So you aren't actually talking about the languages at all - you are talking about the.NET Runtime - which isn't actually anything to do with the languages. It's like saying VB and C# are identical because both can call the Windows API. It's simply not true.
And you are saying it takes VB developers time to learn VB.NET because they're bad developers. Nevermind the fact that VB has been around for years, that people have been developing in VB for years and that many of the core VB functions and objects have been moved out of VB and into the.NET framework. Of course it takes time to learn these things.
A Java developer should be able to learn the VB.Net or C# syntax in literally a few hours
Of course - because they are familiar with the use of Packages - which the Framework is built on. They'll learn C# faster because the Syntax is very similar to Java. They'll learn VB quickly because it BASIC (you are aware of what the B stands for I presume).
The language is not what makes a bad programmer - it's their education and experience. The BEST programmers I have worked with were VB programmers (back in the VB3 days). They were great programmers because (a) They were methodical, (b) They worked to proven and widely published standards and (c) They knew how to write REAL windows applications. They were great using VB and extremely good when we shifted to writing C. The language had absolutely nothing to do with their skill.
And your claim that they are essentially the same language is pure nonesense. Sure they compile to the same bytecode, sure they use the same framework but beyond having the same types virtually everything about the language (not the Framework) is different.
The operators are different, the functions are different, the syntax is different. Variable declaration is different, operator precedence is different and the initialization of arrays is different.
and the two languages can be mechanically translated
Big deal. I worked with some guys a few years back that could "Mechanically Translate" Advanced Revelation (ARev) to Visual Basic. There's virtually nothing similar in those languages yet they could do it - simply because they took the time to write the tool to do so.
Of course all this aside - you still say that VB makes bad programmers - and then you claim (incorrectly) that VB and C# are virtually identical - yet VB programmers don't learn the new language because they can't. Can you contradict yourself further?
So they're identical - but VB.Net programmers can't learn the new (identical) language?
Presumably you're not familiar with one or the other of these languages. VB6 developers that transferred to VB.Net had to learn the majority of their chosen language again. C# is more like Java/C++ than VB - the language and syntax is entirely different to VB.NET.
The reason VB developers wouldn't learn C# is probably a productivity issue, rather than not being able to learn the language. Why waste time learning a new language, and rewriting (rather than converting) your existing projects when all that does it puts you in jeopardy of missing deadlines (you know deadlines don't you - that's what real programmers have).
But heck - perhaps I'm missing the point - perhaps you are talking from personal experience.
That was the half of the claim that was denied by the court.
"Matz didn't buy Perfect 10's argument that search engines' practice of linking to infringing content or showing the infringing content within frames below a search result constituted direct infringement on their part."
I wonder if Google looked to see how Perfect 10's site got listed on Google? I mean if Perfect 10 registered their site then that should be seen as permission to create the thumbnails and list them in the image search.
It's pretty dumb really. While I can understand that Perfect 10 might be worried that they'll lose revenue because Google is creating thumbnails that could be downloaded by users onto their phones, Google will probably respond by removing Perfect 10 from it's database altogether. I think that'd probably have more of an effect than the thumbnails.
The really dumb thing is that my phone, as I expect most others do, came with software that would take the "large" image and turn it into an image that is perfectly scaled for display on it's screen. So the only real issue is if you can get the images through WAP and store them on your phone that way. Of course no one has enough money to download image searches on google through their phone - except maybe the ppl @ Google. Or maybe Bill Gates. And Steve Jobs. And John Carmack. And so on...
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
(a) Grow up
(b) Grow a pair
(c) Read the thread from the start - whilst it seems to have become a discussion of what could happen should there be a failure during launch - it started as questioning why someone would get stuck into someone else, simply because they have concerns regarding the launch of nuclear material by NASA.
(d) Oxidised plutonium is still radioactive (heard of MOX?)
No, instead, you and your kin will think the scientists are lying to you, and acting in bad faith. Let me guess, you're probably a friend of Intelligent Design
Actually I'm a scientist by education and an AP by profession. You, on the other hand, are a name calling coward.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
I haven't investigated enough myself to have a informed opinion on the magnitude of risk, but all other things being equal I'm pretty breathing plutonium is less than heathful.
This page mentions that there are no recorded cases of fatality from plutonium ingestion. But it also lists what could happen (and where the Plutonium goes in your body). It may simply be a case of it increasing the likelihood of certain cancers.
NASA claims that modern RTGs are just about unbreechable.
And that a 5lb (or whatever it was) block of foam couldn't do any damage to the spaceshuttle.
Skeptics note that NASA also once claimed that the odds of the Space Shuttle being destroyed by a launch failure at 1 in 100,000
Lol - they should be right for another 300,000 years then.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Read the first post - what do those that protested against the launch of a Nuclear powered probe have to apologize for? They had a concern and they voiced it - they're in the "land of the free" with a right to "free speech". And what harm did they do?
Do you demand that the operators of coal-fired power plants apologize to the residents of the Black Forest in Germany, the NE United States/SE Canada, etc. for all the damage to arboreal forests caused by acid rain?
Sure, why not? And include all those that drive fossil fuel vehicles and USE the electricity supplied by those plants.
Some accidents happen.
Yes they do. What's your point?
If they had to abort that rocket, it would have been downrange from Cape Canaveral into the Atlantic Ocean. Sure, the COSMOS probe that crashed into Alberta in the 80's spewed some plutonium over some area of a range grazing area, but the world didn't come to a crashing halt now did it?
See that's just stupidity. Did the world come to an end when people started inhaling Asbestos? No. Did their world come crashing to an end? Eventually - in the majority of cases. However, I'm not claiming the world will end or that the use of nuclear material in the generation of power is bad. I am pointing out that people are far to quick to pick on people that are concerned for the environment, simply because one event was a success (which is the subject of the original post and it's reply).
How much more plutonium was induced into the biosphere by the open air detonations of fission weapons in the 50's and 60's (as well as fission-triggered fusion devices)? Again, we're all still here.
Well we should release more then shouldn't we?
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
What happens if the "slug" stops being a slug? (it'd probably take a really hot fireball to do that - where would they find one of those?)
Plutonium melts at 914K and a typical rocket exhaust is 2500K to 3600K. So even if the resulting fireball is half the temperature of the exhaust, it still has the potential to liquify the plutonium.
Summary: Stupid people should apologize for trying to influence policy according to their stupidity. Smart people should not apologize for trying to influence policy according to their smartitude
Stupid people make up words too.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
What, exactly would I have to appologize for?
I see, so a bunch of "hippies" should apologize for being concerned about the release of plutonium into the atmosphere. But you are teflon coated if you are proven to be wrong.
the actual radiation exposure would be something like being out in the sun slightly longer than you should without sunscreen. That's not great, but frankly if I was concerned about that, I'd make a point of not living within threat range of the cape.
Chances are the plutonium would vapourise and be carried off with the jetstream (ala chernobyl). Turning into fallout. To be inhaled and ingested by potentially millions.
Get over it.
Like I said, I don't really care.
They are very serious about minimizing the exposure, which is why the teams were deployed, but the actual danger is negligable.
Yes, they are in their balloons with huge plutonium vacuums.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Now I don't really care what it's powered by and what's on it. But will you and the parent poster apologize if one of these probes do explode on lift off?
I mean it's not like anything NASA does ever goes wrong?
I expect that if it ever does happen you'll either be very quiet, or you'll find someone else to take a cheap shot at.
Perhaps you should read the book Chickenhawk for an idea of what PTSD can do to a person. His (Robert Mason's) story is probably a mild case of it's affect - but how would you like your ex Vet airline pilot suddenly blacking out on approach?
Or your rape victim cab driver, or surgeon.
I think your stupid statement indicates you think PTSD is simply a case of "bad memories".
You know, one day the almighty slashdevelopers will put a simple check in for posting the article that extracts the links out of an article and then does a quick search to find others with similar links and displays them as an "Are you sure this isn't a dupe" option.
It wasn't the one I was thinking of - but it does show how "out of date" Tomshardware is...
The article I was thinking of was actually based on "Relief Mapping" (which AFAIK is better than parallax mapping). The link is here. Unfortunately the link to the zip is broken. But the more recent post on the subject relates to Quake 4 which can be seen here. The links (for DOOM and Quake 4 are both working).
Ah these "features" are already available and present in the current generation of cards. They've been around since at least 2004 - and viable on hardware from then (ie. 6800's etc.).
The first example I saw of Parallax mapping was actually something done in DOOM 3 (I can't find the post on the OpenGL forum). So why are these "new features" considered "New". Looks like an advert for current gen Hardware to me...
Slashdot Mirror
If fewer physicists were tied to strings might some of the enduring mysteries of the universe be solved?
Really should read:
If fewer physicists were tied to strings might some of the enduring mysteries of the universe be unravelled?
No - first you need the nano cheese, then you can grow the rats...
I find it interesting that H. cydno and H. melpomene would mate, yet neither would mate with H. heurippa.
So build one of these. ;)
So would I - not to mention "Whitespace" idiosyncracies...
So you aren't actually talking about the languages at all - you are talking about the .NET Runtime - which isn't actually anything to do with the languages. It's like saying VB and C# are identical because both can call the Windows API. It's simply not true.
.NET framework. Of course it takes time to learn these things.
And you are saying it takes VB developers time to learn VB.NET because they're bad developers. Nevermind the fact that VB has been around for years, that people have been developing in VB for years and that many of the core VB functions and objects have been moved out of VB and into the
A Java developer should be able to learn the VB.Net or C# syntax in literally a few hours
Of course - because they are familiar with the use of Packages - which the Framework is built on. They'll learn C# faster because the Syntax is very similar to Java. They'll learn VB quickly because it BASIC (you are aware of what the B stands for I presume).
The language is not what makes a bad programmer - it's their education and experience. The BEST programmers I have worked with were VB programmers (back in the VB3 days). They were great programmers because (a) They were methodical, (b) They worked to proven and widely published standards and (c) They knew how to write REAL windows applications. They were great using VB and extremely good when we shifted to writing C. The language had absolutely nothing to do with their skill.
And your claim that they are essentially the same language is pure nonesense. Sure they compile to the same bytecode, sure they use the same framework but beyond having the same types virtually everything about the language (not the Framework) is different.
The operators are different, the functions are different, the syntax is different. Variable declaration is different, operator precedence is different and the initialization of arrays is different.
and the two languages can be mechanically translated
Big deal. I worked with some guys a few years back that could "Mechanically Translate" Advanced Revelation (ARev) to Visual Basic. There's virtually nothing similar in those languages yet they could do it - simply because they took the time to write the tool to do so.
Of course all this aside - you still say that VB makes bad programmers - and then you claim (incorrectly) that VB and C# are virtually identical - yet VB programmers don't learn the new language because they can't. Can you contradict yourself further?
So they're identical - but VB.Net programmers can't learn the new (identical) language? Presumably you're not familiar with one or the other of these languages. VB6 developers that transferred to VB.Net had to learn the majority of their chosen language again. C# is more like Java/C++ than VB - the language and syntax is entirely different to VB.NET. The reason VB developers wouldn't learn C# is probably a productivity issue, rather than not being able to learn the language. Why waste time learning a new language, and rewriting (rather than converting) your existing projects when all that does it puts you in jeopardy of missing deadlines (you know deadlines don't you - that's what real programmers have). But heck - perhaps I'm missing the point - perhaps you are talking from personal experience.
That was the half of the claim that was denied by the court.
"Matz didn't buy Perfect 10's argument that search engines' practice of linking to infringing content or showing the infringing content within frames below a search result constituted direct infringement on their part."
RTFA
I wonder if Google looked to see how Perfect 10's site got listed on Google? I mean if Perfect 10 registered their site then that should be seen as permission to create the thumbnails and list them in the image search.
It's pretty dumb really. While I can understand that Perfect 10 might be worried that they'll lose revenue because Google is creating thumbnails that could be downloaded by users onto their phones, Google will probably respond by removing Perfect 10 from it's database altogether. I think that'd probably have more of an effect than the thumbnails.
The really dumb thing is that my phone, as I expect most others do, came with software that would take the "large" image and turn it into an image that is perfectly scaled for display on it's screen. So the only real issue is if you can get the images through WAP and store them on your phone that way. Of course no one has enough money to download image searches on google through their phone - except maybe the ppl @ Google. Or maybe Bill Gates. And Steve Jobs. And John Carmack. And so on...
(a) Grow up
(b) Grow a pair
(c) Read the thread from the start - whilst it seems to have become a discussion of what could happen should there be a failure during launch - it started as questioning why someone would get stuck into someone else, simply because they have concerns regarding the launch of nuclear material by NASA.
(d) Oxidised plutonium is still radioactive (heard of MOX?) No, instead, you and your kin will think the scientists are lying to you, and acting in bad faith. Let me guess, you're probably a friend of Intelligent Design
Actually I'm a scientist by education and an AP by profession. You, on the other hand, are a name calling coward.
Er - didn't Apple make Personal Computers back then?
I haven't investigated enough myself to have a informed opinion on the magnitude of risk, but all other things being equal I'm pretty breathing plutonium is less than heathful.
This page mentions that there are no recorded cases of fatality from plutonium ingestion. But it also lists what could happen (and where the Plutonium goes in your body). It may simply be a case of it increasing the likelihood of certain cancers.
NASA claims that modern RTGs are just about unbreechable.
And that a 5lb (or whatever it was) block of foam couldn't do any damage to the spaceshuttle.
Skeptics note that NASA also once claimed that the odds of the Space Shuttle being destroyed by a launch failure at 1 in 100,000
Lol - they should be right for another 300,000 years then.
