A device masquerading as another device by using the same USB manufacturer/device ID is not the way to build interoperability. It's just inviting all sorts of unintended consequences and bugs. How did this ever pass muster at Palm?
Then what's the problem? If the private sector can do it better, cheaper, and faster, why would they be worried about a little competition? Surely the market will sort it all out, right?
Capitalism needs regulation to exist. It's inherently unstable and in the absence of regulation would collapse into oligarchy/monopoly. The current problem is that the citizens aren't providing oversight of the government.
The citizens aren't providing oversight because they're largely un/misinformed by the media. The media mis/disinforms the public because the media has been taken over/consolidated by corporations due to the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine and other media regulation during the Reagan era.
They are not all the same. Recent history shows that. For all their faults the Democrats at least *try* to govern well. The Republicans are enthralled by an ideology that all government is inherently bad, so they govern poorly, thus fulfilling their own prophecy.
You can't disregard software licenses on the one hand and expect the GPL to be upheld on the other. If what you're saying is true then I can simply redistribute my own modified version of Linux without providing source.
Or if you insist that a license that applies to programmers is somehow different than a license that applies to end users (which I think is illogical in the extreme), you still have a problem because I can distribute closed source kernel modules and tell you that you can't put restrictions on the end user's use of my product.
When telegraph and telephone companies first started stringing the nation in the 1800s, they did not do it because the government told them to. They did it for profit. They did it because the free market rewards initiative.
No, they wouldn't have. Not without Universal Access regulation. Without it, the majority of the US would not have been wired with telephone service.
AOCE: circa 1993 Apple was pushing this heavily. Mailboxes and business cards were desktop objects. Double clicking an icon in a mailbox brought up the message viewer. I don't remember if there was a tree view.
Until the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they were common carriers. But the telecom industry bought themselves a loophole by getting an exclusion for 'information services'.
The ones that voted for the telecom immunity bill don't care about individual contributions, they get all the filthy lucre that they need from corporate patrons.
"The Civil war was started over state's rights, not slavery (not directly at least, slavery was the key part of the state's rights issue)."
Don't play semantic games. Slavery was the issue and "states rights" was the legalistic rationale.
And if you think it wasn't about slavery for the North you haven't read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln was a well known abolitionist (as were most Republicans at the time), which Douglas used to his advantage during the debates. Lincoln tried to (in modern terms) triangulate his position. Few in the slave states believed him when he said he only wanted to forbid new pro-slavery states from joining the union. Remember that civil war had been narrowly averted a few years earlier with the Missouri Compromise.
Apple is a systems company. It's the whole package, which includes the hardware and software, that Apple sells. When Apple got into this business that was the norm. You got your OS and most of your applications from the same vendor that sold you the hardware. And they were all designed to work together.
It wasn't until Compaq reverse engineered IBM's BIOS and Microsoft started selling DOS to the cloners that changed all that.
I just want to follow through on jgalun's (correct, in my view) analysis. Al Qaeda are not intentionally attacking our civil liberties. But our government *is* using Al Qeada & the war on terrorism as an excuse to abrogate our civil liberties.
It was your suggestion that we follow the post-secondary model for primary and secondary education. To do that we would have to accept both higher costs per pupil and a 45% failure rate.
Barely more than half of college enrollees finish a bachelor's degree after 6 years.* You're just proving my point about cherry picking. And talk about throwing money at the problem, it costs over $17k in tuition per student per year for a 4-year public university.**
Do you know how poorly teachers are paid? I do, I'm married to one. They make peanuts compared to what they could make in virtually any other field with the same level of education. So when the NEA talks about a funding problem, they're talking about teacher compensation. How can you attract the best talent when you don't pay competitive salaries?
The only structural problem with schools are the bloated administrations (which are not unionized.) But that doesn't even begin to explain why the schools are failing. The real problem is our culture. Parents treat the schools as (at best) a baby-sitting service. Too many of them simply don't care how well their children do academically. Failure and success begins with the parents.
Private schools generally pay their teachers *less*, so the teachers in them are no more talented. To the extent that private schools do better, it's because they cherry-pick the best students. You will fail if you simply try to privatize the schools on a large scale. That would just be shifting all the current problems into the private sector where it will be compounded by profit motives and shady accounting (seen the prison system lately?)
I get so sick of hearing that libertarian BS from people that don't even know the first thing about the real problem.
Exactly. As we all know, it is not one's deeds, or even one's words, that define one's patriotism. It is how that person chooses to dresses and styles his hair that defines that person's patriotism. After all a politician could literally wipe his ass with a copy of the Constitution but as long as he's wearing a flag pin it would be OK. I think that this may have actually occurred a few times over the past 8 years and we're still doing fine, right?
That's why I propose that the Democrats start wearing Uncle Sam outfits. How could the Republicans continue to accuse them of being traitors if they're completely clothed in the flag? Then the Democrats could enact whatever legislation that they like, expand the powers of the police state to new and untold heights, and what can anyone do about it without looking like america hating faggots.
Cocoa Java was dropped because it was slow and buggy like you said, and additionally, it wasn't being used and it probably wasn't a good idea to start with (Java is for cross-platform). In other words, not worth diverting limited resources to.
I'm not really sure what you mean by 'dropping C/C+' APIs. I think what you might be referring to (since you mention Adobe) is that Carbon will not be transitioned to 64-bit. That's not really the same thing as dropping it at all.
The POSIX APIs are 64-bit. CoreFoundation, Launch Services, and many, many other C APIs are 64-bit. But if you want to write GUI code in 64-bit, you have to use Cocoa. Again, it's a resource thing, Apple is not a huge company with unlimited resources to devote to overlapping functionality.
And by the way, did you personally invent or discover everything that you teach? If not, then how can you lay claim to ownership of the intellectual property? Maybe you have some license payments headed your way...
Slashdot Mirror
A device masquerading as another device by using the same USB manufacturer/device ID is not the way to build interoperability. It's just inviting all sorts of unintended consequences and bugs. How did this ever pass muster at Palm?
Then what's the problem? If the private sector can do it better, cheaper, and faster, why would they be worried about a little competition? Surely the market will sort it all out, right?
Capitalism needs regulation to exist. It's inherently unstable and in the absence of regulation would collapse into oligarchy/monopoly. The current problem is that the citizens aren't providing oversight of the government.
The citizens aren't providing oversight because they're largely un/misinformed by the media. The media mis/disinforms the public because the media has been taken over/consolidated by corporations due to the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine and other media regulation during the Reagan era.
And this is a perfect example of why I will NEVER use 'cloud computing'. My data on my hardware that I have complete control of, thank you.
They are not all the same. Recent history shows that. For all their faults the Democrats at least *try* to govern well. The Republicans are enthralled by an ideology that all government is inherently bad, so they govern poorly, thus fulfilling their own prophecy.
You can't disregard software licenses on the one hand and expect the GPL to be upheld on the other. If what you're saying is true then I can simply redistribute my own modified version of Linux without providing source.
Or if you insist that a license that applies to programmers is somehow different than a license that applies to end users (which I think is illogical in the extreme), you still have a problem because I can distribute closed source kernel modules and tell you that you can't put restrictions on the end user's use of my product.
When telegraph and telephone companies first started stringing the nation in the 1800s, they did not do it because the government told them to. They did it for profit. They did it because the free market rewards initiative.
No, they wouldn't have. Not without Universal Access regulation. Without it, the majority of the US would not have been wired with telephone service.
AOCE: circa 1993 Apple was pushing this heavily. Mailboxes and business cards were desktop objects. Double clicking an icon in a mailbox brought up the message viewer. I don't remember if there was a tree view.
Until the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they were common carriers. But the telecom industry bought themselves a loophole by getting an exclusion for 'information services'.
"Just Following Orders" is not an excuse to break the law.
The ones that voted for the telecom immunity bill don't care about individual contributions, they get all the filthy lucre that they need from corporate patrons.
Collective bargaining (aka unions) is a legitimate negotiating tactic. Banding together to increase your aggregate leverage is just smart capitalism.
And yet there are states where this is not allowed.
Or do you presume to tell others how best to negotiate a business deal?
"The Civil war was started over state's rights, not slavery (not directly at least, slavery was the key part of the state's rights issue)."
Don't play semantic games. Slavery was the issue and "states rights" was the legalistic rationale.
