You forgot to mention that the huge majority are heterosexual and have no problem getting laid with a member of the opposite sex. I guess as a slash dotter without that kind of experience it didn't occur to you.
The only people who care about removable batteries are the people who want to have multiple batteries so that they can replace them in order to maintain a more or less continuous duty cycle for the device.
I thought the only people who care about removable batteries are the people who love Android and haven't figured out yet that the latest Samsung Android phones come without removable battery. Oh well, and some people who love Android and figured out that the latest Samsung Android phones come without removable battery can complain about that as well:-)
It's a god damned piece of colored cloth. People who claim it means something more than that are either mindlessly parroting other, louder people, or they have an agenda of their own. The idea of outlawing a piece of colored cloth is about as logical as outlawing a plant.
If it's just a god damned (I fully agree here) piece of coloured cloth, then what are you complaining about?
I heard that protesters were flipping cars over and smashing windows. Perhaps they should be the ones cracked down upon? This hasty reaction to appease the angry mob seems like the wrong message you would want to send. Unless France wants to encourage angry mobs...
Your source, which you verified carefully without doubt, is free to send any evidence to the French police which will take care of it. Well, unless of course your source is lying or doesn't exist.
Many people are sensitive not to EM radiation, but to seeing antennas.
More precisely: They are sensitive to believing that an antenna is working. There have been studies where people showed symptoms when a button was pressed and a red light went on to demonstrate that an antenna was transmitting, and the symptoms disappeared when the button was pressed again and the red light went off. (Nothing was transmitted at any time during the experiment).
That one is the ultimate horror story what happens when you get stupid lawyers involved. Short summary: Guy named Uzi Nissan registers and uses www.nissan.com. Nissan car company wants the URL. Lawyers get involved. Judge decides that nobody can use it.
Between reasonable people without lawyers the outcome would have been that Uzi Nissan would have received a generous amount of cash, perhaps a new car made by guess what company, and Nissan car company had used the URL. Instead, everyone lost, except possibly Nissan's lawyers who declared this a victory for Nissan (which obviously it isn't).
"Lush" is a well known brand. If people go to www.youtube.com/lush they would expect to see Lush cosmetics, not some random guy. Similar for www.youtube.com/mcdonalds. Not sure what the issue is here. He doesn't own the site.
People entering www.youtube.com/lush expect to see marketing information from the same guy who registered the name many years ago, not some random company. Not sure what your thought process is here. Lush cosmetics doesn't own the site.
IMHO Google remains less suspect than other corporations, when it comes to defending privacy. I would never trust MS or Apple with my data.
And in my own not so humble opinion it's exactly the opposite.
You say that Apple is in it for the money - guess what Google is after? The difference is that Apple produces and sells hardware. Apple's customers are the people buying the hardware. And Apple keeps its customers happy by doing what's good for them, and not what's good for the government.
Google, on the other hand, makes most of its money from advertisements. How you can think that Google wants to defend your privacy, when their biggest source of money is selling out your privacy so that advertisers get adverts directed at you, that is beyond me.
And let's just say that the browser on your Android device is most likely running lots of code developed by Apple.
There is someone asking whether 8 lines of slightly clumsy looking code can be replaced with something better. The beginner wouldn't ask that question and wouldn't know an answer. The master would say "your code is just fine", because it is actually straightforward, easy to understand, easy to check for correctness. The first answer on stackexchange adds two arrays, one 20 line function, and a few lines of function calls resulting in code that is hard to understand and verify.
Now where C++ is a bit unfortunate is the fact that once you leave beginner level and think you know it all, you have unlimited potential to create code that nobody can understand.
The music was published via an intermediary, Ditto Music, but they're just a publishing service and not a label. In fact, I own the label it was published under and that is the label's sole release to date. What's the situation for musicians like me? Included, excluded, paid, unpaid...?
That intermediary would be like a record company, just a very small one. I would assume that the intermediary should receive some letter from Apple that needs to be signed and returned. Is the contact information still correct? If the intermediary cannot be contacted, I would assume that you will not be included in streaming. If you missed the letter or didn't return it, you will not be included in streaming. If you check "No streaming", you will not be included in streaming. If you check "streaming" you will be included and should be paid.
So if Apple offered a 1 year free trial, at no cost to them since they aren't paying royalties...what's stopping them from a 2 year trial? I guess the labels wouldn't have signed on for that. 3 months isn't much, but still not fair to musicians who aren't getting paid.
One, it doesn't cost Apple nothing. The cost of the implementation is carried 100% by Apple.
Two, what you say would make sense if Apple's intent was to rip off musicians. Apple's intent is to maximise profit from Apple Music. Apple believes that a three month trial period, followed by people hopefully paying $9.99 a month for the rest of their lives, maximises profit. Since Apple and musicians share the money, that would also optimise income for the musicians. Now Apple may have this wrong, and zero months free trial as Taylor Swift says is optimal. Nobody suggest that 12 or 24 months is optimal.
In many situations, you can use L'Hopital's Rule [wikipedia.org] to resolve 0/0.
No, you can't. At least any mathematician will look at you with disgust if you claim that. You can use it sometimes to find the limit of f (x) / g (x), if the limit of f (x) and g (x) both exist and are equal to 0. That's something entirely different.
Objective-C cannot interact with Objective-C++ header files. You always needed a header file that is plain Objective-C, with the implementation being Objective-C++. And Swift looks only at the headers.
No, it's Apple specific. However that's OK because there's a language which is much like Swift, except it runs on pretty much every device you might have.
Well, pretty much any device accept the odd iPhone here and there?
Looks like they are trying to create a Swift clone. Excuse me, but I think I prefer the real thing. Which will quite soon run everywhere, unless Google throws its toys out of the pram. And which has the brains of LLVM behind it. And most importantly, which is in actual use. Maybe Swift will never be as good as Kotlin's claims, but Kotlin will never be as good as Swift.
If you have any document, it either gets into hands that shouldn't have it, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you need no encryption. If it does, you must assume that it is passed on to your worst and most capable enemy.
So weak encryption that your most capable enemy can crack is just pointless. It doesn't help if you don't lose the document, and it doesn't help if you lose it. Using encryption is inconvenient, but using strong encryption is not one bit more inconvenient than using weak encryption.
If they have top secret documents that have been cracked by the Chinese or Russian government due to weak encryption you only have yourself to blame.
There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.
People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.
Here is a paragraph from the article that you quote, to put this into perspective: But Castle says he will be surprised if this goes anywhere. Apple, he notes, has a lot of competition in the streaming music space: Spotify, YouTube, GooglePlay, Amazon. "There are inquiries all the time" he says. "They ask a few questions. You send a response and that's it."
In other words: There's lots of smoke without a fire.
To it's credit Android conscientiously lists everything the app wants access to when an app is installed. Personal details, contacts list, media/photos and browsing history are standard requests with apps that have obvious reasons to access these things.
On the other hand, that means app developers are free to request these things, and if you don't agree that an app reads your contacts list, your only choice is not to use it. On the App Store on the other hand, the app will be rejected if it requests personal data without a good reason.
There is an implicit racism in all these stories that hit the media decrying 'Chinese Fraud and Duplicity'.
That's you looking for racism. If Uber is so desperate for growth that a driver can make money by driving his wife around the block all day, especially if he doesn't actually drive her but has a coffee with her or something that slashdot users wouldn't comprehend, then people will take advantage of that. In every country. And Uber fully deserves it.
Because in the end these drivers make a few Yuan, while Uber fraudulently makes billions of dollars by pretending to investors that they have genuine growth, when this is only due to losing money on every trip made.
Do I get this right: Uber is so desperate for growth in China that they pay the driver more money than a genuine customer pays for the drive, and as a result the drivers give fake rides to fake customers, and after returning the ride fee plus some bonus to the fake customer, there is still money left over?
This reminds of a story from the former German Democratic Republic, where the prices for apples (the fruit, not the fruity computers) were so much subsidised that farmers delivered their apple harvest to the state, then bought up as many apples as they could in the stores at subsidised prices, and sold them again to the state as freshly harvested?
I think if they can't manage to convince politicians how dangerous their plans are, there will be some TV adverts that tell the lay person in an easy to understand way what is going on and what the risks are.
If the same message is brought to people in adverts by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, and they all tell you that the politicians want to mess up your life, that would get people's attention. Not just on Slashdot.
" yet it was never (and likely never will be) directly observed." -
That's totally untrue. There's a kind of butterfly which loves to sit on the trunks of birch trees, and has a colour that makes it practically invisible to predators on that background. There comes industrial pollution and birch trees are not white anymore but more or less gray, with the butterflies clearly visible. Within a few generations, very strong natural selection made them change their colour to a dirty gray. Then things get cleaned up, no unlimited emissions from power stations, birch trees get whiter, guess what: The butterflies got whiter.
They injected code into his blog. So they made a derivative work of his, the code belongs to him.
It doesn't. Creating a derivative work may be copyright infringement, but it doesn't give the owner of the original code any rights to the derivative work.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to mention that the huge majority are heterosexual and have no problem getting laid with a member of the opposite sex. I guess as a slash dotter without that kind of experience it didn't occur to you.
The only people who care about removable batteries are the people who want to have multiple batteries so that they can replace them in order to maintain a more or less continuous duty cycle for the device.
I thought the only people who care about removable batteries are the people who love Android and haven't figured out yet that the latest Samsung Android phones come without removable battery. Oh well, and some people who love Android and figured out that the latest Samsung Android phones come without removable battery can complain about that as well :-)
It's a god damned piece of colored cloth. People who claim it means something more than that are either mindlessly parroting other, louder people, or they have an agenda of their own. The idea of outlawing a piece of colored cloth is about as logical as outlawing a plant.
If it's just a god damned (I fully agree here) piece of coloured cloth, then what are you complaining about?
I heard that protesters were flipping cars over and smashing windows. Perhaps they should be the ones cracked down upon? This hasty reaction to appease the angry mob seems like the wrong message you would want to send. Unless France wants to encourage angry mobs...
Your source, which you verified carefully without doubt, is free to send any evidence to the French police which will take care of it. Well, unless of course your source is lying or doesn't exist.
Many people are sensitive not to EM radiation, but to seeing antennas.
More precisely: They are sensitive to believing that an antenna is working. There have been studies where people showed symptoms when a button was pressed and a red light went on to demonstrate that an antenna was transmitting, and the symptoms disappeared when the button was pressed again and the red light went off. (Nothing was transmitted at any time during the experiment).
That one is the ultimate horror story what happens when you get stupid lawyers involved. Short summary: Guy named Uzi Nissan registers and uses www.nissan.com. Nissan car company wants the URL. Lawyers get involved. Judge decides that nobody can use it.
Between reasonable people without lawyers the outcome would have been that Uzi Nissan would have received a generous amount of cash, perhaps a new car made by guess what company, and Nissan car company had used the URL. Instead, everyone lost, except possibly Nissan's lawyers who declared this a victory for Nissan (which obviously it isn't).
"Lush" is a well known brand. If people go to www.youtube.com/lush they would expect to see Lush cosmetics, not some random guy. Similar for www.youtube.com/mcdonalds. Not sure what the issue is here. He doesn't own the site.
People entering www.youtube.com/lush expect to see marketing information from the same guy who registered the name many years ago, not some random company. Not sure what your thought process is here. Lush cosmetics doesn't own the site.
IMHO Google remains less suspect than other corporations, when it comes to defending privacy. I would never trust MS or Apple with my data.
And in my own not so humble opinion it's exactly the opposite.
You say that Apple is in it for the money - guess what Google is after? The difference is that Apple produces and sells hardware. Apple's customers are the people buying the hardware. And Apple keeps its customers happy by doing what's good for them, and not what's good for the government.
Google, on the other hand, makes most of its money from advertisements. How you can think that Google wants to defend your privacy, when their biggest source of money is selling out your privacy so that advertisers get adverts directed at you, that is beyond me.
And let's just say that the browser on your Android device is most likely running lots of code developed by Apple.
I recommend this link: http://programmers.stackexchan...
There is someone asking whether 8 lines of slightly clumsy looking code can be replaced with something better. The beginner wouldn't ask that question and wouldn't know an answer. The master would say "your code is just fine", because it is actually straightforward, easy to understand, easy to check for correctness. The first answer on stackexchange adds two arrays, one 20 line function, and a few lines of function calls resulting in code that is hard to understand and verify.
Now where C++ is a bit unfortunate is the fact that once you leave beginner level and think you know it all, you have unlimited potential to create code that nobody can understand.
The music was published via an intermediary, Ditto Music, but they're just a publishing service and not a label. In fact, I own the label it was published under and that is the label's sole release to date. What's the situation for musicians like me? Included, excluded, paid, unpaid...?
That intermediary would be like a record company, just a very small one. I would assume that the intermediary should receive some letter from Apple that needs to be signed and returned. Is the contact information still correct? If the intermediary cannot be contacted, I would assume that you will not be included in streaming. If you missed the letter or didn't return it, you will not be included in streaming. If you check "No streaming", you will not be included in streaming. If you check "streaming" you will be included and should be paid.
So if Apple offered a 1 year free trial, at no cost to them since they aren't paying royalties...what's stopping them from a 2 year trial? I guess the labels wouldn't have signed on for that. 3 months isn't much, but still not fair to musicians who aren't getting paid.
One, it doesn't cost Apple nothing. The cost of the implementation is carried 100% by Apple.
Two, what you say would make sense if Apple's intent was to rip off musicians. Apple's intent is to maximise profit from Apple Music. Apple believes that a three month trial period, followed by people hopefully paying $9.99 a month for the rest of their lives, maximises profit. Since Apple and musicians share the money, that would also optimise income for the musicians. Now Apple may have this wrong, and zero months free trial as Taylor Swift says is optimal. Nobody suggest that 12 or 24 months is optimal.
In many situations, you can use L'Hopital's Rule [wikipedia.org] to resolve 0/0.
No, you can't. At least any mathematician will look at you with disgust if you claim that. You can use it sometimes to find the limit of f (x) / g (x), if the limit of f (x) and g (x) both exist and are equal to 0. That's something entirely different.
Will Swift make inroads outside the Appleverse. Some but nowhere near as much as Apple and it's fanboys are hoping.
Why that needless attempt at an insult? Especially when it's obvious that you haven't thought this through. You also spelled "fanboi" wrong.
Objective-C cannot interact with Objective-C++ header files. You always needed a header file that is plain Objective-C, with the implementation being Objective-C++. And Swift looks only at the headers.
No, it's Apple specific. However that's OK because there's a language which is much like Swift, except it runs on pretty much every device you might have.
Well, pretty much any device accept the odd iPhone here and there?
Looks like they are trying to create a Swift clone. Excuse me, but I think I prefer the real thing. Which will quite soon run everywhere, unless Google throws its toys out of the pram. And which has the brains of LLVM behind it. And most importantly, which is in actual use. Maybe Swift will never be as good as Kotlin's claims, but Kotlin will never be as good as Swift.
If you have any document, it either gets into hands that shouldn't have it, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you need no encryption. If it does, you must assume that it is passed on to your worst and most capable enemy.
So weak encryption that your most capable enemy can crack is just pointless. It doesn't help if you don't lose the document, and it doesn't help if you lose it. Using encryption is inconvenient, but using strong encryption is not one bit more inconvenient than using weak encryption.
If they have top secret documents that have been cracked by the Chinese or Russian government due to weak encryption you only have yourself to blame.
There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.
People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.
Here is a paragraph from the article that you quote, to put this into perspective: But Castle says he will be surprised if this goes anywhere. Apple, he notes, has a lot of competition in the streaming music space: Spotify, YouTube, GooglePlay, Amazon. "There are inquiries all the time" he says. "They ask a few questions. You send a response and that's it."
In other words: There's lots of smoke without a fire.
To it's credit Android conscientiously lists everything the app wants access to when an app is installed. Personal details, contacts list, media/photos and browsing history are standard requests with apps that have obvious reasons to access these things.
On the other hand, that means app developers are free to request these things, and if you don't agree that an app reads your contacts list, your only choice is not to use it. On the App Store on the other hand, the app will be rejected if it requests personal data without a good reason.
Why sell ads, when you can make bazillions from selling phones, and you might sell even more if web sites come ad free?
As for hurting Google, that's a strategy that Google loves to employ themselves, so that's likely a very welcome side effect.
There is an implicit racism in all these stories that hit the media decrying 'Chinese Fraud and Duplicity'.
That's you looking for racism. If Uber is so desperate for growth that a driver can make money by driving his wife around the block all day, especially if he doesn't actually drive her but has a coffee with her or something that slashdot users wouldn't comprehend, then people will take advantage of that. In every country. And Uber fully deserves it.
Because in the end these drivers make a few Yuan, while Uber fraudulently makes billions of dollars by pretending to investors that they have genuine growth, when this is only due to losing money on every trip made.
Do I get this right: Uber is so desperate for growth in China that they pay the driver more money than a genuine customer pays for the drive, and as a result the drivers give fake rides to fake customers, and after returning the ride fee plus some bonus to the fake customer, there is still money left over?
This reminds of a story from the former German Democratic Republic, where the prices for apples (the fruit, not the fruity computers) were so much subsidised that farmers delivered their apple harvest to the state, then bought up as many apples as they could in the stores at subsidised prices, and sold them again to the state as freshly harvested?
I think if they can't manage to convince politicians how dangerous their plans are, there will be some TV adverts that tell the lay person in an easy to understand way what is going on and what the risks are.
If the same message is brought to people in adverts by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, and they all tell you that the politicians want to mess up your life, that would get people's attention. Not just on Slashdot.
" yet it was never (and likely never will be) directly observed." -
That's totally untrue. There's a kind of butterfly which loves to sit on the trunks of birch trees, and has a colour that makes it practically invisible to predators on that background. There comes industrial pollution and birch trees are not white anymore but more or less gray, with the butterflies clearly visible. Within a few generations, very strong natural selection made them change their colour to a dirty gray. Then things get cleaned up, no unlimited emissions from power stations, birch trees get whiter, guess what: The butterflies got whiter.
It still is. You can stand in the middle of a railway and let a train pass over you. The result won't be a matter of perspective.
Actually, that's where relativity theory comes in. After the experiment, the train is in a relatively better shape than you are.
They injected code into his blog. So they made a derivative work of his, the code belongs to him.
It doesn't. Creating a derivative work may be copyright infringement, but it doesn't give the owner of the original code any rights to the derivative work.