DLLs can be delay/demand loaded (though for most programs that are properly built, they're not the problem).
Parallelism still helps if you have a lot of data to load - you should not be blocking your UI (generally speaking) when doing any data loads. Even though you're not needing the CPU, backgrounding those activities ensures that your UI seems more responsive.
You can't avoid it altogether - sometimes a resource is needed before it's loaded and then you have to make the user wait. But rarely is that going to happen during the first few seconds of loading.
And in any case the idea of connecting to a "cloud instance" and syncing up data is laughable if performance is really your concern.
How about - now call me kooky - using some of the massive parallelism that desktops have been shipping with for the last half-decade? Launch background threads to do your resource loading; ensure that your main UI thread is doing as little blocking work as possible? You know, all the "tricks" that have been around for ages, but fell into disuse until mobile platforms became mainstream?
What kind of diseased mind thinks that the answer to a slow-loading client-side app is to connect it to a cloud instance, thus introducing external dependencies and unpredictable network latency?
Hah - you mistake Sony's customers for people who are even marginally aware of Sony's practices. Sony's reputation is just fine among the majority of people (keeping in mind that folks reading in and participating in communities where this kind of thing is discussed are far from a majority).
Why is there always SOMEONE here who sees a good analogy and thinks they can make it better - and in so doing turns it into a convoluted mess?
Person A: X is like Y when Z. Person B: No, actually, X is like A when Y but also Z.
(And yes, I fully expect- in keeping with slashdot tradition - sometime to pipe up and tell me about Person C who thinks X is like B when A but not Y and also Z but not Z1. )
d they're not forcing them to give it away. The work will be copied without any involvement from them
Once they create something, if it is copied and reproduced against their will as the people who invested the time, energy, and (potentially) money into creation, that amounts to being forced to give it away.
Even if you're saying that they have no rights to it after creation (and thus can't restrict its dissemination) it *still* amounts to forcing them to give it away.
They love to twist and squirm their way around the use of the word "stealing" as if the inexactness of the language can somehow absolve them of responsibility for their actions.
Surprised you didn't get modded down for calling him on it, that's what usually happens.
why should you be able to barrow against unrealised income? it may or may not have the same value in a week, its really just bullshit and fluff and should not be allowed to be leaned on, or its real and taxable. I dont care either way sounds fine to me
Allowing such a loan is a risk - one that the banks choose to take. And if it doesn't pan out - if the stock tanks - the borrower is still liable for paying back that money.
"so that the poorest of us can pay even more for roads, schools, police, fire, and other basic amenities that are considered important to the function of a society" You realize that most of the tax dollars paid (to the order of 95% of them every year) are paid by "the rich" and not "the poorest of us", right? And that the "poorest" don't actually pay any taxes at all?
If you own a house should you pay income taxes on the value of it? What about when the value changes - do you pay more tax when it increases? Do you get a refund when it decreases? You know you can borrow money against the house, and never pay taxes on it. BUt you *do* have to repay the loan.
The "wealthy clients" have to repay the loans as well - with interest - and that income also needs to come from somewhere.
You're suggesting that investors be taxed on money they've not earned? On the *potential* money they don't earn? When the market value of their shares dips in price, will they then get a refund? Or perhaps they could claim it as a loss in the next year's income taxes? (Because *that* wouldn't get abused...)
I could even see raising the capital gains tax to be the same as income tax - a proposition that would make "the rich" squirm mightily. But taxing on unrealized income? Paying money for something that may or may not have the same value in a week? How does that make sense in any reasonable world?
I suspect you'll find yourself in the vocal minority. When a company sells millions of copies of a game with DRM as bad as this, it's a safe bet that most of the people buying fall into the camp of "aware and want it anyway" and "oblivious and unlikely to be enticed into giving a shit".
Yes, there are some who have purchased who will be outraged. Tens of thousands, maybe - but when you sell millions, it's a drop in the bucket.
A civilized society has rules that members of that society follow. In some cultures, it's perfectly fine to watch anal sex videos in public. In others it's not.
It is not a censorship issue for someone to say "If you're going to watch that, please watch it over there and not here on the main walkway" - when the community standard holds that the material is inappropriate.
If this were not true, there could be no crime such as "indecent exposure" - we all know that there's nothing indecent about the human body. Unfortunately the rules of society follow a logic of their own.
