javanix

I see the point with XP - Microsoft wants computers capable of using the latest and greatest to actually use the latest and greatest - but what's the point in the Windows 7 restrictions that the article mentioned?

Obviously, they see some sort of advantage, but I'm having a tough time seeing it.

They look nicer when the computer is turned off? Is that really worth the extra glare for people?

I considered myself a pretty outgoing person before I left for school, but moving away from all of my high school friends had a bigger effect on me than I'd expected.

What are these supposed to illustrate?

A DoS attack is not on the same level as a terrorist bombing.

They're well-written and seem to be scientifically accurate - a rarity on the web these days.

Like it or not, Apple's popularity has made the iBrand fairly self-sufficient by now, and its going to take a lot more than a couple of unjustly-pulled apps to derail that train off the pop-culture tracks.

It would be fairly easy for someone to learn Java once they've been taught C. Professors should not have to spend time going over pointers and memory management in an OS class, however.

If a functional language was taught in beginner CS classes I think it would be easier for students to see how it works. It certainly "clicked" for me once I'd learned a bit of Scheme in my first AI class.

The problem with Java (and C, to a lesser extent) in basic problem solving is that you can almost brute-force-code and get a working solution that will get full credit, but after writing it a more elegant (and efficient) solution isn't always obvious. In functional languages, that "more correct" solution almost always seems to stand out more, at least to me.

I'd much rather have spent that time learning the more-useful mundanities of memory management in C.

I don't even follow any of the links that pop up around here anymore.

C + emacs/vi is much faster than C + Eclipse, but C is always going to be faster to write than Java just because Java has so many more layers of abstraction that require so many more lines of code.

However, if the two examples are even close to as cut and dry as the article stated (not guaranteed, considering the source), I think that it is a clear indication that the those laws' scopes are far too broad.

No law should have enough reach that a judge and jury could convict in even one case on that level of trivialness.

Needless to say, results were disappointing.

The only real hardware advantage that I can find which isn't available elsewhere is the nice, fully internal battery that the Pros come with now. You can get one that performs similarly from Lenovo, but it doesn't look as elegant.

The set of all people that are going to purchase is (and will be for the foreseeable future until/unless it becomes much harder than it is now) much larger than the set of people who do purchase their music. All that DRM was causing was piracy on the part of a few unhappy consumers who otherwise would have bought their music.

After all, every single DRM-protected music file is floating around and available elsewhere in an unencrypted format.

How many times will you be using a computer that is powerful enough to run C&C4 but doesn't have a persistent internet connection?

The current crop of DRM is horrible (and in my opinion, makes pirating less ethically sketchy), but an always-on internet connection doesn't really seem to be that horrendous to me. Provided that they don't start charging a subscription fee or devaluing players who don't play one (granted, a reasonable concern given EA's track record), the internet connection idea seems to actually provide some benefit to the user, and would probably not be all that intrusive.

If implemented correctly it might make moving around your legally purchased copy to a new computer much easier, for instance, and could probably help cut down on the cheaters present in a lot of online games these days.

I just think that when people start claiming that "selfishness" is the underlying problem with our broken health care system, they're ignoring the pressures that brought on this "moral decline".

It's really no different than the far-right nutjobs who blame the state of our inner cities on the "laziness" of the people living there.

It may not be the way we want things to happen, but nobody is going to be able to convince every facet of the population to give up portions (however small) of their livelihoods to "build a stronger community" for exactly the reason you mentioned: nobody can see that they have anything to gain.