Yes and no. It is the results that matters and producing cool, world-changing applications is much more important than what language you are using. But you can dig a ditch using a shovel or a digging machine. The ditch will be built regardless of what tool you use even if it takes you years to complete using the shovel method. Java is the shovel and "cutting-edge" languages such as Python, Ruby and even PHP are the digging machines.
I can produce results ten times as fast by using Django/Python/nginx than with J2EE/Java/Glassfish so it makes no sense for me to waste time on Java if I want to change the world. Non-programmers doesn't understand that, they think development work means staring at a screen and typing at a keyboard. Java programmers who are to stupid to experience more advanced technologies doesn't understand it either.
Either it is all an urban myth or it happens everywhere. Because I heard the exact same story in Sweden about a man donating sperm to a lesbian couple and then having to pay child support.
Yes and the zealots are in panic over that fact. That their attempt to build a racially pure state will finally be thwarted by natural demographic growth. But why would that solve the opression? The Arab Israels are the Zionists best friends. Arab Israelis can be taught to hate Palestinians just as well as regular Jews.
Whew! Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding for us. I mean, I don't think I was alone in thinking that a computer with an Intel 64-bit quad-core cpu was a Commodore 64. Internet needs more people like you to stop people from trying to cash in on famous names from spreading their disinformation!
Despite the intentions of the summary to say otherwise, the volume of an olympic swimming pool is actually a lot. For example, all gold ever mined would also fit in an a pool of that size. The comparision is therefore meaningless. A better comparision would be the *area* required to safely store all that nuclear waste. That area is orders of magnitudes larger than the area of an olympic swimming pool.
Anyway, would I really scream bloody murder over an ftp site that knew people were uploading stuff that violated the GPL, but decided not to care and just act as a neutral hosting service until a GPL software copyright holder contacted them? Even if the decision was made because "neutrality" benefited them? No, not really. I'd be pissed at the one who stripped the GPL notice off in the first place. Not the ftp site that decided not to get involved in the fight and just serve as an ftp site.
You can not compare YouTube which is making seriously lots of money to a random dump site. The comparison is faulty. Instead, compare it to PirateBay who was making just a little bit of money without hosting copyright infringements and just linking to it. They got sued and lost according to Swedish law and google would too if it was based in Sweden.
But in the US, they have the DMCA and the safe harbor provisions. Basically as long as they remove content copyright holders complain about, they don't have any lawsuit to fear. Since the onus is on the copyright holder to locate and file DMCA take-down notices, a lot of copyrighted material can stay up for a long time. And whoever is hosting it has ample time to profit from it.
YouTube is not alone in this. Basically every video site on the net hides behind that same safe harbour clause. Take all the porn tube sites for example. Their story is that their users upload movie scenes which they merely publish in low resolution. Then they make profit by enticing users to pay for subscriptions so that they can download high quality videos. Except it isn't users that upload videos, it is the site administrators themselves posing as users. Those who *do* rip and upload videos, uploads them to torrent networks, why would they even bother with porn tube sites?
There are sites showing Lost episodes, The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, Terminator Chronicles, Desperate Housewives etc. They all operate the same way and are all legal according to US law because of the DMCA. Whether taking advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provision is "evil" or not is not a relevant question, but it is understandable why every copyright holder in the movie industry whats that law changed.
App Engine must be Googles absolutely most poorly run project. It has been suffering from outages almost weekly (the status page doesn't tell the whole truth unfortunately), unexplainable performance degradations, data corruption (!!!), stale indexes and random weirdness for as long as it has been run. I am one of those who tried for a really long time to make it work, but had to give up despite it being Google and despite all the really cool technology in it. I pity the fool who pays money for that.
The engineers who work with it are really helpful and approachable both on mailing lists and irc, and the documentation is excellent. But it doesn't help when the infrastructure around it is so flaky.
No because that misses the point. Of those that are literate 95% has read books therefore book penetration is high enough. The point is that if only a certain percentage gets regular access to the internet and the others has to do without, then we are creating a society divided by those who has internet and those who has not. That lead to problems down the line.
