Since when do studios care about canon? Or consistency within the story?
One of the problems with even the canon ST universe is the number of inconsistencies it has grown to have. But it doesn't make them (much) less entertaining.
By juries of people who are carefully screened to ensure they have no knowledge of the subject they are deciding upon to set a major precedent for everyone.
former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
Can you point to an example of where some customers had real and serious cable / isp competition?
No?
Then how can you compare the current situation of no competition with a situation where there exists real competition?
Therefore you have NO EVIDENCE.
The former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
There is NO EVIDENCE.
I'm less certain about whether the cable / isp industry is being 'unfairly attacked'.
And just as a friendly reminder from your friendly lobbyists... * smoking doesn't cause cancer * fracking doesn't cause earthquakes * man made co2 emissions does not cause global warming * abstinence only sex-education does not cause teen pregnancy
It's funny how we become what we were once fighting.
Back in the day, we thought it funny that, in the Soviet Union, for instance, photocopiers were rare. And you had to have special permission to use one at all.
It works as follows. When a printer receives a print job, it parses the content for potential copyrighted material. If there is a match, it won't copy or print anything unless the person in question has authorization.
You don't need a parser for that.
ALL material that you can print is copyrighted.
Copyright exists the moment something if fixed in tangible form.
There might be non-copyrighted material, such as works in the public domain, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
Since I'm telling you things about Java, let me mention the JVM.
The JVM does garbage collection, and is a managed runtime. Java is one of many source languages that can be compiled to JVM bytecode. Types can be passed back and forth, because the types exist as concrete values to the underlying JVM runtime.
There are 3 compilers that you typically use. The first one is obvious, it compiled Java (or other language) into JVM bytecode. The other two compilers compile JVM bytecode into native code. Well call these compilers C1 and C2.
When you start a program, the JVM begins interpreting your bytecode. Then as dynamic profiling reveals that your method is using a lot of the CPU time, your method gets compiled into native code by C1, which rapidly compiles it into decent machine code. At the same time, your function is put on a list to be compiled later by C2. C2 will spend a lot of time highly optimizing your code. It will aggressively inline.
Now, classes containing bytecode can be dynamically reloaded at runtime.
Suppose YOUR function calls MY function. When your function gets compiled by C2, it has inlined my function into your function's native code for speed.
Now, later, for some reason, I reload a new version of my class, which contains a new version of MY function.
Problem: now YOUR function has inlined a stale version of my function. Not to worry. The JVM instantly de-optimizes your function back to being bytecode interpreted again. And now if your function is still using a lot of CPU time, it will get compiled by C1, and put on a list to later be compiled by C2 when the JVM gets an opportunity. So you will never be running the stale code.
Unlike an Ahead Of Time compiler such as C, or C++, the JVM C2 compiler can globally optimize the entire program that is running in this instance. It has access to ALL of the bytecode which makes up the program.
Imagine what your C compiler could do if it could know about the other code (that you might not write until tomorrow) that it will be linked with. It could reorganize method arguments. Change how methods are called.
Another thing about compiling at the very last moment is that the C2 compiler can use instructions that are ON YOUR PARTICULAR HARDWARE. Does your processor have SSE extensions. Or some other AMD processor extensions?
Yet java code is distributed as JAR files, which contains JVM bytecode and runs on any machine or OS.
Do you need a heap with dozens or HUNDREDS of gigabytes of RAM? Did you know there are multiple vendors of JVM implementations. Call Azul systems for their Zing VM. It can handle HUNDREDS OF GIGABYTES of ram, with GC pause times of about 10 milliseconds. Of course, you'll pay for this. (Disclaimer: I have no relationship with Azul.)
Or you can run your Java code on an IBM zOS mainframe. Etc.
IDEs have a learning curve, like any professional tool. Like Photoshop, for example. Or like using power tools in a machine shop. Be careful.
But once learned, a good IDE can be extremely powerful. A common refactoring example: Rename a function using the 'rename' command. First select the function name, and pick Rename. Now as you type in or edit the new name, anywhere on screen that you can see that same identifier (in other files, even!), you will see it renamed live, keystroke by keystroke, as you change the name.
