That's because there's everything from fun little indie titles to massive AAA games on it rather than the craptastic "apps" in the Windows store that some shyster pooped out in five minutes with a suspiciously similar name to some other large name brand that they're trying to rip off. Not looking forward to seeing the crappiness of the Windows Store infect the Xbox Live store.
Other interesting news is the notion that MS may be releasing incremental hardware updates, including one with a more powerful GPU (presumably so it can work with VR). What's that going to do to the Xbox game ecosystem, if games run better on one version of the hardware than another? I doubt you'll immediately start seeing games that *only* run on the newer hardware, but the prospect may be concerning to some. I mean, the cheaper price and long-term stability of the platform is really the only thing the console has going for it in the first place. It's a shame MS decided to sell such a watered down "next-gen" machine in the first place, betting on the silly Kinect instead of better gaming hardware.
Yeah, they put some "Search with Bing" nonsense instead of making it a generic "Search" field, but... it really bothers you that much?
I'm trying to figure out why MS wouldn't use their own search engine when you search for stuff on Xbox Live? Do you really expect the Xbox to use Google as a search provider? And what would that buy you when it's searching Xbox Live-specific databases? It's a closed ecosystem, you know.
There are plenty of things to criticize MS for... but using their own search engine on their own console never struck me as something worth complaining about.
I hope there are a few more people like you that are putting your money where your mouth is so it makes my investment worthwhile. I'm ordering a new Linux development box shortly, as I don't want to mess with my primary dev machine, plus I need space to test a few distros out anyhow. It's something I've wanted to do for a while, but hadn't really committed yet.
The way you get more games on Linux, oddly enough, is to buy games that have Linux ports. At most places I've worked over my career, a non-Windows version of the game wasn't even a blip on anyone's radar. These days, a quite a few games at least have a Mac version as well, and once you've gone that far (assuming it's not a Cider "port" of some kind), it seems like a reasonably short hop to doing a Linux port as well, given that Mac is POSIX/OpenGL as well. I guess I'll find out *how* short a hop it is fairly soon.
Honestly, even as a long time Windows developer and someone who actually prefers using Windows, Microsoft's behavior toward their users has been rather disgusting with this Windows 10 update debacle. They've burned through a lot of good will with me. I mean, I never really expected for them to be saints - I'm not that unrealistic, but I didn't expect them to be quite as high-handed with their own customers. So, I guess I'll do my small part and make sure any software I write works on as many platforms as possible.
If you want to eschew.NET completely, then there aren't many, as far as I know, except for some pretty low-level primitives. You've got sockets, pipes, and file mapping to shared memory buffers (that's what I ended up using, as it seemed fastest and most straightforward). You then have to write some sort of protocol on top of that. I had a variant class that could serialize itself to and from memory buffers, so that formed the basis of my protocol.
If you are okay with writing a C#/.NET interop bridge to your native code, and don't need to support legacy systems then you can use the new WCF APIs.
You're not seriously suggesting they're going to stop pumping and selling oil to other countries that are still guzzling it, right?
I have no idea how this will work in Norway, but here in the US, such a plan would have to include a hell of a lot of exceptions for people and situations in which an electric vehicle won't work. My next car may be all electric since I never drive far, but my brother's family routinely drives rather long distances to visit their in-laws, and my parents drive across several states a few times a year. At the moment, EVs simply don't have the range to travel hundreds of miles in a single day, nor the capacity to haul all of them over a mountain range with all their gear.
Hopefully manufacturers will eventually get the range to a reasonable "all day driving" distance (even Teslas aren't quite there, and everyone else is laughably far behind them), but they're not really there yet. That more or less excludes anyone who wants to be able to take long road trips with their vehicles.
Yep. I try to stay as plugin free as possible for exactly that reason. You definitely pay a price for that additional convenience. Or perhaps he's working with solutions with *lots* of projects, in which VS tends to bog down quite a bit. I previously worked for a company that seemed to have a fetish for creating lots and lots of tiny projects, and it tended to slow down the IDE quite a bit.
It's also possible he's working on a project that tends to use some edge-case features that most devs don't use, which is causing issues for him. It's always a bit dangerous to veer from more established practices and patterns for exactly that reason, as you're more likely to hit bugs or performance issues that most other people don't see. Visual Studio is an old and massively complex piece of software, so there are always going to be some dark corners that cause problems if you veer into them. I'm not excusing it - just pointing that out as a reality.