Seems to me that push-publishing already is implemented on the web via services like Ping-o-Matic and such. I can't see why a new push-publishing method would be needed since the blog ping works elegantly. Obviously, the system is abused by spammers, but Google's solution would suffer from the same problem too.
Yet again Apple is heralded on Slashdot for "inventing" something the rest of the business has been doing for years. See EICC or Dell's involvement in it which started in 2004. Apple has been criticized for many years for the sweatshop suppliers they use for the iPod and iPhone. And now all is forgiven because of empty ceremonial lip service?
But Google isn't merely a technical intermediary, they are also in a way publishing the material. They control the front page, which videos to push and most importantly, they are the ones making money on the ads. I don't think they should be entirely without liability for what happens on their site. The situation is very tricky.
We must not allow ourselves to be wowed by new technology and forget about the plight of our soldiers. They are paying the full price for our actions and we must recognize their bravery and commitment
"Your soldiers" are gullible suckers who sacrifice their lives for no good reason. The war is pointless and what they are doing is making it worse. There is no dignity in travelling half-way across the world to fight for your country. The only thing that must be recognized is how shitty the situation has become so that kids rather join the army than doing something worthwhile with their lives.
Ubuntu is a free software OS. Google Docs is not free software. That the developers are replacing a free alternative with a proprietary one is disconcerting.
Yes it is, and that is why books like "The Art of Scalability" are written. For proof, take a look at Google App Engine and try and implement a large application on top of it. It's a lot of fun to play with, but no one who has used it can deny that it takes a lot more effort than a plain old "unscalable" LAMP app.
I should have known slashdotters always have trouble getting the point of simplified calculating examples. To put it another way, a simple, shitty $20/month VPS with a standard LAMP stack can easily handle 4 hits/second, which translates to 14k hits/hour.
There are millions of sites on the internet, thousands are added each day. The chance of your site getting on slashdot is extremely small. You'd be a fool to waste time, money and effort planning for that.
Unless you are actually working on a web site that needs to be scalable, thinking about scalability is both a waste of time and harmful. A totally unscalabe web app where each page view takes 1 second, can sustain 86k page hits per day or 2.5 million page hits per month. Will your web site see that much traffic? Really? If not, your main objective should be to get the site out of the door as soon as possible to keep development costs down. Hopefully, users flock to your site, melting the servers under huge loads of traffic. Good for you, you'll have a very profitable job designing the next scalable version of the site.
Or you get no traffic because the site idea was stupid to begin with. That sucks, but much less so than if you had spent months of effort making it scalable. "Scalable architecture" is merely a different form of premature optimization, and it is just as harmful.
No it doesn't. It may alleviate the physical bullying but not the psychological one. A classical bully is allied with everyone in the class against you, the bully is the buy bringing the punches but in reality you are bullied by everyone but the others are to weak or scared to fight. Beating the bully wont magically make you welcome in the group, wont make you any friends. You'll still be ostracised and lonely.
All high tech industrial processes uses toxic substances. All Chinese factories release waste with little regard for the environmental impact. But producing solar panels is not at all more eco unfriendly than other products like, say semiconductors. It is unfair and incorrect to characterize solar panels as a huge biohazard like the GP did "chemicals so toxic that they kill you instantly."
You are lying. The worst chemical used in some types of solar panels is cadmium, which is toxic but hardly lethal. NiCd batteries have been used for ages without anyone being "instantly killed."
That said, there are recycling programs for solar panels so the cadmium is reused and does not contaminate the environment. There isn't anything more ecologically unfriendly with solar panel production, than with any other modern manufacturing process.
Only if you give a shit about what slashdotters say. If you develop a genuinely useful free software project you deserve the free advertising for the time you've spent.
Can anyone explain why NASA is focusing on a small personal aircraft instead of a jumbo jet? It seems to me that an electric plane that can be used for mass transport would be much more practical, and have a huge market. Practically every airline would want to replace their petroleum dependant aircraft fleet with electrical ones which would be much cheaper to operate. Plus, a jumbo jet would be easier to get efficient, just put a really large battery in it, right.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and no. It is the results that matters and producing cool, world-changing applications is much more important than what language you are using. But you can dig a ditch using a shovel or a digging machine. The ditch will be built regardless of what tool you use even if it takes you years to complete using the shovel method. Java is the shovel and "cutting-edge" languages such as Python, Ruby and even PHP are the digging machines.
