I fail to see how anything you said contributes to the discussion of how buttons that change their function based on context may or may not make things easier.
I did not claim anything was revolutionary. I did not claim any device was the first to do anything. I did however, say what I had, and what I would like it to be able to do. Maybe "most" people wouldn't bother. I know I would.
On the other hand, I would love to hear about another device that can act as a universal remote. It has to have: Color backlighted multitouch LCD 320x240 or better. Be able to learn/transmit both IR and bluetooth (PS3). Be easily updatable (via USB connection to my PC or wirelessly from my wireless network). Control multiple devices (6 minimum). Be reasonably priced, say less than $50.
Well for example, using my iPhone as a universal remote, once I select "VCR", there is no need for my cable's "On Demand" button. All I need are Stop, fast forward, play, rewind. I could probably also use a jog knob (A knob, turn more left for faster rewind, more right for faster forward). However, my stereo doesn't need a rewind/fast forward, but volume would be nice, which makes no sense for my VCR.
My iPhone could also change the labels under the touchscreen buttons depending on the device (or a different arrangement).
I guess that would be highly dependent on your particular field. First,.NET has functional languages like F#, and M. I also find that you dismiss the importance of profiling code in.NET simply because it doesn't generate machine language code. I'm at a loss as you why would you think it is any less important. Determining the areas which are being stressed the hardest and deserve more of your intention is completely unrelated to whether the code generates ASM, ML, or IL.
You say.NET has "minimal support for it", but I suspect that's speaking more of your understanding that support. Background Workers is the easy way for highly independent routines to execute in many common scenarios. If that isn't enough or doesn't fit your need, then ThreadPools make highly parallelizable code a snap to implement. Example:
Dim eventhandles As New List(Of EventWaitHandle)
Try
For Each site As String In sites
Dim ewh As New EventWaitHandle(False, EventResetMode.ManualReset)
eventhandles.Add(ewh)
Dim param As New ThreadData(ewh, "http://" & site)
Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(AddressOf DoDownload, param)
Next
Catch ex As Exception
End Try
Now you are free to write the "DoDownload" routine, that could download some data, validate it, and do some processing on it. With no further changes, the above code would work well on any machine with a single processor, to one with 64 or more cores (I haven't tested more than 64 cores). If more control is needed, you can set the number of worker threads that will execute concurrently based on the number of processors in the machine with a single call, or you could implement your own threadpool, or create your own implementation by overriding specific functions of it. I also left the eventhandle code in the example, although it isn't needed for the example. It does show exactly how easy it is to create and use some more advanced thread synchronization primitives in.NET.
Lastly, you could also spawn your own threads if you need/want even more control. It's incredibly easy. Example: Dim t1 as new thread(AddressOf DoDownload) t1.start()
Not hard stuff, really. Of course if you want to get into larger scale outs, then you may want to look into the Azure set of.NET features, which is supposedly specifically designed for large scalability for cloud computing (I myself have no experience in that area).
I was always under the impression that proof of insurance was a nicety. I rarely have kept my current insurance card on me, but I have always had an expired insurance card. *Nothing* on the card ever changes except the valid from-to dates, so if I ever did "need" it, I had my policy number, agent name, etc etc, and I could even tell you the correct expiration date. I also rarely get pulled over (Once every few years), so I didn't care. Until this last time, and I had to go to court to show proof of insurance. The fine was lower if you had valid insurance at the time I think, but you still got a fine if you did. Or maybe you (You meaning me) had to pay court costs, filing fees, etc that still amounted to a fairly significant amount. Whatever the case was, it wasn't "free" like it always had been in the past. So now I make sure I have the most recent insurance card on me.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know. I assumed what the judge said was correct, but perhaps not. But I did land up paying.
That and why should I be forced to pay high premiums when I drive safely? I don't want to have to pay for the idiot who gets into accidents in his $700 special of the week car and doesn't care if he smashes it.
You want to fix the uninsured problem? Making it a capital offense punishable by death. No repeat offenders, and I suspect the average IQ will raise significantly over time as a side benefit.
I would consider myself a fairly large user of my internet. I have a 30MB/sec connection, and last month I used approximately 50GB. Calculating that out, I am using my connection 1/197th of the time. A 1:70 ratio sounds pretty decent unless you have an abnormally large number of bandwidth hogs running bittorrent 24/7.
For clarification, the FCC's ruling was not that comcast could not throttle BitTorrent traffic, but the method they used (packet injection -- causing connections to drop/terminate) was unlawful. It was effectively "blocking" P2P traffic for excessive users, which wasn't in their TOS. If you read the final decision, you will see that part of the agreement they had was they were going to change the METHOD of congestion control (Likely QoS based), and then notify it's users (and the FCC) of the new method.
Again, throttling traffic was NOT declared illegal. Systematically terminating connections by inspecting packets and then injecting fake packets into the "conversation" was. There is a huge difference. While YOU may want throttling to be illegal, it isn't.
There was no such court case that said you could not discriminate against P2P traffic.
There was a FCC ruling against comcast about the method they used to throttle P2P traffic (by interjecting RST packets -- effectively terminating the connection). However, if your TOS state as such, then it would likely be permissable even from the FCC. Delaying/Slowing/Prioritizing P2P packets are still very fair game and is commonly done.
Correction... People with other Operating Systems other than those provided by Microsoft and Apple are not able to access a governmental website, that is what is being discussed.
It's likely that moonlight works with the site as well, so linux users can access it as well. Of course, if it doesn't, you have the source so fix it yourself.
Most of your post is pointless because this cause isn't/can't/won't be about whether the patent is valid or not. That is for the USPTO to decide.
That said, tomtom could (and would likely) request the case to be delayed pending a review of the patents in question by the USPTO. The patent review(s) could take years, and only then would the original case then continue.
IANAL, but that is how I understand such cases proceed.
No. As a patent holder, they could sue any/all/none of the patent infringers at any time. There is no such thing as discriminatory patent licensing because ultimately the patent holder has the right to do whatever they please with the patent.
1. That is a trick question, and it's loaded of course. IE is compliant with many standards, but not all. Then again, there is not a single browser out there that is 100% compliant with all the web standards either.
2. Actually, there was a LOT less work involved for web designers when firefox/chrome/opera were irrelevant. Sadly, even if IE were removed from the face of the earth instantly, it'd still be difficult to write complex web applications for the remaining browsers because even firefox, chrome, opera aren't 100% compatible with the standards and have differing behaviors. If you think otherwise, you haven't done much web design.
3. Depends on what you consider competent of course. In *my* daily usage, it's more stable than firefox 3, so does that make it more competant? There have been fewer critical bugs for IE 7 than firefox as well, does that make it competant? Of the browsers that have an engine that can be used inside another application as a renderer via activex, it is the most competant. It does a lot worse on the acid tests, and it isn't as far along with implementing the more advanced CSS features. IE has it's strengths and weaknesses, but all the current browsers do.
Except that the lastest gen SSD's exceed 250MB/sec throughput. If the latest CF spec just added 133MB/sec, then that would be a huge bottleneck in throughput.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see how anything you said contributes to the discussion of how buttons that change their function based on context may or may not make things easier.
I did not claim anything was revolutionary. I did not claim any device was the first to do anything. I did however, say what I had, and what I would like it to be able to do. Maybe "most" people wouldn't bother. I know I would.
On the other hand, I would love to hear about another device that can act as a universal remote. It has to have:
Color backlighted multitouch LCD 320x240 or better.
Be able to learn/transmit both IR and bluetooth (PS3).
Be easily updatable (via USB connection to my PC or wirelessly from my wireless network).
Control multiple devices (6 minimum).
Be reasonably priced, say less than $50.
AT&T U-Verse came out a year ago, which does exactly that.
Well for example, using my iPhone as a universal remote, once I select "VCR", there is no need for my cable's "On Demand" button. All I need are Stop, fast forward, play, rewind. I could probably also use a jog knob (A knob, turn more left for faster rewind, more right for faster forward). However, my stereo doesn't need a rewind/fast forward, but volume would be nice, which makes no sense for my VCR.
My iPhone could also change the labels under the touchscreen buttons depending on the device (or a different arrangement).
I guess that would be highly dependent on your particular field. First, .NET has functional languages like F#, and M. I also find that you dismiss the importance of profiling code in .NET simply because it doesn't generate machine language code. I'm at a loss as you why would you think it is any less important. Determining the areas which are being stressed the hardest and deserve more of your intention is completely unrelated to whether the code generates ASM, ML, or IL.
You say .NET has "minimal support for it", but I suspect that's speaking more of your understanding that support. Background Workers is the easy way for highly independent routines to execute in many common scenarios. If that isn't enough or doesn't fit your need, then ThreadPools make highly parallelizable code a snap to implement. Example:
Dim eventhandles As New List(Of EventWaitHandle)
Try
For Each site As String In sites
Dim ewh As New EventWaitHandle(False, EventResetMode.ManualReset)
eventhandles.Add(ewh)
Dim param As New ThreadData(ewh, "http://" & site)
Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(AddressOf DoDownload, param)
Next
Catch ex As Exception
End Try
Now you are free to write the "DoDownload" routine, that could download some data, validate it, and do some processing on it. With no further changes, the above code would work well on any machine with a single processor, to one with 64 or more cores (I haven't tested more than 64 cores). If more control is needed, you can set the number of worker threads that will execute concurrently based on the number of processors in the machine with a single call, or you could implement your own threadpool, or create your own implementation by overriding specific functions of it. I also left the eventhandle code in the example, although it isn't needed for the example. It does show exactly how easy it is to create and use some more advanced thread synchronization primitives in .NET.
Lastly, you could also spawn your own threads if you need/want even more control. It's incredibly easy. Example:
Dim t1 as new thread(AddressOf DoDownload)
t1.start()
Not hard stuff, really. Of course if you want to get into larger scale outs, then you may want to look into the Azure set of .NET features, which is supposedly specifically designed for large scalability for cloud computing (I myself have no experience in that area).
