I don't understand why everyone is concentrating on the economic factors and nothing else. Watching Canadian society change in the last 10 years as our regulated telcos and cable companies rolled out thousands of Gbps in bandwidth across the country to all but the most rural farms has been simply amazing. The Internet is a medium. Just like it's a benefit to a government to have televisions and radios in every house in the country, it's a benefit to have high-speed Internet as well.
My lifestyle has changed significantly. Other than the time my employer pays me to be in the office, I do what I want when I want. I don't have to worry about remembering to record a television program I'm not around to watch; someone else will do it and I can download it later. Or go to the video store and rent it on DVD. I don't tune into the evening news; RSS feeds come straight to my desktop. The CBC has become the same Juggernaut on the Internet as it remains on public airwaves. Public transit is filled with people texting and e-mailing each other on the way to work: even commuting time is productive now. Our society truly does work smarter, not harder. Using my PC and network and a few automated tasks has made keeping current a natural state, not something you need to work at.
But American society seems stuck in it's rut of being a TV Nation. Sorry, but television is too slow and prescriptive. I need to watch the show at the same time as everyone else and be exposed to the same mind-numbing advertising (or remember to set up my recording device). Political campaigns stick to traditional media, as do the pollsters who monitor the results of the campaign. Plus, there's no good search feature. There's a whole new medium to conquer for the government who's progressive. Ours already owns our Internet and the results have been truly beneficial, IMO. America as a whole can certainly afford to catch up with the rest of the world in a big hurry. Unfortunately, your wealthy have decided to bicker and negotiate for top dollar rather than take the opportunity to provide a new opiate to the masses.
You raise some interesting points, but your example is flawed. I'm from Canada where we have Universal Health Care and regulated Telecoms. To me, these are both decisions based on the same level of social responsibility. We regulate health care to ensure that there's no free market influences which will drive the cost of health care up for anyone. A good example: someone has a rare disease, which only a very few doctors in the entire world will likely be able to be cure. My understanding is that in the US, a fund-raiser coupled with large amounts of media publicity is the only way for anyone but the wealthiest citizen to be able to afford the doctor's fee, and any travel/hospitalization expenses, etc. Even if cured, the individual will have had her privacy invaded for many years hence. In Canada, even the poorest family would be provided with coverage for the expensive, experimental treatment. They wouldn't even need to show up in the newspaper.
The idea of regulated telecoms comes from the same school of thought: allowing large monopolies to control such important infrastructure AND set the price on the lease of said infrastructure inherently favours the wealthy. If telecoms were allowed to provide higher quality service to only the wealthiest neighbourhoods, then the poorest neighbourhoods would have only the worst service. Having used both the best service (business DSL) and the worst (@Home network), I'd say that the gap is nearly 10 years of technology. Given that the current privatized telecommunications industry in Canada was built from huge amounts of Public (i.e. paid for by taxpayers) infrastructure, there'd be a LOT of pissed-off people when they found out that the money they'd paid for Internet and telephone service was being used mostly to fund development in rich neighbourhoods. Everyone paid equally for the infrastructure right up until the late '90s. There's no way some gigantic monopoly that appeared out of the blue should be able to keep all that infrastructure away from the people who paid for it.
Regulation is always a poor choice; it's more bureaucracy and it stifles development. However, modern society is built on the Internet. Keeping it in the hands of the commoners allows a society to succeed as a whole rather than by a few elite individuals. Unless you're one of the 0.000001% of the population in that elite group, regulation favours you in this case.
Creativity is about new ideas and concepts that didn't exist before and actually making them happen. While I agree with you that creativity specifically refers to creating original thoughts, ideas, literature, "content", etc., there's a fine line between outright original creativity and synthesis. If you push the line too far in the fascist "that's not an original idea" direction, then you end up claiming that the first human to fluently speak a language is responsible for all original thought. Clearly that's absurd.
Synthesis is about "remixing" (a good term since that's what many electronic musicians/technicians do) old ideas in new ways. I'd argue that good synthesis has been responsible for many original works in many fields. Everything in the common knowledge base builds on something before it. An apple falling on someone's head five centuries ago has lead to physical theories that ponder the beginning of time. The quote attributed to Newton is really applicable here: "If we have seen farther than those before us, it is because we have stood on the shoulders of giants".
Long story short, synthesis has been responsible for many new theories and works of art. No, it's not original in the strictest sense, but what can you truly consider original? Even your story about a talking cave and a dog living inside a troll is just a rearrangement of words from TFA. This post is quite original, but it uses a famous quotation and paraphrases history to make its point.
