Thought #1: Stop wasting waste our valuable spectrum. Instead use the already existing communication buses running to nearly every home and feed off of cable/satellite subscription fees.
Thought #2: How about going with the public supported model used in public television where they run pledge drives, feed off of endowments and enjoy tax free status because they're a non-profit. Everyone gets to keep their jobs (well except the advertisers but I'd sooner see burn in hell anyway) and consumers get higher quality television that they actually want to watch.
A secondary benefit of either of these would be that product quality and value would increase because manufacturers would be forced to reallocate part of their marketing brainwash budget into the actual product to differentiate and compete.
Which I thought was a fine an excellent idea since my $100/month cable bill should be going to something worthwhile. I mean come on, people pay good money to be advertised to in magazines. Why shouldn't they enjoy that privilege with TV?
No, the code posted above was eaten by filters. The actual code in question may be found here. You can see clearly that there is a check to verify that "fromIndex" is greater than or equal to zero, that "toIndex" is greater than or equal to "fromIndex" and that "toIndex" is less than "arrayLength". In sum, a basic range check function easily recreated by any geeky child and something that would have taken Google engineers an equal amount of time write as it would to copy/paste.
The beginning of your statement has no connection to the latter except and unless you didn't actually read and comprehend my statement. Regarding the former, Americans--and to some extent the western world generally--have a general conceit about themselves that they are so far ahead of the game that from a practical stand point there is no competition. They believe themselves to be entitled to their station by dint of their citizenship alone. This is why I assert that they are not being taught and do not realize that they can become obsolesced and replaced. As to the later I believe I did apply it to other nations. You might have realized this while reading had you been less interested in trolling. However, the primary thrust of the response was in answer to your comment about how "Americans" already recognize themselves to be in a competition of value as a resource rather than entitled. It is quite believable even if not very understandable that others too, not just Americans are in possession of an over-inflated self-regard.
You can't, welcome to capitalism. Everyone is given the ability to make poor choices and little recourse is available to those with less money than the one making the poor choice. Nobody said it was the fairest model. It just happens to keep the most sheep running in the right direction.
Hedonism is a poor model upon which to base a society. It sounds good on the surface but it only leads to implosion. The expectation that every citizen must earn their keep is good and healthy for a society. Entrepreneurship will ensure that there is never a lack of things to do for the motivated. But, there will always be a lack for those whom refuse to adapt and meet new challenges. Obsolescence is not the fault of progress, obsolescence is the fault of those who stand still.
If "Americans" truly recognize that fact then the only conclusion one could derive from observation is that they are irrational people with a unhealthy disregard for their future. While most American corporations act like they're in a competition with the rest of the world. The overwhelmingly majority of American citizens do not. The only real kind of competition the average American citizen understands and actively participates in is social competition as expressed through sports and possessions. It is my suspicion that this holds true to some degree or another for most of the western world.
There is no greater testament to this than the undervaluing of education and scientific pursuits and the overvaluing of hedonistic ones in the American culture.
It's simple to understand really. You the human, performing {x} task will be replaced when it is economically advantageous to do so. If replacing you with someone living in a foreign land or even locally provides an economic advantage. You will. If replacing you with a robot, or other synthetic construct provides an economic advantage. You will.
If your goal is to not be replaced then it will be necessary for you the human performing {x} task to stay ahead of your competition with regards to ensuring that it provides an economic advantage over alternatives to employ you. This is the most valuable lesson anyone living in a capitalist society can receive yet it seldom is taught. Dear employee, you are not an entitled individual, you are a cog in a machine. If you do not fit you will be replaced.
Actually this is the essential reason why content publishers want copyrights to apply to abandoned works, as well as for those copyrights to have a lifespan for as long as they can get away with. If you cannot obtain an alternative--the low/no cost old stuff--they believe you will be forced to purchase their new stuff. As it stands (for a large portion of the world at least) unless you're a steam punk fan, there's really no way to legally get content that's culturally relevant to you.
Is it right? Is it fair? Of course not. But this is business and business always gets what it wants in the end. Their money is a most effective force multiplier against a woefully inadequate number of soldiers fighting for the cause of the citizenry.
There are two components to this. The first being that we are a society of specialists. It is impossible to know everything about everything, the best you can hope for is knowing a little about everything. The second part, are chemical corps and their cousins--typically referred to as big chemical and big pharma--that are well known for chasing the dollar regardless of the cost in terms of the effects their products have on people and the environment. When combined, this causes people to have a natural distrust of all of these poly-syllabic words on the back of the products they buy. In many cases it's well founded, others at least suspect. It isn't uncommon to learn that commonly used additives for food and cosmetic preservation, coloring, etc. or even the materials used in their containers area actually not very healthy for you. One of the earliest examples in human history being that of lead. But has been followed on by plenty of others, mercury, radium, DDT, PVC, hydrogenated oils,... Even now we're learning that even though people or test animals don't drop dead or develop tumors, etc. right away it's still quite possible to manifest negative consequences many years later. There's also reasonable concern over synergistic effects of chemicals considered safe in isolation being quite the opposite when combined with certain others.
Under this kind of climate, is there any wonder why when given a choice between ingredient lists that look like, "wheat, sugar, soybean oil, salt" or "wheat, high-fructose corn syrup, sorbitol, maltodextrin, salt, yellow no. 5, polysorbate 80" people are going to prefer the former?
Really web monkeys? Is that the best you can do? Mod me down because you don't like what I have to say? Why not refute what I'm saying if you believe me to be in error? Show me how I'm wrong, because honestly, I'd love to have access to a technology suite such as I described.
It might feel nice to b**ch slap the vendors providing the browsers. But, the reality is that you're only hurting your customers not them. They're the ones that will be furious and fuming about how the software they paid a large sum of money for doesn't work one day after an update is pushed to their machines.
Now of course the amusing part comes when--knowing this kind of non-sense is normally involved--people like to claim that HTML5/Javascript is ready for prime-time replacement of installed applications. Web monkeys and their toys are 5-10 years behind the curve when it comes to delivering practical, straightforward solutions to their clients. This technology can enable you to do some pretty slick things. I don't think there's any questioning that. But, the fickleness of the environment and the limitations of the languages in terms of expression but especially and most importantly maintainability of the code should really give pause to anyone that wants to use it for anything other than auxiliary clients.
It would be awesome if we could have a WORA technology suite that has the expressive power and creative freedom of WPF; the choice of a lightweight agile scripting language like Javascript OR the reliable, maintainable formality and expressive power of Java or C# depending upon requirements; coupled with the ability to trust that no matter what platform the software is run on, it will never deviate. The reality on the ground unfortunately is anything but that.
Slashdot Mirror
That's un-possible!
I thought that was Bing...
Here are a couple fanciful thoughts.
Thought #1: Stop wasting waste our valuable spectrum. Instead use the already existing communication buses running to nearly every home and feed off of cable/satellite subscription fees.
Thought #2: How about going with the public supported model used in public television where they run pledge drives, feed off of endowments and enjoy tax free status because they're a non-profit. Everyone gets to keep their jobs (well except the advertisers but I'd sooner see burn in hell anyway) and consumers get higher quality television that they actually want to watch.
A secondary benefit of either of these would be that product quality and value would increase because manufacturers would be forced to reallocate part of their marketing brainwash budget into the actual product to differentiate and compete.
Which I thought was a fine an excellent idea since my $100/month cable bill should be going to something worthwhile. I mean come on, people pay good money to be advertised to in magazines. Why shouldn't they enjoy that privilege with TV?
Seems like a nice leverage. Who would miss them anyway? Adapt or die...
I think it'd take longer to copy/paste than it would to just write it. Oracle should pay Google for time lost...
I'm glad someone did...
No, the code posted above was eaten by filters. The actual code in question may be found here. You can see clearly that there is a check to verify that "fromIndex" is greater than or equal to zero, that "toIndex" is greater than or equal to "fromIndex" and that "toIndex" is less than "arrayLength". In sum, a basic range check function easily recreated by any geeky child and something that would have taken Google engineers an equal amount of time write as it would to copy/paste.
The beginning of your statement has no connection to the latter except and unless you didn't actually read and comprehend my statement. Regarding the former, Americans--and to some extent the western world generally--have a general conceit about themselves that they are so far ahead of the game that from a practical stand point there is no competition. They believe themselves to be entitled to their station by dint of their citizenship alone. This is why I assert that they are not being taught and do not realize that they can become obsolesced and replaced. As to the later I believe I did apply it to other nations. You might have realized this while reading had you been less interested in trolling. However, the primary thrust of the response was in answer to your comment about how "Americans" already recognize themselves to be in a competition of value as a resource rather than entitled. It is quite believable even if not very understandable that others too, not just Americans are in possession of an over-inflated self-regard.
You can't, welcome to capitalism. Everyone is given the ability to make poor choices and little recourse is available to those with less money than the one making the poor choice. Nobody said it was the fairest model. It just happens to keep the most sheep running in the right direction.
Hedonism is a poor model upon which to base a society. It sounds good on the surface but it only leads to implosion. The expectation that every citizen must earn their keep is good and healthy for a society. Entrepreneurship will ensure that there is never a lack of things to do for the motivated. But, there will always be a lack for those whom refuse to adapt and meet new challenges. Obsolescence is not the fault of progress, obsolescence is the fault of those who stand still.
