The Associated Press has changed their copyright notice with articles to include "you may not rewrite this article." Is Wikinews creating an impact on how other news sources release their information?
Huh? What's ``you may not rewrite this article'' mean? AP syndicators (ie, every single newspaper) aren't allowed to add/embellish the content? You're not allowed to copy/paste portions of the article into your blog? The first is a contract issue, the second is protected under fair use.
If someone hacks a system and grabs hold of a database with 1 million identities, and if by selling the database to a single identity thief only 250 identities can get stolen, that makes the potential market for the database is 4,000 identity thieves!
Of course, one guy finding 4,000 identity thieves to sell to is kind of hard, but there's no reason they can't turn it over to larger criminal enterprises that can maximize returns on this kind of investment.
If stealing one identity means profit, stealing a million means up to a million times as much profit.
Precisely. Watching Google profit off of meta-informaton based on actual information gets the information owner's panties in a bunch.
It's almost like they resent the traffic because it's not exactly the traffic they wanted. In which case they shouldn't make the content public? Sounds like an easy enough solution...
Usually when I see this argument, it boils down to robots.txt and whether Google should assume the absence of a robots.txt is an opt-in to searching or an opt-out to searching.
Even if they did get their way (no robots.txt means assume opt-out), it would give rise to BLACK MARKET search engines that totally disregard robots.txt.
The politician that acknowledges that terrorists are politically motivated would be accepting responsibility for provoking violent retaliation. Much better for their careers if terrorists are portrayed as driven by some kind of insane freedom-hating bloodlust. This way they're more like earthquakes, and who can stop earthquakes? No one.
The United Kingon approaches counter-terrorism as part of a criminal investigation and has to deal with due process of law. Hence the debate over extending detention from 14 days to 90 days.
The United States approaches counter-terrorism as military action and the President signs an executive order that allows for indefinite detainment of suspects.
Fascinating. The UK has much more experience dealing with domestic terrorism -- did they originally overreact as well or are the two circumstances different from the get-go?
Good points. Forgot about the.xxx thing (mostly because the TLD would be useless).
I think the point I was trying to make is that ICANN sucks, but I could imagine something so much worse and not too much better. Changing anything means we're rolling the dice and very likely to land on worse.
and I don't think I've ever seen ICANN do anything politically questionable, other than yell at Verisign when they tried to install that Sitefinder BS (which sounds warranted enough to me).
Until someone can show significant harm done by ICANN and a reasonable proposal to fix such harm, and threat of OR ELSE, I don't think much is going to change.
Where the public can look in and see Congressmen hoot and holler amongst each other? It would resemble a zoo. A big, smelly, unkempt zoo with monkey feces flying left and right, in more ways than one.
Or, put it like this: What OMFG killer appz have you seen in the last 5-10 years that have been Windows only? Games are moving to gaming consoles, Word Processing is moving with surprising rapidity to OpenDocument, and most all the new cool stuff (Google, Ebay, Yahoo, Amazon, etc) is web-based! (or, at least, is open-protocol)
Did you even RTFreferencedA?
Killer apps are exactly the apps that someone can afford to port to every final OS on the planet. The market's so large that they'll undoubtedly make more money selling it on the new platform than they would spend porting it.
It's the niche apps that will never get ported. And every non-IT business I've come across depends on at least one, and most of them a handful. Sometimes they're mandated by state regulations, or insurers, or their vendors. Sometimes they just have very unusual needs.
Running non-Microsoft means turning away from that resource pool.
Having recently overhauled the site's markup to conform to HTML Strict 4.01, Slashdot has now achieved a more or less clean separation of form and content. And thanks to the well-advertised wonders of CSS, it's now possible for any enterprising designer to develop a new, production-ready (or nearly ready) 'skin' for the site completely on her own.
I will not tolerate another web design article--especially not one that's going to lecture me about underlying architecture--when it starts with a paragraph like that.
``Separation of concerns'' through XML documents and CSS markup as these web intelligista overlords keep reminding us is meaningless on a project of the scale of Slashdot. I thought Taco was just taking a stand against these ivory tower assholes, but it turns out he was just lazy and eventually found someone to kowtow to their dogma. Perhaps in some fantasy world people write XML documents and post them and select style and bam you have instant ENTERPRISE WEB CONTENT, but in the real world (read: nearly every major web operation) there's a huge underlying program (such as Slash) that generates this content.
I've never so much as looked as the tarball for Slash, but I'm going to guess that changing the background color of every page will not involve updating every single article ever, which is what every XML/CSS advocate is promising liberation from. It's probably about as simple as updating a handful of lines of code in the article rendering routines. If Slash doesn't, well, it would be different from every other proprietary web engine ever written.
Large operations approximate the functionality of XML/CSS-orgasms internally. The only people who might care about this crap are small operations where programmer time doesn't exist: why they don't just use content management software instead is beyond me. WordPress? CityDesk? I've never used it before but I imagine you'll go further with it than listening to the screechings of some XML/CSS acolyte.
Eliminating Microsoft is a good way of increasing your computer costs.
It might be hard to see from the end user perspective, but it's crystal clear from a developer perspective. But don't take my word for it, take Joel's:
I'd love to have a Mac version and a Linux version, but they are not good uses of limited resources. Every dollar I invest in CityDesk Windows will earn me 20 times as many sales as a dollar invested in a hypothetical Mac version. Even if you assume that Mac has a higher percentage of creative and home users, I'm still going to sell a heck of a lot more copies on Windows than I could on Mac. And that means that to do a Mac version, the cost had better be under 10% of the cost of a Windows version. Unfortunately, that's nowhere near true for CityDesk. We benefit from using libraries that are freely available on Windows (like the Jet multiuser ACID database engine and the DHTML edit control) for which there are no equivalents on the Macintosh. So if anything, a Mac port would cost more than the original Windows version. Until somebody does something about this fundamental economic truth, it's hard to justify Mac versions from a business perspective. (Incidentally, I have said time and time again, if Apple wants to save the Mac, they have to change this equation.)
And don't get me started about Linux. I don't know of anyone making money off of Linux desktop software, and without making money, I can't pay programmers and rent and buy computers and T1s. Despite romantic rhetoric, I really do need to pay the rent, so for now, you're going to have to rely on college kids and the occasional charitable big company for your Linux software.
If someone's going to do a new application, it's much more likely to be a Windows application. If someone's going to offer technical support services, they're much more likely to focus on Windows support. If someone's going to make hardware, they're much more likely to focus on getting Windows supported first.
This all means if you're not using Windows, you're going to pay for it with time or money.
The bullshit that comes out of these peoples mouths is increcdible. The entire article focuses on the fact that since Microsoft won't supported OpenDocument, it makes interoperability much harder for everyone - MA won't be able to use Office anymore, businesses and citizens will have to get new products to interoperate with the government, etc. Okay, fine. All that is to an extent quite true. But how the hell can they claim that it somehow subverts competition in the free market when *one* company refusing to support this standard blocks *all* interoperability?
It's not the state's job to promote OpenOffice (it's not the state's job to promote Microsoft Office either). They should simply follow the market standard, not try to define a new one.
This, obviously, could be handled inside the cache for better encapuslation. But the point is that when garbage-collection runs, the items in the cache are fair game for collection. The obvious problem is that the GC will reap objects in random order, or it may even reap the most-recently-allocated objects first.
This is better than nothing but still not optimal. I'm also unclear, are objects with weak references equally eligible for collection as objects with no references? If so, what's the point? Garbage collection runs are common. Losing LRU cache behavior is also a real suck-point.
I much rather guarantee the behavior I want by defining it than praying the JVM Does the Right Thing.
Slashdot Mirror
C# has goto, unsigned data types, all data types treated as objects,
It already wins in my book.
Unless I could choose Python instead. :D
Skip the foreplay.
THE TCP/IP bible is TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 2 by the late W. Richard Stevens.
He left several seminal books off the list. But I really just wanted an excuse to say SEMINAL!
Translucent Databases, David Weyner
Python Programming on Win32, Hammond & Robinson
Inside Windows 2000,
The Perl Cookbook,
Learning Python,
Design of the UNIX Operating System, Maurice Bach
The Design & Implementation of the 4.4 BSD OS, Kirk McKusick
The Design & Implementation of the FreeBSD OS (now)
Principles of Digital Audio
Linux IP Stacks Commentary
Linux Core Kernel Commentary
Secrets & Lies + Applied Cryptography + Beyond Fear, by Bruce Schneir
The Mythical Man-Month, Fred Brooks
MySQL, Paul Dubois (the O'Reilly mSQL+MySQL book is CRAP)
Developing Apache Modules in Perl & C
Advanced Perl Programming, Sriram Srinivasan
The Practice of Programming, Kernighan & Pike
PowerPC Computing, Jerry L. Young
Motif Programming, Marshall Brain
An Introduction to Database Systems, C. J. Date
Algorithms in C, Robert Sedgewick
Lions's Commentary on UNIX, John Lions
sed & awk, Dale Dougherty & Arnold Robbins
DNS and BIND, Paul Albitz
Graphics Programming Black Book, Michael Abrash
OpenGL Programming Guide, OpenGL ARB
Programming Windows 95, Charles Petzold
Zen of Graphics Programming, Michael Abrash
Mastering Turbo Assembler, Tom Swan
Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus, LaMothe
(just for how bad it is)
The Associated Press has changed their copyright notice with articles to include "you may not rewrite this article." Is Wikinews creating an impact on how other news sources release their information?
Huh? What's ``you may not rewrite this article'' mean? AP syndicators (ie, every single newspaper) aren't allowed to add/embellish the content? You're not allowed to copy/paste portions of the article into your blog? The first is a contract issue, the second is protected under fair use.
WTF?
If someone hacks a system and grabs hold of a database with 1 million identities, and if by selling the database to a single identity thief only 250 identities can get stolen, that makes the potential market for the database is 4,000 identity thieves!
Of course, one guy finding 4,000 identity thieves to sell to is kind of hard, but there's no reason they can't turn it over to larger criminal enterprises that can maximize returns on this kind of investment.
If stealing one identity means profit, stealing a million means up to a million times as much profit.
Precisely. Watching Google profit off of meta-informaton based on actual information gets the information owner's panties in a bunch. It's almost like they resent the traffic because it's not exactly the traffic they wanted. In which case they shouldn't make the content public? Sounds like an easy enough solution...
Usually when I see this argument, it boils down to robots.txt and whether Google should assume the absence of a robots.txt is an opt-in to searching or an opt-out to searching.
Even if they did get their way (no robots.txt means assume opt-out), it would give rise to BLACK MARKET search engines that totally disregard robots.txt.
OK OK I couldn't resist.
I'll never do this again.
Such detention is not allowed in the US.
In case you're not being sarcastic, you might be shocked to read about Jose Padilla.
Not politically motivated?!
The politician that acknowledges that terrorists are politically motivated would be accepting responsibility for provoking violent retaliation. Much better for their careers if terrorists are portrayed as driven by some kind of insane freedom-hating bloodlust. This way they're more like earthquakes, and who can stop earthquakes? No one.
The United Kingon approaches counter-terrorism as part of a criminal investigation and has to deal with due process of law. Hence the debate over extending detention from 14 days to 90 days.
The United States approaches counter-terrorism as military action and the President signs an executive order that allows for indefinite detainment of suspects.
Fascinating. The UK has much more experience dealing with domestic terrorism -- did they originally overreact as well or are the two circumstances different from the get-go?
Commence relaxation... NOW!
Neil Patrick Harris wouldn't say that about HDTV!
Good points. Forgot about the .xxx thing (mostly because the TLD would be useless).
I think the point I was trying to make is that ICANN sucks, but I could imagine something so much worse and not too much better. Changing anything means we're rolling the dice and very likely to land on worse.
and I don't think I've ever seen ICANN do anything politically questionable, other than yell at Verisign when they tried to install that Sitefinder BS (which sounds warranted enough to me).
Until someone can show significant harm done by ICANN and a reasonable proposal to fix such harm, and threat of OR ELSE, I don't think much is going to change.
Where the public can look in and see Congressmen hoot and holler amongst each other? It would resemble a zoo. A big, smelly, unkempt zoo with monkey feces flying left and right, in more ways than one.
I reiterate.
It'd be glorius.
other Congressman only. Of course they need to register for accounts/blogs too.
It'd be glorius.
didn't you see the word "Java" in there?
Oh, but computers are getting faster all the time! Right?
