Actually, the GP is accidentally right, in spite of obvious ignorance about licenses. Chrome, for instance, is *not* open source -- but Chromium is. Of course, the difference between the two is negligible and largely related to IPBS (a newly coined initialism that should be this crowd to figure out).
Seriously, everybody on/. seems to assume that every single patent infringement lawsuit is a "patent troll." But patent law is a lot more complicated than that.
No. Nearly every software developer on the internets seem to assume that every single software patent infringement lawsuit is "patent trolling". That's because it is.
And I imagine that about nine out of ten people here would have the exact same reaction if Microsoft ripped off their product: let's sue.
You really believe nine out of ten people here would file software patents? You obviously haven't been paying attention.
The RIAA giving radio a compelling reason to play independent artists is exactly what we need. They can only hurt themselves.
Sadly, this is incorrect. Via the SoundExchange FAQ (by way of Wikipedia because those idiots have a broken Flashtastic site): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange
"SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties for all artists and copyright owners covered under the statutory licenses; these parties do not need to be members of SoundExchange for royalties to be collected on their behalf and distributed to them."
Yes, SoundExchange has the mandate to collect royalties for indie artists as well. And good luck getting them to pay out -- they'll no doubt have trouble "finding" you. I'm not sure what that implies it also applies to songs released under CC or similarly permissive licenses -- while the CC license specifically addresses the performance right, I wouldn't be surprised if SoundExchange still claims a statutory right to collect.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the work this group did pre-Mozilla when they were called Humanized. They didn't name the company that on a wimb -- read through some of the archived blog entries on their design decisions -- you'll learn quite a bit about user-centered design.
That should be easy enough to do. But that's not the point -- it's supposed to be an "explorable" linguistic command line interface, and there are quite a few ways to explore. Oh, and right clicketyclick for context menu of all commands.
Or are you you arrogant and ignorant as to believe the only things that have so influenced mankind have only been produced within the last century?
That's completely beside the point. Or are you you arrogant and ignorant as to believe those things which have so influenced mankind within the last century will ever find their way into the public domain, what with the ever-increasing length of copyright terms?
HTTP is connectionless, but many applications don't make sense in a connectionless setting
Which ones? Connectionless != stateless. See: REpresentational State Transfer
Client side privileges are difficult to control, and relying solely on the server for security is not always possible
Why? This seems like a pretty sweeping generalization. What kind of use cases are you referring to? Whether you're writing the client side in javascript or gtk or some winforms control, it's *never* a good idea to rely on the security of the client. See: DRM
HTML/XML requests use more bandwidth than binary protocols, which strains slow connections (yes, some people still use dialup, especially mobile users, and here in America many mobile users still rely on 9.6kbps cell phone connections). *ML requests also include a lot of useless tags that describe the "document," even though it is really an RPC request.
Perhaps you're unaware of this, but those verbose tags can be gzipped into an incredibly tight binary. And unlike most everything else, it's even a (well supported) standard. As for javascript and css, it's trivial to minify or pack and then compress for deployment. As part of a tool chain, devs get all this for free (unlike someone hacking together their own binary wire format).
As for your assertion that most requests are ultimately very similar to RPC, you are correct. However, you are certainly not the first to notice this: see JSON-RPC (I would have mentioned XML-RPC but JSON even disposes of those pesky tags you so disapprove of).
XMLHTTPRequest is not standardized across all browsers, and multiple copies of some sections of code must be sent, wasting even more bandwidth.
And the code to abstract away XHR differences is trivial, a few dozen lines at most. Standard in a decent dev's toolchain -- see: minification and gzip compression.
So by all means, keep adding to the list. But from where I stand I don't see any real architectural downsides to web apps listed (not that they don't exist).
It does make you wonder though if the Google lovefest is over. Now that they are a publicly traded company their only obligation is to their shareholders and as a publicly traded company they should probably change their motto to "We do less evil than everyone else".
