This is lame, and off topic, but if I could pick one thing to "fix," (essentially a "parallel reality) I would go back to June 4, 1968.
If Bobby Kennedy had lived, he'd have won the nomination and he'd have beaten Nixon just like his brother did. He would've served until 1976, just a couple years before I was born.
Think of it.. No Nixon, no bombing of Cambodia, no Vietnam War after 1969 really, no Watergate, no Jimmy Carter, perhaps even no Ron Reagan, no rise of conservatism stemming out of the recession of the '70s, no George Bush.
Sure, there'd have been new bad things.
But I'd take that reality in a heartbeat. No questions asked.
But we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can
You can't fix problem in the Pharma industry without addressing the system-wide problems in the healthcare industry.
A national health plan would go a long way to fixing the gripes people have. Repeal the idiotic law, signed by Bush, that forbids the Gov't for negotiating better prices on pharmaceuticals, open Medicare to every American for a monthly fee (just like a corporate plan), and problem solved.
Another fifty million people (at least) would join Medicare, adding to the tens of millions already on the plan. That would give them leverage to negotiate lower drug prices.
The remaining insurers would have to stay competitive with the Gov't plan, which would shape them up as well.
But that should be the extent of it, in my opinion.
I think healthcare should be a basic right of a US citizen. But cutting edge phama? I honestly think people have an unfair sense of entitlement here.
Drugs are EXPENSIVE to produce. Nobody is FORCED to go research and develop a new drug. But as soon as it's invented, people just feel like they should HAVE IT, NOW, CHEAPLY.
And about your Gillette example, the same thing applies. I pay $22 for my razor blades. I think it's WAY over-priced. But if the Mach3 failed in the marketplace, I wouldn't feel compelled to bail them out for that failure. So I can't begrudge them from taking a profit on it.
"The Public paid for and built those roads that the rich people use to make their money. The Public educated their employees. The Public consumes their products and media. The Public fights their wars for them."
I use that same point against those that argue against a progressive income tax.
The more successful you are, the more you are "standing on the shoulders of giants." The more successful you are, the more value you get from the whole of the American infrastructure. So it's only fair you pay more.
And I think the real answer here is to not try to limit their income with, say, price controls or a windfall tax. Rather, I think they should be forced to TRULY pay for the economic impact their product produces.
A cap-and-trade system in the spirit of a VAT tax: Oil companies are getting 80% of the revenue of oil, the rest goes to refiners and marketers. So 80% of the pollution derived from the oil they sell should fall under their cap.
They'll have to spend billions to purchase credits, and that money will stimulate economic activity and provide an incentive to truly invest in new energy solutions.
Again, I can't hate somebody for making a profit. We ALL want success. Bil Oil needs to learn the lesson the Clinton Administration and our States Attorneys General taught Big Tobacco. You can make billions in a dirty industry, but you have to pay your own way.
What Big Oil is getting away with seems to me like, say, I created a Waste Management service and whenever I emptied the dumpsters at a clients location, I cashed their monthly payment then dumped all the garbage at the curb for the City to haul away.
And you know... it's just been in the past couple years that I basically stopped carrying any cash. I usually keep about $20 or so tucked into the console in my car, but that's it.
I do it to maximize my "points," simplify budgeting, and really just because it's easier.
But god DAMN I hate the fact that I'm making banks so much $$.
Banks are crooks who make their scratch on the backs of the little guy. less than $200 in your account? Monthly Fee. Overdraft on a debit-card purchase that THEY LET GO THROUGH? $35 fee. Etc.
Generally, my motto is "Your money is like your vote, only give it to somebody you want to have it." That's why I never shop at Wal Mart, Blockbuster, etc.
But there's just no alternative for this. Even Credit Unions are only slightly better, and they're still making Visa and MC rich.
If the US Banking System could be reformed (which it probably can't), we'd all be so much better for it.
Look at you. Sitting there, presumably in full control of your faculties, able to socialize, to date, to start and raise a family, to use your time as you wish, to banter back and forth on websites, or read a book, to build a career and take pride in your accomplishments, to further your education and expand your horizons.
Do you even KNOW anybody who suffers from any of these mild-to-mid-grade mental deficiencies? And I don't mean know OF, I mean KNOW and care for?
If you did, you'd see very clearly the tragedy that is a person who much of the time seems completely healthy and normal.
