Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Fairness has a role (Score -1) 205

Government laws cause the drugs to be that expensive in the first place. There shouldn't be such a thing as government ran FDA. A rating agency can exist without a government involvement. But of course I am 100% on board that there shouldn't be any copyright or patent laws in the first place. Let the authors protect their own rights without any artificial government created and protected monopoly.

I say drug companies need to rely on trade secrets if they want that monopoly, not on any dorm of government intervention. As to prices being 'unfair', that is a load of crock in the free market. Unfortunately we don't have a free market especially where it comes to the drugs, we gave government oppression instead.

If I invent a cure for cancer or HIV or anything serious, I would only sell it as a treatment in a protected facility, so that the information in it would stay private for as long as I can keep it. The price would be whatever I say and if a government comes for it I would much rather see it destroyed, wiped out rather than sine collectivist government violate my private property rights.

Comment Re:Fairness has a role (Score 1) 205

I don't really understand your point. Is it that govts can intervene and tell you to sell at a different price?

The OP was arguing that you can charge what you like for your product regardless of whether the price is fair or not: as long as people are willing to pay it you can charge it. My point is that you do have to factor "fair" into your pricing at some level. If you completely ignore it then you will annoy enough people that governments will eventually act, especially if your profits rely on an artificial monopoly created by those governments' laws.

Comment Re:A problem without a good solution. (Score 1) 205

There isn't really a good solution to this. If everyone has the same price, then people in poor countries are likely to pirate.

And...? People who can't afford a Rolex are more likely to steal a Rolex too, is that a problem you should solve by adjusting the price? The flip side of "lowering prices for poor people" is "gouging wealthy people for being rich". We generally hate companies trying to size up our wallet to see just much they can fleece us for. Isn't that what we'd be asking companies to do? I want to be able to go on Amazon or eBay and get the best product to the best price anyone will offer. That's how capitalism, competition, supply and demand and voting with your wallet is supposed to work. Companies shop around for labor, consumers shop around for products and services. And maybe that's not working out so well for everybody, but letting them put region locks on things to screw us while they continue to shop around the whole world is worse than nothing.

Comment Fairness has a role (Score 1) 205

'Fair' is where you go to sell your pig, not the means by which you set the price.

That's only partly true. If your pricing is extremely unfair and what you produce is essential to people then governments can get involved and laws get changed to cut you profits, especially if you rely on those same laws, such as copyright and patents, to create artificial monopolies. This is happening with the pharmaceutical industry.

In the past Canada has threatened the patent protections of some firms and more recently the US seems to be finally waking up to the crap that these companies are pulling. So while you may set your price at a level that you think you can get away with, perceived fairness is a factor in what you can get away with and you ignore it at your peril.

Comment Where there is money there is a way (Score 1) 205

The fact that it's only sold in the App store now?

In which case you just connect to the app store for that country from wherever you are - I have accessed the Canadian store from Europe and the US without a problem in the past. If they eventually block that then you go through proxy and if they try to stop those they just end up playing whack-a-mole. Getting the money to the right store would be the hard part but if someone makes it worth their while I'm sure there will be resellers shipping iTunes gift cards to wherever the software costs significantly more.

The only way to preserve a price difference between two markets is to make the cost of getting around whatever barrier there is more expensive that the difference in price.

Comment Sounds overly complicated (Score 4, Insightful) 193

The key difference between this and interfaces in Java seems to be push vs pull, does a class explicitly declare that it is say sortable or do you just check if it has functions that match something that's sortable. If you look at the example he does on page 8 with Shape.draw() and Cowboy.draw() sure you could be more explicit in the template requirements or you could demand that the cowboy explicitly has to say he's "drawable". To me Stroustrup's idea sounds a bit too much like the story about the blind man and the elephant, if you only touch it in enough places you can be sure it's an elephant. The obviously problem is that once you have a birth defect or amputee with only three legs, it all fails.

For example I might like to define a class "SequenceNumber" that has functions like setInitialValue(), getNextValue() etc. but lacks typical characteristics of a number like being able to add and subtract them, but I can still sort sequence numbers. If it's explicit I only have to declare it sortable and implement the necessary functions. If it looks at the "concept" number it'll say nope, you're not a real number because we can't add two of you together.

This could be trivially avoided by having the possibility to supplement class definitions as implementing additional interfaces, like here's a library with the Circle shape header and I say it's a drawable even though it doesn't say so itself. It'll still have to actually fulfill the interface, but that way you're not bound by the ones supplied by the library. Since that's purely a synthetic check on whether your code should be able to call that code I don't see how that should be a problem.