On an intellectual level I applaud the library's decision. They're correct in that they don't have the legal right to censor. And you're correct in (if I'm reading it correctly) saying it's ridiculous that people are offended by this type of thing.
However: as a functioning member of a moderately civilized society, I recognize that there are mores and rules associated with being a part of that society - mores that are not necessarily written down as laws, but which that society agrees upon nonetheless. If I want to function and prosper in that society, I need to follow those same unwritten rules.
He doesn't have a constitutional right not to be offended - but neither do you have a constitutional right to flaunt the values of the society you're a part of and expect there to be no consequences.
Because they're all just a bit different from each other, and they all support differing amounts of capabilities. HTML5 isn't a final standard yet and this is made apparent by these discrepancies..
I'd love to see HTML5 become a stable, reliable and consistent standard that is applied across browsers. what we have now isn't it - instead we have to develop for three major engines. Remember the good old days when there were only two to consider?
You're not any safer in deploying a dot release in an enterprise without testing; however it did give you the *illusion* of being safer. (After all it's a dot-release - so we "know" it couldn't be major right?)
Version numbers are arbitrary - they mean different things to different projects. Just look at all the OSS projects that use 0.x releases for some reason - stable projects that have been around for years.
Frankly, I'm all in favor of a versioning schema that makes me look at the content of the version rather than making assumptions based on a numbering sequence that varies from software package to software package.
Slashdot Mirror
ver the years, I seem to have trained my brain to seek out patterns in everything I encounter.
How has this benefited you in life?
(Not a troll- honestly curious)
I've trained myself to recognize patterns where it's applicable - but doing it everywhere/with everything seems like a waste of brain cycles.
I've recently found the Cat in the Hat to be far more entertaining if I read it as if the protagonist were being driven slowly insane.
My son seems to like that rendition better too ;)
I thought it ran from the oil squeezed out of little furry creatures. My bad.
yeah I'm going to stick with my pushbutton set-top box and its wired remote. Now get off my lawn.
A TV remote cost $5-$15. A tablet costs as much as some TVs. So I'll have to buy a $250 tablet to change channels on a $200 TV? I don't think so.
I don't have a tablet, nor will I until I can get one that's not tied to a phone contract.
Most tablets have wifi-only options that aren't attached to a contract, and there are a handful of 3g devices available contract free.
Another anti-nuclear energy posting from mdsolar. Color me surprised.
DLLs can be delay/demand loaded (though for most programs that are properly built, they're not the problem).
Parallelism still helps if you have a lot of data to load - you should not be blocking your UI (generally speaking) when doing any data loads. Even though you're not needing the CPU, backgrounding those activities ensures that your UI seems more responsive.
You can't avoid it altogether - sometimes a resource is needed before it's loaded and then you have to make the user wait. But rarely is that going to happen during the first few seconds of loading.
And in any case the idea of connecting to a "cloud instance" and syncing up data is laughable if performance is really your concern.
How about - now call me kooky - using some of the massive parallelism that desktops have been shipping with for the last half-decade? Launch background threads to do your resource loading; ensure that your main UI thread is doing as little blocking work as possible? You know, all the "tricks" that have been around for ages, but fell into disuse until mobile platforms became mainstream?
What kind of diseased mind thinks that the answer to a slow-loading client-side app is to connect it to a cloud instance, thus introducing external dependencies and unpredictable network latency?
Hah - you mistake Sony's customers for people who are even marginally aware of Sony's practices. Sony's reputation is just fine among the majority of people (keeping in mind that folks reading in and participating in communities where this kind of thing is discussed are far from a majority).
There is a difference between "benefiting society" and "not harming society". The regulations are in place to ensure the latter.
Why is there always SOMEONE here who sees a good analogy and thinks they can make it better - and in so doing turns it into a convoluted mess?
Person A: X is like Y when Z.
Person B: No, actually, X is like A when Y but also Z.
(And yes, I fully expect- in keeping with slashdot tradition - sometime to pipe up and tell me about Person C who thinks X is like B when A but not Y and also Z but not Z1. )
Repeat after me - "it is funny when Monty Python does Monty Python. It is not funny when I do Monty Python. "
Continue to repeat this mantra until the urge has passed.
d they're not forcing them to give it away. The work will be copied without any involvement from them
Once they create something, if it is copied and reproduced against their will as the people who invested the time, energy, and (potentially) money into creation, that amounts to being forced to give it away.
Even if you're saying that they have no rights to it after creation (and thus can't restrict its dissemination) it *still* amounts to forcing them to give it away.