Will the nightmare of OpenBSD then drive them to suicide?
is FORBIDDEN space sex
Or, put it like this: What OMFG killer appz have you seen in the last 5-10 years that have been Windows only? Games are moving to gaming consoles, Word Processing is moving with surprising rapidity to OpenDocument, and most all the new cool stuff (Google, Ebay, Yahoo, Amazon, etc) is web-based! (or, at least, is open-protocol)
Did you even RTFreferencedA?
Killer apps are exactly the apps that someone can afford to port to every final OS on the planet. The market's so large that they'll undoubtedly make more money selling it on the new platform than they would spend porting it.
It's the niche apps that will never get ported. And every non-IT business I've come across depends on at least one, and most of them a handful. Sometimes they're mandated by state regulations, or insurers, or their vendors. Sometimes they just have very unusual needs.
Running non-Microsoft means turning away from that resource pool.
Having recently overhauled the site's markup to conform to HTML Strict 4.01, Slashdot has now achieved a more or less clean separation of form and content. And thanks to the well-advertised wonders of CSS, it's now possible for any enterprising designer to develop a new, production-ready (or nearly ready) 'skin' for the site completely on her own.
I will not tolerate another web design article--especially not one that's going to lecture me about underlying architecture--when it starts with a paragraph like that.
``Separation of concerns'' through XML documents and CSS markup as these web intelligista overlords keep reminding us is meaningless on a project of the scale of Slashdot. I thought Taco was just taking a stand against these ivory tower assholes, but it turns out he was just lazy and eventually found someone to kowtow to their dogma. Perhaps in some fantasy world people write XML documents and post them and select style and bam you have instant ENTERPRISE WEB CONTENT, but in the real world (read: nearly every major web operation) there's a huge underlying program (such as Slash) that generates this content.
I've never so much as looked as the tarball for Slash, but I'm going to guess that changing the background color of every page will not involve updating every single article ever, which is what every XML/CSS advocate is promising liberation from. It's probably about as simple as updating a handful of lines of code in the article rendering routines. If Slash doesn't, well, it would be different from every other proprietary web engine ever written.
Large operations approximate the functionality of XML/CSS-orgasms internally. The only people who might care about this crap are small operations where programmer time doesn't exist: why they don't just use content management software instead is beyond me. WordPress? CityDesk? I've never used it before but I imagine you'll go further with it than listening to the screechings of some XML/CSS acolyte.
Eliminating Microsoft is a good way of increasing your computer costs.
It might be hard to see from the end user perspective, but it's crystal clear from a developer perspective. But don't take my word for it, take Joel's:
If someone's going to do a new application, it's much more likely to be a Windows application. If someone's going to offer technical support services, they're much more likely to focus on Windows support. If someone's going to make hardware, they're much more likely to focus on getting Windows supported first.
This all means if you're not using Windows, you're going to pay for it with time or money.
(Read the whole article at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog00000000 51.html)
They're the ones giving SCO money, and yet if SCO offers MySQL AB money to make MySQL better perform on SCO's platform, MySQL gets the heat?
Be consistent at least:
all pay SCO license fees. That's all I could Google, but they must have more.
The bullshit that comes out of these peoples mouths is increcdible. The entire article focuses on the fact that since Microsoft won't supported OpenDocument, it makes interoperability much harder for everyone - MA won't be able to use Office anymore, businesses and citizens will have to get new products to interoperate with the government, etc. Okay, fine. All that is to an extent quite true. But how the hell can they claim that it somehow subverts competition in the free market when *one* company refusing to support this standard blocks *all* interoperability?
It's not the state's job to promote OpenOffice (it's not the state's job to promote Microsoft Office either). They should simply follow the market standard, not try to define a new one.
This, obviously, could be handled inside the cache for better encapuslation. But the point is that when garbage-collection runs, the items in the cache are fair game for collection. The obvious problem is that the GC will reap objects in random order, or it may even reap the most-recently-allocated objects first.
This is better than nothing but still not optimal. I'm also unclear, are objects with weak references equally eligible for collection as objects with no references? If so, what's the point? Garbage collection runs are common. Losing LRU cache behavior is also a real suck-point.
I much rather guarantee the behavior I want by defining it than praying the JVM Does the Right Thing.