Actually, since a lot of the AJAX memory leaks are due to the external ActiveX XMLHttpRequest objects that Mozilla just built in to the browser,...one might argue that Mozilla has sidestepped this issue by NOT adhering to standards by including their own XMLHttp implementation inside their object model.
I mean, unless you can tell me which version of JS standards support XMLHttp??
However, if they -ever- revisit the 'Duck Hunt' style controller for consoles, say bye-bye to this entire argument.
I mean, you can -try- to tell me that you wouldn't buy the AK47 lookalike controller w/ kick-realistic force feedback for "CounterStrike:III Afghan Bugaloo" on PS4, but I'd have to call BS. -everyone- owned Duck Hunt back in the day, and a good pistol controller (with some navigation controls on it) would definitely bring FPS to console for good.
I'm a PC gamer for sure, but FPS's are not going to stay bolted firmly to the PC chassis.
Almost, but not quite.
Your first sentence is spot-on, but.NET's GC should have memory stable long before memory is full. The reason why.NET can appear to soak all available memory is the large object heap, which is rarely collected. This behaviour is by design and is not an instability, though it does require you to think before allocating / using large objects.
Applications with few large objects should never appear to be soaking memory - if they are, you should be profiling your code for optimization.
I get just under 210MPH counting a 14" radius (20" rims with 4" high tires) at the quoted 2500RPM.
But I dunno if 2500 is theoretical, or unloaded... or what.
Don't tell me you're not gonna put 20's on this.
I mean, if you're gonna have a motor-in-hub rim, 20+" rims are going to be -standard- - bigger rims = bigger motor = bigger power = bigger dick. Think about the huge tires you see everywhere in scifi movies... they were on to something.
My question is... will these degauss an iPod on the dash?
Entirely false, and you're missing the point of "intellectual" property. A digital copy of intellectual property is a digital copy regardless of the medium; the copy is not of the material / medium but of the program on it.
Re:All these are for the 1.0 firmware only
on
PSP Emulation Madness
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're assuming the plan is to hack the encryption... likely the plan is to work around it. The japanese versions simply don't check for a digital signature; once the firmware or hardware is hacked to ignore the signature, it's game on.
Actually, I don't think the DMCA restricts you to a specific platform. It defines a "program", but does not restrict you to running it only where it was intended.
True enough, but Sony demo'd a keyboard for it at E3...
I hate the touch screen aspect of PDA's anyways. Once sony releases the keyboard w/ web/email support, that thing is going to be an ipod killer.
Many companies run their entire enterprise on.net, already. We do, and have since v1.0..NET performs VERY well, however it does suffer from a ton of sub-par developers migrating from ASP/VBScript/VBA(office dev) who don't understand the power they've been handed.
I will however readily admit that I've very little experience in java enterprise development, but if java can outperform some of the amazing features of.net managed code, I would be surprised.
"How to secure MS software: run as little of it as possible."
-->Uh, isn't that everyone's complaint - that MS is insecure because it runs so much by default?
This, btw, is entirely false. I've djed at MIT parties several times and never in my life have I seen the substance abuse I have there... and I'm talking not even at raves.
"OSS's biggest problems are based in misunderstandings."
-->You're right, there... and that it's followers are often so rabid, they are unwilling to provide tangible answers that are founded in real-world experience. Thanks for your response, it was enlightening.
Didn't say open, or selling it without the original author. The point was, that MS could easily pick up software it didn't develop, and resell it / extend it.
But this assumes that technology R&D is not driven by money. It very much is. And that researchers (ie, developers) have the time to work pro-bono - when a lot of us do not.
It also assumes that Open Source means someone else out there wants to develop exactly what you want, in the way you want it. Maybe that's the case, but I haven't seen it.
And finally, you assume that Open Source is an automobile to the Closed Source horse. I can't say I currently agree with that, unless you could perchance give me an example of a closed source app that is bested by an open source app? (spare me the OS wars, I mean an -app-). The sheer man-hours that go into closed source applications on management alone lead me to believe that to many extents, and especially in larger or high-tech projects, the business firepower behind closed source (at the moment) is key. It's a nice analogy, but I can't say I see where it applies. Sure, certain open source apps have nice features, but I can't say that there are many open source apps that I would pay money to own, where there are a ton of closed source apps that I need to survive.
Anyone who thinks customers will accept that they have to pay to have things fixed when they break, has never actually had to ask a client for money to fix bugs in their own software.
No, not one, client willingly forks over money to fix bugs in software you sold them - or worse, gave them under the guise that it's free.
Customization, perhaps. I know I've worked in that arena in the past - but when you open source -that-, that means every other lone gunman developer out there has access to your customization - which, unless I'm mistaken, means you really only reliably get paid the first time you write it - for that customer. Sure, you can sell it to a few other customers, but once they figure out that it's a free download from sourceforge, or someone else comes along who noticed they're using the OSS CRM system... your revenue stream is over. More so if the highly likely scenario happens - the boss figures out that you're raking him over the coals for what appears to be "free" software.
