Slashdot Mirror

Again, the facts get in the way of a perfect Liberal arguement.

The "study", to begin with, is not a study. It is a poll.

...New York, which is disproportionally Democratic. As such, the poll it is completely useless for the argument you are trying to make in regards to _all_ Republicans.

Specifically, it refers to the situation that occurred last year in the New York public art museum, where public funds were used to support art that insulted a segment of the New York population.

Specifically, it also asked about the general issue of censorship in various contexts, including books and film, as well as publically funded art exhibits.

You provided no further information about the bill Ashcroft supported, and as such, I can not speak for or against him.

Dude, this is /., not a freaking poli-sci doctoral disseration. But a few minutes with Google will show that in addition to backing the CDA, Ashcroft introduced and sponsored the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which in addition to the usual War on (Some) Drugs atrocities, would send you to jail for talking about how drugs are made. Satisfied?

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

The US government started this modern paradigm when they stole the gold from the people in the 30's via the The Gold Reserve Act.
e.g.
http://www.diac.com/~bkennedy/Thorkelson/X0008_Who _Owns_The_Money.html

--

Don't steal. The government doesn't like competition
("Our tax system is based on individual self assessment and VOLUNTARY compliance." - M. Caplin, IRS Commissioner)
("Our tax system is based upon volutary assessment and payment and
not on distraint" -Supreme Court Ruling, Flora v. U.S., 362 u.s. 145)

Sorry, but as my mother used to say, Look it up. Pesticides are chemicals designed to kill animals, usually insects or rodents. RoundUp is an herbicide, as it is designed to kill plant matter.

Sorry, but as my mother used to say, Look it up. Pesticides are chemicals designed to kill animals, usually insects or rodents. RoundUp is an herbicide, as it is designed to kill plant matter.

Click this link and get a clue: http://www.goatse.cx/

Reuters has an article on a contest for the most aspiring text message.

Aspire : To have a great ambition or ultimate goal; desire strongly

Reuters has an article on a contest for the most aspiring text message.

Aspire : To have a great ambition or ultimate goal; desire strongly

Multimedia is SUCH a stupid word.
--
PaxTech

A is like B, and I think B=3, so A must equal something like 3, and you said it was 7, so that's libel and you must be in the 10th grade to think that.

Oh well.

And as for the site in question, the court was really pretty clear. It's OK to (Y) "help someone else find a doctor", because that's free speech. It's not OK to be (Z) "killing the doctor", because that isn't free speech, and it's bad for the doctor.

Algebra again : "help someone else find a doctor" (Y) != "killing the doctor" (Z)

There is a large contingent of people who think that what the people on this list are doing is completely and totaly abhorent and wrong. These people don't have the right to speak out against the people on this list? They don't have the right to seek them out and try to convince them that what they're doing is wrong?

They don't have the right to call them murderers?

I'd just like to point something out here...

the stated goal of compiling information about abortion providers so that in the future if and when abortion becomes illegal they can be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

I can assure you that no twist of reality will result in doctors being charged with crimes for actions they took before a particular law was passed. This is a bogus argument and I think you know it. There's no literal parallel between this issue and the war crime trials. In order to make that comparison, the US government would have to be crushed before these trials could commence. It wasn't a legislative affair that put the nazi commanders on trial. Nazi Germany was destroyed by the allied forces. For the doctors to be tried for crimes against humanity, your anti-abortion forces will need to destroy the US govt. Is that what you're advocating? Because if it is, that's treason and is a different free speech issue altogether.

So taking that into account, there will be no need for Rip-Proof CD-Rs because the RIAA wants Napster to use Opt-In filtering. Voilà, now Charlie Pride doesn't have to worry about his songs being on Napster, and there is no need for Rip-Proof CDs.

From Dictionary.com:

"candor (kndr) n.

Frankness or sincerity of expression; openness. Freedom from prejudice; impartiality.

[Middle English from Old French from Latin from candre, to shine; see kand- in Indo-European Roots.] "

Now, Microsoft is not exactly known for being open or forthcoming when it comes to their products and business practices, and I think it's quite respectable for Mr. Miller to agree to do the interview in the first place. Especially considering the large number of blind anti-MS bigots and flame warriors that read Slashdot. Regardless of his responses, the fact that he's even speaking to "the enemy" is a positive step.

1. 1. Robbery committed at sea.
   2. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material.
3. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.

Unfortunately, as I stated in an earlier post, there is no way to prevent the divergence of media, or the Balkanization as you put it, without resorting to even more stentorian methods of control.

Admit it: you've been waiting years you use stentorian in a sentence.

I don't mean to split hairs, but the word "virii" makes my skin crawl, the same way "irregardless" or "it's" used possessively does...

I'll shut up now... :-)

-B

I think you may be limiting the definition of revolution to 2. as defined above. The Internet is an incredible revolution that isn't even halfway through. There has been a momentous change in how people interact on all levels:

a) social, through email, instant messaging, personal webpages, blogs, newgroups etc, ideas and thoughts can be exchanged,

b) commercial and financial, through B2B which has greatly changed the way that companies do business with each other and to a lesser degree through B2C,

c) governmental and political, the masses have gained easy access to the sources of law and we might soon have internet voting, political movements and parties can be organised and moblised with much greater ease.

And no, this revolution isn't limited to those of us with net access as we will affect the lives of those who haven't (through B2B which will decide which sweatshop gets a trainer contract or through net lobbying against globalisation, etc...)

As a final note, every revolution is a natural and logical extension of existing technology. Type and paper existed before moveable type brought about the printing revolution, mechanical computers existed before electronic ones, valves existed before transistors, a revolution is when existing circumstances come together to bring forward an explosion of change. And that isn't limited to hanging the bourgoise from lamp-posts (and the French and Russian revolutions had been percolating for years).

1) The last book of the Bible is "Revelation" not "Revelations".

2) In the necessary endeavor of speculation into matters concern the Divine, there is a fine line between the profound and profane . Congratulations for positing a theory that manages to be neither while pretending to be both.

3) If you believed that the Bible is absolute, living breathing word of God, the idea of trivializing it in the manner that you have would cause you great personal distress. If you don't believe that the Bible is the absolute, living breathing word of God, what is the point of co-opting its false revelatory promises for explaining the Open Source movement? Oh- I know! You're just contributing your postmodern part to the Great Symbol Drain that Neil Postman warned about....(do a find on "great symbol drain" at the link above for more info...)

4) For those with a genuine interest in understanding the importance of the promise of the New Jerusalem to Christians, do yourself the favor of reading the following substantive study...

5) Jon, the Katz bashing is so de rigueur on slashdot that it saddens me. If ThinkGeek rolled out a "Reduce Internet Pollution- Banish Jon Katz from it" t-shirt, they'd probably make a fortune. I don't believe people always give you a fair shake and believe it is morally wrong to bash you. But sometimes, it seems like you're just begging people to do it. Help those of us who want to see the bashing reduced by not reinforcing the stereotype bandied about here. In short, don't post tripe!


I'm Audi 5000. Peace.

1) The last book of the Bible is "Revelation" not "Revelations".

2) In the necessary endeavor of speculation into matters concern the Divine, there is a fine line between the profound and profane . Congratulations for positing a theory that manages to be neither while pretending to be both.

3) If you believed that the Bible is absolute, living breathing word of God, the idea of trivializing it in the manner that you have would cause you great personal distress. If you don't believe that the Bible is the absolute, living breathing word of God, what is the point of co-opting its false revelatory promises for explaining the Open Source movement? Oh- I know! You're just contributing your postmodern part to the Great Symbol Drain that Neil Postman warned about....(do a find on "great symbol drain" at the link above for more info...)

4) For those with a genuine interest in understanding the importance of the promise of the New Jerusalem to Christians, do yourself the favor of reading the following substantive study...

5) Jon, the Katz bashing is so de rigueur on slashdot that it saddens me. If ThinkGeek rolled out a "Reduce Internet Pollution- Banish Jon Katz from it" t-shirt, they'd probably make a fortune. I don't believe people always give you a fair shake and believe it is morally wrong to bash you. But sometimes, it seems like you're just begging people to do it. Help those of us who want to see the bashing reduced by not reinforcing the stereotype bandied about here. In short, don't post tripe!


I'm Audi 5000. Peace.

But it's in the dictionary. I means, not surprisingly, "regardless".

Your friend's theory of "everything" does suck if he also believes that somethings (anything at all) can be truly random

I'm taking this to mean that if there was a single equation dsecribing all of existence, then you're saying that there would be no such thing as true randomness. In principle you'd be right, but I believe the universe is not a random system but a chaotic system(in the physics sense). So given that we cannot know the initial conditions of the universe, many things would appear quite random, and for all intents and purposes, would be. So true randomness is theoretically impossible(given the unified equation), but chaos is good enough. ;-)

-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"

They say it gives mouse control to people with muscular dystrophy. Hmmm, let's look at the definition of muscular dystrophy:

Any of a group of progressive muscle disorders caused by a defect in one or more genes that control muscle function and characterized by gradual irreversible wasting of skeletal muscle.

It stands to reason such a person might have problems with a mouse that picks up even the slightest head movement.

1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
2. A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.

1. Used as a disparaging term for an openly gay or homosexual man.

1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
2. A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.

1. Used as a disparaging term for an openly gay or homosexual man.

Having trouble finding online dictionaries?
--
Patrick Doyle

If you view all choices as having only two possible answers, that's what I'd call a binary worldview.

Meaning number two is: "The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another."

Katz seems to be merging meanings two and three. In his mind there is perhaps this change in the situation that will of its own accord overthrow the traditional structures of government throughout the world.

At least, it seems that way at first read. But somehow when I read Katz's posts, I always get the feeling that he's talking about some kind of soft and fuzzy Velvet Revolution on a global scale, an affair that will change everything but in a peaceful, happy, sing in a great big circle kind of way.

The problem with this line of thinking is that revolutions of both the political and the merely situational varieties are never without turmoil, pain, and suffering. Just watch The Patriot to get an idea of how painful the American Revolution was (that was a joke, folks).

But seriously, this expectation that somehow the rise of the Internet and associated technologies is somehow a "leaderless revolution" fundamentally misses the point.

The rise of the Internet is a technological change that has in turn spawned cultural and political changes. There is no political revolution inherent in the Internet.

Katz is trying to tell us that somehow, whereas the automobile was merely a revolution in technology, the Internet is a Revolution in the political sense of the word. The car completely changed almost every aspect of culture in the Western world, yet nobody ever described its development in terms akin to Socialist revolution, the way Katz describes the 'Net.

The Internet is a technology that has greatly altered the status quo, and it's still really in its early stages in terms of its impact on society. But let's not start waving banners and lets not mistake it for what it is: a tool that can be used for good, bad, or just plain mundane uses.

-----

4a. The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole
4b. Subjective evaluation of relative significance
4c. The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance

I am not "laboring under the assumption that having worse examples out there makes a groups behaivior ok." I am simply looking at things in perspective (see definition above), and realizing (as any sane person would have to) that the Scientologist's "punishment by lawsuit" is a lot tamer than the cited religious groups historical persecutions. If you think otherwise, then I would suggest you rethink your perspective on this matter. Perspective is not, as you imply by your oh-so-witty baby's blood comment, an outright lie.

Hmmm.... my opinions are "spouting off on Jolt cola" (which I havn't drank since high school, does that crap still exist?) but you are an expert on moern western culture. How odd. have you talked to your shrink about this hypersensitivity where you assign extream emotions to anyone countering your opionon? It seems common on the net and usenet. maybe there's a paper in this.

No, your opinions aren't "spouting off on Jolt cola", but you so seem a bit of a troll. But, then again, I never did mind feeding an ugly troll. As for my "hypersensitivity where [I] assign extreme emotions", I don't think Jolt! cola use really classifies as an extreme emotion...

Anyway, if you are unaware of the use of lawsuits as harrasement, and actually think that their use by the sci cult is meant to "resolve differences of opinion" rather than bankrupt their critics, if you simply ignore the many stories of threats, blackmail and psychological abuse, well, what can I say. Live in your world, it sounds real nice there.

Yes, I'm aware of the use of lawsuits as harassment. Yes, I've been subject to them before. Do I think the Scientologist's lawyers feel they have a semi-decent case? Yes, since filing an obvious waste of time case could get them disbarred and fined. Do I think they should win their case? I have no idea, I haven't really studied the matter...that's what we have judges for.

As for "threats, blackmail, and psychological abuse", once again, in religious history perspective, that is perfectly common behaivior...and it can get much worse from there. Personally I don't care what the Scientologists, Christians, Muslims, Neo-Nazis, or any other cult (yes, they are all cults) does...they're all based on the same principles of cultism. And one is no better or worse than the other. Perhaps more obvious and/or more successful, but not any more right or wrong, or better. That's my perspective (in this case, you could translate that as point-of-view).

