Agreed. More of the endless flood of trollish, completely dishonest reporting which is constantly being pushed on/. these days.
Google is pushing for an ever more open Android. They are, of course, balanced by carriers who want a more closed ecosystem - the status quo.
Bluntly, HTC's desire for openness is only SURPASSED by Google's.
This perhaps hint at an article for hire by Microsoft or Apple - both of whom have been caught doing this type of unethical FUDing before. Both Microsoft and Apple have a strong desire to unseat Android, seemingly no matter how low they need to go.
Perhaps the courts and patent battles are not going nearly as well as Microsoft and Apple had originally hoped?
If you watch the version with the voiceover you have only yourself to blame. It sucks on purpose, Ford did not want them to use it.
No - I have only Ford to blame because he purposely shit on it.
With your logic, you have only yourself to blame if I take a shit on your front door and you step in it. That's your argument and in this case you'd also be wrong. It would in fact, be entirely my fault for shitting on your door.
Perhaps you should learn about programming in C++ and then you'll have what is an extremely obvious answer. The fact you have to ask and worst, wrote such a long post to what is obvious, says a lot.
Holy shit you're stupid. No joke. Pull your head from your ass and take a look around you. JAVA itself is NOT fucking written in Java. Ponder that for a second while you're pulling your head from your ass.
Pull your head out of your ass - I stated at least one of those studies was covered here. So clearly you're too stupid to understand annecdote is not data and too stupid to be bothered to search/. - exactly as I would be required to do. And since I'm not stupid, I don't have a need to do your research to validate what was previously reported. Holy shit people are stupid.
Finally someone with intelligence. Economic theory (so far as what 99% of the world is taught in school) is designed to explain how markets generally work. They are not designed to be simulations of markets.Hell, unless you have a phd in economics, you don't know enough to begin to simulate the complexities of markets; and even still, its largely somewhat of an art.
I can't tell you how may times I've debated economics, as it applies to the real world, with really intelligent people, who completely demonstrate epic failure of comprehension when it comes to economics because they can't grasp the world doesn't actually work like economics 101.
$28M then is basically $65M today. I believe his point remains valid.
Its worth pointing out the film barely broken even because it was widely considered a box office failure because it was a shitty movie. It didn't do well. Critics typically tore the movie apart, especially for its very slow (painfully, actually) pacing. Someone clearly lost sight of the fact they were making a movie and not a book.
The first time I was able to watch that movie I was a teenager. I feel asleep. I've tried to watch the movie maybe another four of five times, and each time I've fallen asleep or changed the channel.
Recently the movie came on TV. For the first time in my life the movie could hold me interest - and even still, its pacing is painful, painful, painful. The voice over is annoying as hell. Not because its a voice over, but because Harrison is both an idiot and went out of his way to be a douche bag failure (literal truth).
Bluntly, while Blade Runner has achieved a clear cult status and it has some awesome cinematography, the movie really isn't that good. The acting is really good. Harrison Ford's voice over sucks ass and he deserves a kick in the ass from everyone who has ever had to hear it.
Beyond that, $65M in today's movie budgets would force a good story rather than over dependance on special effects - as actually happened in the original movie. Then, just as today, they clearly expected the special effects and cinematography to carry the movie's weak, slow paced story.
Honestly, just about any strong actor could replace Harrison Ford. I can't imagine who you would replace Rutger Hauer with for a modern day equivalent.
We are in wars with people that classically never give up, a literal quagmire like we got into in the Viet Nam era.
No we're not. You should better understand the players before you comment. The FACT of the matter is, most the players which caused us to enter the region are dead.
Terrorism is the perfect boogieman, you can scare the people with it into giving up anything, and you never have a "foe" that you defeat and end your precious war.
Its the same as the war on drugs - which everyone always seems to forget. The war on drugs literally, directly creates and empowers slavery, sex trade, murder, destruction, and massive levels of illegal drugs.
Don't think so? We have thug cops feeling up children and grandmothers for weapons in our Airports.
Don't forget thug cops and federal troops literally entering old lady's homes and stealing their property; including firearms. Though thankfully, that hasn't happened since the last large scale natural disaster here in the US.
The algorithm is known to be secure. Even with this compromise, according to several crypto guys I've read responses from, even by today's standard AES is very much secure. They did saw if you apply the current computing trends, likely it won't be, on the upper end, in another decade or two.
So even with this weakness, assuming the NSA has vastly more massive computing power available than anyone things, it would require ALL of their computing power for a considerable duration. So pragmatically, this has zero implications the NSA today.
There are endless C/C++ libraries designed with portability in mind. These days, creating portable C++ code is as easily as Java. And where its not, they both suffer from the same types of developer stupidity and short sightedness.
What planet are your from? You mean those non-standard libraries which are almost always written in C/C++/Fortran, all of which can be directly used from C/C++. And perhaps you have no clue what you're talking about or being extremely sarcastic, but interfacing to the real world is almost always error prone, slow, difficult to debug, and a major, major pain in the ass. This reason alone is one of the reasons why so many prefer Python+C/C++/libs rather than Java.
I just had a falling out with another developer because he told me I was doing things dumbly because it didn't comply with Google's coding guidelines or Linus' irrational hatred of C++; amongst many other insanely stupid and completely irrational justifications. Of course, the falling out was caused by me politely explaining to him that coding standards have significantly progressed in the last several decades, followed by inviting him to join me. in at least this decade, accompanied with references to modern methodologies and development guidelines. He thought very poorly of me and the corrections. This isn't an exaguration.
Any time I find a developer who wants to blindly adopt Google's coding guidelines, very rarely have I not found a poor developer.
Just because it makes sense for GM to have an assembly line of robots doesn't mean it means sense for your grandmother to make her up upside down pineapple cake using the same equipment. And yet, that's exactly what these programmers are recommending. They never seem to be bothered to think WHY Google might have those restrictions and/or guidelines.
Which entirely validates my point. And "always" is not true. The simple fact is, if you design and code with portability in mind, its just as easy to do so with C/C++ as it is with Java. And if you fail to do so, its the same like-minded changes required in either case.
Your contradicting several studies on the subject. I trust the studies. In your case, the studies clearly showed what you're depicting (at least at that time), is a by far a minority.
This may come as a shock to you, but believe it or not, there are large deployments of Windows servers with developers developing on Windows. Shocking - I know.
Yes, and then forget all about OOP, and learn Java.
You're both right.
I tried to teach Java to my son. It quickly got stuck because of OO concepts. We went to Python. Life was good. And as you rightly point out, the OO taught by Java is crappy at best. If you really want OOP, Java isn't a good choice for that either.
You should look at the coding guidelines Google uses for C++. They only use a subset of C++. For them a of their guidelines make sense where they don't for 99% of the programming world. There is literally only a handful of companies which have the issues of scale Google must contend. As such, Google is rarely a good example to look at anything for general purpose computing.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you don't know what the words, "locked down" and/or "open" mean in this context.
Agreed. More of the endless flood of trollish, completely dishonest reporting which is constantly being pushed on /. these days.
Google is pushing for an ever more open Android. They are, of course, balanced by carriers who want a more closed ecosystem - the status quo.
Bluntly, HTC's desire for openness is only SURPASSED by Google's.
This perhaps hint at an article for hire by Microsoft or Apple - both of whom have been caught doing this type of unethical FUDing before. Both Microsoft and Apple have a strong desire to unseat Android, seemingly no matter how low they need to go.
Perhaps the courts and patent battles are not going nearly as well as Microsoft and Apple had originally hoped?
If you watch the version with the voiceover you have only yourself to blame. It sucks on purpose, Ford did not want them to use it.
No - I have only Ford to blame because he purposely shit on it.
With your logic, you have only yourself to blame if I take a shit on your front door and you step in it. That's your argument and in this case you'd also be wrong. It would in fact, be entirely my fault for shitting on your door.
Perhaps you should learn about programming in C++ and then you'll have what is an extremely obvious answer. The fact you have to ask and worst, wrote such a long post to what is obvious, says a lot.
Holy shit you're stupid. No joke. Pull your head from your ass and take a look around you. JAVA itself is NOT fucking written in Java. Ponder that for a second while you're pulling your head from your ass.
Holy shit people on /. are stupid.
Did you know time moves linearly forward? Obviously not since you posted.
You rant is illogical and seemingly uninformed. You do realize you can combine languages and get the best of both worlds?
And your last statement pretty much says it all - you're either ignorant/dumb or purposely trolling.
Citations for the studies please.
Pull your head out of your ass - I stated at least one of those studies was covered here. So clearly you're too stupid to understand annecdote is not data and too stupid to be bothered to search /. - exactly as I would be required to do. And since I'm not stupid, I don't have a need to do your research to validate what was previously reported. Holy shit people are stupid.
Seriously?
Finally someone with intelligence. Economic theory (so far as what 99% of the world is taught in school) is designed to explain how markets generally work. They are not designed to be simulations of markets.Hell, unless you have a phd in economics, you don't know enough to begin to simulate the complexities of markets; and even still, its largely somewhat of an art.
I can't tell you how may times I've debated economics, as it applies to the real world, with really intelligent people, who completely demonstrate epic failure of comprehension when it comes to economics because they can't grasp the world doesn't actually work like economics 101.
$28M then is basically $65M today. I believe his point remains valid.
Its worth pointing out the film barely broken even because it was widely considered a box office failure because it was a shitty movie. It didn't do well. Critics typically tore the movie apart, especially for its very slow (painfully, actually) pacing. Someone clearly lost sight of the fact they were making a movie and not a book.
The first time I was able to watch that movie I was a teenager. I feel asleep. I've tried to watch the movie maybe another four of five times, and each time I've fallen asleep or changed the channel.
Recently the movie came on TV. For the first time in my life the movie could hold me interest - and even still, its pacing is painful, painful, painful. The voice over is annoying as hell. Not because its a voice over, but because Harrison is both an idiot and went out of his way to be a douche bag failure (literal truth).
Bluntly, while Blade Runner has achieved a clear cult status and it has some awesome cinematography, the movie really isn't that good. The acting is really good. Harrison Ford's voice over sucks ass and he deserves a kick in the ass from everyone who has ever had to hear it.
Beyond that, $65M in today's movie budgets would force a good story rather than over dependance on special effects - as actually happened in the original movie. Then, just as today, they clearly expected the special effects and cinematography to carry the movie's weak, slow paced story.
Honestly, just about any strong actor could replace Harrison Ford. I can't imagine who you would replace Rutger Hauer with for a modern day equivalent.
We are in wars with people that classically never give up, a literal quagmire like we got into in the Viet Nam era.
No we're not. You should better understand the players before you comment. The FACT of the matter is, most the players which caused us to enter the region are dead.
Terrorism is the perfect boogieman, you can scare the people with it into giving up anything, and you never have a "foe" that you defeat and end your precious war.
Its the same as the war on drugs - which everyone always seems to forget. The war on drugs literally, directly creates and empowers slavery, sex trade, murder, destruction, and massive levels of illegal drugs.
Don't think so? We have thug cops feeling up children and grandmothers for weapons in our Airports.
Don't forget thug cops and federal troops literally entering old lady's homes and stealing their property; including firearms. Though thankfully, that hasn't happened since the last large scale natural disaster here in the US.
The algorithm is known to be secure. Even with this compromise, according to several crypto guys I've read responses from, even by today's standard AES is very much secure. They did saw if you apply the current computing trends, likely it won't be, on the upper end, in another decade or two.
So even with this weakness, assuming the NSA has vastly more massive computing power available than anyone things, it would require ALL of their computing power for a considerable duration. So pragmatically, this has zero implications the NSA today.
There are endless C/C++ libraries designed with portability in mind. These days, creating portable C++ code is as easily as Java. And where its not, they both suffer from the same types of developer stupidity and short sightedness.
What planet are your from? You mean those non-standard libraries which are almost always written in C/C++/Fortran, all of which can be directly used from C/C++. And perhaps you have no clue what you're talking about or being extremely sarcastic, but interfacing to the real world is almost always error prone, slow, difficult to debug, and a major, major pain in the ass. This reason alone is one of the reasons why so many prefer Python+C/C++/libs rather than Java.
I don't recommend that.
That was my point. I completely agree with you.
I just had a falling out with another developer because he told me I was doing things dumbly because it didn't comply with Google's coding guidelines or Linus' irrational hatred of C++; amongst many other insanely stupid and completely irrational justifications. Of course, the falling out was caused by me politely explaining to him that coding standards have significantly progressed in the last several decades, followed by inviting him to join me. in at least this decade, accompanied with references to modern methodologies and development guidelines. He thought very poorly of me and the corrections. This isn't an exaguration.
Not surprisingly you posted anonymously.
The fact I have to point out the plural of anecdote is not data. You then compound your stupidity with a completely unrelated, red herring troll.
For most projects, the risk is related to the number of containers, not the number of resources.
Memory management in C++ is a myth perpetuated by C hackers who can't be bothered to educate themselves.
And Java developers who want baseless stones to throw. Or Java developers who are too lazy to learn what is both a more powerful and complex language.
I'm not simplifying anything. You're simply not doing an apples to apples comparison. In an apples to apples comparison, I'm spot on.
The simple fact of the matter is, writing portable application code in C++ is no harder than is doing the same in Java.
Not far from the truth.
Any time I find a developer who wants to blindly adopt Google's coding guidelines, very rarely have I not found a poor developer.
Just because it makes sense for GM to have an assembly line of robots doesn't mean it means sense for your grandmother to make her up upside down pineapple cake using the same equipment. And yet, that's exactly what these programmers are recommending. They never seem to be bothered to think WHY Google might have those restrictions and/or guidelines.
Which entirely validates my point. And "always" is not true. The simple fact is, if you design and code with portability in mind, its just as easy to do so with C/C++ as it is with Java. And if you fail to do so, its the same like-minded changes required in either case.
Your contradicting several studies on the subject. I trust the studies. In your case, the studies clearly showed what you're depicting (at least at that time), is a by far a minority.
This may come as a shock to you, but believe it or not, there are large deployments of Windows servers with developers developing on Windows. Shocking - I know.
Yes, and then forget all about OOP, and learn Java.
You're both right.
I tried to teach Java to my son. It quickly got stuck because of OO concepts. We went to Python. Life was good. And as you rightly point out, the OO taught by Java is crappy at best. If you really want OOP, Java isn't a good choice for that either.
You should look at the coding guidelines Google uses for C++. They only use a subset of C++. For them a of their guidelines make sense where they don't for 99% of the programming world. There is literally only a handful of companies which have the issues of scale Google must contend. As such, Google is rarely a good example to look at anything for general purpose computing.