We're just asking the MAFIAA to prove that these lawsuits aren't a legal scam, designed to put money in lawyer's pockets. How can we trust such an organization's motives if they won't tell us how much money their lawyers are making?
Emergent properties could indicate a situation that's a hybrid of #'s 1 and 2. The Universe did pop into existence out of nothing; all of the arguments we're having require the existence of the spacetime that we all exist in. Speculation on anything prior to that is simply pointless. However, as the Universe expanded, it is entirely possible that it gained a complexity which could indicate intelligence. That intelligence would feed back into the Universe, observing and possibly manipulating it. What's not clear is at what point that did or will happen. It would be an extremely fortunate coincidence if both the physical emergence of the Universe and the spontaneous existence of an overarching intelligence happened at exactly the same time.
Microsoft has been wielding the stick. Maybe this time, the carrot is the best bet. This, from TFA, in reference to Microsoft's previous dealings with OSS organizations. The easiest way to visualize this is to remember that Simpsons episode where Billy says "Buy 'im out boys" and his hired goons trash Homer's office. In other words, they act like they own the entire market space, and can afford to treat small startups and competing projects with such disdain.
I'm not averse to being offered the carrot and stick. True, it's a hard sell, but at least there's a carrot. Microsoft is a big business that succeeded by playing hardball, and any acquiescence on their part that didn't involve playing more hardball would just seem weird. Sun Microsystems moved Java from a Community Source License to the GPL after a long period of time. Perhaps we'll see Microsoft do the same with their Community Licensing, preferably for the.NET Framework SDK and DirectX to fuel development of Mono Project and Cedega, respectively. That way.NET would be a multi-platform development environment in practice instead of in theory, and Linux could expect better support for gaming.
My wiping program is made by Craftsman Tools (claw or ball-peen configuration) So violent! A powerful electromagnet should make any data recovered from the HDD suspect at best, and most likely non-existant. The electomagnet has the advantage of requiring only a single switch, and it can be flicked remotely.
Windows Server has been gaining popularity lately with good cause- it's a product that's quickly improving. In terms of usability, I'd agree with you. However, there are still major security features missing from the Windows Server platform, and when coupled with the ease of use of recent Linux distros, that's a no-go for me. I need to have SSL-secured SMTP and IMAP, local delivery through procmail or equivalent so that SpamAssassin or equivalent gets tossed in the mix. Oh, and chroot() my server environments please.
It's getting there, but IIS still sucks, and Microsoft still doesn't care too much about security or encryption.
I don't get why we don't just push all the U.S. time zones forward an hour and leave them there, and get rid of this fall/spring switching. Because you share them with Canada, and we really need the spring-forward/fall-back. If we stuck with summer time, the sun would set at 3:30pm in mid-winter. If we stuck with winter time, the sun would rise at 4:30am in mid-summer. Either way, I'm glad the clock changes back and forth. That being said, I don't think there's anything to be gained by moving only 3 weeks, except to put some money in IT consultants' pockets.
Pedantry is only funny when it's painfully correct. Slash ('/') dot ('.') is correctly abbreviated as '/.'. Luckily there's lots of smart dyslexics, so I won't speculate on your intelligence, just nitpick your nitpick.:)
Yes, because literature is pointless. The people who wrote those novels should be ashamed at writing something with so little use in society.
How do you rank the "usefulness" of someone's study? By time spent in school? Well then my Ph.D. in Linguistics is more "useful" than your MBA. Just because you're good at differential equations doesn't mean that the world needs to pay more for math and science than art. I can influence the masses a hell of a lot better with good writing than with a carefully deduced solution to a differential equation.
I think what you're trying to say is that people should be rewarded according to the market value of their work. That makes sense, but the guy who read all those novels can still turn around and write one himself. If it's a best-seller, he'll do better than the guy who hasn't solved a differential equation in 10 years.
Nah. If capitalism has taught me anything, it's that it's easier to force someone else to be educated and do all the thinking for you. That way you can be ignorant of actual effort required to do a particular task and solve all problems with a whip.
See how easy that is? In mathematics it's called reducing the problem. The Americans are *behind* in education. Any attempt to catch up by improving the education system would necessarily require a period where the Americans admitted somebody else was better than them. Solution: build bigger and better bombs and enslave weak, intellectual societies.
Hmmmm. I think they need to invade smarter, more advanced countries though. Time to get out of Canada, I guess.