Read the first post - what do those that protested against the launch of a Nuclear powered probe have to apologize for? They had a concern and they voiced it - they're in the "land of the free" with a right to "free speech". And what harm did they do?
Do you demand that the operators of coal-fired power plants apologize to the residents of the Black Forest in Germany, the NE United States/SE Canada, etc. for all the damage to arboreal forests caused by acid rain?
Sure, why not? And include all those that drive fossil fuel vehicles and USE the electricity supplied by those plants.
Some accidents happen.
Yes they do. What's your point?
If they had to abort that rocket, it would have been downrange from Cape Canaveral into the Atlantic Ocean. Sure, the COSMOS probe that crashed into Alberta in the 80's spewed some plutonium over some area of a range grazing area, but the world didn't come to a crashing halt now did it?
See that's just stupidity. Did the world come to an end when people started inhaling Asbestos? No. Did their world come crashing to an end? Eventually - in the majority of cases. However, I'm not claiming the world will end or that the use of nuclear material in the generation of power is bad. I am pointing out that people are far to quick to pick on people that are concerned for the environment, simply because one event was a success (which is the subject of the original post and it's reply).
How much more plutonium was induced into the biosphere by the open air detonations of fission weapons in the 50's and 60's (as well as fission-triggered fusion devices)? Again, we're all still here.
Well we should release more then shouldn't we?
What happens if the "slug" stops being a slug? (it'd probably take a really hot fireball to do that - where would they find one of those?)
Plutonium melts at 914K and a typical rocket exhaust is 2500K to 3600K. So even if the resulting fireball is half the temperature of the exhaust, it still has the potential to liquify the plutonium. Summary: Stupid people should apologize for trying to influence policy according to their stupidity. Smart people should not apologize for trying to influence policy according to their smartitude
Stupid people make up words too.
What, exactly would I have to appologize for?
I see, so a bunch of "hippies" should apologize for being concerned about the release of plutonium into the atmosphere. But you are teflon coated if you are proven to be wrong.
the actual radiation exposure would be something like being out in the sun slightly longer than you should without sunscreen. That's not great, but frankly if I was concerned about that, I'd make a point of not living within threat range of the cape.
Chances are the plutonium would vapourise and be carried off with the jetstream (ala chernobyl). Turning into fallout. To be inhaled and ingested by potentially millions.
Get over it.
Like I said, I don't really care.
They are very serious about minimizing the exposure, which is why the teams were deployed, but the actual danger is negligable.
Yes, they are in their balloons with huge plutonium vacuums.
Now I don't really care what it's powered by and what's on it. But will you and the parent poster apologize if one of these probes do explode on lift off?
I mean it's not like anything NASA does ever goes wrong?
I expect that if it ever does happen you'll either be very quiet, or you'll find someone else to take a cheap shot at.
Lol. "Oh dear. It's gone too close to the moon. And now it's coming back..."
Only 9 hours? Is that a slashdot record...?
;)
We'll get the dupe in 12 months....
Perhaps you should read the book Chickenhawk for an idea of what PTSD can do to a person. His (Robert Mason's) story is probably a mild case of it's affect - but how would you like your ex Vet airline pilot suddenly blacking out on approach?
Or your rape victim cab driver, or surgeon.
I think your stupid statement indicates you think PTSD is simply a case of "bad memories".
You know, one day the almighty slashdevelopers will put a simple check in for posting the article that extracts the links out of an article and then does a quick search to find others with similar links and displays them as an "Are you sure this isn't a dupe" option.
But now I'm just dreaming...
Your PDA has a mouse? Or didn't you RTFA?
Bollocks - forgot to paste in this link for the Quake 4 relief mapping. What a numpty...
It wasn't the one I was thinking of - but it does show how "out of date" Tomshardware is...
/.?
The article I was thinking of was actually based on "Relief Mapping" (which AFAIK is better than parallax mapping). The link is here. Unfortunately the link to the zip is broken. But the more recent post on the subject relates to Quake 4 which can be seen here. The links (for DOOM and Quake 4 are both working).
Can opengl.org stand the
OK, so Newton has a great interface etc. And now it runs on LINUX based PDA's.
Linux. An open source OS...
If Newton is so good, and Linux is OS. Why not develop a version of Linux that has the interface that you love so much?
Ah these "features" are already available and present in the current generation of cards. They've been around since at least 2004 - and viable on hardware from then (ie. 6800's etc.).
The first example I saw of Parallax mapping was actually something done in DOOM 3 (I can't find the post on the OpenGL forum). So why are these "new features" considered "New". Looks like an advert for current gen Hardware to me...