There are lots of measures of a code's "maintainability", with interconnectedness being just one of them.
More to the point, that's what code tests are for: to make sure changing one thing doesn't break another. Talking about the "health" of the code base without knowing about test coverage or effectiveness is pretty damned meaningless, regardless of "interconnectedness". My view is that Ali Almossawi's paper is therefore a waste of dead trees.
"Look this is not ideal for folks who want to go out and have a large drink with dinner. But on Mythbusters, they've done a number of driving myths at.07999% BAC, and the results are pretty dramatic. You are definitely impaired at.08%."
BULLSHIT!!!
Not that Mythbusters didn't do that, but Mythbusters is a TV show. They don't have either the money or time to do a real study on this.
This is not about safety. It is about control.
Some years ago, the State of Idaho did a thorough, double-blind study of drinking and driving. Their conclusion was that at 0.10% BAC, the vast majority of drivers were not affected enough to significantly impair their driving. "Significantly", using measures of driving ability like driving straight without weaving, reaction time, and so on.
They changed the legal BAC to 0.08% anyway, even though there was no evidence that it would make anybody safer, for no other reason than pressure from the Federal government, .
"and a customer who contradicts what they're saying may end up shouldering the blame if the equipment goes south. It's the 'you never got fired for buying IBM' argument, applied to the networking space."
Since when has "management based on fear" ever been a good way to run a department?
If you are really so afraid that you will buy expensive equipment that is probably unnecessary in order to keep your job, then either:
(A) you should lose your job, you coward. Or
(B) you are in a toxic workplace and need to find another one right away.
Yes we are. Software is just an implementation of algorithms. And an algorithm that isn't implemented in software is... a manual process?
we are talking about algorithms. Patents cover processes which are abstract entities. I agree with the point you are making but I think it is irrelevant to the current case."
I only used player piano rolls as an example, but it's an important one. At issue was that courts have ruled that the form of the work, or the media in/on which it appears, is completely immaterial, as is whether it controls a machine.
"On the internet" is simply a form of algorithm or software. Or a medium in which it appears. Therefore it should make absolutely no difference to patentability.
"I was under the impression that patent law does follow this rule and that "software" patents are really just business method patents in the context of software. The problem is that the idea of a "business method" is too broad and too easy to dress up as novel even when it isn't (especially when it applies to software)."
Most of them operate that way, but it is my understanding that in some circumstances algorithms can also be patented.
I agree with you that most business methods should not be patentable, and I don't believe ANY algorithms should be patentable. Ultimately, they're just math.
"Funny how the Australian experience says you are full of shit."
Except that it doesn't.
Somebody who was arguing with me the other day tried to cite a page of government stats to show that crime went down when guns were confiscated in the UK. (I know that's not Australia, bear with me a moment.)
The problem is, his own statistics showed that per-capita gun crime (we're talking about firearms here) was going down before the big UK gun ban in 1997. And right after the gun ban, gun crime went up, and not just a little, but dramatically. It nearly doubled in the 5-6 years after the ban. Since the peak it has been coming down again, but so what? It has been coming down everywhere else too. Even here in the United States, where over the same period, per-capita gun ownership has been steadily going UP, while crime has gone down by nearly half.
From the statistics I have seen, Australia experienced a very similar situation. I'm not sure about total gun crime but by some reports, after that last big gun grab, armed "home invasion" crime went up by around 40%, and other crimes showed a similar increase.
It puzzles me why people keep pointing to these countries as examples of how gun control can work, when official statistics from the governments of those countries actually indicate that it doesn't.
Some carriers do not offer an unsubsidized monthly service price. As in you pay the same amount if you buy a phone outright from anywhere you want. You just don't grasp how fucked up the carriers in the US are."
I "did not grasp what you posted" because what you posted was vague to the point of being incorrect.
Your original comment was "some carriers do not offer an un-subsidized price". Given that the conversation was about the price of phones, not service plans, it was natural to think phones was what you meant.
They should have just named it "FUD" in the first place. It would have been more honest. But then... this is Zuckerberg, after all. Honesty and ethics was probably not much of a concern.
"And now they have paved the way for allowing only Microsoft and Google owned and patent encumbered DRM schemes. What progress???"
There. Fixed that for you.
For what it's worth, I agree. It has taken a while to shake out, but DRM, as a market concept, has been an almost complete failure. It simply doesn't stop people. If anything, it pisses people off and makes them more determined to break the DRM anyway.
Look at HDMI, and CSS (DVD encryption CSS, not the web page kind). They're totally broken. It took a while for the HDMI protection scheme to be broken, but a couple of years ago a guy showed how it could be done with off-the-shelf tools, in a couple of days. (And now that the technique is known, it can be done by a hobbyist in a few minutes.) CSS was broken in even less time with DeCSS by "DVD Jon".
Yet the industries are still using these broken technologies, and saddling consumers with the totally worthless cost.
This has no place in an "open standard". I say get rid of it, and stop coddling the clueless, protectionist, blindly greedy corporations.
Yes, about time this was RE-affirmed. Because some people seem to have forgotten their history.
This all took place -- same subject, and in exactly the same way -- about 100 years ago. Musicians were concerned with other people "stealing" their music by copying player piano rolls using stock paper, some glue, and paper punches. (Sound familiar? Gill Gates started this whole software "protectionist" era by suing people for copying his Altair BASIC interpreter that was stored on paper tape.)
John Philip Sousa, in fact was on the plaintiff end of some of these suits. And the courts decided that the form of the work doesn't matter. It can be on paper rolls, or in a book of sheet music, or whatever. AND, the courts also ruled that it doesn't matter whether it is in a form that controls machines, either. A written work is still nothing more than a written work!
And so with software. Software is properly governed by copyright, not patents. Where the software represents novel business practices or formulae, those business practices and formulae may be patentable. But according to ages-old court precedent, software itself never should have been.
And the death of this lie will be good for consumers.
Part of the problem all along has been that carriers have been "hiding" artificially high prices in their monthly plans. When true prices become apparent, there is much more pressure on brands to reduce their prices to something more realistic.
First, it hasn't been gone long at all. 8-9 months only. But it did move around a bit before it disappeared.
Second, as for DOA: that's kind of like asking whether a library is DOA because it hasn't added any books in the last few months. Kind of a silly question, really.
Demonoid was known for its list of "filez" torrents (books, references, etc.) much more than for movies and the like. Its list of such was far more extensive than most other trackers.
"Someone broke the law, even criminally so I might add. People should get fired over this, and criminal charges filed. At the very least this is a serious breach of privacy and trust."
Given the scale of this abuse, there is no way in hell it was just a misstep by a few employees. It MUST have been a policy decision by somebody, somewhere.
Let's not blame the grunt workers. Look higher up and blame the parties actually responsible. This kind of abuse of government power is inexcusable, no matter who is doing it. Leave partisan politics out of it. It's just plain very, very bad for America.
"Sorry, no. Registration does not affect your rights/ability to own or shoot a gun UNLESS you're not supposed to have one in the first place, just like backgrounds checks do now. Unless you're advocating for an/all people to be able to own a gun, you are incorrect."
Sorry, but the sentence you are replying to was about your own comment, not about registration, and it remains correct.
But in addition, registration CAN and DOES cause innocent people to get killed. Like the case of the woman who applied for a gun permit because her ex-husband was stalking her... and he killed her before the waiting period was over. (There have been quite a few cases like that, actually.)
When you add to that the fact that registration has demonstrably been grossly ineffective at its stated purpose, a rational person can only conclude that it's bad law.
"(b) Seeing as there is no registration for firearms in the US, I fail to see how you can reach that conclusion. Secondly, registering of cars/licensing of drivers works pretty damn well. Get pulled over without a license, go to jail. Get pulled over in a car that's not registered to you (i.e. stolen), go to jail."
You are displaying your ignorance here. Many states in the U.S. have firearms registration. There just aren't many Federal laws in that regard (though there are a few, for certain kinds of firearms).
"Secondly, registering of cars/licensing of drivers works pretty damn well. Get pulled over without a license, go to jail."
WHOOSH... right over your head, eh? My point was that auto registration is not effective at keeping dangerous drivers off the street... any more than gun registration has been effective at keeping criminals from owning guns. It's ONLY a restriction on law-abiding citizens. The criminals don't give a damn.
"The law in question is RCW 9.41.110, specifically:"
That's not gun registration! It's just a record of the sale. NOT the same thing at all. Admittedly, it's getting alarmingly close, but it's simply not gun registration.
But registration requires you to register or get a permit for all new guns you purchase. It's not just making a record of a sale from a dealer.
You should review the results of your own research. Or at least learn what gun registration is.
"What state doesn't have restrictions on carry?"
Way to change the goalposts. You said Washington has "unrestricted" concealed carry. Bullshit. You can't carry in any place where alcohol is served for consumption, for example. That excludes most bars, nightclubs, and restaurants. It's very FAR from "unrestricted". Whether other states are restricted (and yes, there are some that are not) is beside the point, because it has nothing to do with your comment.
And Federal law has nothing to do with whether States restrict concealed carry.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of measures of a code's "maintainability", with interconnectedness being just one of them.
More to the point, that's what code tests are for: to make sure changing one thing doesn't break another. Talking about the "health" of the code base without knowing about test coverage or effectiveness is pretty damned meaningless, regardless of "interconnectedness". My view is that Ali Almossawi's paper is therefore a waste of dead trees.
It appears there was a typographical error in my [i] tag.
"Look this is not ideal for folks who want to go out and have a large drink with dinner. But on Mythbusters, they've done a number of driving myths at .07999% BAC, and the results are pretty dramatic. You are definitely impaired at .08%."
BULLSHIT!!!
Not that Mythbusters didn't do that, but Mythbusters is a TV show. They don't have either the money or time to do a real study on this.
This is not about safety. It is about control.
Some years ago, the State of Idaho did a thorough, double-blind study of drinking and driving. Their conclusion was that at 0.10% BAC, the vast majority of drivers were not affected enough to significantly impair their driving. "Significantly", using measures of driving ability like driving straight without weaving, reaction time, and so on.
They changed the legal BAC to 0.08% anyway, even though there was no evidence that it would make anybody safer, for no other reason than pressure from the Federal government, .
"and a customer who contradicts what they're saying may end up shouldering the blame if the equipment goes south. It's the 'you never got fired for buying IBM' argument, applied to the networking space."
Since when has "management based on fear" ever been a good way to run a department?
If you are really so afraid that you will buy expensive equipment that is probably unnecessary in order to keep your job, then either:
(A) you should lose your job, you coward. Or
(B) you are in a toxic workplace and need to find another one right away.
"Um, no. How about the people in advertising or marketing kill themselves?"
Hahaha! I don't often recommend a mod up for an AC, but this is one of those times.
"Flamebait"?
Wow. Somebody must have been really pissed off at me today. I don't see how that could possibly be construed as "flamebait".
"But we are not talking about software here
Yes we are. Software is just an implementation of algorithms. And an algorithm that isn't implemented in software is... a manual process?
we are talking about algorithms. Patents cover processes which are abstract entities. I agree with the point you are making but I think it is irrelevant to the current case."
I only used player piano rolls as an example, but it's an important one. At issue was that courts have ruled that the form of the work, or the media in/on which it appears, is completely immaterial, as is whether it controls a machine.
"On the internet" is simply a form of algorithm or software. Or a medium in which it appears. Therefore it should make absolutely no difference to patentability.
"I was under the impression that patent law does follow this rule and that "software" patents are really just business method patents in the context of software. The problem is that the idea of a "business method" is too broad and too easy to dress up as novel even when it isn't (especially when it applies to software)."
Most of them operate that way, but it is my understanding that in some circumstances algorithms can also be patented.
I agree with you that most business methods should not be patentable, and I don't believe ANY algorithms should be patentable. Ultimately, they're just math.
"Well now that you know what i meant feel free to continue being a fucking asshole"
I see. You are implying that "You failed to grasp what I posted" was NOT being a fucking asshole?
Hmmm. Well, it's an interesting point of view. I'll give you that.
"Funny how the Australian experience says you are full of shit."
Except that it doesn't.
Somebody who was arguing with me the other day tried to cite a page of government stats to show that crime went down when guns were confiscated in the UK. (I know that's not Australia, bear with me a moment.)
The problem is, his own statistics showed that per-capita gun crime (we're talking about firearms here) was going down before the big UK gun ban in 1997. And right after the gun ban, gun crime went up, and not just a little, but dramatically. It nearly doubled in the 5-6 years after the ban. Since the peak it has been coming down again, but so what? It has been coming down everywhere else too. Even here in the United States, where over the same period, per-capita gun ownership has been steadily going UP, while crime has gone down by nearly half.
From the statistics I have seen, Australia experienced a very similar situation. I'm not sure about total gun crime but by some reports, after that last big gun grab, armed "home invasion" crime went up by around 40%, and other crimes showed a similar increase.
It puzzles me why people keep pointing to these countries as examples of how gun control can work, when official statistics from the governments of those countries actually indicate that it doesn't.
"You did not grasp what I posted.
Some carriers do not offer an unsubsidized monthly service price. As in you pay the same amount if you buy a phone outright from anywhere you want. You just don't grasp how fucked up the carriers in the US are."
I "did not grasp what you posted" because what you posted was vague to the point of being incorrect.
Your original comment was "some carriers do not offer an un-subsidized price". Given that the conversation was about the price of phones, not service plans, it was natural to think phones was what you meant.
"Getting money out of politics should be your (you, citizens) top priority."
I agree wholeheartedly. And as an American myself, I have trouble understanding why more Americans have not appeared to have the same concern.
"Sad but true."
They should have just named it "FUD" in the first place. It would have been more honest. But then... this is Zuckerberg, after all. Honesty and ethics was probably not much of a concern.
Correction: "it can be done by a hobbyist in a few minutes" should be "it can be set up by a hobbyist in a few minutes, and done at will".
"And now they have paved the way for allowing only Microsoft and Google owned and patent encumbered DRM schemes. What progress???"
There. Fixed that for you.
For what it's worth, I agree. It has taken a while to shake out, but DRM, as a market concept, has been an almost complete failure. It simply doesn't stop people. If anything, it pisses people off and makes them more determined to break the DRM anyway.
Look at HDMI, and CSS (DVD encryption CSS, not the web page kind). They're totally broken. It took a while for the HDMI protection scheme to be broken, but a couple of years ago a guy showed how it could be done with off-the-shelf tools, in a couple of days. (And now that the technique is known, it can be done by a hobbyist in a few minutes.) CSS was broken in even less time with DeCSS by "DVD Jon".
Yet the industries are still using these broken technologies, and saddling consumers with the totally worthless cost.
This has no place in an "open standard". I say get rid of it, and stop coddling the clueless, protectionist, blindly greedy corporations.
"about time"
Yes, about time this was RE-affirmed. Because some people seem to have forgotten their history.
This all took place -- same subject, and in exactly the same way -- about 100 years ago. Musicians were concerned with other people "stealing" their music by copying player piano rolls using stock paper, some glue, and paper punches. (Sound familiar? Gill Gates started this whole software "protectionist" era by suing people for copying his Altair BASIC interpreter that was stored on paper tape.)
John Philip Sousa, in fact was on the plaintiff end of some of these suits. And the courts decided that the form of the work doesn't matter. It can be on paper rolls, or in a book of sheet music, or whatever. AND, the courts also ruled that it doesn't matter whether it is in a form that controls machines, either. A written work is still nothing more than a written work!
And so with software. Software is properly governed by copyright, not patents. Where the software represents novel business practices or formulae, those business practices and formulae may be patentable. But according to ages-old court precedent, software itself never should have been.
"It is the LIE whose days are numbered."
And the death of this lie will be good for consumers.
Part of the problem all along has been that carriers have been "hiding" artificially high prices in their monthly plans. When true prices become apparent, there is much more pressure on brands to reduce their prices to something more realistic.
"Some US carriers do not offer an un-subsidized price."
That's why you don't get your phone from a carrier!
"Isn't this ressurrection almost totaly D.O.A.?"
First, it hasn't been gone long at all. 8-9 months only. But it did move around a bit before it disappeared.
Second, as for DOA: that's kind of like asking whether a library is DOA because it hasn't added any books in the last few months. Kind of a silly question, really.
Demonoid was known for its list of "filez" torrents (books, references, etc.) much more than for movies and the like. Its list of such was far more extensive than most other trackers.
"Who is Ass King Nicely?"
SO so tempting to put one of a list of /. users' names here!
"Someone broke the law, even criminally so I might add. People should get fired over this, and criminal charges filed. At the very least this is a serious breach of privacy and trust."
Given the scale of this abuse, there is no way in hell it was just a misstep by a few employees. It MUST have been a policy decision by somebody, somewhere.
Let's not blame the grunt workers. Look higher up and blame the parties actually responsible. This kind of abuse of government power is inexcusable, no matter who is doing it. Leave partisan politics out of it. It's just plain very, very bad for America.
"Sorry, no. Registration does not affect your rights/ability to own or shoot a gun UNLESS you're not supposed to have one in the first place, just like backgrounds checks do now. Unless you're advocating for an/all people to be able to own a gun, you are incorrect."
Sorry, but the sentence you are replying to was about your own comment, not about registration, and it remains correct.
But in addition, registration CAN and DOES cause innocent people to get killed. Like the case of the woman who applied for a gun permit because her ex-husband was stalking her... and he killed her before the waiting period was over. (There have been quite a few cases like that, actually.)
When you add to that the fact that registration has demonstrably been grossly ineffective at its stated purpose, a rational person can only conclude that it's bad law.
"(b) Seeing as there is no registration for firearms in the US, I fail to see how you can reach that conclusion. Secondly, registering of cars/licensing of drivers works pretty damn well. Get pulled over without a license, go to jail. Get pulled over in a car that's not registered to you (i.e. stolen), go to jail."
You are displaying your ignorance here. Many states in the U.S. have firearms registration. There just aren't many Federal laws in that regard (though there are a few, for certain kinds of firearms).
"Secondly, registering of cars/licensing of drivers works pretty damn well. Get pulled over without a license, go to jail."
WHOOSH... right over your head, eh? My point was that auto registration is not effective at keeping dangerous drivers off the street... any more than gun registration has been effective at keeping criminals from owning guns. It's ONLY a restriction on law-abiding citizens. The criminals don't give a damn.
"The law in question is RCW 9.41.110, specifically:"
That's not gun registration! It's just a record of the sale. NOT the same thing at all. Admittedly, it's getting alarmingly close, but it's simply not gun registration.
But registration requires you to register or get a permit for all new guns you purchase. It's not just making a record of a sale from a dealer.
You should review the results of your own research. Or at least learn what gun registration is.
"What state doesn't have restrictions on carry?"
Way to change the goalposts. You said Washington has "unrestricted" concealed carry. Bullshit. You can't carry in any place where alcohol is served for consumption, for example. That excludes most bars, nightclubs, and restaurants. It's very FAR from "unrestricted". Whether other states are restricted (and yes, there are some that are not) is beside the point, because it has nothing to do with your comment.
And Federal law has nothing to do with whether States restrict concealed carry.
"Hello! Privacy concern! I may not want everyone knowing i have the strip club programmed into my gps."
You probably also don't want them to know your name when you say "Back off, asshole!"