The flood of patents also helps to cover of one of those "golden BB" types, you know, like one that manage to lock up something like hyperlinks or "playing a game via a remote server" (like a company I was previously working for got hit with) without a patent office clerk throwing it out as deserved for obviousness and prior art. What's tragic is that the companies that are actually innovating (like aforementioned company) are too busy actually *writing code* to bother with bullshit like patents.
These goddamned things are just like landmines. It's almost a certainty any piece of sufficiently complex code is going to infringe on a number of patents. I suppose the only good news is that with all the ridiculously (patently) obvious stuff that's getting patented right now, about 20 years from now, it's going to be damned hard to find any software concept that hasn't already been patented and expired. Or at least, that's what I'm telling myself to keep from getting too depressed about the situation.
Damn... software patents really need to go. It's ridiculous. I keep wondering when the system is going to start imploding under its own weight.
I've been using VS 2015 since it was released, and using VS professionally for close to 20 years. The quality of VS and the compiler has waxed and waned over the years, but I'm pretty happy with the way the current version is looking, given the general responsiveness, functionality, and stability of the IDE and the C++ compiler itself. It has pretty close to full C++ 14 compliance at this point - and certainly has the features *I* care about. If you're seeing such poor performance and odd error messages, there's something strange going on, as that's not a typical experience. My machine is rather *less* powerful than yours, and I just counted - it takes six second to get VS up and running for me.
Stephan T Lavavej is the maintainer you're thinking of, and he maintains the standard C++ library, so it's pretty awesome his initials are STL. He's one of the few MS devs that interacts regularly with developers and speaks candidly about MS's development, and has given some pretty interesting talks. True, the MS C++ compiler is quite old, but they've been modernizing it in light of C++'s renewed interest and features, with pretty decent results (if slower than many wish, probably including STL). GCC is also quite old, if you recall, but software can be updated. Clang is the only "new" C++ compiler in widespread use I'm aware of, so it obviously benefits from a more modern implementation, having lessons learned applied during initial development.
And COM never really went away (very few things in Windows do), but it's claim to fame was interprocess-communication and a language-independent execution model. New libraries have superseded the former, and.NET has largely replaced the latter. I'm not sure what constitutes "is back", but I've not heard anyone talking about it, and certainly nothing *new*. Maybe you're just hearing more about what's always been there since natively compiled code is making something of a minor comeback, with interpreted code like.NET never really having met promised performance expectations, even when JIT-compiled.
As for 64-bit Visual Studio, it's strange that they're not looking more seriously at this, but my guess is they ran into some severe technical hurdles in early efforts to port it, so are downplaying the importance. I mean, who doesn't develop on 64-bit machines at this point? I'll bet they're working on it internally, but are not ready to commit to anything.
Maybe it's a bit easier to see life as a game or simulation when you're one of the clear winners, and it all seems so easy to you. It's got to be a bit surreal to have the resources of a billionaire like that.
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
This covers various types of commerce, clearly setting a precedent that the the government is granted the power to regulate commerce.
The tenth amendment then goes on:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This indicates that beyond a few specific powers granted to the federal government, the majority of powers then fall to the state or the people. You'll have to examine your own state's constitution, but a quick look at my own state shows a few articles related to commerce, which I believe establishes a pretty convincing precedence.
It seems pretty clear to me that regulating commerce is one of the functions the founders had in mind for government, with the bulk of it being managed by individual states, which in fact it is. I'm not sure why this should be such a shocker to anyone.
Actually, businesses do need society's permission. Hell, it's built right into our federal and state constitutions here in the US. The mechanism is called a business license, and those are issued in order to both tax and regulate businesses, making sure workers and customers are safe. I'd agree that government regulations occasionally go too far, but on the other hand, landlords like this are *exactly* why such regulations tend to get put into place in the first place.
The landlord/tenant relationship especially is one that demands respect on both sides, or else it goes to hell pretty quickly. I can't see how this could be viewed as anything but a dick move, especially when it could have been so easily handled much better. How about they give their tenants $20 off their next month's rent if they give a like on Facebook instead of threatening them with fines or eviction (which is what breach of contract essentially boils down to)? I'll bet a bunch of people would have happily done just that.