Good catch. There obviously is a law that overrides that clause, as the judge specifically told the courtroom this before court, that having proof of insurance in court was not a valid defense, or something to that effect. Here's another reference:
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/drivers/drivers_license/SR-22_uninsured_crashes/mipenalty.html
I was always under the impression that proof of insurance was a nicety. I rarely have kept my current insurance card on me, but I have always had an expired insurance card. *Nothing* on the card ever changes except the valid from-to dates, so if I ever did "need" it, I had my policy number, agent name, etc etc, and I could even tell you the correct expiration date. I also rarely get pulled over (Once every few years), so I didn't care. Until this last time, and I had to go to court to show proof of insurance. The fine was lower if you had valid insurance at the time I think, but you still got a fine if you did. Or maybe you (You meaning me) had to pay court costs, filing fees, etc that still amounted to a fairly significant amount. Whatever the case was, it wasn't "free" like it always had been in the past. So now I make sure I have the most recent insurance card on me.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know. I assumed what the judge said was correct, but perhaps not. But I did land up paying.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K3-707
Please note part (b).
http://www.cookcountytrafficticket.com/cook-county-illinois-driving-without-no-insurance.html
I beg to differ. I have the receipt for the fine to prove it.
Stop disabling cookies and that problem will go away.
That's the way it used to be. A couple of years ago they passed a law that states that it is illegal to drive without proof of insurance on you.
That and why should I be forced to pay high premiums when I drive safely? I don't want to have to pay for the idiot who gets into accidents in his $700 special of the week car and doesn't care if he smashes it.
You want to fix the uninsured problem? Making it a capital offense punishable by death. No repeat offenders, and I suspect the average IQ will raise significantly over time as a side benefit.
I would consider myself a fairly large user of my internet. I have a 30MB/sec connection, and last month I used approximately 50GB. Calculating that out, I am using my connection 1/197th of the time. A 1:70 ratio sounds pretty decent unless you have an abnormally large number of bandwidth hogs running bittorrent 24/7.
For clarification, the FCC's ruling was not that comcast could not throttle BitTorrent traffic, but the method they used (packet injection -- causing connections to drop/terminate) was unlawful. It was effectively "blocking" P2P traffic for excessive users, which wasn't in their TOS. If you read the final decision, you will see that part of the agreement they had was they were going to change the METHOD of congestion control (Likely QoS based), and then notify it's users (and the FCC) of the new method.
Again, throttling traffic was NOT declared illegal. Systematically terminating connections by inspecting packets and then injecting fake packets into the "conversation" was. There is a huge difference. While YOU may want throttling to be illegal, it isn't.
There was no such court case that said you could not discriminate against P2P traffic.
There was a FCC ruling against comcast about the method they used to throttle P2P traffic (by interjecting RST packets -- effectively terminating the connection). However, if your TOS state as such, then it would likely be permissable even from the FCC. Delaying/Slowing/Prioritizing P2P packets are still very fair game and is commonly done.
Yeah, ironically, this slashdot page has 208 errors with it's HTML.
Correction... People with other Operating Systems other than those provided by Microsoft and Apple are not able to access a governmental website, that is what is being discussed.
It's likely that moonlight works with the site as well, so linux users can access it as well. Of course, if it doesn't, you have the source so fix it yourself.
Most of your post is pointless because this cause isn't/can't/won't be about whether the patent is valid or not. That is for the USPTO to decide.
That said, tomtom could (and would likely) request the case to be delayed pending a review of the patents in question by the USPTO. The patent review(s) could take years, and only then would the original case then continue.
IANAL, but that is how I understand such cases proceed.
No. As a patent holder, they could sue any/all/none of the patent infringers at any time. There is no such thing as discriminatory patent licensing because ultimately the patent holder has the right to do whatever they please with the patent.
The COM interface and .NET interfaces are documented very well. That's how all the software authors are able to use them.
1. That is a trick question, and it's loaded of course. IE is compliant with many standards, but not all. Then again, there is not a single browser out there that is 100% compliant with all the web standards either.
2. Actually, there was a LOT less work involved for web designers when firefox/chrome/opera were irrelevant. Sadly, even if IE were removed from the face of the earth instantly, it'd still be difficult to write complex web applications for the remaining browsers because even firefox, chrome, opera aren't 100% compatible with the standards and have differing behaviors. If you think otherwise, you haven't done much web design.
3. Depends on what you consider competent of course. In *my* daily usage, it's more stable than firefox 3, so does that make it more competant? There have been fewer critical bugs for IE 7 than firefox as well, does that make it competant? Of the browsers that have an engine that can be used inside another application as a renderer via activex, it is the most competant. It does a lot worse on the acid tests, and it isn't as far along with implementing the more advanced CSS features. IE has it's strengths and weaknesses, but all the current browsers do.
Except that the lastest gen SSD's exceed 250MB/sec throughput. If the latest CF spec just added 133MB/sec, then that would be a huge bottleneck in throughput.
That would likely be because the site works like crap in IE.
Desqview?
The best score is 5.9, at least currently.
Actually over the past 3 years, the common "Apache Server" has had many times more vulnerabilities than IIS.