You claimed Dell didn't sell machines with the Santa Rosa chipset? Not true.
I never claimed Apple hardware was "stratospherically expensive". I claimed it's slightly more expensive.
The 17" display is a bit of a strawman argument. Apple only has one model with it and as I mentioned I didn't want it but if I did Dell does sell models with it. Of course reverse this stawman and specify conditions Apple couldn't satisfy.... Where's the model with the solid state drive? it was an option for my D830!
Why bring up yet another model with a plastic case? My latitude doesn't have one!
Now with all that out of the way I'll make some claims...
The apple hardware tends to be good but you can find cheaper alternatives that are more flexible in there configurations else where. It only makes sense to buy Mac hardware if you're going to run their software. If you're not, as was the case for me, it makes more sense to shop else ware.
Oh by the way... I'm not all that huge of a Dell fan but for this machine the price was right.
This is bunk.... Dell has been selling laptops with the latest Santa Rosa chip set since it's release, I've had mine now for at least 7 weeks. A comparable Dell is also cheaper than the Apple if you do it with any common sense.
In my case I wanted a 15" display not a 17" and didn't care about the webcam. I got a maxed out Latitude D830. It was about $250 cheaper than a comparable MacBook Pro, and I did compare... I was buying it just to install Ubuntu so I didn't care where it came from.
The economy of entertainment would operate differently if there were lesser copyright protections but it would still exist. This theory that new medias wouldn't be created because there's no return on investment is bunk. Even today there are avenues through which entirely free medias are created and distributed.
We may not get half billion dollar summer blockbusters to go watch but all that creative human energy would still be applied to something.
This is really an absurd statement. We use Pro/E, Inventor and AutoCAD where I work. I work in an engineered to order manufacturing environment. All of our original design work is done in 3D. All of our per order drawings are done in AutoCAD. It's the right tool for the job. It's much faster to make small alterations in a 2D drawing with AutoCAD than to manipulate a 3D model in Inventor or Pro/E.
There are many well established database abstraction layers and most applications use one or another.
Of course ODBC sucks and is rarely the choice.
Regardless applications are going to be limited to those database which support all the features required by the application.
Using ODBC does not some how magically make SQLite magically equivilant to PostgreSQL
A generic application, word precessing or spread sheet, is completely different than WoW. Blizzard actually provides a service that the consumer's willing to pay for, they provide a hub to connect all the players together. In addition they actually generate new content as part of that subscription. What service are they going to provide me while using a spreadsheet I'm going to be willing to pay for?
I agree. It's an absurd construction. I (like you) assume they believe that labeling thier enemy fascists will help misdirect the publics attention from there fascist behavior.
On Windows...
Right click on the desktop and create a new text file. Rename the text file to hello.vbs, then right click and choose edit. Enter the text 'msgbox "Hello world!"' and save it. Double click on the icon.
The only thing that could make it easier was if they had added "vbs file" as a new document template.
I don't think it's lack of availability that's the problem...
It may be true that the vast majority don't care but I can say for sure that it's the reason I quit using Java, and oddly moved to Ruby for all my development projects. Not everyone has that freedom, if they want to keep there job, but I did and exerciesed it.
It's unlikely that I would ever consider developing software in any language that wasn't released under an open source license, gpl, mit, etc...
After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge.
The problem is that they should be protecting our rights not attempting to slip one past a less informed librarian. Their job is to protect us, this should include protection from unreasonable searches, instead they tried to conduct one.
I will not buy a digital TV just for traditional broadcast style programming. I want on-demand/online video in open unrestricted formats that I'm able to move around to any device or pass along to who ever I want. If this means I have nothing to choose from so be it, I will live with out.
I look forward to the day I can justify purchasing a new TV because downloadable video content is legally available in HD formats without any form of content protection, but I will not be holding my breath.
You guys can enjoy my typos all you want. I was trying to crank that out at work between passes from my ever mobile boss. If it had been compiled (me proofing it) the project would have been abandoned for lack of available time. Instead the message was delivered and you understood it just fine.
*** don't take this as me suggesting dynamic languages generate more bugs in code, they don't. It's just me having a little fun with your stupid waste of bandwidth attacking spelling and grammer on a message board. ***
I'm not here to convince anyone to move to Ruby, Python or any other dynamic language. I was trying to point out that using the "It's not type-safe argument" is pretty much an admision that you've never used a dynamic language and don't understand their advantages. I was trying to point out that the Java/C++ crowd tend to forget that quite a lot of us Ruby/Python programmers used to be Java/c++ programmers.
As far as maintenance goes...
With out a doubt, if programmer sills were the same in their respective tools and the code bases to be maintained were of the same quality (good or bad), a Ruby/Python programmers will be up to speed and productive much faster than a Java/C++ programmer. The reality is that the higher level language allows for more natural expression of the problem domain and this results in more readable code.
All I meant by "more ways to screw something up" was that there are more ways, not that they were more likley to get it wrong.
It always seems to me when I see this argument that it's the "but it's not type-safe" people that don't get it.
I, like lots of other dynamic language proponents, come from a background in type-safe languages but eventually I realized that in most cases static type checking did nothing but slow me down. It doesn't matter if your code is correct at compile time, it only matters if it's correct when it's being used and the reality is that type-safe and dynamic language users verify this the same way, wth automated testing.
Why then, should I bother jumping through the hoops of type safty?
I will grant that dynamic languages propobally give less skilled programmers more ways to screw something up but that's there problem not mine;)
That's the rederic that gets tossed around to defend the current situation. Think beyond the messy economic situation that we are presently stuck with just because we've embraced the notion of owning knowledge. Instead start with the assumption that you can't own knowledge and try to figure out how to provide all of the things we need to prosper/progress. It's perfectly possible and my position is that it would in fact be a much better world, although at this point a very painful switch. To answer your question more directly, I don't expect the bussinsses, which should be trying to provide products at the best possible value to their customers, to gamble 15 years and 10 million dollars on product development.
Exactly.
Work that's already been done shouldn't have value.
The actual time spent actively spent researching and developing something as well as the time spent docmenting and teaching it to others should be rewarded.
Just because some one has an epiphany while working on something after studying the cumalitve knowledge of everyone that's come before them shouldn't entitle them to spend the rest of there lives living off of other people's productivity.
It's unfortunate that we've created an economic system built around these concepts. The world is signicantly poorer for it.
Yes, I would feel the same.
I've always believed that we need an economic system that derives reward for work that's actually done. Not work that may be done and especially not for preventing other people from doing productive work.
No matter if you want to except it or not there is no such thing as an origianl thought. No matter what the subject matter 99% of your new conecept was derived from the work of the people that came before you.
Ever notice how it's always the security consultants, or in some cases the anti open source, advocates that want to hold developers liable.
People need to take a good look at the people who ask for things like this.
You still have to evaluate what is done in testing carefully. Just because users have assumptions about how the interface should work doesn't make them right. I nocited reading through the link user tests they had them try to change the time. There recomendation; remove the check for root password because the users didn't expect it.
Obviously this is a stupid solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The real problem is Windows users expecting to have root control of thier computers because of previous experiences. Changing a system wide setting should require permision from that computers administrator.
Having jumped ship to Ruby/Rails quite a while back I'd have to say I didn't find it very impressive in comparison but if I was using Python I suspect I'd see it differently.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to get my hands on these for internal business use. I have an excellent application for them.
You claimed the Mac was cheaper? It's not.
You claimed Dell didn't sell machines with the Santa Rosa chipset? Not true.
I never claimed Apple hardware was "stratospherically expensive". I claimed it's slightly more expensive.
The 17" display is a bit of a strawman argument. Apple only has one model with it and as I mentioned I didn't want it but if I did Dell does sell models with it. Of course reverse this stawman and specify conditions Apple couldn't satisfy.... Where's the model with the solid state drive? it was an option for my D830!
Why bring up yet another model with a plastic case? My latitude doesn't have one!
Now with all that out of the way I'll make some claims...
The apple hardware tends to be good but you can find cheaper alternatives that are more flexible in there configurations else where. It only makes sense to buy Mac hardware if you're going to run their software. If you're not, as was the case for me, it makes more sense to shop else ware.
Oh by the way... I'm not all that huge of a Dell fan but for this machine the price was right.
This is bunk.... Dell has been selling laptops with the latest Santa Rosa chip set since it's release, I've had mine now for at least 7 weeks. A comparable Dell is also cheaper than the Apple if you do it with any common sense.
In my case I wanted a 15" display not a 17" and didn't care about the webcam. I got a maxed out Latitude D830. It was about $250 cheaper than a comparable MacBook Pro, and I did compare... I was buying it just to install Ubuntu so I didn't care where it came from.
The economy of entertainment would operate differently if there were lesser copyright protections but it would still exist. This theory that new medias wouldn't be created because there's no return on investment is bunk. Even today there are avenues through which entirely free medias are created and distributed.
We may not get half billion dollar summer blockbusters to go watch but all that creative human energy would still be applied to something.
According to each companies respective websites Inventor is outselling SolidWorks by quite a margin and has 637,000 current licenses.
I'd hardly call that trounced.
This is really an absurd statement. We use Pro/E, Inventor and AutoCAD where I work. I work in an engineered to order manufacturing environment. All of our original design work is done in 3D. All of our per order drawings are done in AutoCAD. It's the right tool for the job. It's much faster to make small alterations in a 2D drawing with AutoCAD than to manipulate a 3D model in Inventor or Pro/E.
There are many well established database abstraction layers and most applications use one or another. Of course ODBC sucks and is rarely the choice. Regardless applications are going to be limited to those database which support all the features required by the application. Using ODBC does not some how magically make SQLite magically equivilant to PostgreSQL
A generic application, word precessing or spread sheet, is completely different than WoW. Blizzard actually provides a service that the consumer's willing to pay for, they provide a hub to connect all the players together. In addition they actually generate new content as part of that subscription. What service are they going to provide me while using a spreadsheet I'm going to be willing to pay for?
I agree. It's an absurd construction. I (like you) assume they believe that labeling thier enemy fascists will help misdirect the publics attention from there fascist behavior.
On Windows... Right click on the desktop and create a new text file. Rename the text file to hello.vbs, then right click and choose edit. Enter the text 'msgbox "Hello world!"' and save it. Double click on the icon. The only thing that could make it easier was if they had added "vbs file" as a new document template. I don't think it's lack of availability that's the problem...
It may be true that the vast majority don't care but I can say for sure that it's the reason I quit using Java, and oddly moved to Ruby for all my development projects. Not everyone has that freedom, if they want to keep there job, but I did and exerciesed it.
It's unlikely that I would ever consider developing software in any language that wasn't released under an open source license, gpl, mit, etc...
A real good concreate example of the advantage can be see by comparing how much work it is to create an enumerable class in ruby vs c#
The problem is that they should be protecting our rights not attempting to slip one past a less informed librarian. Their job is to protect us, this should include protection from unreasonable searches, instead they tried to conduct one.
That probverb? You must mean...
The squeaky wheel gets replaced.
I will not buy a digital TV just for traditional broadcast style programming. I want on-demand/online video in open unrestricted formats that I'm able to move around to any device or pass along to who ever I want. If this means I have nothing to choose from so be it, I will live with out.
I look forward to the day I can justify purchasing a new TV because downloadable video content is legally available in HD formats without any form of content protection, but I will not be holding my breath.
You guys can enjoy my typos all you want. I was trying to crank that out at work between passes from my ever mobile boss. If it had been compiled (me proofing it) the project would have been abandoned for lack of available time. Instead the message was delivered and you understood it just fine.
*** don't take this as me suggesting dynamic languages generate more bugs in code, they don't. It's just me having a little fun with your stupid waste of bandwidth attacking spelling and grammer on a message board. ***
I'm not here to convince anyone to move to Ruby, Python or any other dynamic language. I was trying to point out that using the "It's not type-safe argument" is pretty much an admision that you've never used a dynamic language and don't understand their advantages. I was trying to point out that the Java/C++ crowd tend to forget that quite a lot of us Ruby/Python programmers used to be Java/c++ programmers. As far as maintenance goes... With out a doubt, if programmer sills were the same in their respective tools and the code bases to be maintained were of the same quality (good or bad), a Ruby/Python programmers will be up to speed and productive much faster than a Java/C++ programmer. The reality is that the higher level language allows for more natural expression of the problem domain and this results in more readable code. All I meant by "more ways to screw something up" was that there are more ways, not that they were more likley to get it wrong.
In terms of raw number maybe
but posts such as this one from scobleizer indicate that there's enough interest/departure fromIt always seems to me when I see this argument that it's the "but it's not type-safe" people that don't get it.
;)
I, like lots of other dynamic language proponents, come from a background in type-safe languages but eventually I realized that in most cases static type checking did nothing but slow me down. It doesn't matter if your code is correct at compile time, it only matters if it's correct when it's being used and the reality is that type-safe and dynamic language users verify this the same way, wth automated testing.
Why then, should I bother jumping through the hoops of type safty?
I will grant that dynamic languages propobally give less skilled programmers more ways to screw something up but that's there problem not mine
That's the rederic that gets tossed around to defend the current situation. Think beyond the messy economic situation that we are presently stuck with just because we've embraced the notion of owning knowledge. Instead start with the assumption that you can't own knowledge and try to figure out how to provide all of the things we need to prosper/progress. It's perfectly possible and my position is that it would in fact be a much better world, although at this point a very painful switch. To answer your question more directly, I don't expect the bussinsses, which should be trying to provide products at the best possible value to their customers, to gamble 15 years and 10 million dollars on product development.
Exactly. Work that's already been done shouldn't have value. The actual time spent actively spent researching and developing something as well as the time spent docmenting and teaching it to others should be rewarded. Just because some one has an epiphany while working on something after studying the cumalitve knowledge of everyone that's come before them shouldn't entitle them to spend the rest of there lives living off of other people's productivity. It's unfortunate that we've created an economic system built around these concepts. The world is signicantly poorer for it.
Yes, I would feel the same. I've always believed that we need an economic system that derives reward for work that's actually done. Not work that may be done and especially not for preventing other people from doing productive work. No matter if you want to except it or not there is no such thing as an origianl thought. No matter what the subject matter 99% of your new conecept was derived from the work of the people that came before you.
Ever notice how it's always the security consultants, or in some cases the anti open source, advocates that want to hold developers liable. People need to take a good look at the people who ask for things like this.
You still have to evaluate what is done in testing carefully. Just because users have assumptions about how the interface should work doesn't make them right. I nocited reading through the link user tests they had them try to change the time. There recomendation; remove the check for root password because the users didn't expect it.
Obviously this is a stupid solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The real problem is Windows users expecting to have root control of thier computers because of previous experiences. Changing a system wide setting should require permision from that computers administrator.
Having jumped ship to Ruby/Rails quite a while back I'd have to say I didn't find it very impressive in comparison but if I was using Python I suspect I'd see it differently.