaught of open source is to spread fear of lawsuits. They are setting themselves up to have the "better story" when it comes to the indemnification question.
This makes the arms-length support of SCO (by licensing its "IP") make more sense. The more Microsoft can do to fund linux related lawsuits, especially those against end-users, the more effectively it can use fear to sell software.
This may work for some time with very large accounts, but this strategy is a loser in the long run.
People will view this whole indemnification business with a cynicism that will only grow with Linux's market share.
Tampa bay has very high population density (Pinellas county being one of the most densly populated areas in the country). A small geographic rollout will be able to service a very large population of people.
I am sure that Tampa has lower regulatory overhead than other large population centers like New York, etc.
We were one of the first areas to get cable modems as well (Road runner) for this reason.
1. He meant multiple computer language support, not internationalization.
2. Structures are useful because they are value types, not references, which allows for some optimizations.
3. He mentioned that Generics exist in Java. He said they were a VM feature in the CLR which leads to very dramatic performance benefits (no casting behind the scenes).
Slashdot Mirror
The technology in C# 3.0 is innovative. It introduces powerful query capabilities into the language that allows you to generically query objects.
These concepts will be included in some way in future languages.
Therefore, it will change the way we work.
Drug companies could make billions.
Isn't potentially saving the lives of thousands of people worth it?
Or does your concept of economics require people to die so that people do not make too much money?
I predict this thing to become more censored that you can imagine after the first busy body mother finds her son looking at something offensive on the internet.
What happens when children are caught chatting with people innappropriately of the wrong age...
These municipal internet connections will be highly politicized as soon as they become popular and guess what... they may make it unprofitable for a company to provide the access.
So then you are left with government censored internet access with no commercial alternatives.
Please people... let's let private enterprise compete it out.
Ok... You did mention one case where a dumb patent was applied for.
The developer responsible for the application has actually expressed regret that he was involved in it. He mentions that patents like that are necessary to use to defend against patent suits from other parties. A sort of strategy of mutually assured destruction.
But... name one time that Microsoft has ever initiated a patent lawsuit against a competitor. I don't think they ever have.
So it seems to me that you can defend against other companies with a patent portfolio, which is what Microsoft tries to do with its silly patent applications. But to defend against a company that is nothing but a patent lawsuit factory (Eolas), you need actual patent reform.
It seems pretty consistent and non-evil to me.
Ok... You did mention one case where a dumb patent was applied for. The developer responsible for the application has actually expressed regret that he was involved in it. He mentions that patents like that are necessary to use to defend against patent suits from other parties. A sort of strategy of mutually assured destruction. But... name one time that Microsoft has ever initiated a patent lawsuit against a competitor. I don't think they ever have. So it seems to me that you can defend against other companies with a patent portfolio, which is what Microsoft tries to do with its silly patent applications. But to defend against a company that is nothing but a patent lawsuit factory (Eolas), you need actual patent reform. It seems pretty consistent and non-evil to me.
"One could argue that an effective dictatorship could be built simply with money." Go ahead and try. I would love to see what kind of mental acrobatics that would take. Of course... "one" could hypothetically argue anything unconvincingly.
"Dictatorial Corporations of the Past"
That is very ominous sounding of you. A corporation is a collection of people. A corporation requires people to buy their products and services. A community requires people to volunteer and contribute. Everyone in the chain must produce value to continue.
A dictatorship requires guns.
Do you see the difference?
Has the entire world gone mad?
If this is Microsoft's strategy against open source, then I would say that are going to lose this battle.
With this decision, Microsoft is making it clear that one of their main strategies against the onslaught of open source is to spread fear of lawsuits. They are setting themselves up to have the "better story" when it comes to the indemnification question.
This makes the arms-length support of SCO (by licensing its "IP") make more sense. The more Microsoft can do to fund linux related lawsuits, especially those against end-users, the more effectively it can use fear to sell software.
This may work for some time with very large accounts, but this strategy is a loser in the long run.
People will view this whole indemnification business with a cynicism that will only grow with Linux's market share.
This is really going to take the wind out of the sails of the people trying to come up with the first driving airplane.
Noplace?
Tampa bay has very high population density (Pinellas county being one of the most densly populated areas in the country). A small geographic rollout will be able to service a very large population of people.
I am sure that Tampa has lower regulatory overhead than other large population centers like New York, etc.
We were one of the first areas to get cable modems as well (Road runner) for this reason.
I've never seen someone so misunderstand a post.
1. He meant multiple computer language support, not internationalization.
2. Structures are useful because they are value types, not references, which allows for some optimizations.
3. He mentioned that Generics exist in Java. He said they were a VM feature in the CLR which leads to very dramatic performance benefits (no casting behind the scenes).
Try the honest approach first. If that doesn't work, throw down a smoke canister and make a hasty retreat.
Evil laugh during escape is optional.
GTK# is very nice. The Apache module is done (mod_mono) and ASP.Net is feature complete.