If "Americans" truly recognize that fact then the only conclusion one could derive from observation is that they are irrational people with a unhealthy disregard for their future. While most American corporations act like they're in a competition with the rest of the world. The overwhelmingly majority of American citizens do not. The only real kind of competition the average American citizen understands and actively participates in is social competition as expressed through sports and possessions. It is my suspicion that this holds true to some degree or another for most of the western world.
There is no greater testament to this than the undervaluing of education and scientific pursuits and the overvaluing of hedonistic ones in the American culture.
It's simple to understand really. You the human, performing {x} task will be replaced when it is economically advantageous to do so. If replacing you with someone living in a foreign land or even locally provides an economic advantage. You will. If replacing you with a robot, or other synthetic construct provides an economic advantage. You will.
If your goal is to not be replaced then it will be necessary for you the human performing {x} task to stay ahead of your competition with regards to ensuring that it provides an economic advantage over alternatives to employ you. This is the most valuable lesson anyone living in a capitalist society can receive yet it seldom is taught. Dear employee, you are not an entitled individual, you are a cog in a machine. If you do not fit you will be replaced.
He "could" but, having satisfied the need why would he "want" to?
If won a mint condition 1999 Ducati Monster in a poker game, how likely would you follow through with your original plans to buy a 2012 Yamaha Zuma?
So how much do you pay per blank CD/DVD/Blu Ray in extortion money?
What "new" product would he have purchased for his son had he not downloaded this for him?
Actually the publisher loses money from the sale of "new" things because people are buying/copying the old. That's why libraries are evil.
Actually this is the essential reason why content publishers want copyrights to apply to abandoned works, as well as for those copyrights to have a lifespan for as long as they can get away with. If you cannot obtain an alternative--the low/no cost old stuff--they believe you will be forced to purchase their new stuff. As it stands (for a large portion of the world at least) unless you're a steam punk fan, there's really no way to legally get content that's culturally relevant to you.
Is it right? Is it fair? Of course not. But this is business and business always gets what it wants in the end. Their money is a most effective force multiplier against a woefully inadequate number of soldiers fighting for the cause of the citizenry.
I was going with lead vessels and pipes from ancient Rome and before. Either way, your examples fill in yet another time period.
You've never electro-shock exercise?
There are two components to this. The first being that we are a society of specialists. It is impossible to know everything about everything, the best you can hope for is knowing a little about everything. The second part, are chemical corps and their cousins--typically referred to as big chemical and big pharma--that are well known for chasing the dollar regardless of the cost in terms of the effects their products have on people and the environment. When combined, this causes people to have a natural distrust of all of these poly-syllabic words on the back of the products they buy. In many cases it's well founded, others at least suspect. It isn't uncommon to learn that commonly used additives for food and cosmetic preservation, coloring, etc. or even the materials used in their containers area actually not very healthy for you. One of the earliest examples in human history being that of lead. But has been followed on by plenty of others, mercury, radium, DDT, PVC, hydrogenated oils, ... Even now we're learning that even though people or test animals don't drop dead or develop tumors, etc. right away it's still quite possible to manifest negative consequences many years later. There's also reasonable concern over synergistic effects of chemicals considered safe in isolation being quite the opposite when combined with certain others.
Under this kind of climate, is there any wonder why when given a choice between ingredient lists that look like, "wheat, sugar, soybean oil, salt" or "wheat, high-fructose corn syrup, sorbitol, maltodextrin, salt, yellow no. 5, polysorbate 80" people are going to prefer the former?
Really web monkeys? Is that the best you can do? Mod me down because you don't like what I have to say? Why not refute what I'm saying if you believe me to be in error? Show me how I'm wrong, because honestly, I'd love to have access to a technology suite such as I described.
It might feel nice to b**ch slap the vendors providing the browsers. But, the reality is that you're only hurting your customers not them. They're the ones that will be furious and fuming about how the software they paid a large sum of money for doesn't work one day after an update is pushed to their machines.
Now of course the amusing part comes when--knowing this kind of non-sense is normally involved--people like to claim that HTML5/Javascript is ready for prime-time replacement of installed applications. Web monkeys and their toys are 5-10 years behind the curve when it comes to delivering practical, straightforward solutions to their clients. This technology can enable you to do some pretty slick things. I don't think there's any questioning that. But, the fickleness of the environment and the limitations of the languages in terms of expression but especially and most importantly maintainability of the code should really give pause to anyone that wants to use it for anything other than auxiliary clients.
It would be awesome if we could have a WORA technology suite that has the expressive power and creative freedom of WPF; the choice of a lightweight agile scripting language like Javascript OR the reliable, maintainable formality and expressive power of Java or C# depending upon requirements; coupled with the ability to trust that no matter what platform the software is run on, it will never deviate. The reality on the ground unfortunately is anything but that.
I'm not sure if you're simply agreeing with me or your brain superimposed "doesn't" over "does".