I'm a far from a "statist" as you'll find, but arguing that the society (aka the government) can't regulate commerce is just silly.
As much as I hate to admit it, there's a reason I knew exactly what that #define was, of course. I'm pretty sure I've done that myself at some point when writing some random Windows utility.
What's the alternative? 260 characters is just short enough to be impractical in some cases. This has nothing to do with *nix users complaining, as far as I can see. It's not a theoretical pain point, although it's not something most users hit every day either. Either MS fixes it incrementally, like they're doing, or Windows users have to live with that limitation forever. Given that you have to explicitly turn this feature on, it's not going to inadvertently break users for right now. If it's in a corporation, the admins likely won't allow that switch to be set unless they're certain *all* their critical software works with extra-long filenames.
This is the same sort of pain both users and developers went through when MS started getting serious about enforcing rules about where programs were allowed to write data. Yes, it causes some short term issues, but Windows is better for moving forward through some of these limitations and compatibility issue.
I'm basically responding to the "How can anyone listen to this guy" sort of arguments I'm hearing. Immigration is a certainly one, but not the only one. I'm not going to bother listing others, because you've apparently decided that I'm a Trump fan "defending him" (I can't stand the guy) because I can explain *why* he has supporters, and your condescension is irritating. I could just as easily explain why Hillary and Bernie have supporters as well. Is that so surprising to you?
Your response to Trump's major flaws are countered with 'Hillary has them too.'
What? I wasn't "comparing flaws", I was comparing positions - specifically, where they stood on the H1B issue. Where did I talk about candidates' flaws?
There's undoubtedly a lot of code out there that has:
#define MAX_PATH 260 wchar buffer[MAX_PATH];
And by "legacy crap", you presumably mean "every version of Windows, ever". Because this has been the rule for Windows unless you did some funky tricks with your paths ("\\?\D:\very long path"), which gives you paths up to 32K in length.
It's about time they did away with that limit. It's sort of rare, but you can occasionally run into path limits, especially with deeply nested computer-generated filenames, etc.
You'd think that would be the case, but sadly, both sides seem to view the portions of the government that *they* approve of as useful tools, while hissing and spitting at the "bad" parts of government. Conservatives: military and law enforcement (and my pet projects) good, everything else bad. Liberals: military and law enforcement bad, everything else (especially my pet projects) good). And *both* party leaders seem to equally partake of the rampant graft and corruption. The ability to spend other people's money, after all, translates directly into *power*, and that seems to be an irresistible lure for the easily corruptible.
So the solution is, of course, to keep our borders open and actually refuse to deport people that came here illegally? You're seriously arguing that because so many people are here illegally, we shouldn't do anything for fear that they'll burn our cities to the ground? And people wonder why Trump's message is resonating? Because I'd imagine a lot of workers in blue-collar jobs that have been eliminated or depressed because of the glut of easily available illegal labor are thinking we have a pretty shitty policy, and they see no end of it from anyone else.
I mean, consider how much whining we hear on Slashdot about H1B workers. That's the white-collar equivalent. We never cared before, because it's awesome to have cheap lawn care and housekeeping, right? But as soon as low-paid foreign workers start threatening OUR jobs through some shady deals, we're all up in arms. Why, it's outrageous that foreign workers are replacing qualified native IT folks! Welcome to the club, tech industry.
Oddly enough, Trump is the only front-runner clearly and vehemently opposed to the current H1B abuse that's going on right now. Hillary has previously flip-flopped on the issue (2007 was for more H1B visas, then later said outsourcing was a concern), and hasn't mentioned it at all recently, at least that I can tell. Bernie, bizarrely, agrees with Trump on this issue, but doesn't have a real shot at the nomination, which is a shame, as that would make a much more interesting race, IMO.
Keep in mind Bloomberg is predicting *worldwide* markets, not just first-world markets. You're probably right that this prediction is somewhat pessimistic, but I still think you're being rather overly optimistic, especially if you think it's going to happen in *less* than ten years. Hopefully we'll both be around in another decade, so we'll see who is right.
I think one mistake people make is that they don't account for the lag time with long-term purchases. Even if, starting tomorrow, a new prototype EV was created that was better and cheaper than gas vehicles in every way imaginable, it would probably still take at least a few years to get production ramped up. It will take another number of years for enough people to get rid of their old cars and buy new ones, and even longer for those cars to trickle down in the used market for those that can't afford a new car. Given all that, I just don't see how in ten years time a significant number of cars will be EVs. It's going to take time to saturate the market.