Wouldn't it be GREAT if pharma would give these things away for free? Sure. But this world today is not perfect. And you can't expect just a single industry to "disarm" and go socialized. Even if it WOULD benefit us all.
There's a test you can apply here: When a pharma company spends $1bn researching a drug that ends-up a flop, should we as taxpayers refund that cash to them? If the answer is "no," then you can't begrudge them for taking profits where they can.
And as much as I hate paying $4 for gas, I could say the same about oil: I don't know about you, but 8, 9 years ago when gas was $0.85/gallon, I never decided to pay $1.50 just to help out. Oil companies collapsed and consolodated when Oil was $20/barrel and now, I can't begrudge them for taking profits where they can.
Remember, nearly all of us are shareholders in these companies, whether directly, thru a 401k, thru a pension, thru a union, thru your local government which often invests a portion of its cash-on-hand, etc.
So the drug costs $1k. That's the reality of it. To suggest that being a "slave to the pharma industry" is as bad as being a prisoner of your own reduced faculties shows an abject lack of understanding, not to mention, a serious empathy deficit.
Yes, that's how I read it, anyway. My understanding is that Visa doesn't make much money from PIN transactions, so they don't guarantee them. Goes back to the "Your PIN is your Responsibility" schtick.
Of course, I see more and more stores that actually give me an incentive to pay using a PIN-based transaction. The Jewel supermarkets around here give you 1% off your bill. I imagine that's because they're paying more than 1% to Visa when you sign. I can't imagine any other reason that they'd give you that much off!
You're confusing two issues: An ATM Withdrawal and a Purchase.
Any Debit Card with a Visa or MC logo carries fraud protection. They both require that funds be put back into your account within 5 business days, and many banks do it same-day, mine included. This includes provisions for overdrafts that happened because of the fraudulent deduction.
In fact, on the Visa website, you'll see that the Debit Card page and the CC page both point to the same "Zero Liability" page.
The Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa networkâ"online or off. The only transactions not covered under the Zero Liability policy are commercial card, ATM, and non-Visa-branded PIN transactions.
Of course, as I said, you confused 2 issues: Purchases and PIN-Based ATM withdrawals.
If you take a cash advance from your CC at an ATM using your PIN, it won't be so simple as "okay, reversed." It's their policy that its your duty to keep your PIN secure and secret. And that applies equally to both Credit and Debit cards.
Don't get me wrong -- I do the same thing you do. Every online purchase, and many offline, I use my Credit Card and pay it off when the statement comes. But I do it for the added benefits: Points, extra warranty on everything I buy, etc.
And because I don't always check my bank balances every day. My bank has refunded fraudulent debit card purchases for me twice, and the money was back in my account within an hour or so, but I worry about the time that I don't check it for a couple days and the money isn't there when I need it. Sure, the bank will fix it promptly, but that doesn't help if I have a cart full of groceries.
Not to mention, the worst thing that could happen if your CC is fraudmeistered is that you can't charge anything until it's fixed. There's a lot more headache involved if your checking acct was just drained.
But I wouldn't worry about fraud response from banks. Visa and Mastercard are literally making BILLIONS off Americans using the debit cards in place of cash. They don't want to scare you off.
You mean, unless they specifically set that album to be open to everybody. Which they can do.
By default, profiles and pictures are hidden unless you grant access, which you can do both by friending somebody and by sending/replying to a message. (However, access granted to a recipient merely by sending them a message is temporary)
And those are the people who don't understand tort law in this country.
Two things and two things only lead to a cause of action: Foreseeability and/or Negligence.
If you do something that can cause foreseeable harm, you are culopable. If you are negligent, you are culpable.
In this particular case, the FTC (not the FDA AFAIK) warned McD's that their coffee was being served at too high of a temp. They changed nothing. I imagine it's because the hotter the coffee, the longer it will stay fresh. That seems logical to me, but it doesn't matter WHY they didn't lower the temp. All that matters is that they were told about the issue in an official way.
Therefore, by definition, the issue of possible burns was foreseeable. One could even argue that not fixing it was negligence.
No, actually I'm using a hypothetical argument against your hypothetical argument that the firmware wasn't updated because the guy didn't want it updated.
As for your other question: You should really think about what you're broadcasting. The vast majority of items you mentioned don't leak very far, if at all, outside of your structure.
Of the ones that do, if you take no steps to ensure privacy, don't be surprised to discover that you don't have it.
There is definitely a clear, broad line: If you have to actually DO SOMETHING to consume a signal that you know not to be yours, that's at best morally dubious and at worst illegal.
But if I'm seeking thru channels on a reciever and pick up you and your wife going at it via your baby monitor, how is that my fault? Ditto for cordless phones and cellphones. Of course, the latter 2 products include countermeasures for just that reason.
If you use something with a radio in it, you need to recognize what that means. You are broadcasting.
I have my notebook set to auto connect to any available network. If I turn it on and it finds a signal that you're broadcasting into my living room, that's no my problem, and it's not my fault, and I see no cause of action.
IANAL, of course, but I think of this like all privacy concerns. The legal test a judge or jury applies is "Was there a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Ignorance is not a defense. If you are broadcasting a signal with no countermeasures and no authentication and no monitoring, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Think of it another way... If I'm standing in my bedroom, and I look out my window into your bedroom, and you're enjoying your mate with the curtains open, am I being a peeping tom?
The answer is no: you're broadcasting yourself into my home. Your fault.
On that note.. It's been a good talk. I don't need to repeat myself, I think you can understand my position. I'm outta here for the night. Take care.
How about this.. if you don't want your neighbors to be able to access or modify your WAP, then prevent your WAP from entering my house.
You are BROADCASTING. You chose to do this for your own convenience and cost. You most likely have other options available to you (Ethernet and Wireless Broadband) but you chose WiFi. Every decision has consequences.
And if I'm on your front lawn using your WAP, you've got an argument.
But I'm not. I'm in my own home. And your signal is leaking into it. What if I don't want it there? What if your equipment is interfering with something I own?
If you lived in an apartment and you flooded it, and water leaked into my unit, who are you to tell me that I'm not allowed to absorb it?
Finally, let's be real. I can imagine no sitution in which a person savvy enough to even know what firmware is would leave their WAP wide-open without expecting somebody might use it. That is, we're talking an SSID of "Linksys," no WAP, no MAC filtering. This is either somebody who doesn't know, or doesn't care.
In either case, it's hard to make an argument that upgrading the firmware is offensive to the owner.
And seriously, you might get your yaya's being overly pedantic--that's certainly common here--but your replies lead me to think you're just being a dick on purpose, or you're really just clueless.
The idea that somebody with the SSID "Linksys," running without WAP or WEP, without Mac filtering, and with the SSID broadcast (which certainly isn't required), actually had a notion one way or the other about firmware? Does that pass the smell-test to you?
I didn't read the rest of your bass-ackwards reply, which is why I'm replying to this one. I learned enough about your POV from that very first sentence.
On more than one occassion (Ok, on 2 occassions) I updated the guys firmware for him.
So in that case, it's like walking thru an open door, fixing a few things, taking a sip from the faucet, and walking out.
Also, I don't know if I agree with the closed-door analogy. Seems to me an open WiFi that broadcasts its SSID and doesn't require a key nor uses any MAC filtering is akin to just leaving your door wide open and then prosecuting somebody who dare walks thru.
Taking just one of those steps would, to me, signal the intent of the network owner that he doesn't want you there.
But it's also not "lower-middle-class," at least not in most of this country. I live in the midwest (Ohio) and I know a lot of good, hardworking people who have raised a family on $75k from TWO INCOMES.
I would defintiely say that THAT -- making $35-50k -- is lower middle class. But if you talk to somebody who works hard for their $45k salary and you start talking all "woes me, I only make $75k" they're going to rightfully roll their eyes.
And I'm not against what you're saying -- I'm in that group myself. But lets get real. It's time for a reality check: If you make $75k, you're in (at least) the 95th percentile of wage earners in this world.
If WINE was anywhere near a complete, OS implementation of Win32 then you'd be on to something.
But it's not. Not even close. And it's not WINE's fault, the Win32 API is both huge and complex. Even if you somehow get past the fact that much of Win32 is not documented, or barely documented, you also have to deal with large, popular apps using undocumented "features" of the API.
But it doesn't matter WHY it's not a real replacement, it just matters that it is.
WINE, without a windows-install somewhere on the box, is basically useless for all but a handful of targeted applications and dirt-simple apps that call only the most popular Win32 methods. With a windows install on the box it's better, but still nowhere close to thorough. Though it's hardly a threat to the monopoly if you have to have a copy of Windows installed.
If you ask me, what that means is that the OSS community gets none of the benefit that you're describing.
And I think on balance it actually harms OSS: Imagine the CEO or Director of SomeSoftwareCo, Inc who decides that Linux should be supported.
It's not far fetched to envision a midlevel PHB who decides that, hey, we don't need to create a native Linux version of our app to run on Linux, because WINE is now 1.0!
This is the stuff PHB's salivate over: He can sell his management on the idea that the company product now runs on Linux but thanks to the PHBs genius tens-of-thousands in development costs were saved.
Net Effect: Windows Software still requires Windows, less Linux Software is written as uninformed managers decide that WINE is their own personal platform panacea.
Piet, I'd take a step back and ask yourself why every reply to your post said the same thing:
HTTP is stateless, applications that use HTTP are not. State is maintained in a variety of ways. Objects are not 'thrown away' and rebuilt for every request.
Any OO framework worth its salt has tools to assist with object caching.
There's really no reason to get your panties in a bunch. All I can figure is you're the programmer who hasn't learned OOP and rails against it so your lack of knowledge looks tactical rather than just lazy.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that's how you're coming across.
Slashdot Mirror
This is lame, and off topic, but if I could pick one thing to "fix," (essentially a "parallel reality) I would go back to June 4, 1968.
If Bobby Kennedy had lived, he'd have won the nomination and he'd have beaten Nixon just like his brother did. He would've served until 1976, just a couple years before I was born.
Think of it.. No Nixon, no bombing of Cambodia, no Vietnam War after 1969 really, no Watergate, no Jimmy Carter, perhaps even no Ron Reagan, no rise of conservatism stemming out of the recession of the '70s, no George Bush.
Sure, there'd have been new bad things.
But I'd take that reality in a heartbeat. No questions asked.
Sorry. Continue.
You can't fix problem in the Pharma industry without addressing the system-wide problems in the healthcare industry.
A national health plan would go a long way to fixing the gripes people have. Repeal the idiotic law, signed by Bush, that forbids the Gov't for negotiating better prices on pharmaceuticals, open Medicare to every American for a monthly fee (just like a corporate plan), and problem solved.
Another fifty million people (at least) would join Medicare, adding to the tens of millions already on the plan. That would give them leverage to negotiate lower drug prices.
The remaining insurers would have to stay competitive with the Gov't plan, which would shape them up as well.
But that should be the extent of it, in my opinion.
I think healthcare should be a basic right of a US citizen. But cutting edge phama? I honestly think people have an unfair sense of entitlement here.
Drugs are EXPENSIVE to produce. Nobody is FORCED to go research and develop a new drug. But as soon as it's invented, people just feel like they should HAVE IT, NOW, CHEAPLY.
And about your Gillette example, the same thing applies. I pay $22 for my razor blades. I think it's WAY over-priced. But if the Mach3 failed in the marketplace, I wouldn't feel compelled to bail them out for that failure. So I can't begrudge them from taking a profit on it.
I especially agree with this point:
I use that same point against those that argue against a progressive income tax.
The more successful you are, the more you are "standing on the shoulders of giants." The more successful you are, the more value you get from the whole of the American infrastructure. So it's only fair you pay more.
And I think the real answer here is to not try to limit their income with, say, price controls or a windfall tax. Rather, I think they should be forced to TRULY pay for the economic impact their product produces.
A cap-and-trade system in the spirit of a VAT tax: Oil companies are getting 80% of the revenue of oil, the rest goes to refiners and marketers. So 80% of the pollution derived from the oil they sell should fall under their cap.
They'll have to spend billions to purchase credits, and that money will stimulate economic activity and provide an incentive to truly invest in new energy solutions.
Again, I can't hate somebody for making a profit. We ALL want success. Bil Oil needs to learn the lesson the Clinton Administration and our States Attorneys General taught Big Tobacco. You can make billions in a dirty industry, but you have to pay your own way.
What Big Oil is getting away with seems to me like, say, I created a Waste Management service and whenever I emptied the dumpsters at a clients location, I cashed their monthly payment then dumped all the garbage at the curb for the City to haul away.
They're getting a free ride. It's BS.
(Excuse my long post. I get worked up!)
And you know... it's just been in the past couple years that I basically stopped carrying any cash. I usually keep about $20 or so tucked into the console in my car, but that's it.
I do it to maximize my "points," simplify budgeting, and really just because it's easier.
But god DAMN I hate the fact that I'm making banks so much $$.
Banks are crooks who make their scratch on the backs of the little guy. less than $200 in your account? Monthly Fee. