With the Roslyn technology, C# may still be a compiled language, but it effectively gains all the flexibility and expressiveness that dynamic languages such as Python and Ruby have to offer.
C#, Ruby, and Python are all (in their main implementations) compiled languages. Where they differ is that C# is mostly-statically-typed, and Ruby and Python are dynamically-typed. The.NET compiler toolchain being exposed as a runtime service doesn't really make C# much more like Ruby or Python, since it doesn't change their main area of difference between the languages. It does mean that you can implement the equivalent of eval for.NET languages that don't already have it (like C#), which makes it a little bit more like Ruby or Python, but I don't think "C# doesn't have eval" is really the main reason people would think Ruby or Python is better for certain tasks than C#.
The total Android market is already bigger, and Droid related activities on are gravy for Google in terms of revenue generation, where the iPhone is Apple's red meat.
Had I been at the table I would said "Find Steve, if that is how you feel about it, you get your Nuclear War"
Google was already winning with Android, they didn't need the war. Plus, they were dealing with the threat from Facebook, which resulted in the "bet the company" commitment to Google Plus. When Jobs was threatening "thermonuclear war", Google's focus on their primary problem had already moved past Apple's once trending-toward-absolute dominance in the mobile OS marketplace, which they were dealing with handily, to the next threat.
Odd coming from someone who stole the GUI and the mouse from Xerox.
How is it "odd"? Having done that, and having seen the commercial results, Jobs was very well situated to understand and wish to avoid being on the reverse side of anything even remotely similar.
And thanks to our stellar legal system, it's damn-near impossible to go into business without incorporating or getting sued and losing everything you have.
Sole proprietorships and not-even-limited-liability partnerships, IIRC, vastly outnumber corporations among all businesses, and most of them don't get sued and lose the owners/partners everything they have (most businesses, including most that aren't corporations, do fail, but most don't wipe out their owners completely in the process, and most of the failures aren't due to lawsuits, except maybe lawsuits to collect debts voluntarily incurred in purchasing goods and services on credit that the business never managed to generate income to repay.)
But corporations do exist without any need for government.
False.
I can think of one that has been around for a very long time, is very well managed and highly profitable. Millions of dollars worth of goods and services move through this organization every year, and many of the consumers of the products would not have access to these products without this organization. The Mafia.
The Mafia is not a corporation. A corporation is defined as an entity with separate legal personality from its individual participants. It is purely a creation of law; the Mafia is just a collective label given to a number of different groups of people.
When legal action is taken against the Mafia, its not in the form of "The People of the State of New York v. La Cosa Nostra, Inc."; its individual actions against individual members because the Mafia isn't a corporation and therefore doesn't have distinct legal personality.
Sure, if you redefine corporation to just mean "group of people", a corporation wouldn't require government, just like if you redefine "water" to mean "any compound containing hydrogen" then water wouldn't require oxygen atoms. But words have meanings.
Actually, your link makes it clear that corporations are creatures of government, specifically, that their defining characteristic is the fact that they are recognized by government through law as having distinct legal personality.
Corporations provide the means to produce goods and services.
No, they don't. Corporations are a legal structure created by government which provide special benefits (particularly, in the modern form, limits on liability) to their investors to encourage investment. Some investors make use of the availability of those incentives to use the corporate form to organize business that provide goods and services, others use them to set up tax dodges that serve their own interests without providing goods and services to others.
To the extent that there is a benefir from the existence of corporations (or other government-created business forms like the Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability Partnership) these benefits are ultimately benefits of government.
Yep, he's the only guy that makes any sense. The two entrenched parties can only shoot holes in his ideas, but NEVER can come up with plans or their own.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is a long-time member, sitting Congressman, and perennial Presidential candidate from one of "the two entrenched parties", not an outsider to them.
And members, aside from Paul, of those two parties with plans of their own are fairly common. Particularly, Republican incumbents and/or candidates for federal office with plans that involve dismantling large parts of the US federal government are easier to find than those without such plans.
With WUBI, you're just choosing between complete Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu or Mythbuntu installations, and the appropriate ISO is downloaded. Although the distro selector is labelled 'desktop environment', you're really committing to all the default choices made by the maintainers of each of the derivative distributions.
"Starting with", yes; "committing to", not even close.
Re:I don't think the 386 based autopilot can run a
on
Fat Replaces Oil In F-16s
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I don't think the 386 based autopilot can run a os that can uses NTFS
Perhaps not, but not because it is 386-based. WinNT 3.x, which featured NTFS, definitely ran on 386-based systems.
Unlike with a Windows phone where you can... still do nothing about that.
Sure, but hardware vendors can't actually sell a phone using a version of "Windows Phone" OS that is several versions out of date, since Microsoft changed the name of their phone OS immediately prior to WinPhone 7. And even if they could do so, they wouldn't, because "several versions" out of date for whatever the current Windows mobile OS is called would be a much older version than "several versions" out of date for Android.
WinMo 6.5 was released at about the same time as Android 1.5 (Cupcake).
The real threat to Google is when such systems (and Siri already does this for a few things) not bring up a page with search hits, but just answer your question or otherwise come up with their own kind of offering you a choice.
Not really. Its not like Google isn't one of the leading players in both the voice-interaction space and the present-direct-actions space, and hasn't overtly stated that part of their strategic orientation is moving away from traditional wide-open search as the primary UI to more specialized giving-you-what-you-need interfaces with search being one of the key backend services making that happen.
Today people use Google for everything, but you could probably cover 90% of what people do via a Google search with a selection of more specialized services sitting behind such a frontend.
"Google search" already is a selection of more specialized services (old-style web search is one of them, but not the only one) sitting behind a common UI, which already includes voice command as an input option. So, yeah, people could do 100% -- not merely 90% -- of what they do through Google searches through that kind of setup, because they already are doing 100% of what they do through Google searches through that kind of setup.
Then there's no room for ads anymore.
Sure there is. Either some of the actions are going to involve taking you to a website (where Google sells ads -- not just on Google properties), or commercial entities are going to have an interest in promoting particular actions as responses (in which case, companies that are set-up to provide these kinds of services, and Google is clearly aiming to be one of them, have something of value -- placement -- to sell those companies), or both. In either case, there is room for ads (or "promoted actions", which amount to the same thing), even without traditional search results.
Siri may be a momentary lead by Apple in one piece of this large puzzle, but it by no means is an indication that they are significantly ahead of Google overall in this space, much less in a position to lock Google out entirely.
If people really like using Siri, then what's to keep Apple from using it as the front end for their own (or another party's) search engine?
What's to stop them from doing that with the built in search box on iOS, even without their own voice-control system?
It's all about who's closest to the user.
Google has known that for quite a long time and has been working to address it for years. That's why they developed their own desktop browser to prevent a monopoly browser vendor from being able to direct people away from Google services, and also developed two of their own OSs to address the problem of OS vendors directing people away from Google services.
Google could be made irrelevant (on Apple devices anyway, especially because Apple will never let another company release something like Siri on iOS or Mac OS X).
One of the purposes of Android is to make that kind of threat less of a problem. If iOS had the vast majority of the mobile market share, that would be a huge problem; same if MacOS had the vast majority of the desktop market share, but Apple isn't Google's concern on that front.
I'm sure they do. Do you trust that they use them?
I have no less reason to trust that they would use them to gauge interest in design change requests on discussion forums that they host for expressly that purpose than that they would use them to guage interest in design change requests on their bug tracker if that bug tracker was, instead, identified as the primary venue for such requests.
They're not gods, either.
I'm not sure how that's relevant, since you just acknowledged that they have the only capacity that is relevant in this context, but expressed distrust that they would choose to use it for this purpose.
So they don't need the omnipotence of gods, just the capacities they already have. And if you don't trust them to mine the forums that they hold out as the place for feature requests to guage interest in such requests, why would you trust them to do that on their bug tracker if they assigned that as the place for those requests, and what relevance does whether or not they are "gods" have to any of that?
If you don't trust Google to use the capacities that you admit they have to guage user interest in feature requests, what possible difference could it make which of the forums they host they request people use for those requests?
The problem is that their stance is stupid. Everyone else and their mom uses the bug tracker for feature requests, because the bug tracker has reporting tools (or at least stores the data in a way that is easy to report upon with a reporting tool) and it will let you know how much interest there is, who is interested, et cetera.
Are you saying that Google doesn't have tools to do that kind of analysis on the discussion forums they host that they have stated is the proper place for this kind of request?
I've always gotten the impression that tracking that kind of information on any services they host (as well as anything they don't host that is publicly visible on the web) is pretty much Google's core competency.
From the last comment (#188) posted to the bug by a Googler:
One more note here for the benefit of Slashdot (hi!) and anyone else who's not clear on this issue or how our bug tracker works.
We made the decision not to make this configurable long, long ago, even before we WontFixed this bug in comment 59 (over a year ago itself). Accordingly the bug is closed because that reflects not only our current stance but the position we've had for a very long time.
This does not mean either that we will never listen to user feedback, or that we used to be listening on this bug but decided to stop. The issue is that our bug tracker is specifically about tracking what we consider to be bugs, not a general forum for feedback and debate on our design decisions. That means that in general (this bug included), we can and will decide not to address particular requests, and when we do, commenting on the closed bug is not going to make us change our minds. On the contrary, we will not hesitate to lock things down in the bug tracker precisely to prevent things from spiraling out of control or misleading people into sharing their feedback here instead of where it's helpful
We have other venues such as the chromium-discuss mailing list and our feedback forums where it is appropriate to share your opinions. The forums are a place where we are set up to track user feedback and surface the most critical issues to the team without impacting the productivity of us developers who are busy trying to make Chrome work better.
We don't promise we'll change our minds, but we're not hostile to you expressing your point of view. This is just not the correct forum to do so.
Unfortunately, it's a bit of a tradeoff. Instead of third party sites getting more details on how you arrived there, Google gets to build a more detailed profile on you via your user name now instead of simply your IP address.
That would be a "tradeoff", if non-logged-in users couldn't also use encrypted Google search with the same features: https://encrypted.google.com/
This is like the head of a chain of garages saying everyone can dismantle and rebuild their own car engine because everyone who works for him can.
Its more like the head of a chain of aircraft engine shops saying no one needs to take their car to an outside specialist to have their engine rebuilt because everyone who works for him either can do it for themselves or can find someone in their circle of acquaintances who can.
Note to Authors: The old-line Big 6 publishing houses (you know who they are) still intend to own you.
To be fair, so does Amazon, they just realize that they need to pry enough authors out of the hands of the existing major publishers first before they'll have the clout to use contract terms to do that.
How about a kernel mode driver inside the browser-based Linux box for a network stack tunnelled over HTTP/s to a dedicated application running on the same host as the browser to decapsulate tunnelled traffic and dump it onto a local virtual network bridge
So, to break the Linux-in-a-browser out of the browser security sandbox the malware distributor simply has to gain the ability to run a HTTPS server on the same client machine outside that the Linux-in-a-browser can talk to and that will then issue the actual arbitrary network connections.
But, if the attacker can run arbitrary code that can make network connections outside of the browser on the same client, why do they even need the compromised Linux-in-a-browser at all? You've essentially postulated a "browser based" attack that, as a prerequisite, requires the ability to run arbitrary code outside of the browser on the same machine, rendering the browser-based portion of the attack superfluous.
Unless there's a way in JS to open arbitrary network connections (and I don't think there is) it's not possible, since all WebSockets traffic is actually specialized traffic that runs on port 80. JS can only do WebSockets and regular HTTP requests AFAIK.
You can open arbitrary network sockets in JavaScript, if you are using JavaScript in an environment that supports it (node.js, for instance), but, largely for security reasons, no browser-based JS implementation (at least, that I know of) supports this.
This isn't a JavaScript issue, its a browser-as-platform issue.
Unity is WIMP. There are windows, icons, menus, and a mouse pointer. The only difference is that there is a new taskbar that groups windows by application rather than by window.
Which is, incidentally, almost identical to the taskbar in Windows 7.
Its such an easy-to-adapt to difference from earlier WIMP-style interfaces that I can't understand why so many people on Slashdot are enraged by it. Every non-technical user I've found who has used a similar interface (either the actual Ubuntu one or the Win7 one looks and behaves similarly) prefers it to its predecessors. Personally, I slightly prefer the Win7 version to the Ubuntu 11.04 version (haven't looked at Unity in 11.10 yet, it may have improved to be on par with or better than Win7), but I prefer either of those to the WinXP style interface or classic Gnome.
I'm not a fan of change for the sake of change, but it seems to me lots of people here are against change just for the sake of being against change.
And how smart is this guy if he shares a private post with the entire world by accident?
I suspect that this was as much an "accident" as many "unauthorized" leaks by people in government are really unauthorized. There are many times when it is in someone's interest both to have something be in the public eye and for there to be at least a show of it not being intended to be in the public eye.
Certainly, the fact that this has been public focusses external attention on what Google does in the area where Yegge overtly intended to create internal pressure on Google to make changes.
Slashdot Mirror
C#, Ruby, and Python are all (in their main implementations) compiled languages. Where they differ is that C# is mostly-statically-typed, and Ruby and Python are dynamically-typed. The .NET compiler toolchain being exposed as a runtime service doesn't really make C# much more like Ruby or Python, since it doesn't change their main area of difference between the languages. It does mean that you can implement the equivalent of eval for .NET languages that don't already have it (like C#), which makes it a little bit more like Ruby or Python, but I don't think "C# doesn't have eval" is really the main reason people would think Ruby or Python is better for certain tasks than C#.
Google was already winning with Android, they didn't need the war. Plus, they were dealing with the threat from Facebook, which resulted in the "bet the company" commitment to Google Plus. When Jobs was threatening "thermonuclear war", Google's focus on their primary problem had already moved past Apple's once trending-toward-absolute dominance in the mobile OS marketplace, which they were dealing with handily, to the next threat.
How is it "odd"? Having done that, and having seen the commercial results, Jobs was very well situated to understand and wish to avoid being on the reverse side of anything even remotely similar.
Sole proprietorships and not-even-limited-liability partnerships, IIRC, vastly outnumber corporations among all businesses, and most of them don't get sued and lose the owners/partners everything they have (most businesses, including most that aren't corporations, do fail, but most don't wipe out their owners completely in the process, and most of the failures aren't due to lawsuits, except maybe lawsuits to collect debts voluntarily incurred in purchasing goods and services on credit that the business never managed to generate income to repay.)
False.
The Mafia is not a corporation. A corporation is defined as an entity with separate legal personality from its individual participants. It is purely a creation of law; the Mafia is just a collective label given to a number of different groups of people.
When legal action is taken against the Mafia, its not in the form of "The People of the State of New York v. La Cosa Nostra, Inc."; its individual actions against individual members because the Mafia isn't a corporation and therefore doesn't have distinct legal personality.
Sure, if you redefine corporation to just mean "group of people", a corporation wouldn't require government, just like if you redefine "water" to mean "any compound containing hydrogen" then water wouldn't require oxygen atoms. But words have meanings.
Actually, your link makes it clear that corporations are creatures of government, specifically, that their defining characteristic is the fact that they are recognized by government through law as having distinct legal personality.
No, they don't. Corporations are a legal structure created by government which provide special benefits (particularly, in the modern form, limits on liability) to their investors to encourage investment. Some investors make use of the availability of those incentives to use the corporate form to organize business that provide goods and services, others use them to set up tax dodges that serve their own interests without providing goods and services to others.
To the extent that there is a benefir from the existence of corporations (or other government-created business forms like the Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability Partnership) these benefits are ultimately benefits of government.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is a long-time member, sitting Congressman, and perennial Presidential candidate from one of "the two entrenched parties", not an outsider to them.
And members, aside from Paul, of those two parties with plans of their own are fairly common. Particularly, Republican incumbents and/or candidates for federal office with plans that involve dismantling large parts of the US federal government are easier to find than those without such plans.
"Starting with", yes; "committing to", not even close.
Perhaps not, but not because it is 386-based. WinNT 3.x, which featured NTFS, definitely ran on 386-based systems.
Sure, but hardware vendors can't actually sell a phone using a version of "Windows Phone" OS that is several versions out of date, since Microsoft changed the name of their phone OS immediately prior to WinPhone 7. And even if they could do so, they wouldn't, because "several versions" out of date for whatever the current Windows mobile OS is called would be a much older version than "several versions" out of date for Android.
WinMo 6.5 was released at about the same time as Android 1.5 (Cupcake).
Because Google uses a time machine. Each iteration of Android copies, imperfectly, features from future versions of iOS.
Not really. Its not like Google isn't one of the leading players in both the voice-interaction space and the present-direct-actions space, and hasn't overtly stated that part of their strategic orientation is moving away from traditional wide-open search as the primary UI to more specialized giving-you-what-you-need interfaces with search being one of the key backend services making that happen.
"Google search" already is a selection of more specialized services (old-style web search is one of them, but not the only one) sitting behind a common UI, which already includes voice command as an input option. So, yeah, people could do 100% -- not merely 90% -- of what they do through Google searches through that kind of setup, because they already are doing 100% of what they do through Google searches through that kind of setup.
Sure there is. Either some of the actions are going to involve taking you to a website (where Google sells ads -- not just on Google properties), or commercial entities are going to have an interest in promoting particular actions as responses (in which case, companies that are set-up to provide these kinds of services, and Google is clearly aiming to be one of them, have something of value -- placement -- to sell those companies), or both. In either case, there is room for ads (or "promoted actions", which amount to the same thing), even without traditional search results.
Siri may be a momentary lead by Apple in one piece of this large puzzle, but it by no means is an indication that they are significantly ahead of Google overall in this space, much less in a position to lock Google out entirely.
What's to stop them from doing that with the built in search box on iOS, even without their own voice-control system?
Google has known that for quite a long time and has been working to address it for years. That's why they developed their own desktop browser to prevent a monopoly browser vendor from being able to direct people away from Google services, and also developed two of their own OSs to address the problem of OS vendors directing people away from Google services.
One of the purposes of Android is to make that kind of threat less of a problem. If iOS had the vast majority of the mobile market share, that would be a huge problem; same if MacOS had the vast majority of the desktop market share, but Apple isn't Google's concern on that front.
Well, except the WUBI installer, where they do.
I have no less reason to trust that they would use them to gauge interest in design change requests on discussion forums that they host for expressly that purpose than that they would use them to guage interest in design change requests on their bug tracker if that bug tracker was, instead, identified as the primary venue for such requests.
I'm not sure how that's relevant, since you just acknowledged that they have the only capacity that is relevant in this context, but expressed distrust that they would choose to use it for this purpose.
So they don't need the omnipotence of gods, just the capacities they already have. And if you don't trust them to mine the forums that they hold out as the place for feature requests to guage interest in such requests, why would you trust them to do that on their bug tracker if they assigned that as the place for those requests, and what relevance does whether or not they are "gods" have to any of that?
If you don't trust Google to use the capacities that you admit they have to guage user interest in feature requests, what possible difference could it make which of the forums they host they request people use for those requests?
Are you saying that Google doesn't have tools to do that kind of analysis on the discussion forums they host that they have stated is the proper place for this kind of request?
I've always gotten the impression that tracking that kind of information on any services they host (as well as anything they don't host that is publicly visible on the web) is pretty much Google's core competency.
Google isn't everyone else and their mom.
From the last comment (#188) posted to the bug by a Googler:
One more note here for the benefit of Slashdot (hi!) and anyone else who's not clear on this issue or how our bug tracker works.
We made the decision not to make this configurable long, long ago, even before we WontFixed this bug in comment 59 (over a year ago itself). Accordingly the bug is closed because that reflects not only our current stance but the position we've had for a very long time.
This does not mean either that we will never listen to user feedback, or that we used to be listening on this bug but decided to stop. The issue is that our bug tracker is specifically about tracking what we consider to be bugs, not a general forum for feedback and debate on our design decisions. That means that in general (this bug included), we can and will decide not to address particular requests, and when we do, commenting on the closed bug is not going to make us change our minds. On the contrary, we will not hesitate to lock things down in the bug tracker precisely to prevent things from spiraling out of control or misleading people into sharing their feedback here instead of where it's helpful
We have other venues such as the chromium-discuss mailing list and our feedback forums where it is appropriate to share your opinions. The forums are a place where we are set up to track user feedback and surface the most critical issues to the team without impacting the productivity of us developers who are busy trying to make Chrome work better.
We don't promise we'll change our minds, but we're not hostile to you expressing your point of view. This is just not the correct forum to do so.
That would be a "tradeoff", if non-logged-in users couldn't also use encrypted Google search with the same features: https://encrypted.google.com/
Its more like the head of a chain of aircraft engine shops saying no one needs to take their car to an outside specialist to have their engine rebuilt because everyone who works for him either can do it for themselves or can find someone in their circle of acquaintances who can.
To be fair, so does Amazon, they just realize that they need to pry enough authors out of the hands of the existing major publishers first before they'll have the clout to use contract terms to do that.
So, to break the Linux-in-a-browser out of the browser security sandbox the malware distributor simply has to gain the ability to run a HTTPS server on the same client machine outside that the Linux-in-a-browser can talk to and that will then issue the actual arbitrary network connections.
But, if the attacker can run arbitrary code that can make network connections outside of the browser on the same client, why do they even need the compromised Linux-in-a-browser at all? You've essentially postulated a "browser based" attack that, as a prerequisite, requires the ability to run arbitrary code outside of the browser on the same machine, rendering the browser-based portion of the attack superfluous.
You can open arbitrary network sockets in JavaScript, if you are using JavaScript in an environment that supports it (node.js, for instance), but, largely for security reasons, no browser-based JS implementation (at least, that I know of) supports this.
This isn't a JavaScript issue, its a browser-as-platform issue.
I think the simpler explanation is that they're now copying the Win7 UI.
Which is, incidentally, almost identical to the taskbar in Windows 7.
Its such an easy-to-adapt to difference from earlier WIMP-style interfaces that I can't understand why so many people on Slashdot are enraged by it. Every non-technical user I've found who has used a similar interface (either the actual Ubuntu one or the Win7 one looks and behaves similarly) prefers it to its predecessors. Personally, I slightly prefer the Win7 version to the Ubuntu 11.04 version (haven't looked at Unity in 11.10 yet, it may have improved to be on par with or better than Win7), but I prefer either of those to the WinXP style interface or classic Gnome.
I'm not a fan of change for the sake of change, but it seems to me lots of people here are against change just for the sake of being against change.
I suspect that this was as much an "accident" as many "unauthorized" leaks by people in government are really unauthorized. There are many times when it is in someone's interest both to have something be in the public eye and for there to be at least a show of it not being intended to be in the public eye.
Certainly, the fact that this has been public focusses external attention on what Google does in the area where Yegge overtly intended to create internal pressure on Google to make changes.