Comment Re:People should learn english (Score 3, Interesting) 61

If one knows their native language plus English, they'll have the vast majority of the world's knowledge at their fingertips.

And tools. For every mainstream app there's ten obscure apps that haven't been translated to your language. And other people interested in the same things you are. The Internet has made a vast difference here, dubs / subtitles / translations worked pretty well for broadcast and print media and international calls was rare. And I don't mean just chit-chats, go on eBay and the whole world is your marketplace as long as you pay shipping. There are so many other benefits to language convergence that you won't get through more translations.

There's really no credible competitor to English because there's no other big pairings. If you know two major languages it's likely Chinese/English, Spanish/English, French/English, Portuguese/English, Japanese/English, Arabic/English, Russian/English, German/English, Hindi/English etc. you just don't find many Chinese/Spanish or Hindi/Portuguese speakers. If you look at the EU it's quite clear that 94% now learn English and fewer people learn French and German, I don't have the numbers for Spanish or Portuguese but I'm guessing the trend is the same.

Sure it's always possible that English is locally going a little backwards like that Spanish is creeping up into the US but for the world as a whole there's no debate. Particularly since China as the only potential challenger has put huge effort into English proficiency, giving everybody else much less reason to learn Chinese instead. I know linguists hate it but I think that's misunderstood, if all you needed to know was your native language and English most can be bi-lingual. If you should learn your Amazon tribe's language, Portuguese, Spanish and English then it's for the few.

Comment Re:Competitors don't get it (Score 1) 109

It is use cases.

The pie is not a cheap computer. It is for camera, robots, sensors, and IOT type devices.

The original design brief of the Raspberry Pi was as a cheap computer. If it was intended for cameras, robots, sensors and IoT devices, it would have battery management onboard -- all the use cases you mention are much better server if the device can be powered without wires.

Comment Re:Hardware better? Matter of judgment (Score 1) 109

Onboard battery management with standardised support would make the Pi a real prospect to me. Battery management daughterboards for the Pi are almost as expensive as the device itself and block up GPIO pins other hardware might need. I'm also unclear on whether I'm going to have to roll my own operating environment to take advantage of it.

Comment Re:They took the worst part of Python (Score 1) 186

I'm not saying it's a bad thing -- quite the opposite: redundancy is often a good thing. But the justification seems half-hearted, because it doesn't eliminate redundancy, so it's not about eliminating redundancy. It's a block_start token, even if some people choose to play semantics and claim it's part of the command syntax: a block is always preceded by a colon. I don't like the explicit start marker without the explicit end marker. Yes, start marker only does seem a little more like human language, but computer languages aren't human languages.

Comment Re:They took the worst part of Python (Score 2) 186

>There is no reason that indentation levels couldn't be automatically displayed based on the parenthesis data

Yeah, but nobody does that and even Apple and other huge companies have created horrible security bugs because they extended a branch of an "if" statement to two statements without adding the parens around the two statements that one would need then. Huh.

Yes, but automatic indentation in the editor would have automatically highlighted the mistake, and the programmer could have fixed it immediately. Why are computer programmers such luddites? We try to fix other people's problems with technology, but insist that our jobs should be carried out using 1970s technology.

Meanwhile, you can just have the indentation signify blocks which is how every human alive understands it anyhow and which require no special editor support and no weird manual fixes by the person editing it.

Humans may not vary much, but computer screens do. Consider that the whole point of things like HTML is to abstract out formatting in order to allow the same content to be rendered on various devices, including print.

I really think it's time we started getting smarter with our coding environments. Customisable display doesn't just mean indentation levels. Maybe you want to see an argument list in one line: result = functioncall (size=1, number=2, somethingelse=3)

but maybe I want to see it tabulated, with the arguments lined up on individual lines, and both the parameter names and values lined up in two columns. Or maybe just the arguments on different lines, but within setting up columns.

These sorts of differences exist today as "programming style", even in Python (indentation is meaningless in continuation lines in Python). But because the style (rendering) is an integral part of the source code, the programmer is forced to adapt to the chosen style of the team, project or company they work with. This is inefficient and distracts the programmer from the main goal: writing the code.

I'm more efficient when the information is laid out in the way that I find clearest.

But even that may change with time and with what job I'm doing. Maybe I want to be able to "unfold" a single line into a tabulated form for closer examination, or "fold" a tabulated form into a single line to get the "bigger picture" of the code.

But what I shouldn't have to think about is how anyone else is going to see the source code.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson