I was at a university that teaches Haskell as the first language. Why? Because someone who has never programmed before doesn't know concepts like variables as they are used in imperative languages but they sure as hell have seen them the way they are used in math. We've used Haskell to learn the basics like recursion, data structures, verification, etc. Only after that did Java get introduced.
IMO C (and C++) was not designed to be nice in any formal way, to be easy to learn or read, to avoid errors or to be educational. C was made to get shit done.
The safety padding on many other languages can get in the way when you're dealing with limited systems that can't run a VM, a garbage collector and what have you. That's not to say more padded languages don't have their place, many common PC applications can afford a higher level of code abstraction, especially if the code gets large as humans will always make errors and some languages handle errors better than others.
"Almost" because this is Slashdot and pretty much everyone here has 1-2 working but ancient computers that would have no chance of ever running Starcraft, like my little 386 laptop "skullcracker"...
Depends on how it's done. They could make an engine that runs Starcraft-like games and can read Starcraft data files and they would be clean since the user would have to supply his own data files (like SCUMMVM). If they include any part of Starcraft with their engine they get sued.
Well, the PS3 is getting beaten by its competitors, the PS2 at least has a gigantic userbase. If they killed the PS2 those PS2 games would just end up going to the Wii or the 360, not the PS3.
You mean "if there is no evidence there's no reason to assume it exists". That's not the same, science does NOT claim to deliver absolute truths, it only claims to give us tools to manipulate the world around us.
That would be true for a regular good but the Wii is a platform for software, that software only comes if the platform is sold enough and that software is what will have to sell the thing after the release hype dies down and people start buying for actual software instead of potential. If you sell slower at first you don't get as much software as quickly and thus sales lower as demand decreases.
The misdemeanor thing was about being found on a P2P network sharing copyrighted works, that should neither be legalized nor punished as much as it is now. Of course just using P2P would not be illegal, only running copyrighted content through it without the proper permissions.
If someone places a copyright work on their server for distribution, have they done anything wrong? They have participated in a distribution medium, as a library would, for example, but they have made no copies themselves.
I'd say that's a technicality that should be accounted for: Whether they made the copies or not they had an active and willful part in the creation of additional copies and if that's a regular file server those copies will probably number in the hundreds or thousands. Do you really think it's wise to legalize 0 day warez? Also last I checked broadcast is covered by copyright too and this is definitely the internet equivalent of a public broadcast. Broadcast is covered of course so a huge TV station can't just buy a DVD and broadcast the content on it.
People who already have a hardcopy of an object have (or should have) a fair use right to an electronic copy, and obtaining it by download rather than by ripping/scanning just makes technological sense.
I'd say it's their job to make their copy or provide proof of ownership to the source they acquire the copy from. There's no reason to completely neuter copyright for commercial purposes just to provide backups for people too lazy to make their own.
I seriously believe that in order to preserve and advance our culture, everything possible should be online in non-DRMed form. Authors and artists, both individual and corporate, still deserve our respect and support, but why cripple the Internet to accomplish this, when there are perfectly good laws already in place from many years ago?
Er, those "perfectly good laws" are what's crippling the internet? Uploading has always been in violation of copyright, only downloading was added to the list later.
You're talking about personal copies, copyright really isn't designed to handle things like P2P where everyone's responsible for maybe 2-3 copies, it's meant to shut down large scale operations and of course unauthorized derivative works (e.g. someone else writing a "Harry Potter" book or maybe just fan fiction the author finds insulting). This is mostly where another person does things the author would usually do, often with the intention to profit (produce works based on previous works, make loads of copies to sell, perform publicly, etc). Making a corporation that took your book, rebranded it and sold it pay you five bucks would be pretty damn ineffective.
I'd support the introduction of a misdemeanor level copyright infringement that's worth maybe 2-4 times the retail value of the copied work for making a personal copy and giving it to a small number of friends. P2P would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, the average user would fall into misdemeanor level but someone who's seeding dozens or hundreds of copies (i.e. share ratio 10 or higher, modify value as appropriate, allow for assumptions based on bandwidth and time spent connected while sharing that file instead of 100% accurate tracking) would get the full infringement punishment.
I don't think Mickey Mouse would be protected just because a work containing him is protected. Since the earlier works are public domain anyone could take that cartoon's Mickey Mouse and use it, only if any changes happened to the character in protected cartoons those changes cannot be used by others. E.g. if an expired work tells the story of a hero until his 18th birthday and a newer work tells the story from then on anyone could write a book using that hero with his past up to his 18th birthday based on the expired work but for anything after that they'd have to invent their own story.
If protecting longer standing characters by releasing new works was possible I might agree with the 14 year thing but as is any character would have to undergo massive transformations over those 14 years so noone could use a recent version of the character in a derivative work and characters like Mickey Mouse don't change much over time.
But does the copyright duration actually begin with the release or does it start with the first script being written? Five years is so short that some things (Duke Nukem Forever?) can have parts leaving copyright before the whole thing is done.
Why? That new version will only work with new files (and probably not on a PC that still uses a 10 year old version...), the old version will keep working as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so if no license has existed. Of course after a license has been in place the rules probably change.
Yeah and those phones fequently take a second to react to user input. You can't afford that for an electronic brake or something.
I was at a university that teaches Haskell as the first language. Why? Because someone who has never programmed before doesn't know concepts like variables as they are used in imperative languages but they sure as hell have seen them the way they are used in math. We've used Haskell to learn the basics like recursion, data structures, verification, etc. Only after that did Java get introduced.
IMO C (and C++) was not designed to be nice in any formal way, to be easy to learn or read, to avoid errors or to be educational. C was made to get shit done.
The safety padding on many other languages can get in the way when you're dealing with limited systems that can't run a VM, a garbage collector and what have you. That's not to say more padded languages don't have their place, many common PC applications can afford a higher level of code abstraction, especially if the code gets large as humans will always make errors and some languages handle errors better than others.
Even moreso if the difference is large enough to elect someone else. The number of votes hasn't changed between the counts, why should the result?
For a geek girl you'd have a silicon wafer, not a gemstone.
Really? I read an archive of the first few years somewhere, had exactly one laugh.
"Almost" because this is Slashdot and pretty much everyone here has 1-2 working but ancient computers that would have no chance of ever running Starcraft, like my little 386 laptop "skullcracker"...
Depends on how it's done. They could make an engine that runs Starcraft-like games and can read Starcraft data files and they would be clean since the user would have to supply his own data files (like SCUMMVM). If they include any part of Starcraft with their engine they get sued.
Well, the PS3 is getting beaten by its competitors, the PS2 at least has a gigantic userbase. If they killed the PS2 those PS2 games would just end up going to the Wii or the 360, not the PS3.
Yeah and if those constants where different, the universe would be completely different and we probably wouldn't be there to describe it as a miracle
Or we would be around and wondering why the universe is just that other way.
You mean "if there is no evidence there's no reason to assume it exists". That's not the same, science does NOT claim to deliver absolute truths, it only claims to give us tools to manipulate the world around us.
So, why did he? Boredom?
That would be true for a regular good but the Wii is a platform for software, that software only comes if the platform is sold enough and that software is what will have to sell the thing after the release hype dies down and people start buying for actual software instead of potential. If you sell slower at first you don't get as much software as quickly and thus sales lower as demand decreases.
An iPod clone, the Medion Jukebox, was built using the exact same chip and stuff and indeed it did play WMA.
Add enough power and use it to cut random people's fingers off!
The misdemeanor thing was about being found on a P2P network sharing copyrighted works, that should neither be legalized nor punished as much as it is now. Of course just using P2P would not be illegal, only running copyrighted content through it without the proper permissions.
If someone places a copyright work on their server for distribution, have they done anything wrong? They have participated in a distribution medium, as a library would, for example, but they have made no copies themselves.
I'd say that's a technicality that should be accounted for: Whether they made the copies or not they had an active and willful part in the creation of additional copies and if that's a regular file server those copies will probably number in the hundreds or thousands. Do you really think it's wise to legalize 0 day warez? Also last I checked broadcast is covered by copyright too and this is definitely the internet equivalent of a public broadcast. Broadcast is covered of course so a huge TV station can't just buy a DVD and broadcast the content on it.
People who already have a hardcopy of an object have (or should have) a fair use right to an electronic copy, and obtaining it by download rather than by ripping/scanning just makes technological sense.
I'd say it's their job to make their copy or provide proof of ownership to the source they acquire the copy from. There's no reason to completely neuter copyright for commercial purposes just to provide backups for people too lazy to make their own.
I seriously believe that in order to preserve and advance our culture, everything possible should be online in non-DRMed form. Authors and artists, both individual and corporate, still deserve our respect and support, but why cripple the Internet to accomplish this, when there are perfectly good laws already in place from many years ago?
Er, those "perfectly good laws" are what's crippling the internet? Uploading has always been in violation of copyright, only downloading was added to the list later.
You're talking about personal copies, copyright really isn't designed to handle things like P2P where everyone's responsible for maybe 2-3 copies, it's meant to shut down large scale operations and of course unauthorized derivative works (e.g. someone else writing a "Harry Potter" book or maybe just fan fiction the author finds insulting). This is mostly where another person does things the author would usually do, often with the intention to profit (produce works based on previous works, make loads of copies to sell, perform publicly, etc). Making a corporation that took your book, rebranded it and sold it pay you five bucks would be pretty damn ineffective.
I'd support the introduction of a misdemeanor level copyright infringement that's worth maybe 2-4 times the retail value of the copied work for making a personal copy and giving it to a small number of friends. P2P would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, the average user would fall into misdemeanor level but someone who's seeding dozens or hundreds of copies (i.e. share ratio 10 or higher, modify value as appropriate, allow for assumptions based on bandwidth and time spent connected while sharing that file instead of 100% accurate tracking) would get the full infringement punishment.
I don't think Mickey Mouse would be protected just because a work containing him is protected. Since the earlier works are public domain anyone could take that cartoon's Mickey Mouse and use it, only if any changes happened to the character in protected cartoons those changes cannot be used by others. E.g. if an expired work tells the story of a hero until his 18th birthday and a newer work tells the story from then on anyone could write a book using that hero with his past up to his 18th birthday based on the expired work but for anything after that they'd have to invent their own story.
If protecting longer standing characters by releasing new works was possible I might agree with the 14 year thing but as is any character would have to undergo massive transformations over those 14 years so noone could use a recent version of the character in a derivative work and characters like Mickey Mouse don't change much over time.
But does the copyright duration actually begin with the release or does it start with the first script being written? Five years is so short that some things (Duke Nukem Forever?) can have parts leaving copyright before the whole thing is done.
Eh, we can always throw a clicheed story about a robot wanting to become human or a human falling in love with a robot in there.
Well it's not legal to go out and kill people either, real world laws don't always apply to games.
Let people lose if they play badly or win if they're smart. I mean, this ISN'T gambling or maybe a tax scam, right? Right?
Well, it's a word processor. You can still print the texts or convert to formats like RTF.
Why? That new version will only work with new files (and probably not on a PC that still uses a 10 year old version...), the old version will keep working as it is.