You've got to be kidding me? Another format? Of course, I know the RIAA doesn't "get it", and they probably never will. This new format is ridiculous. So you've got these little discs now. Great. What ever happened to the mini-disc, what was wrong with that? It was small, it was recordable...oh, wait, the record cartels did not control the distribution media of the mini-disc.

My advice to all of you who own stock in any of the big five cartels...sell it. You're revenue streams will evaporate. Face it, if you make money from a record company and you are not a recording artist, than you are a parasite. Don't try and justify it, just accept it and move on, because the new methods of music distribution are like a flea & tick collar and you are going to lose. Get out while you can.

Why is the stupid idea that randomness is required for life so common among ordinary people? Are people so dumb that they can't distinguish between randomness (indeterminacy) and practical unpredictability?

Exactly! Life is chaotic(physics def'n), not random. ;-)

-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"

Why is the stupid idea that randomness is required for life so common among ordinary people? Are people so dumb that they can't distinguish between randomness (indeterminacy) and practical unpredictability?

Exactly! Life is chaotic(physics def'n), not random. ;-)

-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"

That's really funny. Actually, he repeatedly points out that the "theories" he presents in his fiction do not represent his true beliefs. They are pedantic, serving only to convince the reader that all conspiracies are equally likely and therefore equally unlikely.

Some of his characters, however, are nutcase conspiracy theorists. Some others are nutcase conspirators. Got it?

Censorship devices like this don't just censor content from the kids, they censor it from everyone. Freedom of choice goes surreptitiously out the window .

Right now the New Age label describes an interest in relaxed lifestyles, spiritual exploration, holistic health, advanced technologies, multiculturalism, environmental consciousness, global peace, and an unearthing of the ancient mysteries. What it will be in the future, who knows?

Well, it all depends how you define religion. A quick search on dictionary.com reveals several definitions from different sources. Here are two:

religion (r-ljn)
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Or...

religion n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;

I don't think it's correct to compare a Jedi to a priest or rabbi. "Jedaism" (for want of a better word, and please note that no slur or insult is intended to Jews) isn't a hierarchical, Supreme Being/Creator-centric religion in the same way as Christianity or Judaism are, because, to my knowledge at any rate, there is no Jedi god.

However, because Jedaism provides a cosmological explanation for Good and Evil, there is no reason why it should be rejected as a religion, especially as it provides an alternative to what we regard as traditional religions such as Christianity and Judaism. In place of the normal religious hierarchical structure (e.g. in Roman-Catholicism, the ranking is God, Pope, Cardinals, Arch-Bishops, etc.) in which power is delegated from the Supreme Being, Jedaism has a meritocratic (and, possibly, democratic) hierarchy based upon the natural ability, experience, wisdom and skills of the Jedi.

I admire that sort of structure.

D.

(And I promise I won't pick on "ensamble". :-)
--
Patrick Doyle

A bit off subject, but I was caught off-guard by "AAN" (Apartment Area Network). A cool TLA, but I've never heard it used before. Did some quick digging and...

- Jargon File (aka: the "Hacker's Dictionary") contains no entry
- dictionary.com contains no entry
- www.everything2.com contains only, "Airport code for Al Ain, United Arab Emirates"

What is the moral of this story? I need to get a life and stop reading slashdot on Saturday nights. =>

Depending on which dictionary you go to, monopoly is either held exclusively by one company, or by a group. (Dictionary.com uses the word "group", while Merriam-Webster just refers to a single company.) The definition of "group" is what's important here. There are many instances in business history where competitors in one field got together to agree not to compete in certain ways -- most notably by price-fixing.

Free-market economic theory would indicate that CEOs would never do this, that they would decide to compete in any way possible to eke out more market share. Yet this does happen. We have documented cases of price-fixing across all sorts of industries: legal research, oil firms, even vitamin manufacturers. There are plenty of theories as to why it happens, though my personal favorite is psychological. I think that CEOs, when they're placed in charge of vast corporations they cannot entirely control or understand, become extremely risk-averse. This is why large corporations rarely innovate; it's also why a CEO might enter into a price-fixing agreement. It's just one less thing to worry about. At least for the CEO; everybody else usually suffers, in higher prices and poorer quality.

Lets clear the smoke.

If "two" (forget more for a second) "alien-things" happened to agree to use a messaging protocol, such as SOAP, well, right there we would have a minor (but cosmic , considering that "alien-things" are involved) miracle , since apparently they communicated their agreement without a common communication means. (No. Telepathy doesn't count.)

Smoke: XML messaging (SOAP) works miracles!

Fact: "[A]lien-things" first need a common mechanism for reaching consensus regarding communication of information..

So lets say they belong to the Inter-Galactic Alliance of Geeky "Alien-Things" [I-GAGA-T(TM)], governed by the I-GAGA-T's strict policies regarding communication means deployment. [Kinda like the saying "lets all use HTTP"]. Then, our two brave "alien-things", charter members of I-GAGA-T (affectionately known to each other as GAGAs), decide to communicate using SOAP, at which point they have fulfilled "the ONLY requirement when doing client/server" according to their recently hired communication consultant, an Earthling named garoush . [Believe me folks, I am not making this up. A true story from the GAGA archives.]

But have they?

No. One of the GAGAs decides to send a message using SOAP to its newly acquired friend! So the trusty (and somewhat rusty) SOAP client is fired up and the message is sent. And guess what? Promptly comes the standard error reply: "Message received, NOT understood. Ca va?"

Put simply, using SOAP, two or more 'alien-things' can communicate to each other as long as they agree on the SOAP protocol - which is the ONLY requirement when doing client/server using SOAP.

So, put simply, the above is a false statement.

[And this point in the story, we find an agitated and nervous garoush, furiously sending SOAPy messages to Earth: "<help>Me!!</help>" -- Lets hope that back on Earth, garoush's friends have first agreed on the Rescue-Message-Format! (But maybe they didn't, hey garoush? "Just use SOAP" he used to say back on Earth. Well ... Just use SOAP then :) )]

SOAP, and XML-RPC, both provide a means for one GAGA to send messages to another GAGA, even if the two GAGA have discovered each other for the very first time. And this messaging protocol , based on the well-understood [there!] request-reply paradigm, and utilizing a standard XML-based message container , delivers SOAP-compliant XML messages from the sender to the receiver.

So as garoush learned/will-learn [funny thing, this space-time continuum] from his consulting gig to the GAGAs, <help>Me!</help> is not defined. For the content of the message, which delivers information from garoush back to Earth, to be understood by the recipient's), he and his hoped-for-rescuers would have first needed to agree on the format of encoding information in your SOAPy messages.

Sure CORBA, DCOM, COM+, Java, etc. allow you to enable two different components to talk to each other, but those technologies do it in such a way that you must have a 'piece' of the server (called the client) to be delivered and used by the client developer. Thus, to talk with a 'server' you must meet the needs of the 'server' when using CORBA, DCOM, COM+, Java, etc. With SOAP, this is all eliminated. As long as the server publishes its API via the SOAP protocol, I can write my client to talk with the server using what ever I want. This frees me from having to 'embed' in my client a piece of the server -- thus there is no longer any 'hard-coupling' between two 'things'.

[We'll skip the fact that SOAP, CORBA, [D]COM[+], and "Java" are a rather orthogonal set of technologies ...]

What is apparently not understood by garoush is that CORBA, DCOM, COM+, Java RMI, do much much more than just simply pass messages from one GAGA to another. [I recommend this great book written specifically for GAGAs for more information on what real (i.e. working) Inter-GAGA Communication Protocols require to function. (Check out the GAGAs on the cover!)] .

Lets just take Java's RMI as an example. What's this with RMI you say? Why didn't they call it Java RPC? I'm glad you asked. See the 'M' in RMI? That's a method, which is a procedure bound to an object. The P in RPC refers to a procedure, which is not necessarily bound to anything. To invoke a method of an object, you first need to get a handle on the object, a remote reference. Any object you say? No. Objects which have been registered with a Registry/Directory Service ( UDDI anyone?) Then you pass the method invocation message to the remote object and a bit of infrastructure on the receiving end maps your method invocation message to an actual method call on the specific object you are invoking. This sub-process of mapping your messages to actual method calls on a specific object uses a messaging protocol which is analogous to what SOAP specifies.

So:

Smoke: SOAP (& XML-RPC) are distributed object technologies! [This goes beyond Smoke and verges on GAGA humor..]

Fact: SOAP is a Simple Xml-based Messaging Protocol (SXMP)

Fact: By the time you have implemented a true Simple Object Access Protocol using a SXMP, you will have something that will look awfully close to RMI. (With the exception that RMI doesn't shuffle needlessly verbose ASCII bits through its system-level plumbing, but your SOAP does.)

In short, by the time you have provided the functionality of an RMI mechanism, such as Java RMI, using SOAP (or any RPC mechanism), you will have accomplished, by the prerequisite functionality of the task at hand, a fairly complex bit of software engineering. Congratulations! (CORBA? Oh boy ...)

In short, using SOAP, we now enable a true 'smart' data-exchange-protocol between two systems such that development is now at the level of "data-exchange" rather than API, SDK, language, etc.

No. More likely, you will realize that having standardized on the data-exchange, you have in effect delegated the complexity of building a distributed object system to the client as opposed to the infrastructure.

Now that is smart. [Good going there Bill!]

[Meanwhile, back on Earth, garoush's friends and would-be rescuers [will] happen upon a long forgotten SOAP Server log file. There, buried among other debug and error messages is the messaging logging the error message the SOAP server sent back to garoush back on planet X. "Ouch" says one of garoush's friends. "I hope he is OK". Now, isn't it just great that XML messages are human readable? (Its too back Servers aren't human -- damn shameful waste of all that human readable information!)]

Smoke: SOAP/XML is a great leap forward!

Fact: Bubble Economies produce Bubble Technologies .

Lets clear the smoke.

If "two" (forget more for a second) "alien-things" happened to agree to use a messaging protocol, such as SOAP, well, right there we would have a minor (but cosmic , considering that "alien-things" are involved) miracle , since apparently they communicated their agreement without a common communication means. (No. Telepathy doesn't count.)

Smoke: XML messaging (SOAP) works miracles!

Fact: "[A]lien-things" first need a common mechanism for reaching consensus regarding communication of information..

So lets say they belong to the Inter-Galactic Alliance of Geeky "Alien-Things" [I-GAGA-T(TM)], governed by the I-GAGA-T's strict policies regarding communication means deployment. [Kinda like the saying "lets all use HTTP"]. Then, our two brave "alien-things", charter members of I-GAGA-T (affectionately known to each other as GAGAs), decide to communicate using SOAP, at which point they have fulfilled "the ONLY requirement when doing client/server" according to their recently hired communication consultant, an Earthling named garoush . [Believe me folks, I am not making this up. A true story from the GAGA archives.]

But have they?

No. One of the GAGAs decides to send a message using SOAP to its newly acquired friend! So the trusty (and somewhat rusty) SOAP client is fired up and the message is sent. And guess what? Promptly comes the standard error reply: "Message received, NOT understood. Ca va?"

Put simply, using SOAP, two or more 'alien-things' can communicate to each other as long as they agree on the SOAP protocol - which is the ONLY requirement when doing client/server using SOAP.

So, put simply, the above is a false statement.

[And this point in the story, we find an agitated and nervous garoush, furiously sending SOAPy messages to Earth: "<help>Me!!</help>" -- Lets hope that back on Earth, garoush's friends have first agreed on the Rescue-Message-Format! (But maybe they didn't, hey garoush? "Just use SOAP" he used to say back on Earth. Well ... Just use SOAP then :) )]

SOAP, and XML-RPC, both provide a means for one GAGA to send messages to another GAGA, even if the two GAGA have discovered each other for the very first time. And this messaging protocol , based on the well-understood [there!] request-reply paradigm, and utilizing a standard XML-based message container , delivers SOAP-compliant XML messages from the sender to the receiver.

So as garoush learned/will-learn [funny thing, this space-time continuum] from his consulting gig to the GAGAs, <help>Me!</help> is not defined. For the content of the message, which delivers information from garoush back to Earth, to be understood by the recipient's), he and his hoped-for-rescuers would have first needed to agree on the format of encoding information in your SOAPy messages.

Sure CORBA, DCOM, COM+, Java, etc. allow you to enable two different components to talk to each other, but those technologies do it in such a way that you must have a 'piece' of the server (called the client) to be delivered and used by the client developer. Thus, to talk with a 'server' you must meet the needs of the 'server' when using CORBA, DCOM, COM+, Java, etc. With SOAP, this is all eliminated. As long as the server publishes its API via the SOAP protocol, I can write my client to talk with the server using what ever I want. This frees me from having to 'embed' in my client a piece of the server -- thus there is no longer any 'hard-coupling' between two 'things'.

[We'll skip the fact that SOAP, CORBA, [D]COM[+], and "Java" are a rather orthogonal set of technologies ...]

What is apparently not understood by garoush is that CORBA, DCOM, COM+, Java RMI, do much much more than just simply pass messages from one GAGA to another. [I recommend this great book written specifically for GAGAs for more information on what real (i.e. working) Inter-GAGA Communication Protocols require to function. (Check out the GAGAs on the cover!)] .

Lets just take Java's RMI as an example. What's this with RMI you say? Why didn't they call it Java RPC? I'm glad you asked. See the 'M' in RMI? That's a method, which is a procedure bound to an object. The P in RPC refers to a procedure, which is not necessarily bound to anything. To invoke a method of an object, you first need to get a handle on the object, a remote reference. Any object you say? No. Objects which have been registered with a Registry/Directory Service ( UDDI anyone?) Then you pass the method invocation message to the remote object and a bit of infrastructure on the receiving end maps your method invocation message to an actual method call on the specific object you are invoking. This sub-process of mapping your messages to actual method calls on a specific object uses a messaging protocol which is analogous to what SOAP specifies.

So:

Smoke: SOAP (& XML-RPC) are distributed object technologies! [This goes beyond Smoke and verges on GAGA humor..]

Fact: SOAP is a Simple Xml-based Messaging Protocol (SXMP)

Fact: By the time you have implemented a true Simple Object Access Protocol using a SXMP, you will have something that will look awfully close to RMI. (With the exception that RMI doesn't shuffle needlessly verbose ASCII bits through its system-level plumbing, but your SOAP does.)

In short, by the time you have provided the functionality of an RMI mechanism, such as Java RMI, using SOAP (or any RPC mechanism), you will have accomplished, by the prerequisite functionality of the task at hand, a fairly complex bit of software engineering. Congratulations! (CORBA? Oh boy ...)

In short, using SOAP, we now enable a true 'smart' data-exchange-protocol between two systems such that development is now at the level of "data-exchange" rather than API, SDK, language, etc.

No. More likely, you will realize that having standardized on the data-exchange, you have in effect delegated the complexity of building a distributed object system to the client as opposed to the infrastructure.

Now that is smart. [Good going there Bill!]

[Meanwhile, back on Earth, garoush's friends and would-be rescuers [will] happen upon a long forgotten SOAP Server log file. There, buried among other debug and error messages is the messaging logging the error message the SOAP server sent back to garoush back on planet X. "Ouch" says one of garoush's friends. "I hope he is OK". Now, isn't it just great that XML messages are human readable? (Its too back Servers aren't human -- damn shameful waste of all that human readable information!)]

Smoke: SOAP/XML is a great leap forward!

Fact: Bubble Economies produce Bubble Technologies .

Can you say "boondoggle" boys and girls? There, I knew you could.

It's worth noting that Bugger has a few other meanings than "One who plants bugs."

However, I am afraid you have made yourself look rather foolish, since civilsed is spelled like I originally spelled it. You Amreicans have put 'z''s in many words which are correctly spelled with an 's'. It is one of your more irritating habits.

Please do not bother linking to dictionary.com since I know how to spell the English language, since I am ENGLISH.

-----

"Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?" How about you sell some toilet paper named Diablo and see if they sue your ass.

The article states that Bliazzard wants to release a movie with the same title as their game that will follow (yes, not just the one word) but the storyline of that game! Wow, who could've guessed? They weren't trying to patent the word 'diablo' (well at least not like Coca Cola has a Trade Mark on the word 'enjoy'.

"Since when did Blizzard own all rights to the word "diablo"?" How about you sell some toilet paper named Diablo and see if they sue your ass.

The article states that Bliazzard wants to release a movie with the same title as their game that will follow (yes, not just the one word) but the storyline of that game! Wow, who could've guessed? They weren't trying to patent the word 'diablo' (well at least not like Coca Cola has a Trade Mark on the word 'enjoy'.

Just a minor point, you can use GPL software as you wish, you should have said "If I can't distribute your stuff without your license" . Even then a quick read of 7 definitions of proprietary leaves me wondering if the GPL is proprietary (if you just read the first two it is, read further and the doubt grows).

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

To explain, in the UK one Pound Sterling used to be one pound of gold by weight.

pound sterling on brittanica.com

sterling on dictionary.com

Actually, a Pound Sterling was more typically a pound of silver, not gold, in value. Hence the term 'sterling silver.' The term 'sterling' refers to purity of gold or silver, but the Pound was of silver specifically.