And by "same identifier", I mean that this intelligent rename is NOT done by a stupid search and replace throughout your source code. The database knows precisely and exactly every reference to that identifier in your entire code base, even across other projects that use this class. The rename is universal. If I rename "foobar" to "foobaz", it will not affect other "foobar"'s that are different identifiers, in different context. The compiler knows exactly what is an exact reference to the foobar being renamed.
But here are a couple other quick examples:
In the middle of a big function, select six lines of it. Pick refactor, extract function. Now you have a new top level function with those six lines. At the location where those six lines were, is a call to this new function. But wait! Any local variables that were used in those six lines are passed as parameters to the function.
Pick an embedded class. Select it. Pick a refactoring command to lift to it's own file. All of the necessary editing, and changes are done for you.
Pick an if statement. A simple refactor is to simply reverse the then/else clauses and invert the condition. Lots of other power tools.
Anytime, anywhere, you see a variable, or something, and you want to go to where it is declared, simply click in it and hit F3. You're instantly at the declaration. And I don't mean somewhere that declares a similar identifier with the same name. I mean the ACTUAL declaration of the identifiers you selected -- the compiler know. And the compiler is built into the editor.
Of course, in Clojure, which I mentioned above, you could use several alternative techniques. Multi-dispatch methods. Protocols. And then, a CAS might not even be implemented directly in Clojure, but in some type of pattern-rewriting language itself written in Clojure.
There IS a department charged with overseeing congress. That would be the 'intelligence community'. (Sort of like the non-specific word "intellectual property" and similarly slimy, in that it's several different things.)
The problem is that Feinstein and others don't seem to be fully committed to doing as they are told.
On one hand Feinstein will support back doors and making all cryptography insecure for all users in the US, when told to do so.
But on the other hand, she is being insubordinate and can't seem to let the torture report thing go when the 'intelligence community' wants it to go away.
At an earlier point in time, even after acquiring Java, Oracle also had no problem with Android.
The Standard C library has had its API re-implemented many, many times. On many platforms.
So why is it a problem that Apache Harmony re-imiplemented the Java API. That is, used hard work to build a compatible system.
Nobody thought this was a problem until Oracle brought this case. And the case was not about this. But since Oracle couldn't seem to win on any other grounds, this is what they morphed their case into.
Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, the lack of strong typing can be an advantage. Especially for a single function to accept multiple types of arguments.
For example, in a Computer Algebra System (CAS). A function such as "add" accepts a pair of arguments.
If both actual arguments are numbers, then simply add them.
If one argument is a number "5", and the other argument is a symbolic expression (NOT a string!) but an expression such as 'x + y', then the result should be a new expression 'x + y + 5'.
Or I could add two 3x3 matrices together. Or add a scalar such as 5, to a matrix.
(In the case of an expression above, the expression is not a string, but rather a data structure which represents the expression.)
On the post: Paramount Apparently Going To Drop Lawsuit Against Axanar Fan Film, Produce 'Guidelines' For Fan Films
Re: Why can't studios nurture this?
Since when do studios care about canon? Or consistency within the story?
One of the problems with even the canon ST universe is the number of inconsistencies it has grown to have. But it doesn't make them (much) less entertaining.
On the post: Court Says Google Doesn't Have A First Amendment Right To Drop A Site From Its Search Results
Re: Re: Motion to Dismiss
On the post: Court Says Google Doesn't Have A First Amendment Right To Drop A Site From Its Search Results
Re: Why not? Not much of a stretch
> it's not much of a stretch to ordering it to keep stuff up.
Coming soon . . .
It's not much of a stretch to order Google to keep certain viewpoints up, and remove contrary viewpoints.
Brought to you by Your Friends at The Ministry Of Truth.
Learn Newspeak today! It prevents Thoughtcrime.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Says Cable Industry Being Unfairly Attacked, 'No Evidence' Of Consumer Harm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
As a simplistic example, more suitable for your level, I will point out that there is a large meteor crater in Arizona.
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Says Cable Industry Being Unfairly Attacked, 'No Evidence' Of Consumer Harm
former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
No?
Then how can you compare the current situation of no competition with a situation where there exists real competition?
Therefore you have NO EVIDENCE.
The former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
There is NO EVIDENCE.
I'm less certain about whether the cable / isp industry is being 'unfairly attacked'.
And just as a friendly reminder from your friendly lobbyists...
* smoking doesn't cause cancer
* fracking doesn't cause earthquakes
* man made co2 emissions does not cause global warming
* abstinence only sex-education does not cause teen pregnancy
On the post: Government Argues That Indefinite Solitary Confinement Perfectly Acceptable Punishment For Failing To Decrypt Devices
Re: Irony
You have the right to insult an attorney before speaking to the police
On the post: IBM Wants To Patent A Printer That Won't Let You Output Unauthorized Copies
Re: This isn't about copyright
Back in the day, we thought it funny that, in the Soviet Union, for instance, photocopiers were rare. And you had to have special permission to use one at all.
That is because information is a powerful thing.
On the post: IBM Wants To Patent A Printer That Won't Let You Output Unauthorized Copies
You don't need a parser for that
You don't need a parser for that.
ALL material that you can print is copyrighted.
Copyright exists the moment something if fixed in tangible form.
There might be non-copyrighted material, such as works in the public domain, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
On the post: Despite New FCC Rules, Linksys, Asus Say They'll Still Support Third Party Router Firmware
Canary
Switching from open source to closed source could be considered a form of Canary.
On the post: Bad News: Two-Factor Authentication Pioneer YubiKey Drops Open Source PGP For Proprietary Version
Canary
On the post: Bad News: Two-Factor Authentication Pioneer YubiKey Drops Open Source PGP For Proprietary Version
Re:
1. For the children!
2. Golden Keys
It is best to edit for potential thoughtcrime before clicking Submit.
Why do you think the button is called 'submit' instead of something like question authority?
On the post: How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Java "weakness"
The JVM does garbage collection, and is a managed runtime. Java is one of many source languages that can be compiled to JVM bytecode. Types can be passed back and forth, because the types exist as concrete values to the underlying JVM runtime.
There are 3 compilers that you typically use. The first one is obvious, it compiled Java (or other language) into JVM bytecode. The other two compilers compile JVM bytecode into native code. Well call these compilers C1 and C2.
When you start a program, the JVM begins interpreting your bytecode. Then as dynamic profiling reveals that your method is using a lot of the CPU time, your method gets compiled into native code by C1, which rapidly compiles it into decent machine code. At the same time, your function is put on a list to be compiled later by C2. C2 will spend a lot of time highly optimizing your code. It will aggressively inline.
Now, classes containing bytecode can be dynamically reloaded at runtime.
Suppose YOUR function calls MY function. When your function gets compiled by C2, it has inlined my function into your function's native code for speed.
Now, later, for some reason, I reload a new version of my class, which contains a new version of MY function.
Problem: now YOUR function has inlined a stale version of my function. Not to worry. The JVM instantly de-optimizes your function back to being bytecode interpreted again. And now if your function is still using a lot of CPU time, it will get compiled by C1, and put on a list to later be compiled by C2 when the JVM gets an opportunity. So you will never be running the stale code.
Unlike an Ahead Of Time compiler such as C, or C++, the JVM C2 compiler can globally optimize the entire program that is running in this instance. It has access to ALL of the bytecode which makes up the program.
Imagine what your C compiler could do if it could know about the other code (that you might not write until tomorrow) that it will be linked with. It could reorganize method arguments. Change how methods are called.
Another thing about compiling at the very last moment is that the C2 compiler can use instructions that are ON YOUR PARTICULAR HARDWARE. Does your processor have SSE extensions. Or some other AMD processor extensions?
Yet java code is distributed as JAR files, which contains JVM bytecode and runs on any machine or OS.