I can produce results ten times as fast by using Django/Python/nginx than with J2EE/Java/Glassfish so it makes no sense for me to waste time on Java if I want to change the world. Non-programmers doesn't understand that, they think development work means staring at a screen and typing at a keyboard. Java programmers who are to stupid to experience more advanced technologies doesn't understand it either.
Either it is all an urban myth or it happens everywhere. Because I heard the exact same story in Sweden about a man donating sperm to a lesbian couple and then having to pay child support.
Yes and the zealots are in panic over that fact. That their attempt to build a racially pure state will finally be thwarted by natural demographic growth. But why would that solve the opression? The Arab Israels are the Zionists best friends. Arab Israelis can be taught to hate Palestinians just as well as regular Jews.
Whew! Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding for us. I mean, I don't think I was alone in thinking that a computer with an Intel 64-bit quad-core cpu was a Commodore 64. Internet needs more people like you to stop people from trying to cash in on famous names from spreading their disinformation!
Despite the intentions of the summary to say otherwise, the volume of an olympic swimming pool is actually a lot. For example, all gold ever mined would also fit in an a pool of that size. The comparision is therefore meaningless. A better comparision would be the *area* required to safely store all that nuclear waste. That area is orders of magnitudes larger than the area of an olympic swimming pool.
Anyway, would I really scream bloody murder over an ftp site that knew people were uploading stuff that violated the GPL, but decided not to care and just act as a neutral hosting service until a GPL software copyright holder contacted them? Even if the decision was made because "neutrality" benefited them? No, not really. I'd be pissed at the one who stripped the GPL notice off in the first place. Not the ftp site that decided not to get involved in the fight and just serve as an ftp site.
You can not compare YouTube which is making seriously lots of money to a random dump site. The comparison is faulty. Instead, compare it to PirateBay who was making just a little bit of money without hosting copyright infringements and just linking to it. They got sued and lost according to Swedish law and google would too if it was based in Sweden.
But in the US, they have the DMCA and the safe harbor provisions. Basically as long as they remove content copyright holders complain about, they don't have any lawsuit to fear. Since the onus is on the copyright holder to locate and file DMCA take-down notices, a lot of copyrighted material can stay up for a long time. And whoever is hosting it has ample time to profit from it.
YouTube is not alone in this. Basically every video site on the net hides behind that same safe harbour clause. Take all the porn tube sites for example. Their story is that their users upload movie scenes which they merely publish in low resolution. Then they make profit by enticing users to pay for subscriptions so that they can download high quality videos. Except it isn't users that upload videos, it is the site administrators themselves posing as users. Those who *do* rip and upload videos, uploads them to torrent networks, why would they even bother with porn tube sites?
There are sites showing Lost episodes, The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, Terminator Chronicles, Desperate Housewives etc. They all operate the same way and are all legal according to US law because of the DMCA. Whether taking advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provision is "evil" or not is not a relevant question, but it is understandable why every copyright holder in the movie industry whats that law changed.
App Engine must be Googles absolutely most poorly run project. It has been suffering from outages almost weekly (the status page doesn't tell the whole truth unfortunately), unexplainable performance degradations, data corruption (!!!), stale indexes and random weirdness for as long as it has been run. I am one of those who tried for a really long time to make it work, but had to give up despite it being Google and despite all the really cool technology in it. I pity the fool who pays money for that.
The engineers who work with it are really helpful and approachable both on mailing lists and irc, and the documentation is excellent. But it doesn't help when the infrastructure around it is so flaky.
No because that misses the point. Of those that are literate 95% has read books therefore book penetration is high enough. The point is that if only a certain percentage gets regular access to the internet and the others has to do without, then we are creating a society divided by those who has internet and those who has not. That lead to problems down the line.
Seems to me that push-publishing already is implemented on the web via services like Ping-o-Matic and such. I can't see why a new push-publishing method would be needed since the blog ping works elegantly. Obviously, the system is abused by spammers, but Google's solution would suffer from the same problem too.
