Firstly, they're typeically at the start and end, so the show runs continuously in the middle. The only exceptions I can think of are some of the comedies and variety shows. Listen to some of the Sherlock Holmes episodes. Dr. Watson converses with the Petri Wine spokesman at the beginning and end, and sometimes to move the plot along. But it never disrupts the drama with blatant advertising.
Secondly, since the actors in the shows were often quite talented, having them spend a thirty seconds about the sponsor is not annoying and sometimes genuinely entertaining. I'd much rather listen to Groucho Marx sing the Plymouth Desotto song than any of the modern radio or tv advertising.
Thirdly, the ads from then actually presented the product and its merits. Nothing was "extreme" or "edgy". They were simple, informative and to the point. It's far easier to digest an advertisement that's not annoying.
Actually, there is no lock-out either. Employees are only being barred from working by the union, while the union refuses to actually call a strike. (I do know a few people that crossing the lines and working)
Ads in webpages are easy enough to deal with (Moz in my case, not Firefox), but in general... well, Adblock doesn't do a lot to block out ads everywhere else, especially in meat-space. (hey, does anyone use that expression anymore? Oh, rambling now, back to work.)
Whenever I see another suggestion for a new place to shove in ads, I cringe. Ads have become one of the top reasons for me to stop using, ignore or actively disparage products. I even stopped reading the article half-way through because of the disgusting amount of bright, flashy ads in the margins.
It seems to me that Google is right, if want to keep a happy customer, stop advertising at every possibility!
But, given that the only concern mentioned is patents (not copyright, not QA, not security or anything else, be it FUD or legitimate concern), I thought maybe that there was something in particular that may be worth knowing about.
Actually, I think Metropolis is essentially Toronto, properly Americanised for American readers. If it wasn't obvious to you, take the effort to find out which country the creators of Superman are from.
As for Gotham, I think it was Denis O'Neil (long-time editor of Batman titles) wrote that Gotham was always intended to be the worst part of Manhattan in the middle of a November night.
Oh come now, you can write a much better flame than that. It's like you're not even trying. No wonder Americans are losing jobs, you're just not willing to do the work.
Actually, I quite disagree. Free trade and captitalism may cause jobs to move around but the overall economic effects tend to be overall beneficial. But more importantly, isolationist economics are usually disasters (think of any communist country for extreme examples)
Since the effects of moving programming jobs out of the US is yet to be seen (though since many of the jobs are already outside the US, I doubt the effect will be significant), I'll point out two cases in other industries:
1 - Softwood. The US softwood industry wasn't competitive with Canada because of inflated property values of wooded areas and an ageing processing infrastructure that American companies refused to replace. The solution? It should have been a shake out and rejuvination of the softwood industries, instead the US goverment placed a 37% tariff on Canadian softwood (which the WTO declared illegal). The immediate result is that the average price of a new American home went up by 10-15% and no noticeable effect improvement for American softwood companies.
2 - Sugar. Sugar imported to the US has massive tariffs, about 300%. The result is that a few American producers saved jobs, but a larger number of sugar consuming companies are leaving. You've heard of that Life Savers? A truly iconic candy of America, except now they're made in Ontario at one third the cost..
If you think America benefits from closing its economic borders, you really need to re-examine the evidence. I fail to see why teh tech industry will do any different from the other industries of the world.
It seems to me that when the music and film industries complain about prirating, we often cry out that they are just refusing to deal with changing technology. They ought to adapt. If they can't adapt, they ought to go out of buisiness.
Funny that when the topic is the American industry and not technology, everyone refuses to adapt. Well, surprise! The economy and the industries of the world change, but Americans refuse to adapt. Instead, we'll see more anti-trade and anti-captitalist legislation such as tariffs or requirements for employing Americans citizens only. Not too different from anti-piracy legislation. What hipocracy!
OK, enough ranting from a non-American point of view. Have a nice day.
I think you've missed the point here. It's not about counting lines of code or how many files are needed; it's about using the most appropriate representation without extra overhead. The point is that Java forces OO where it's not always needed.
First, the better bit of C++ code to compare against is:
struct X {int a, b;} z; z.a = 1; z.b = 2;
Note that this does not require a class, dynamic allocation, nor the horrible style of C-syntax that you chose. But really that is all beside the point.
I'll repeat, the point is that java forces you into OO when it's not always needed.
I'm not sure how all universities are, but I think some are starting to take games and other media seriously.
The University of Calgary, where I am, has a concentration for games in the BSc comp-sci program. Probably the first university to do so, but it is refelcetive of a changing attitude in universities I think.
First, I think this does qualify as a splat technique. Splatting is really just about using a single type of easily rendered object to visualise the model.
Second, I don't think this is a volume rendering application so much as a rapid surface visualisation. As the data for medical imaging is often points from some sort of scan to start, being able to stay within the point framework can conceptually reduce the vertex decimation complexity. However, this is difficult to see how this applies here as the no reference to the work is directly provided in the article.
Third, the "new" part about this is that they've successfully applied the concept to both NPR and imaging to produce really good medical images. The "novel" part is that medical imaging is always good for the "oooohs and aaahs"; almost makes me want to change my area of research:)
Re:problems with GCC3.2 though
on
LFS 4.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I wonder if the problems are really gcc3.2 and not the source code. I've just spent the last week trying to compile a suite of programs with 3.2 just to discover that none of it compiles. However, each problem was actually due to use of non-standard C++ code. The issue is that old versions of gcc let a lot of non-standard code compile, but the newest version is much more strict. I would hope that the solution is to fix the code and not make the compiler do silly things to remain backwards compatible.
I suspect that there is a large amount of code out there that has the same problem. Probably this includes the packages you couldn't compile.
PBS, digital movie channels, HBO, etc... We pay a premium for these already because they braodcast with few or no channels. This is a non-issue sort of question because the niche for non-commercial TV is already filled and doing fine.
Actually, for hire type work isn't so bad an idea. There's no reason a contract has to be some byzantine legal trap that takes all the fun out of off-hours programming. Somthing as simple as "I'll pay $1000 when its done" can work. I've done a few of these myself, it's actually a common practice in our research group to hire students this way. Contracts do not need to be horrible binding things, they can still be simple.
Another sort of contract that can work is Mandrake's new model. If you buy a membership they take your feed-back into consideration. I think that this is not to be confused with a charity donation.
Cantrary to what you say, this is exactly spending money on Linux apps. Even though, it's not buying a boxed version, it is a fair way to pay for the software.
And no, it is not at all like the Loki fiasco. Mandrake is being open and addressing a cash crunch, not hiding it until it can't be solved.
As I understand, the owner of a work can change the copyright/liscencing however he pleases. FreeDB can use all of its orginal code as long as the authors consent.
This is why the FSF encourages people hand over ownership of programs to them. We can (hopefully) trust them not to do stupid things like change liscences or throw patents in user's faces.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually prefer those old ads by quite a bit.
Firstly, they're typeically at the start and end, so the show runs continuously in the middle. The only exceptions I can think of are some of the comedies and variety shows. Listen to some of the Sherlock Holmes episodes. Dr. Watson converses with the Petri Wine spokesman at the beginning and end, and sometimes to move the plot along. But it never disrupts the drama with blatant advertising.
Secondly, since the actors in the shows were often quite talented, having them spend a thirty seconds about the sponsor is not annoying and sometimes genuinely entertaining. I'd much rather listen to Groucho Marx sing the Plymouth Desotto song than any of the modern radio or tv advertising.
Thirdly, the ads from then actually presented the product and its merits. Nothing was "extreme" or "edgy". They were simple, informative and to the point. It's far easier to digest an advertisement that's not annoying.
I have to second this opinions. I couldn't find any sort of reference or acknowledgement to previous work on the subject.
Of course, I have a slight bias on the topic as my supervisor did something similar back in 1986.
(P. Prusinkiewicz, Score Generation with L-Systems, International Computer
Music Conference 86 Proceedings, 1986, pp. 455-457.)
Actually, there is no lock-out either. Employees are only being barred from working by the union, while the union refuses to actually call a strike.
(I do know a few people that crossing the lines and working)
It maight be good for the American audience here to know that the gag order applies to testimony at an inquiry, not to a trial.
The gag order, in this case, is to prevent any bias at the trial stage.
Ads in webpages are easy enough to deal with (Moz in my case, not Firefox), but in general ... well, Adblock doesn't do a lot to block out ads everywhere else, especially in meat-space. (hey, does anyone use that expression anymore? Oh, rambling now, back to work.)
Whenever I see another suggestion for a new place to shove in ads, I cringe. Ads have become one of the top reasons for me to stop using, ignore or actively disparage products. I even stopped reading the article half-way through because of the disgusting amount of bright, flashy ads in the margins.
It seems to me that Google is right, if want to keep a happy customer, stop advertising at every possibility!
Ok, that's enough ranting now.
It's like a Godzilla movie. Neither monster is the good guy (OK, Godzilla vs. Mothra aside), you just hope not to get trampled under foot.
Should have noticed the department line.
...
But, given that the only concern mentioned is patents (not copyright, not QA, not security or anything else, be it FUD or legitimate concern), I thought maybe that there was something in particular that may be worth knowing about.
Of course politics being politics
The article was a little short. Anyone know if there's a particular patent that's causing the problems?
Actually, I think Metropolis is essentially Toronto, properly Americanised for American readers. If it wasn't obvious to you, take the effort to find out which country the creators of Superman are from.
As for Gotham, I think it was Denis O'Neil (long-time editor of Batman titles) wrote that Gotham was always intended to be the worst part of Manhattan in the middle of a November night.
Perhaps you've read today's Penny Arcade?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3
Oh come now, you can write a much better flame than that. It's like you're not even trying. No wonder Americans are losing jobs, you're just not willing to do the work.
Actually, I quite disagree. Free trade and captitalism may cause jobs to move around but the overall economic effects tend to be overall beneficial. But more importantly, isolationist economics are usually disasters (think of any communist country for extreme examples)
Since the effects of moving programming jobs out of the US is yet to be seen (though since many of the jobs are already outside the US, I doubt the effect will be significant), I'll point out two cases in other industries:
1 - Softwood. The US softwood industry wasn't competitive with Canada because of inflated property values of wooded areas and an ageing processing infrastructure that American companies refused to replace. The solution? It should have been a shake out and rejuvination of the softwood industries, instead the US goverment placed a 37% tariff on Canadian softwood (which the WTO declared illegal). The immediate result is that the average price of a new American home went up by 10-15% and no noticeable effect improvement for American softwood companies.
2 - Sugar. Sugar imported to the US has massive tariffs, about 300%. The result is that a few American producers saved jobs, but a larger number of sugar consuming companies are leaving. You've heard of that Life Savers? A truly iconic candy of America, except now they're made in Ontario at one third the cost..
If you think America benefits from closing its economic borders, you really need to re-examine the evidence. I fail to see why teh tech industry will do any different from the other industries of the world.
It seems to me that when the music and film industries complain about prirating, we often cry out that they are just refusing to deal with changing technology. They ought to adapt. If they can't adapt, they ought to go out of buisiness.
Funny that when the topic is the American industry and not technology, everyone refuses to adapt. Well, surprise! The economy and the industries of the world change, but Americans refuse to adapt. Instead, we'll see more anti-trade and anti-captitalist legislation such as tariffs or requirements for employing Americans citizens only. Not too different from anti-piracy legislation. What hipocracy!
OK, enough ranting from a non-American point of view. Have a nice day.
I think you've missed the point here. It's not about counting lines of code or how many files are needed; it's about using the most appropriate representation without extra overhead. The point is that Java forces OO where it's not always needed.
First, the better bit of C++ code to compare against is:
struct X {int a, b;} z;
z.a = 1;
z.b = 2;
Note that this does not require a class, dynamic allocation, nor the horrible style of C-syntax that you chose. But really that is all beside the point.
I'll repeat, the point is that java forces you into OO when it's not always needed.
I'm not sure how all universities are, but I think some are starting to take games and other media seriously.
The University of Calgary, where I am, has a concentration for games in the BSc comp-sci program. Probably the first university to do so, but it is refelcetive of a changing attitude in universities I think.
First, I think this does qualify as a splat technique. Splatting is really just about using a single type of easily rendered object to visualise the model.
:)
Second, I don't think this is a volume rendering application so much as a rapid surface visualisation. As the data for medical imaging is often points from some sort of scan to start, being able to stay within the point framework can conceptually reduce the vertex decimation complexity. However, this is difficult to see how this applies here as the no reference to the work is directly provided in the article.
Third, the "new" part about this is that they've successfully applied the concept to both NPR and imaging to produce really good medical images. The "novel" part is that medical imaging is always good for the "oooohs and aaahs"; almost makes me want to change my area of research
I wonder if the problems are really gcc3.2 and not the source code. I've just spent the last week trying to compile a suite of programs with 3.2 just to discover that none of it compiles. However, each problem was actually due to use of non-standard C++ code. The issue is that old versions of gcc let a lot of non-standard code compile, but the newest version is much more strict. I would hope that the solution is to fix the code and not make the compiler do silly things to remain backwards compatible.
I suspect that there is a large amount of code out there that has the same problem. Probably this includes the packages you couldn't compile.
Err, bad mistake. I will now write 100 times: :)
'Preview before submit.'
PBS, digital movie channels, HBO, etc...
We pay a premium for these already because they braodcast with few or no channels. This is a non-issue sort of question because the niche for non-commercial TV is already filled and doing fine.
Actually, for hire type work isn't so bad an idea. There's no reason a contract has to be some byzantine legal trap that takes all the fun out of off-hours programming. Somthing as simple as "I'll pay $1000 when its done" can work. I've done a few of these myself, it's actually a common practice in our research group to hire students this way. Contracts do not need to be horrible binding things, they can still be simple.
Another sort of contract that can work is Mandrake's new model. If you buy a membership they take your feed-back into consideration. I think that this is not to be confused with a charity donation.
Cantrary to what you say, this is exactly spending money on Linux apps. Even though, it's not buying a boxed version, it is a fair way to pay for the software.
And no, it is not at all like the Loki fiasco. Mandrake is being open and addressing a cash crunch, not hiding it until it can't be solved.
8. SGI did this first.
As I understand, the owner of a work can change the copyright/liscencing however he pleases. FreeDB can use all of its orginal code as long as the authors consent.
This is why the FSF encourages people hand over ownership of programs to them. We can (hopefully) trust them not to do stupid things like change liscences or throw patents in user's faces.
Your link is messed, it should be http://www.geocities.com/villageid1ot/