Do you need a heap with dozens or HUNDREDS of gigabytes of RAM? Did you know there are multiple vendors of JVM implementations. Call Azul systems for their Zing VM. It can handle HUNDREDS OF GIGABYTES of ram, with GC pause times of about 10 milliseconds. Of course, you'll pay for this. (Disclaimer: I have no relationship with Azul.)
Or you can run your Java code on an IBM zOS mainframe. Etc.
On the post: How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Java "weakness"
IDEs have a learning curve, like any professional tool. Like Photoshop, for example. Or like using power tools in a machine shop. Be careful.
But once learned, a good IDE can be extremely powerful. A common refactoring example: Rename a function using the 'rename' command. First select the function name, and pick Rename. Now as you type in or edit the new name, anywhere on screen that you can see that same identifier (in other files, even!), you will see it renamed live, keystroke by keystroke, as you change the name.
And by "same identifier", I mean that this intelligent rename is NOT done by a stupid search and replace throughout your source code. The database knows precisely and exactly every reference to that identifier in your entire code base, even across other projects that use this class. The rename is universal. If I rename "foobar" to "foobaz", it will not affect other "foobar"'s that are different identifiers, in different context. The compiler knows exactly what is an exact reference to the foobar being renamed.
But here are a couple other quick examples:
In the middle of a big function, select six lines of it. Pick refactor, extract function. Now you have a new top level function with those six lines. At the location where those six lines were, is a call to this new function. But wait! Any local variables that were used in those six lines are passed as parameters to the function.
Pick an embedded class. Select it. Pick a refactoring command to lift to it's own file. All of the necessary editing, and changes are done for you.
Pick an if statement. A simple refactor is to simply reverse the then/else clauses and invert the condition. Lots of other power tools.
Anytime, anywhere, you see a variable, or something, and you want to go to where it is declared, simply click in it and hit F3. You're instantly at the declaration. And I don't mean somewhere that declares a similar identifier with the same name. I mean the ACTUAL declaration of the identifiers you selected -- the compiler know. And the compiler is built into the editor.
On the post: How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Java "weakness"
And Clojure runs on the JVM.
But working in Java by day pays the bills.
On the post: CIA Inspector General Claims It Accidentally Deleted CIA Torture Report After Being Asked To Retain It
Re:
The problem is that Feinstein and others don't seem to be fully committed to doing as they are told.
On one hand Feinstein will support back doors and making all cryptography insecure for all users in the US, when told to do so.
But on the other hand, she is being insubordinate and can't seem to let the torture report thing go when the 'intelligence community' wants it to go away.
On the post: CIA Inspector General Claims It Accidentally Deleted CIA Torture Report After Being Asked To Retain It
Re: Are you sure want to PERMANENTLY delete this file?
On the post: How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs
Re: Technical vs non-technical
Sun had no problem with Android.
At an earlier point in time, even after acquiring Java, Oracle also had no problem with Android.
The Standard C library has had its API re-implemented many, many times. On many platforms.
So why is it a problem that Apache Harmony re-imiplemented the Java API. That is, used hard work to build a compatible system.
Nobody thought this was a problem until Oracle brought this case. And the case was not about this. But since Oracle couldn't seem to win on any other grounds, this is what they morphed their case into.
I sure do miss Groklaw.
On the post: How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs
Re: Re: Re: Java "weakness"
For example, in a Computer Algebra System (CAS). A function such as "add" accepts a pair of arguments.
If both actual arguments are numbers, then simply add them.
If one argument is a number "5", and the other argument is a symbolic expression (NOT a string!) but an expression such as 'x + y', then the result should be a new expression 'x + y + 5'.
Or I could add two 3x3 matrices together. Or add a scalar such as 5, to a matrix.
(In the case of an expression above, the expression is not a string, but rather a data structure which represents the expression.)
On the post: How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs
There is a reason for this lawsuit
2. Oracle wants it
3. Profit
On the post: How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs
Re: Re:
Next >>