Yet again Apple is heralded on Slashdot for "inventing" something the rest of the business has been doing for years. See EICC or Dell's involvement in it which started in 2004. Apple has been criticized for many years for the sweatshop suppliers they use for the iPod and iPhone. And now all is forgiven because of empty ceremonial lip service?
But Google isn't merely a technical intermediary, they are also in a way publishing the material. They control the front page, which videos to push and most importantly, they are the ones making money on the ads. I don't think they should be entirely without liability for what happens on their site. The situation is very tricky.
We must not allow ourselves to be wowed by new technology and forget about the plight of our soldiers. They are paying the full price for our actions and we must recognize their bravery and commitment
"Your soldiers" are gullible suckers who sacrifice their lives for no good reason. The war is pointless and what they are doing is making it worse. There is no dignity in travelling half-way across the world to fight for your country. The only thing that must be recognized is how shitty the situation has become so that kids rather join the army than doing something worthwhile with their lives.
That's when they finally plug the analog hole for good.
Ubuntu is a free software OS. Google Docs is not free software. That the developers are replacing a free alternative with a proprietary one is disconcerting.
Yes it is, and that is why books like "The Art of Scalability" are written. For proof, take a look at Google App Engine and try and implement a large application on top of it. It's a lot of fun to play with, but no one who has used it can deny that it takes a lot more effort than a plain old "unscalable" LAMP app.
I should have known slashdotters always have trouble getting the point of simplified calculating examples. To put it another way, a simple, shitty $20/month VPS with a standard LAMP stack can easily handle 4 hits/second, which translates to 14k hits/hour.
There are millions of sites on the internet, thousands are added each day. The chance of your site getting on slashdot is extremely small. You'd be a fool to waste time, money and effort planning for that.
Unless you are actually working on a web site that needs to be scalable, thinking about scalability is both a waste of time and harmful. A totally unscalabe web app where each page view takes 1 second, can sustain 86k page hits per day or 2.5 million page hits per month. Will your web site see that much traffic? Really? If not, your main objective should be to get the site out of the door as soon as possible to keep development costs down. Hopefully, users flock to your site, melting the servers under huge loads of traffic. Good for you, you'll have a very profitable job designing the next scalable version of the site.
Or you get no traffic because the site idea was stupid to begin with. That sucks, but much less so than if you had spent months of effort making it scalable. "Scalable architecture" is merely a different form of premature optimization, and it is just as harmful.
No it doesn't. It may alleviate the physical bullying but not the psychological one. A classical bully is allied with everyone in the class against you, the bully is the buy bringing the punches but in reality you are bullied by everyone but the others are to weak or scared to fight. Beating the bully wont magically make you welcome in the group, wont make you any friends. You'll still be ostracised and lonely.
All high tech industrial processes uses toxic substances. All Chinese factories release waste with little regard for the environmental impact. But producing solar panels is not at all more eco unfriendly than other products like, say semiconductors. It is unfair and incorrect to characterize solar panels as a huge biohazard like the GP did "chemicals so toxic that they kill you instantly."
I'm surprised that unsubstantiated bullshit like the above is modded +5 interesting when it is completely baseless.
You are lying. The worst chemical used in some types of solar panels is cadmium, which is toxic but hardly lethal. NiCd batteries have been used for ages without anyone being "instantly killed."
That said, there are recycling programs for solar panels so the cadmium is reused and does not contaminate the environment. There isn't anything more ecologically unfriendly with solar panel production, than with any other modern manufacturing process.
Only if you give a shit about what slashdotters say. If you develop a genuinely useful free software project you deserve the free advertising for the time you've spent.
Uncertainty about Sun's future has cost over a billion dollars in lost sales in the past year.
Uh.. Citation needed, uhu.
Can anyone explain why NASA is focusing on a small personal aircraft instead of a jumbo jet? It seems to me that an electric plane that can be used for mass transport would be much more practical, and have a huge market. Practically every airline would want to replace their petroleum dependant aircraft fleet with electrical ones which would be much cheaper to operate. Plus, a jumbo jet would be easier to get efficient, just put a really large battery in it, right.
You may want to shove your sarcasm up your butt because it is uncalled for.