Publishers see this as a huge potential for increased game revenues to help offset the rising development costs for the Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii. Excuse me? Rising costs of development? What about all Ballmer's chanting about developers? What's this.NET for if not reducing development costs?
So basically what I'm hearing is that even though we've made staggering breakthroughs in hardware, have an embarassment of good development environments to choose from and 10 years of training professionals on new technology, the cost of development has actually increased? Did the price of cocaine go up or something?
I don't believe this crap for a second. Spoiled elitist brats take a $100,000 course to learn some fancy new development platform and they still can't make a project work without a bunch of other spoiled elitist brats and some ridiculously expensive software that they're still learning even after taking the ridiculously expensive course. Then they do copious amounts of drugs until the deadline and make excuses about how they need better hardware, more training and more people on the team. And, oh, I have to pay for these developers to have this wonderful vacation.
I think I'm gonna start pirating games again. >:-|
So, do customers actually benefit from antivirus software and personal firewalls that bombard you with suspicious packet notifications, or is it a waste of their time and money? I'd say they do. At least they are being notified that a particular activity is triggering a security alert of some kind. Empirically, they will be able to see the result of allowing/denying the action. Of course, it's a slippery slope to the point where your firewall is constantly asking you (insert UAC joke here), but that should stop once you've installed and run all your network applications. I don't install them very often, and I don't mind being prompted once to unblock it when I do.
People grok computers, but networks are a strange beast. I admit that it's difficult to strike a balance between usability and security, but what I've seen to this point in the Windows Firewall seems reasonable. ZoneAlarm on the other hand doesn't seem to get the idea of prompting only once for the same thing. It also annoys you about background malware traffic which you have little ability to prevent except to keep clicking the ZoneAlarm warnings until it shuts up.
I'd say it's only snake oil if the software warns you and then takes no action. If it's taking action and keeping you reasonably informed of what it's doing, then it is definitely of some use. The decision to buy a commercial replacement for Windows Firewall is left to the customer.
The "cure" is probably worse than the disease. Well, no, it's not. Luckily the disease is quite rare and avoiding exposure is usually sufficient protection.
I only run AntiVirus on one of my Windows PCs, and that's the only one that I do anything "unsafe" with (online shopping, P2P, chat, e-mail, etc.). I've found AVG to be sufficient for my needs in this case, and would probably suffice for any home user.
For corporate installations, using the free alternatives as a negotiating point will likely drive the price down. I definitely prefer the Norton AV I run here at work to the AVG at home; it's much less intrusive. I don't think your average home user needs it, that's all. I'm also not crazy enough to use a Windows PC to do unsafe things without a proper up-to-date AV.
Nope, it was folks complaining of a hot lap from their laptops. I had to bring a computer in for repair with this symptom. The machine became increasingly unstable and the battery became hotter. In addition to being a fire hazard, the motherboard, processor and RAM are put under a lot of heat stress. "Complaining" is a loaded term here as the complaints speak to a real problem.
Easy answer: ensure I forget all corporate information when I leave the office. Until those flashy thingys from Men-in-Black become reality, I think you'll need to resort to more low-tech means, like perhaps a large sap. Unfortunately, that might make it a little bit difficult to find competent devs that want to stay more than one day at your company.
What, you pay to own my brain as well? I do the work I am paid for at the office, and what I do on my own time is my own business. Intellectual "Property" is a ridiculous concept, but it's the only way people like you can claim to have any ideas whatsoever.
Most of the people who argue that DRM interferes with "fair use" really just want to download free mp3s of commercial artists. Yes, that's true. However, there's plenty of arguments to support the idea that downloading MP3s is Fair Use. Especially when you consider that people recorded music for free off of the radio for years without being taken to court. Only now that the radio has way more stations and better quality do they complain. From my perspective, that's a failure to prosecute copyright infringement of this sort. Now if they bootlegged a copy of a concert or somehow got in for free, then they'd actually be hurting the artist. Realistically, distributing MP3s is marketing; selling T-shirts and tickets to your concert is revenue. If you really think that an artist can live in the studio, then you're very easily entertained.
They simply don't want the copyrights to be enforced. I think you have a very negative view of the average citizen. If Fair Use were protected as I've argued above, I don't think anyone would complain about copyright enforcement. We need to start using Human judgement again to distinguish between someone who simply trades MP3s with their friends and someone who sells copyrighted merchandise in direct competition to the copyright holder (e.g. fake Disney merchandise).
However, the law as it is written today assumes that all infringement requires damages to be paid. That's a very recent change, and not surprisingly, very few average citizens are happy with said change.