Smartphones are a hell of a lot cheaper and don't last nearly as long as cars, so adoption is a lot easier when it only costs a few hundred bucks. Cars, on the other hand, run $15K at the cheapest, with most in the $25k to 50K range, and most new cars will easily last a decade with moderate use.
The real change is that we're now using end-to-end encryption on much more of our day-to-day traffic, and the government agencies are whining that the internet is "going dark" and are talking about legally-enforced back doors.
The idea of limited government is a nice one, but I don't think it's ever going to happen at this point, with so many people obsessed with what they think government can do FOR them without considering the consequences of what that same government might do TO them. The best we can do is try to beat it back into a manageable monster at regular intervals.
No one is arguing that fossil fuel motor cars won't eventually disappear. The question is really just about the time required to do so. Some people are, in my opinion, ridiculously overly-optimistic that *all* new cars will be EVs within ten years (let alone *most*). A much saner prediction puts EVs at 35% of global sales by 2040, although they'll undoubtedly be better represented in countries like the US.
Don't listen to the hucksters promising a revolution in a few short years. It's not going to happen quickly. It's going to be decades of slow transition as we develop the technology and infrastructure to replace the oil-based systems we've built over the last century.
I agree that we'll eventually be switching to some sort of manufactured or derived fuel, but it will require a *massive* amount of infrastructure and a massive amount of electricity to power these conversion plants. We can barely meet our electrical energy needs now, let alone when we presumably all drive electric cars and have to plug in each night to power them up. Solar isn't exactly going to help there unless we build some pretty impressive energy storage infrastructure, so we'll need a way to generate larger loads during traditional off-peak hours as well.
Frankly, it gives me a headache just thinking about how much new infrastructure we're going to need to build. Yes, it's needed, but it's going to be expensive and complicated, and that means it's going to have to happen over a very long period of time. That's just the way these things work. I think anyone who expects some huge turnaround in our energy use in less than fifteen years doesn't have a solid grasp on the scale of the issues involved here.
I think it's probably a lot more realistic, even if people don't really want to hear this, that we'll see a real turnaround closer to thirty years from now, and even after that, the oil industry will probably still exist for another half century after that in a diminished capacity. Of course, it won't as much of an environmental problem, since we probably won't be simply *burning* it by then, at least not in the same capacity as we do now, but using it where there aren't good alternatives.
There's really only one way that this could possibly happen sooner, and that's to artificially inflate the cost of oil with a global carbon tax. The problem, of course, is doing it to the point of making alternative forms of energy viable could potentially have a nightmarish effect on the economy, which would tend to interfere with the ability to invest with large infrastructure projects (downturns in economies means less investment, less tax, etc). So, there's a bit of a catch-22 there. The "easier" way is to let oil reserves run dry on their own, which will naturally tend to inflate prices as it becomes more scarce and as it becomes more difficult to extract. That's going to happen no matter what, but the environmental impact of using all that oil is worrysome, of course. But I still believe it's better to look at these things realistically than to let our *desire* to move away from oil cloud our judgement with unrealistic expectations.
LOLWUT? EVs are already very nearly as practical as gasoline vehicles, even for long travel distances unless you'd rather set some cross-continental speed record than take a short break from driving, and faster-charging, longer-lasting, more energy-dense batteries are being developed all the time. ICEs in new cars will be a rarity within 20 years.
My bad, as I actually meant "car generation", not "people generation". That is, it will take a few lifecycles of cars to wear out, people to buy new ones, and for the used cars market to fill with EVs rather than cheap gas-powered cars. EVs are now *just* becoming viable, but until my current car needs replacing, I'm certainly not going to rush out and buy a new EV. However, my *next* car will very likely be all-electric. Certainly by 2030 a sizeable percentages of cars will be electric, if not the majority.
But my main point was that even if we get to a point where ALL our gas-powered cars are electric (which is currently unrealistic), that still only accounts for 43% of the current oil market. While that's a good start, that's still a pretty hefty dependency on oil.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because there's everything from fun little indie titles to massive AAA games on it rather than the craptastic "apps" in the Windows store that some shyster pooped out in five minutes with a suspiciously similar name to some other large name brand that they're trying to rip off. Not looking forward to seeing the crappiness of the Windows Store infect the Xbox Live store.
Other interesting news is the notion that MS may be releasing incremental hardware updates, including one with a more powerful GPU (presumably so it can work with VR). What's that going to do to the Xbox game ecosystem, if games run better on one version of the hardware than another? I doubt you'll immediately start seeing games that *only* run on the newer hardware, but the prospect may be concerning to some. I mean, the cheaper price and long-term stability of the platform is really the only thing the console has going for it in the first place. It's a shame MS decided to sell such a watered down "next-gen" machine in the first place, betting on the silly Kinect instead of better gaming hardware.
Yeah, they put some "Search with Bing" nonsense instead of making it a generic "Search" field, but... it really bothers you that much?
I'm trying to figure out why MS wouldn't use their own search engine when you search for stuff on Xbox Live? Do you really expect the Xbox to use Google as a search provider? And what would that buy you when it's searching Xbox Live-specific databases? It's a closed ecosystem, you know.
There are plenty of things to criticize MS for... but using their own search engine on their own console never struck me as something worth complaining about.
I think "Hellooo, computer" in a Scottish accent would be more appropriate for you.
I hope there are a few more people like you that are putting your money where your mouth is so it makes my investment worthwhile. I'm ordering a new Linux development box shortly, as I don't want to mess with my primary dev machine, plus I need space to test a few distros out anyhow. It's something I've wanted to do for a while, but hadn't really committed yet.
The way you get more games on Linux, oddly enough, is to buy games that have Linux ports. At most places I've worked over my career, a non-Windows version of the game wasn't even a blip on anyone's radar. These days, a quite a few games at least have a Mac version as well, and once you've gone that far (assuming it's not a Cider "port" of some kind), it seems like a reasonably short hop to doing a Linux port as well, given that Mac is POSIX/OpenGL as well. I guess I'll find out *how* short a hop it is fairly soon.
Honestly, even as a long time Windows developer and someone who actually prefers using Windows, Microsoft's behavior toward their users has been rather disgusting with this Windows 10 update debacle. They've burned through a lot of good will with me. I mean, I never really expected for them to be saints - I'm not that unrealistic, but I didn't expect them to be quite as high-handed with their own customers. So, I guess I'll do my small part and make sure any software I write works on as many platforms as possible.
If you want to eschew .NET completely, then there aren't many, as far as I know, except for some pretty low-level primitives. You've got sockets, pipes, and file mapping to shared memory buffers (that's what I ended up using, as it seemed fastest and most straightforward). You then have to write some sort of protocol on top of that. I had a variant class that could serialize itself to and from memory buffers, so that formed the basis of my protocol.
If you are okay with writing a C#/.NET interop bridge to your native code, and don't need to support legacy systems then you can use the new WCF APIs.
You're not seriously suggesting they're going to stop pumping and selling oil to other countries that are still guzzling it, right?
I have no idea how this will work in Norway, but here in the US, such a plan would have to include a hell of a lot of exceptions for people and situations in which an electric vehicle won't work. My next car may be all electric since I never drive far, but my brother's family routinely drives rather long distances to visit their in-laws, and my parents drive across several states a few times a year. At the moment, EVs simply don't have the range to travel hundreds of miles in a single day, nor the capacity to haul all of them over a mountain range with all their gear.
Hopefully manufacturers will eventually get the range to a reasonable "all day driving" distance (even Teslas aren't quite there, and everyone else is laughably far behind them), but they're not really there yet. That more or less excludes anyone who wants to be able to take long road trips with their vehicles.
Yep. I try to stay as plugin free as possible for exactly that reason. You definitely pay a price for that additional convenience. Or perhaps he's working with solutions with *lots* of projects, in which VS tends to bog down quite a bit. I previously worked for a company that seemed to have a fetish for creating lots and lots of tiny projects, and it tended to slow down the IDE quite a bit.
It's also possible he's working on a project that tends to use some edge-case features that most devs don't use, which is causing issues for him. It's always a bit dangerous to veer from more established practices and patterns for exactly that reason, as you're more likely to hit bugs or performance issues that most other people don't see. Visual Studio is an old and massively complex piece of software, so there are always going to be some dark corners that cause problems if you veer into them. I'm not excusing it - just pointing that out as a reality.
The flood of patents also helps to cover of one of those "golden BB" types, you know, like one that manage to lock up something like hyperlinks or "playing a game via a remote server" (like a company I was previously working for got hit with) without a patent office clerk throwing it out as deserved for obviousness and prior art. What's tragic is that the companies that are actually innovating (like aforementioned company) are too busy actually *writing code* to bother with bullshit like patents.
These goddamned things are just like landmines. It's almost a certainty any piece of sufficiently complex code is going to infringe on a number of patents. I suppose the only good news is that with all the ridiculously (patently) obvious stuff that's getting patented right now, about 20 years from now, it's going to be damned hard to find any software concept that hasn't already been patented and expired. Or at least, that's what I'm telling myself to keep from getting too depressed about the situation.
Damn... software patents really need to go. It's ridiculous. I keep wondering when the system is going to start imploding under its own weight.
I've been using VS 2015 since it was released, and using VS professionally for close to 20 years. The quality of VS and the compiler has waxed and waned over the years, but I'm pretty happy with the way the current version is looking, given the general responsiveness, functionality, and stability of the IDE and the C++ compiler itself. It has pretty close to full C++ 14 compliance at this point - and certainly has the features *I* care about. If you're seeing such poor performance and odd error messages, there's something strange going on, as that's not a typical experience. My machine is rather *less* powerful than yours, and I just counted - it takes six second to get VS up and running for me.
Stephan T Lavavej is the maintainer you're thinking of, and he maintains the standard C++ library, so it's pretty awesome his initials are STL. He's one of the few MS devs that interacts regularly with developers and speaks candidly about MS's development, and has given some pretty interesting talks. True, the MS C++ compiler is quite old, but they've been modernizing it in light of C++'s renewed interest and features, with pretty decent results (if slower than many wish, probably including STL). GCC is also quite old, if you recall, but software can be updated. Clang is the only "new" C++ compiler in widespread use I'm aware of, so it obviously benefits from a more modern implementation, having lessons learned applied during initial development.
And COM never really went away (very few things in Windows do), but it's claim to fame was interprocess-communication and a language-independent execution model. New libraries have superseded the former, and .NET has largely replaced the latter. I'm not sure what constitutes "is back", but I've not heard anyone talking about it, and certainly nothing *new*. Maybe you're just hearing more about what's always been there since natively compiled code is making something of a minor comeback, with interpreted code like .NET never really having met promised performance expectations, even when JIT-compiled.
As for 64-bit Visual Studio, it's strange that they're not looking more seriously at this, but my guess is they ran into some severe technical hurdles in early efforts to port it, so are downplaying the importance. I mean, who doesn't develop on 64-bit machines at this point? I'll bet they're working on it internally, but are not ready to commit to anything.
Maybe it's a bit easier to see life as a game or simulation when you're one of the clear winners, and it all seems so easy to you. It's got to be a bit surreal to have the resources of a billionaire like that.
Maybe GNU Hurd will be ready for prime time by then.
I'm referring to the commerce clause:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
This covers various types of commerce, clearly setting a precedent that the the government is granted the power to regulate commerce.
The tenth amendment then goes on:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This indicates that beyond a few specific powers granted to the federal government, the majority of powers then fall to the state or the people. You'll have to examine your own state's constitution, but a quick look at my own state shows a few articles related to commerce, which I believe establishes a pretty convincing precedence.
It seems pretty clear to me that regulating commerce is one of the functions the founders had in mind for government, with the bulk of it being managed by individual states, which in fact it is. I'm not sure why this should be such a shocker to anyone.
Actually, businesses do need society's permission. Hell, it's built right into our federal and state constitutions here in the US. The mechanism is called a business license, and those are issued in order to both tax and regulate businesses, making sure workers and customers are safe. I'd agree that government regulations occasionally go too far, but on the other hand, landlords like this are *exactly* why such regulations tend to get put into place in the first place.
The landlord/tenant relationship especially is one that demands respect on both sides, or else it goes to hell pretty quickly. I can't see how this could be viewed as anything but a dick move, especially when it could have been so easily handled much better. How about they give their tenants $20 off their next month's rent if they give a like on Facebook instead of threatening them with fines or eviction (which is what breach of contract essentially boils down to)? I'll bet a bunch of people would have happily done just that.
I'm a far from a "statist" as you'll find, but arguing that the society (aka the government) can't regulate commerce is just silly.