Only true if they were forced to create. They're not.
How far removed is "forced to give away their work" from "forced to create"?
They love to twist and squirm their way around the use of the word "stealing" as if the inexactness of the language can somehow absolve them of responsibility for their actions.
Surprised you didn't get modded down for calling him on it, that's what usually happens.
why should you be able to barrow against unrealised income? it may or may not have the same value in a week, its really just bullshit and fluff and should not be allowed to be leaned on, or its real and taxable. I dont care either way sounds fine to me
Allowing such a loan is a risk - one that the banks choose to take. And if it doesn't pan out - if the stock tanks - the borrower is still liable for paying back that money.
Of course I was talking about income tax you fop, look at the context of the conversation.
As far as poorest of earners: you're just incorrect. Lowest earners are exempt from federal income tax. For your reading pleasure: http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm
"so that the poorest of us can pay even more for roads, schools, police, fire, and other basic amenities that are considered important to the function of a society"
You realize that most of the tax dollars paid (to the order of 95% of them every year) are paid by "the rich" and not "the poorest of us", right? And that the "poorest" don't actually pay any taxes at all?
If you own a house should you pay income taxes on the value of it? What about when the value changes - do you pay more tax when it increases? Do you get a refund when it decreases?
You know you can borrow money against the house, and never pay taxes on it. BUt you *do* have to repay the loan.
The "wealthy clients" have to repay the loans as well - with interest - and that income also needs to come from somewhere.
Whatever dude.
You're suggesting that investors be taxed on money they've not earned? On the *potential* money they don't earn? When the market value of their shares dips in price, will they then get a refund? Or perhaps they could claim it as a loss in the next year's income taxes? (Because *that* wouldn't get abused...)
I could even see raising the capital gains tax to be the same as income tax - a proposition that would make "the rich" squirm mightily. But taxing on unrealized income? Paying money for something that may or may not have the same value in a week? How does that make sense in any reasonable world?
Holy carp - I think you've just laid down the tenets of a new religion!
I suspect you'll find yourself in the vocal minority. When a company sells millions of copies of a game with DRM as bad as this, it's a safe bet that most of the people buying fall into the camp of "aware and want it anyway" and "oblivious and unlikely to be enticed into giving a shit".
Yes, there are some who have purchased who will be outraged. Tens of thousands, maybe - but when you sell millions, it's a drop in the bucket.
A civilized society has rules that members of that society follow. In some cultures, it's perfectly fine to watch anal sex videos in public. In others it's not.
It is not a censorship issue for someone to say "If you're going to watch that, please watch it over there and not here on the main walkway" - when the community standard holds that the material is inappropriate.
If this were not true, there could be no crime such as "indecent exposure" - we all know that there's nothing indecent about the human body. Unfortunately the rules of society follow a logic of their own.
On an intellectual level I applaud the library's decision. They're correct in that they don't have the legal right to censor. And you're correct in (if I'm reading it correctly) saying it's ridiculous that people are offended by this type of thing.
However: as a functioning member of a moderately civilized society, I recognize that there are mores and rules associated with being a part of that society - mores that are not necessarily written down as laws, but which that society agrees upon nonetheless. If I want to function and prosper in that society, I need to follow those same unwritten rules.
He doesn't have a constitutional right not to be offended - but neither do you have a constitutional right to flaunt the values of the society you're a part of and expect there to be no consequences.
It was perfectly obvious, and I think Apple is just trying to divert people's attention by clouding the issue.
Whose HTML5 implementation are you referring to?
Microsoft's? Firefox's? Google's? Safari's?
Because they're all just a bit different from each other, and they all support differing amounts of capabilities. HTML5 isn't a final standard yet and this is made apparent by these discrepancies..
I'd love to see HTML5 become a stable, reliable and consistent standard that is applied across browsers. what we have now isn't it - instead we have to develop for three major engines. Remember the good old days when there were only two to consider?
You're not any safer in deploying a dot release in an enterprise without testing; however it did give you the *illusion* of being safer. (After all it's a dot-release - so we "know" it couldn't be major right?)
Version numbers are arbitrary - they mean different things to different projects. Just look at all the OSS projects that use 0.x releases for some reason - stable projects that have been around for years.
Frankly, I'm all in favor of a versioning schema that makes me look at the content of the version rather than making assumptions based on a numbering sequence that varies from software package to software package.