And yet, if you're "honest" about it, you can make plenty of money from happy customers - "Sure, I programmed this software, and it will cost you xxxx.xx to have it installed." Most businesses understand this - when it's your work, and when someone else isn't coming along saying "I can download that for you for free!".
I would happily bet you - your 'time to market', versus my 'monopoly market share'.
I guarantee you my product with my label would be on more desktops than yours.
Regarding the lone wolf, sub 1M scenario, you'd be right, for the next few years. Once the next generation leaves college, you may not be so lucky. At least here in boston, there are a ton of small business IT companies opening up, and vending free software through them is not far behind. Perhaps you can sell your software, but if it's OSS, your competitor is giving it away as a benefit to their customers, and still charging $85 an hour to install it.
Now, I dunno about you, but I don't like playing on a level playing field. I am a great programmer, and I want that advantage -only- on my side. I want the other guy to have to hire a developer and write the code.
I don't see an advantage here on -any- scale. Giving away intellectual property is giving someone else the opportunity to make money off of my hard work without any rewards to me. Bragging rights? Who cares. No one who signs the check gives two damns about who actually wrote the software. They care who's wearing the suit and promising it will double their revenue stream.
RE: 1 - Microsoft tech support has a mantra - "We don't support third-party add-ons."
RE: 2 - While you could concievably do so, what's stopping MS from grabbing your source and selling it? Most office IT admins would prefer you downloaded the microsoft update for the microsoft application, and not the JoeProgrammer add-on pack.
Regarding your top point, of "Why couldn't ms...", you're right, there's nothing stopping that in the closed source world - but here's the difference. In the closed-source world, the developers have already made their money. In the OSS business models that people exclaim here to be "the way", revenue revolves around support. But the way I see it, companies like MS with a huge support infrastructure already in place, could EASILY compete against small-medium businesses that -rely- on support to pay their developers. And since development doesn't cost MS any more money, because the OSS businesses are open-sourcing all their upgrades... who wins? MS. The developers can't win, because the money isn't in development, but in support.
And when companies who specialize in support begin to see that the -product- comes free, very very few developers will reap rewards.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, since a lot of the AJAX memory leaks are due to the external ActiveX XMLHttpRequest objects that Mozilla just built in to the browser, ...one might argue that Mozilla has sidestepped this issue by NOT adhering to standards by including their own XMLHttp implementation inside their object model.
I mean, unless you can tell me which version of JS standards support XMLHttp??
However, if they -ever- revisit the 'Duck Hunt' style controller for consoles, say bye-bye to this entire argument.
I mean, you can -try- to tell me that you wouldn't buy the AK47 lookalike controller w/ kick-realistic force feedback for "CounterStrike:III Afghan Bugaloo" on PS4, but I'd have to call BS. -everyone- owned Duck Hunt back in the day, and a good pistol controller (with some navigation controls on it) would definitely bring FPS to console for good.
I'm a PC gamer for sure, but FPS's are not going to stay bolted firmly to the PC chassis.
Almost, but not quite. Your first sentence is spot-on, but .NET's GC should have memory stable long before memory is full. The reason why .NET can appear to soak all available memory is the large object heap, which is rarely collected. This behaviour is by design and is not an instability, though it does require you to think before allocating / using large objects.
Applications with few large objects should never appear to be soaking memory - if they are, you should be profiling your code for optimization.
I get just under 210MPH counting a 14" radius (20" rims with 4" high tires) at the quoted 2500RPM. But I dunno if 2500 is theoretical, or unloaded... or what. Don't tell me you're not gonna put 20's on this. I mean, if you're gonna have a motor-in-hub rim, 20+" rims are going to be -standard- - bigger rims = bigger motor = bigger power = bigger dick. Think about the huge tires you see everywhere in scifi movies... they were on to something. My question is... will these degauss an iPod on the dash?
Entirely false, and you're missing the point of "intellectual" property. A digital copy of intellectual property is a digital copy regardless of the medium; the copy is not of the material / medium but of the program on it.
You're assuming the plan is to hack the encryption... likely the plan is to work around it. The japanese versions simply don't check for a digital signature; once the firmware or hardware is hacked to ignore the signature, it's game on.
Actually, I don't think the DMCA restricts you to a specific platform. It defines a "program", but does not restrict you to running it only where it was intended.
True enough, but Sony demo'd a keyboard for it at E3... I hate the touch screen aspect of PDA's anyways. Once sony releases the keyboard w/ web/email support, that thing is going to be an ipod killer.
Er, that's a measurement.
A law would be "... is inversely proportional to the relative relevance of the thread."
This isn't necessarily saying they can do it, or even if it's ever going to be cost-effective enough to manufacture.
There's a lot of "blu-ray is pointless with this right around the corner" statements that really need to be re-thought.
Because an 850gb r/w drive is going to cost an armload more than your iPod's 40gb magnetic drive...
Many companies run their entire enterprise on .net, already. We do, and have since v1.0. .NET performs VERY well, however it does suffer from a ton of sub-par developers migrating from ASP/VBScript/VBA(office dev) who don't understand the power they've been handed.
.net managed code, I would be surprised.
I will however readily admit that I've very little experience in java enterprise development, but if java can outperform some of the amazing features of
"How to secure MS software: run as little of it as possible." -->Uh, isn't that everyone's complaint - that MS is insecure because it runs so much by default?
Doesn't crash mine... IE 6.0.28
... You mean, just like saying they have no cancer?
This, btw, is entirely false. I've djed at MIT parties several times and never in my life have I seen the substance abuse I have there... and I'm talking not even at raves.
"OSS's biggest problems are based in misunderstandings." -->You're right, there... and that it's followers are often so rabid, they are unwilling to provide tangible answers that are founded in real-world experience. Thanks for your response, it was enlightening.
"people there absolutely never get cancer. "
-->Perhaps because they also don't have the other carcinogens there? Like smoking, high levels of red meat, electricity... all that stuff.
Seriously, that was hilarious. I can't believe people here didn't catch the humour in that...
Didn't say open, or selling it without the original author. The point was, that MS could easily pick up software it didn't develop, and resell it / extend it.
Um, enterprise level development?
But this assumes that technology R&D is not driven by money. It very much is. And that researchers (ie, developers) have the time to work pro-bono - when a lot of us do not.
It also assumes that Open Source means someone else out there wants to develop exactly what you want, in the way you want it. Maybe that's the case, but I haven't seen it.
And finally, you assume that Open Source is an automobile to the Closed Source horse. I can't say I currently agree with that, unless you could perchance give me an example of a closed source app that is bested by an open source app? (spare me the OS wars, I mean an -app-). The sheer man-hours that go into closed source applications on management alone lead me to believe that to many extents, and especially in larger or high-tech projects, the business firepower behind closed source (at the moment) is key. It's a nice analogy, but I can't say I see where it applies. Sure, certain open source apps have nice features, but I can't say that there are many open source apps that I would pay money to own, where there are a ton of closed source apps that I need to survive.
Oh, and btw -
Anyone who thinks customers will accept that they have to pay to have things fixed when they break, has never actually had to ask a client for money to fix bugs in their own software.
No, not one, client willingly forks over money to fix bugs in software you sold them - or worse, gave them under the guise that it's free.
Customization, perhaps. I know I've worked in that arena in the past - but when you open source -that-, that means every other lone gunman developer out there has access to your customization - which, unless I'm mistaken, means you really only reliably get paid the first time you write it - for that customer. Sure, you can sell it to a few other customers, but once they figure out that it's a free download from sourceforge, or someone else comes along who noticed they're using the OSS CRM system... your revenue stream is over. More so if the highly likely scenario happens - the boss figures out that you're raking him over the coals for what appears to be "free" software.
And yet, if you're "honest" about it, you can make plenty of money from happy customers - "Sure, I programmed this software, and it will cost you xxxx.xx to have it installed." Most businesses understand this - when it's your work, and when someone else isn't coming along saying "I can download that for you for free!".
You make some good points, but ...
I would happily bet you - your 'time to market', versus my 'monopoly market share'.
I guarantee you my product with my label would be on more desktops than yours.
Regarding the lone wolf, sub 1M scenario, you'd be right, for the next few years. Once the next generation leaves college, you may not be so lucky. At least here in boston, there are a ton of small business IT companies opening up, and vending free software through them is not far behind. Perhaps you can sell your software, but if it's OSS, your competitor is giving it away as a benefit to their customers, and still charging $85 an hour to install it.
Now, I dunno about you, but I don't like playing on a level playing field. I am a great programmer, and I want that advantage -only- on my side. I want the other guy to have to hire a developer and write the code.
I don't see an advantage here on -any- scale. Giving away intellectual property is giving someone else the opportunity to make money off of my hard work without any rewards to me. Bragging rights? Who cares. No one who signs the check gives two damns about who actually wrote the software. They care who's wearing the suit and promising it will double their revenue stream.
RE: 1 - Microsoft tech support has a mantra - "We don't support third-party add-ons."
RE: 2 - While you could concievably do so, what's stopping MS from grabbing your source and selling it? Most office IT admins would prefer you downloaded the microsoft update for the microsoft application, and not the JoeProgrammer add-on pack.
Regarding your top point, of "Why couldn't ms...", you're right, there's nothing stopping that in the closed source world - but here's the difference. In the closed-source world, the developers have already made their money. In the OSS business models that people exclaim here to be "the way", revenue revolves around support. But the way I see it, companies like MS with a huge support infrastructure already in place, could EASILY compete against small-medium businesses that -rely- on support to pay their developers. And since development doesn't cost MS any more money, because the OSS businesses are open-sourcing all their upgrades... who wins? MS. The developers can't win, because the money isn't in development, but in support.
And when companies who specialize in support begin to see that the -product- comes free, very very few developers will reap rewards.