Re:it's not a scripting language
on
Groovy in Action
·
· Score: 1
You'd think it would, but my experience says otherwise. Groovy to this point has concentrated on loose data-typing and syntactic sugar that make it conducive to scripting. The fact that it can directly instantiate Java classes in its classpath really makes it a powerful choice for administration scripts that run on your existing J2EE infrastructure. However, it lacks:
1) Good debugging support, at least as of a few months ago. I still need to println all my debugging, and I can't trace into the Groovy source code to track down bugs (yes, I've found a couple of those too, but I can't prove it due to the lack of a debugger. Looks like a hash collision in the Groovy.Sql stuff)
2) strict typing. Unfortunately, the loose-data typing is a double-edged sword. It's great if you just want to hack together a script in 10 minutes, but it's terrible for trying to lexically bind variables to a particular closure or class. A Perl-like 'use strict' (with all the suboptions) is badly needed. Combine this one with 1) and you've got a nightmare trying to write a large application with Groovy alone.
Finally, GRAILS is horrible. Ostensibly a RAD web development platform, it doesn't even cache the java byte-code so each page refresh on the simplest database application takes ~2 seconds on a modern PC. Not very rapid, IMO.
So, I'd say that Groovy is still very much a scripting language, and will remain that way. Use Java for the big stuff and call it from Groovy.
You can write it, but it doesn't make it legally binding. There are many rights that you simply can't waive in agreeing to a contract, especially one that's a verbal agreement rather than written. Best is probably the above comment about blacklisting robots.txt violators.
I doubt it. Too much faith was placed in DRM technology. There's too many ways of encoding a video, all of which would corrupt any watermark that's in place. And, of course, most pirate releases are also compressed and split, so good luck finding the watermark in there. Sure, a *human* could identify the watermark. But they would have an easier time spotting the FOX logo in the corner.
Your comment smacks of MAFIAA FUD; I hope you didn't intend that;)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why everyone is concentrating on the economic factors and nothing else. Watching Canadian society change in the last 10 years as our regulated telcos and cable companies rolled out thousands of Gbps in bandwidth across the country to all but the most rural farms has been simply amazing. The Internet is a medium. Just like it's a benefit to a government to have televisions and radios in every house in the country, it's a benefit to have high-speed Internet as well.
My lifestyle has changed significantly. Other than the time my employer pays me to be in the office, I do what I want when I want. I don't have to worry about remembering to record a television program I'm not around to watch; someone else will do it and I can download it later. Or go to the video store and rent it on DVD. I don't tune into the evening news; RSS feeds come straight to my desktop. The CBC has become the same Juggernaut on the Internet as it remains on public airwaves. Public transit is filled with people texting and e-mailing each other on the way to work: even commuting time is productive now. Our society truly does work smarter, not harder. Using my PC and network and a few automated tasks has made keeping current a natural state, not something you need to work at.
But American society seems stuck in it's rut of being a TV Nation. Sorry, but television is too slow and prescriptive. I need to watch the show at the same time as everyone else and be exposed to the same mind-numbing advertising (or remember to set up my recording device). Political campaigns stick to traditional media, as do the pollsters who monitor the results of the campaign. Plus, there's no good search feature. There's a whole new medium to conquer for the government who's progressive. Ours already owns our Internet and the results have been truly beneficial, IMO. America as a whole can certainly afford to catch up with the rest of the world in a big hurry. Unfortunately, your wealthy have decided to bicker and negotiate for top dollar rather than take the opportunity to provide a new opiate to the masses.
You raise some interesting points, but your example is flawed. I'm from Canada where we have Universal Health Care and regulated Telecoms. To me, these are both decisions based on the same level of social responsibility. We regulate health care to ensure that there's no free market influences which will drive the cost of health care up for anyone. A good example: someone has a rare disease, which only a very few doctors in the entire world will likely be able to be cure. My understanding is that in the US, a fund-raiser coupled with large amounts of media publicity is the only way for anyone but the wealthiest citizen to be able to afford the doctor's fee, and any travel/hospitalization expenses, etc. Even if cured, the individual will have had her privacy invaded for many years hence. In Canada, even the poorest family would be provided with coverage for the expensive, experimental treatment. They wouldn't even need to show up in the newspaper.