As much as I hate to admit it, there's a reason I knew exactly what that #define was, of course. I'm pretty sure I've done that myself at some point when writing some random Windows utility.
What's the alternative? 260 characters is just short enough to be impractical in some cases. This has nothing to do with *nix users complaining, as far as I can see. It's not a theoretical pain point, although it's not something most users hit every day either. Either MS fixes it incrementally, like they're doing, or Windows users have to live with that limitation forever. Given that you have to explicitly turn this feature on, it's not going to inadvertently break users for right now. If it's in a corporation, the admins likely won't allow that switch to be set unless they're certain *all* their critical software works with extra-long filenames.
This is the same sort of pain both users and developers went through when MS started getting serious about enforcing rules about where programs were allowed to write data. Yes, it causes some short term issues, but Windows is better for moving forward through some of these limitations and compatibility issue.
I'm basically responding to the "How can anyone listen to this guy" sort of arguments I'm hearing. Immigration is a certainly one, but not the only one. I'm not going to bother listing others, because you've apparently decided that I'm a Trump fan "defending him" (I can't stand the guy) because I can explain *why* he has supporters, and your condescension is irritating. I could just as easily explain why Hillary and Bernie have supporters as well. Is that so surprising to you?
Your response to Trump's major flaws are countered with 'Hillary has them too.'
What? I wasn't "comparing flaws", I was comparing positions - specifically, where they stood on the H1B issue. Where did I talk about candidates' flaws?
Well, I'm hoping you're right and I'm wrong, because that would definitely be a good thing for everyone's air quality. See you in a decade!
There's undoubtedly a lot of code out there that has:
#define MAX_PATH 260
wchar buffer[MAX_PATH];
And by "legacy crap", you presumably mean "every version of Windows, ever". Because this has been the rule for Windows unless you did some funky tricks with your paths ("\\?\D:\very long path"), which gives you paths up to 32K in length.
It's about time they did away with that limit. It's sort of rare, but you can occasionally run into path limits, especially with deeply nested computer-generated filenames, etc.
You'd think that would be the case, but sadly, both sides seem to view the portions of the government that *they* approve of as useful tools, while hissing and spitting at the "bad" parts of government. Conservatives: military and law enforcement (and my pet projects) good, everything else bad. Liberals: military and law enforcement bad, everything else (especially my pet projects) good). And *both* party leaders seem to equally partake of the rampant graft and corruption. The ability to spend other people's money, after all, translates directly into *power*, and that seems to be an irresistible lure for the easily corruptible.
So the solution is, of course, to keep our borders open and actually refuse to deport people that came here illegally? You're seriously arguing that because so many people are here illegally, we shouldn't do anything for fear that they'll burn our cities to the ground? And people wonder why Trump's message is resonating? Because I'd imagine a lot of workers in blue-collar jobs that have been eliminated or depressed because of the glut of easily available illegal labor are thinking we have a pretty shitty policy, and they see no end of it from anyone else.
I mean, consider how much whining we hear on Slashdot about H1B workers. That's the white-collar equivalent. We never cared before, because it's awesome to have cheap lawn care and housekeeping, right? But as soon as low-paid foreign workers start threatening OUR jobs through some shady deals, we're all up in arms. Why, it's outrageous that foreign workers are replacing qualified native IT folks! Welcome to the club, tech industry.
Oddly enough, Trump is the only front-runner clearly and vehemently opposed to the current H1B abuse that's going on right now. Hillary has previously flip-flopped on the issue (2007 was for more H1B visas, then later said outsourcing was a concern), and hasn't mentioned it at all recently, at least that I can tell. Bernie, bizarrely, agrees with Trump on this issue, but doesn't have a real shot at the nomination, which is a shame, as that would make a much more interesting race, IMO.
Keep in mind Bloomberg is predicting *worldwide* markets, not just first-world markets. You're probably right that this prediction is somewhat pessimistic, but I still think you're being rather overly optimistic, especially if you think it's going to happen in *less* than ten years. Hopefully we'll both be around in another decade, so we'll see who is right.
I think one mistake people make is that they don't account for the lag time with long-term purchases. Even if, starting tomorrow, a new prototype EV was created that was better and cheaper than gas vehicles in every way imaginable, it would probably still take at least a few years to get production ramped up. It will take another number of years for enough people to get rid of their old cars and buy new ones, and even longer for those cars to trickle down in the used market for those that can't afford a new car. Given all that, I just don't see how in ten years time a significant number of cars will be EVs. It's going to take time to saturate the market.