I hear you, and they're certainly rubbing me the wrong way these days too, but to be fair, it has absolutely nothing to do with their IPO. Larry and Sergey did something unique and remarkable when they "sold out" -- they ensured that no voting rights conveyed with their publicly traded common stock. Thus, Google, unlike the rest of our corporate overlords, is decidedly _not_ beholden to driveling short-sighted daytraders nor dbag raiders like Carl Icahn.
I could care less about all the silly pedantic squabbling in this thread about religion. But this statement seriously offends my moral sensibilities:
It is similar in name only, because given this free country, the founders of the FLDS church were free to do so when naming it. Wrong. Trademark law, as the only sturdy leg in the intellectual property trinity, exists expressly to prevent such confusion and usurpation. Me thinks it's more than a mere coincidence that you can't spell FLDS without LDS.
they just used Linux because it happened to be free. No. Both Microsoft and Apple offered a no-cost option. They chose Linux because it was technically superior for underpinning a low-powered box. Oh, and because it was Free Software.
Have you seen the Web Acess client? There's NOTHING out there that compares. Perhaps someone should introduce you to Gmail? OWA may have pioneered XmlHttpRequest some years ago, but it's still no more than a poorly implemented, IE-only Outlook clone -- with all of its (crappy) responsiveness and fewer features.
I think there is a lot more professionalism in Open Source projects than in many software houses. This is a big part of what Paul Graham calls The Python Paradox. And before I get flamed: no, it's not limited to Python, just embodied by it. It's more about how the passion that fuels a hobbyist hacker -- the kind you'll often find spending their spare time in foss projects -- is what makes a good software developer.
If Microsoft GPL'd Microsoft Office, would you install it? No because my reason for using Open Office isn't just because I'm a tight wad. So you use it because it's Free-as-in-speech? Allow me to reiterate:
I completely agree with you (and many others). But there's certainly a class of user that would benefit from wizards and whatnots, at least on first run. Yes, they annoy you and me, but why can't there be a universal Gnome setting (or better yet, a freedesktop.org standard) that allows a "noob" bit to be set on a given user account?
Perhaps it could be more than a bit -- it could even be a scale. A few simple guidelines and (almost) everybody's happy.
Slashdot Mirror
Threads are not the only solution to concurrency. JS works will event loops.
And Promises make event loops even nicer.
But don't forget about Web Workers which gives us feeble javascript programmers true shared-nothing concurrency.
It just makes one up right there on the spot, and assigns it a null value.
Actually it assigns it a value of undefined.
Then there's the null -vs- undefined mess that constantly trips-up even experienced programmers.
Did that joke just go flying over my head?
Actually, the GP is accidentally right, in spite of obvious ignorance about licenses. Chrome, for instance, is *not* open source -- but Chromium is. Of course, the difference between the two is negligible and largely related to IPBS (a newly coined initialism that should be this crowd to figure out).
Where is the study telling us how huggable these nanotube sheets might be?
Great point -- there's all kinds of new products this could enable...
New huggable Charmin Ultra Nanosheets...the best sheet ever!
I later checked and found he gets million from Comcast in contributions.
I find this claim pretty questionable: it costs way less to buy a congressman! Hell, you could buy a baker's dozen of senators for that!
Whether these particular patents were innovative was at least decided with respect to DishNetwork.
Do you really think patent litigation is capable of judging that? Do you really think that's even it's intent?
Seriously, everybody on /. seems to assume that every single patent infringement lawsuit is a "patent troll." But patent law is a lot more complicated than that.
No. Nearly every software developer on the internets seem to assume that every single software patent infringement lawsuit is "patent trolling". That's because it is.
And I imagine that about nine out of ten people here would have the exact same reaction if Microsoft ripped off their product: let's sue.
You really believe nine out of ten people here would file software patents? You obviously haven't been paying attention.
The RIAA giving radio a compelling reason to play independent artists is exactly what we need. They can only hurt themselves.
Sadly, this is incorrect. Via the SoundExchange FAQ (by way of Wikipedia because those idiots have a broken Flashtastic site): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange
"SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties for all artists and copyright owners covered under the statutory licenses; these parties do not need to be members of SoundExchange for royalties to be collected on their behalf and distributed to them."
Yes, SoundExchange has the mandate to collect royalties for indie artists as well. And good luck getting them to pay out -- they'll no doubt have trouble "finding" you. I'm not sure what that implies it also applies to songs released under CC or similarly permissive licenses -- while the CC license specifically addresses the performance right, I wouldn't be surprised if SoundExchange still claims a statutory right to collect.
I'm racking my brain and for the life of me I can't figure out what you're saying.
You left out the text just below that: => there is libnotify on Linux.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the work this group did pre-Mozilla when they were called Humanized. They didn't name the company that on a wimb -- read through some of the archived blog entries on their design decisions -- you'll learn quite a bit about user-centered design.
That should be easy enough to do. But that's not the point -- it's supposed to be an "explorable" linguistic command line interface, and there are quite a few ways to explore. Oh, and right clicketyclick for context menu of all commands.
Or are you you arrogant and ignorant as to believe the only things that have so influenced mankind have only been produced within the last century?
That's completely beside the point. Or are you you arrogant and ignorant as to believe those things which have so influenced mankind within the last century will ever find their way into the public domain, what with the ever-increasing length of copyright terms?
HTTP is connectionless, but many applications don't make sense in a connectionless setting
Which ones? Connectionless != stateless. See: REpresentational State Transfer
Client side privileges are difficult to control, and relying solely on the server for security is not always possible
Why? This seems like a pretty sweeping generalization. What kind of use cases are you referring to? Whether you're writing the client side in javascript or gtk or some winforms control, it's *never* a good idea to rely on the security of the client. See: DRM
HTML/XML requests use more bandwidth than binary protocols, which strains slow connections (yes, some people still use dialup, especially mobile users, and here in America many mobile users still rely on 9.6kbps cell phone connections). *ML requests also include a lot of useless tags that describe the "document," even though it is really an RPC request.
Perhaps you're unaware of this, but those verbose tags can be gzipped into an incredibly tight binary. And unlike most everything else, it's even a (well supported) standard. As for javascript and css, it's trivial to minify or pack and then compress for deployment. As part of a tool chain, devs get all this for free (unlike someone hacking together their own binary wire format).
As for your assertion that most requests are ultimately very similar to RPC, you are correct. However, you are certainly not the first to notice this: see JSON-RPC (I would have mentioned XML-RPC but JSON even disposes of those pesky tags you so disapprove of).
XMLHTTPRequest is not standardized across all browsers, and multiple copies of some sections of code must be sent, wasting even more bandwidth.
And the code to abstract away XHR differences is trivial, a few dozen lines at most. Standard in a decent dev's toolchain -- see: minification and gzip compression.
So by all means, keep adding to the list. But from where I stand I don't see any real architectural downsides to web apps listed (not that they don't exist).
Underwater basket weaving, via robot.
Is this a Joe Smith crack? Damn, you Dukies are relentless in your pursuit of obscure insults!
It does make you wonder though if the Google lovefest is over. Now that they are a publicly traded company their only obligation is to their shareholders and as a publicly traded company they should probably change their motto to "We do less evil than everyone else".
I hear you, and they're certainly rubbing me the wrong way these days too, but to be fair, it has absolutely nothing to do with their IPO. Larry and Sergey did something unique and remarkable when they "sold out" -- they ensured that no voting rights conveyed with their publicly traded common stock. Thus, Google, unlike the rest of our corporate overlords, is decidedly _not_ beholden to driveling short-sighted daytraders nor dbag raiders like Carl Icahn.
If Microsoft GPL'd Microsoft Office...
I completely agree with you (and many others). But there's certainly a class of user that would benefit from wizards and whatnots, at least on first run. Yes, they annoy you and me, but why can't there be a universal Gnome setting (or better yet, a freedesktop.org standard) that allows a "noob" bit to be set on a given user account?
Perhaps it could be more than a bit -- it could even be a scale. A few simple guidelines and (almost) everybody's happy.
>>> import girlfriend
Obligatory xkcd
Agreed, and well put.
Also, just as I wrote that, I was pretty much bitchslapped by the words of Jefferson in another thread...
We are endowed with certain inalienable rightsSo mea culpa on that one...