And if you think it wasn't about slavery for the North you haven't read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln was a well known abolitionist (as were most Republicans at the time), which Douglas used to his advantage during the debates. Lincoln tried to (in modern terms) triangulate his position. Few in the slave states believed him when he said he only wanted to forbid new pro-slavery states from joining the union. Remember that civil war had been narrowly averted a few years earlier with the Missouri Compromise.
That's really not true at all.
Apple is a systems company. It's the whole package, which includes the hardware and software, that Apple sells. When Apple got into this business that was the norm. You got your OS and most of your applications from the same vendor that sold you the hardware. And they were all designed to work together.
It wasn't until Compaq reverse engineered IBM's BIOS and Microsoft started selling DOS to the cloners that changed all that.
I just want to follow through on jgalun's (correct, in my view) analysis. Al Qaeda are not intentionally attacking our civil liberties. But our government *is* using Al Qeada & the war on terrorism as an excuse to abrogate our civil liberties.
It was your suggestion that we follow the post-secondary model for primary and secondary education. To do that we would have to accept both higher costs per pupil and a 45% failure rate.
Barely more than half of college enrollees finish a bachelor's degree after 6 years.* You're just proving my point about cherry picking. And talk about throwing money at the problem, it costs over $17k in tuition per student per year for a 4-year public university.**
* http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?level=nation&mode=graph&state=0&submeasure=27
** http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/paying-for-college/2008/04/10/how-much-does-college-cost.html
You didn't even address the issues, you just want to rant about the union. Fire half the teachers in NYC and it won't fix anything.
Do you know how poorly teachers are paid? I do, I'm married to one. They make peanuts compared to what they could make in virtually any other field with the same level of education. So when the NEA talks about a funding problem, they're talking about teacher compensation. How can you attract the best talent when you don't pay competitive salaries?
The only structural problem with schools are the bloated administrations (which are not unionized.) But that doesn't even begin to explain why the schools are failing. The real problem is our culture. Parents treat the schools as (at best) a baby-sitting service. Too many of them simply don't care how well their children do academically. Failure and success begins with the parents.
Private schools generally pay their teachers *less*, so the teachers in them are no more talented. To the extent that private schools do better, it's because they cherry-pick the best students. You will fail if you simply try to privatize the schools on a large scale. That would just be shifting all the current problems into the private sector where it will be compounded by profit motives and shady accounting (seen the prison system lately?)
I get so sick of hearing that libertarian BS from people that don't even know the first thing about the real problem.
That simply isn't true in most states. It's called a "nonrecourse loan".
California, for instance, mandates nonrecourse loans for all primary mortgages.
If a debtor defaults on a mortgage, they surrender the collateral (the house.)
Your proposal is already in effect, and has been for almost a century.
Exactly. As we all know, it is not one's deeds, or even one's words, that define one's patriotism. It is how that person chooses to dresses and styles his hair that defines that person's patriotism. After all a politician could literally wipe his ass with a copy of the Constitution but as long as he's wearing a flag pin it would be OK. I think that this may have actually occurred a few times over the past 8 years and we're still doing fine, right?
That's why I propose that the Democrats start wearing Uncle Sam outfits. How could the Republicans continue to accuse them of being traitors if they're completely clothed in the flag? Then the Democrats could enact whatever legislation that they like, expand the powers of the police state to new and untold heights, and what can anyone do about it without looking like america hating faggots.
Washington and London are probably green with envy.
Cocoa Java was dropped because it was slow and buggy like you said, and additionally, it wasn't being used and it probably wasn't a good idea to start with (Java is for cross-platform). In other words, not worth diverting limited resources to.
I'm not really sure what you mean by 'dropping C/C+' APIs. I think what you might be referring to (since you mention Adobe) is that Carbon will not be transitioned to 64-bit. That's not really the same thing as dropping it at all.
The POSIX APIs are 64-bit. CoreFoundation, Launch Services, and many, many other C APIs are 64-bit. But if you want to write GUI code in 64-bit, you have to use Cocoa. Again, it's a resource thing, Apple is not a huge company with unlimited resources to devote to overlapping functionality.
No he didn't say that, he said lecture notes are.
And by the way, did you personally invent or discover everything that you teach? If not, then how can you lay claim to ownership of the intellectual property? Maybe you have some license payments headed your way...