Smartphones are a hell of a lot cheaper and don't last nearly as long as cars, so adoption is a lot easier when it only costs a few hundred bucks. Cars, on the other hand, run $15K at the cheapest, with most in the $25k to 50K range, and most new cars will easily last a decade with moderate use.
The real change is that we're now using end-to-end encryption on much more of our day-to-day traffic, and the government agencies are whining that the internet is "going dark" and are talking about legally-enforced back doors.
The idea of limited government is a nice one, but I don't think it's ever going to happen at this point, with so many people obsessed with what they think government can do FOR them without considering the consequences of what that same government might do TO them. The best we can do is try to beat it back into a manageable monster at regular intervals.
No one is arguing that fossil fuel motor cars won't eventually disappear. The question is really just about the time required to do so. Some people are, in my opinion, ridiculously overly-optimistic that *all* new cars will be EVs within ten years (let alone *most*). A much saner prediction puts EVs at 35% of global sales by 2040, although they'll undoubtedly be better represented in countries like the US.
Don't listen to the hucksters promising a revolution in a few short years. It's not going to happen quickly. It's going to be decades of slow transition as we develop the technology and infrastructure to replace the oil-based systems we've built over the last century.
I agree that we'll eventually be switching to some sort of manufactured or derived fuel, but it will require a *massive* amount of infrastructure and a massive amount of electricity to power these conversion plants. We can barely meet our electrical energy needs now, let alone when we presumably all drive electric cars and have to plug in each night to power them up. Solar isn't exactly going to help there unless we build some pretty impressive energy storage infrastructure, so we'll need a way to generate larger loads during traditional off-peak hours as well.
Frankly, it gives me a headache just thinking about how much new infrastructure we're going to need to build. Yes, it's needed, but it's going to be expensive and complicated, and that means it's going to have to happen over a very long period of time. That's just the way these things work. I think anyone who expects some huge turnaround in our energy use in less than fifteen years doesn't have a solid grasp on the scale of the issues involved here.
I think it's probably a lot more realistic, even if people don't really want to hear this, that we'll see a real turnaround closer to thirty years from now, and even after that, the oil industry will probably still exist for another half century after that in a diminished capacity. Of course, it won't as much of an environmental problem, since we probably won't be simply *burning* it by then, at least not in the same capacity as we do now, but using it where there aren't good alternatives.
There's really only one way that this could possibly happen sooner, and that's to artificially inflate the cost of oil with a global carbon tax. The problem, of course, is doing it to the point of making alternative forms of energy viable could potentially have a nightmarish effect on the economy, which would tend to interfere with the ability to invest with large infrastructure projects (downturns in economies means less investment, less tax, etc). So, there's a bit of a catch-22 there. The "easier" way is to let oil reserves run dry on their own, which will naturally tend to inflate prices as it becomes more scarce and as it becomes more difficult to extract. That's going to happen no matter what, but the environmental impact of using all that oil is worrysome, of course. But I still believe it's better to look at these things realistically than to let our *desire* to move away from oil cloud our judgement with unrealistic expectations.
LOLWUT? EVs are already very nearly as practical as gasoline vehicles, even for long travel distances unless you'd rather set some cross-continental speed record than take a short break from driving, and faster-charging, longer-lasting, more energy-dense batteries are being developed all the time. ICEs in new cars will be a rarity within 20 years.
My bad, as I actually meant "car generation", not "people generation". That is, it will take a few lifecycles of cars to wear out, people to buy new ones, and for the used cars market to fill with EVs rather than cheap gas-powered cars. EVs are now *just* becoming viable, but until my current car needs replacing, I'm certainly not going to rush out and buy a new EV. However, my *next* car will very likely be all-electric. Certainly by 2030 a sizeable percentages of cars will be electric, if not the majority.
But my main point was that even if we get to a point where ALL our gas-powered cars are electric (which is currently unrealistic), that still only accounts for 43% of the current oil market. While that's a good start, that's still a pretty hefty dependency on oil.
The biggest surprise from this story is that it turns out Estonia is a real place. Who knew?
Educated people? Or were you thinking of Elbonia?