I suspect there is more interest in this than in you whining about how you don't care.
We don't care that you don't care.
I didn't whine about how I didn't care, nor did I ever say that I didn't care.
I asked how it was "news for nerds." Because unless I'm missing something, it isn't.
Now STFU.
Yeah. Thanks for that intelligent commentary.
This is interesting news, but what is of interest to nerds about it that wouldn't be of interest to anyone?
Am I missing something here or is Slashdot being stupid about story selection again?
The arrested was meant to send a message to Thailand's online community.
Come on,
Keyword: "transclusion".
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Y'know, from that video. You've seen it. Can't be bothered to find a link.
In Objective-C, you should only throw exceptions on programming errors. And there's no need to catch them, because you ought to fix the code.
Nonsense. That is what assertions are for. Assertions are not meant to be caught, and should be used to throw an (uncaught) exception upon detection of a programming error, i.e., an internal consistency check. Regular exceptions, on the other hand, are for handling exceptional cases encountered in the process of execution (such as file-not-found or unsupported-format).
Swift just makes it a bit stronger. No exceptions.
They will probably add exceptions in 1.1 or 2.0. They're pretty imporant.
Apple can definitely deploy the new language effectively, but I'm not sure it solves any problems.
The problem it solves is Objective-C having a steep learning curve and, more importantly, people having a kneejerk reaction to its odd syntax.
In other words, Swift will have a wider appeal to people than Objective-C. And that means more developers for iOS, which in turns means more money for Apple.
The $ per square meter spent on a runway at an airport is more than a few orders of magnitude more than that spent on public roads.
I call BS on your assertion. Either that, or you can't be serious. A "few orders of magnitude" is like 4 or 5 or 6, but let's say for the sake of discussion that you mean the lowest possible value of "few," which would be 3. That's still 10^3 = 1000. And then you say "more than a few orders of magnitude," which would mean at least 10^4 = 10,000. In any case, there's no way that the dollars per square meter spent on a runway at an airport is 1000x— let alone 10,000x — more than that spent on public roads.
... with one of the best monitors being the Apple 30 inch Cinema Display running at something like 3560x1600 or somesuch
2560x1600.
It depends on whether they plan to use this feature to sell more TVs.
Merely allowing the site to be accessed through the product features is not commercial by itself, but if the links are included by default in a prominent place (and we know they will), that counts as product placement and branding; and it can definitely be considered a commercial purpose - people pay money to that kind of placement.
I'm not saying that this interpretation is necessarily wrong, but... it's quite wide in scope. It seems like you are saying that not only would hosting NC content on a site with ads be disallowed, but that merely prominently linking to such content from a site with ads would be disallowed, as would any advertising for any commercial software or hardware which implied that NC content could be accessed.
Furthermore, the suggestion that if some people sometimes pay for a particular activity, then all instances of that activity must be commercial in nature -- wow, now that has some implications!
This is exactly the problem with "NC". To you, this is "clear commercial use". Is it because a big company is involved? Two companies? We assume money is changing hands, but... maybe it's not. The license says "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation". What if the money goes towards "supporting the community"? What exactly is "commercial advantage" in this context? I'd have to ask a lawyer, and... unless I was paying them to advise on a specific case, I doubt they'd actually give a straight answer.
Overall, "noncommercial" licenses are problematic and should be avoided. I understand the intention, but it's hard to make a license that actually gets there.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