The idea of regulated telecoms comes from the same school of thought: allowing large monopolies to control such important infrastructure AND set the price on the lease of said infrastructure inherently favours the wealthy. If telecoms were allowed to provide higher quality service to only the wealthiest neighbourhoods, then the poorest neighbourhoods would have only the worst service. Having used both the best service (business DSL) and the worst (@Home network), I'd say that the gap is nearly 10 years of technology. Given that the current privatized telecommunications industry in Canada was built from huge amounts of Public (i.e. paid for by taxpayers) infrastructure, there'd be a LOT of pissed-off people when they found out that the money they'd paid for Internet and telephone service was being used mostly to fund development in rich neighbourhoods. Everyone paid equally for the infrastructure right up until the late '90s. There's no way some gigantic monopoly that appeared out of the blue should be able to keep all that infrastructure away from the people who paid for it.
Regulation is always a poor choice; it's more bureaucracy and it stifles development. However, modern society is built on the Internet. Keeping it in the hands of the commoners allows a society to succeed as a whole rather than by a few elite individuals. Unless you're one of the 0.000001% of the population in that elite group, regulation favours you in this case.
Synthesis is about "remixing" (a good term since that's what many electronic musicians/technicians do) old ideas in new ways. I'd argue that good synthesis has been responsible for many original works in many fields. Everything in the common knowledge base builds on something before it. An apple falling on someone's head five centuries ago has lead to physical theories that ponder the beginning of time. The quote attributed to Newton is really applicable here: "If we have seen farther than those before us, it is because we have stood on the shoulders of giants".
Long story short, synthesis has been responsible for many new theories and works of art. No, it's not original in the strictest sense, but what can you truly consider original? Even your story about a talking cave and a dog living inside a troll is just a rearrangement of words from TFA. This post is quite original, but it uses a famous quotation and paraphrases history to make its point.
We're just asking the MAFIAA to prove that these lawsuits aren't a legal scam, designed to put money in lawyer's pockets. How can we trust such an organization's motives if they won't tell us how much money their lawyers are making?
Emergent properties could indicate a situation that's a hybrid of #'s 1 and 2. The Universe did pop into existence out of nothing; all of the arguments we're having require the existence of the spacetime that we all exist in. Speculation on anything prior to that is simply pointless. However, as the Universe expanded, it is entirely possible that it gained a complexity which could indicate intelligence. That intelligence would feed back into the Universe, observing and possibly manipulating it. What's not clear is at what point that did or will happen. It would be an extremely fortunate coincidence if both the physical emergence of the Universe and the spontaneous existence of an overarching intelligence happened at exactly the same time.
I'm not averse to being offered the carrot and stick. True, it's a hard sell, but at least there's a carrot. Microsoft is a big business that succeeded by playing hardball, and any acquiescence on their part that didn't involve playing more hardball would just seem weird. Sun Microsystems moved Java from a Community Source License to the GPL after a long period of time. Perhaps we'll see Microsoft do the same with their Community Licensing, preferably for the
It's getting there, but IIS still sucks, and Microsoft still doesn't care too much about security or encryption.
Pedantry is only funny when it's painfully correct. Slash ('/') dot ('.') is correctly abbreviated as '/.'. Luckily there's lots of smart dyslexics, so I won't speculate on your intelligence, just nitpick your nitpick. :)
Terrific! It looks like Bush's PR staff worked all night to make sure of the quality of this post. I'm glad to see that no one will abuse this system.
Yes, because literature is pointless. The people who wrote those novels should be ashamed at writing something with so little use in society.
How do you rank the "usefulness" of someone's study? By time spent in school? Well then my Ph.D. in Linguistics is more "useful" than your MBA. Just because you're good at differential equations doesn't mean that the world needs to pay more for math and science than art. I can influence the masses a hell of a lot better with good writing than with a carefully deduced solution to a differential equation.
I think what you're trying to say is that people should be rewarded according to the market value of their work. That makes sense, but the guy who read all those novels can still turn around and write one himself. If it's a best-seller, he'll do better than the guy who hasn't solved a differential equation in 10 years.
Nah. If capitalism has taught me anything, it's that it's easier to force someone else to be educated and do all the thinking for you. That way you can be ignorant of actual effort required to do a particular task and solve all problems with a whip.
See how easy that is? In mathematics it's called reducing the problem. The Americans are *behind* in education. Any attempt to catch up by improving the education system would necessarily require a period where the Americans admitted somebody else was better than them. Solution: build bigger and better bombs and enslave weak, intellectual societies.
Hmmmm. I think they need to invade smarter, more advanced countries though. Time to get out of Canada, I guess.
So basically what I'm hearing is that even though we've made staggering breakthroughs in hardware, have an embarassment of good development environments to choose from and 10 years of training professionals on new technology, the cost of development has actually increased? Did the price of cocaine go up or something?
I don't believe this crap for a second. Spoiled elitist brats take a $100,000 course to learn some fancy new development platform and they still can't make a project work without a bunch of other spoiled elitist brats and some ridiculously expensive software that they're still learning even after taking the ridiculously expensive course. Then they do copious amounts of drugs until the deadline and make excuses about how they need better hardware, more training and more people on the team. And, oh, I have to pay for these developers to have this wonderful vacation.
I think I'm gonna start pirating games again. >:-|
And I think they fail less often than the MTTF. There, the statistics are satisfied as well, and it's still not news.
People grok computers, but networks are a strange beast. I admit that it's difficult to strike a balance between usability and security, but what I've seen to this point in the Windows Firewall seems reasonable. ZoneAlarm on the other hand doesn't seem to get the idea of prompting only once for the same thing. It also annoys you about background malware traffic which you have little ability to prevent except to keep clicking the ZoneAlarm warnings until it shuts up.
I'd say it's only snake oil if the software warns you and then takes no action. If it's taking action and keeping you reasonably informed of what it's doing, then it is definitely of some use. The decision to buy a commercial replacement for Windows Firewall is left to the customer.
I only run AntiVirus on one of my Windows PCs, and that's the only one that I do anything "unsafe" with (online shopping, P2P, chat, e-mail, etc.). I've found AVG to be sufficient for my needs in this case, and would probably suffice for any home user.
For corporate installations, using the free alternatives as a negotiating point will likely drive the price down. I definitely prefer the Norton AV I run here at work to the AVG at home; it's much less intrusive. I don't think your average home user needs it, that's all. I'm also not crazy enough to use a Windows PC to do unsafe things without a proper up-to-date AV.
Easy answer: ensure I forget all corporate information when I leave the office. Until those flashy thingys from Men-in-Black become reality, I think you'll need to resort to more low-tech means, like perhaps a large sap. Unfortunately, that might make it a little bit difficult to find competent devs that want to stay more than one day at your company.
What, you pay to own my brain as well? I do the work I am paid for at the office, and what I do on my own time is my own business. Intellectual "Property" is a ridiculous concept, but it's the only way people like you can claim to have any ideas whatsoever.
However, the law as it is written today assumes that all infringement requires damages to be paid. That's a very recent change, and not surprisingly, very few average citizens are happy with said change.
You'd think it would, but my experience says otherwise. Groovy to this point has concentrated on loose data-typing and syntactic sugar that make it conducive to scripting. The fact that it can directly instantiate Java classes in its classpath really makes it a powerful choice for administration scripts that run on your existing J2EE infrastructure. However, it lacks:
1) Good debugging support, at least as of a few months ago. I still need to println all my debugging, and I can't trace into the Groovy source code to track down bugs (yes, I've found a couple of those too, but I can't prove it due to the lack of a debugger. Looks like a hash collision in the Groovy.Sql stuff)
2) strict typing. Unfortunately, the loose-data typing is a double-edged sword. It's great if you just want to hack together a script in 10 minutes, but it's terrible for trying to lexically bind variables to a particular closure or class. A Perl-like 'use strict' (with all the suboptions) is badly needed. Combine this one with 1) and you've got a nightmare trying to write a large application with Groovy alone.
Finally, GRAILS is horrible. Ostensibly a RAD web development platform, it doesn't even cache the java byte-code so each page refresh on the simplest database application takes ~2 seconds on a modern PC. Not very rapid, IMO.
So, I'd say that Groovy is still very much a scripting language, and will remain that way. Use Java for the big stuff and call it from Groovy.
*shrug*
You can write it, but it doesn't make it legally binding. There are many rights that you simply can't waive in agreeing to a contract, especially one that's a verbal agreement rather than written. Best is probably the above comment about blacklisting robots.txt violators.
Yep, and if it ignores robots.txt then it's just a Distributed Denial of Service attack. Good to know they're still legal.
ORLY?
;)
I doubt it. Too much faith was placed in DRM technology. There's too many ways of encoding a video, all of which would corrupt any watermark that's in place. And, of course, most pirate releases are also compressed and split, so good luck finding the watermark in there. Sure, a *human* could identify the watermark. But they would have an easier time spotting the FOX logo in the corner.
Your comment smacks of MAFIAA FUD; I hope you didn't intend that
Oh come on. That was definitely funny. I'm laughing.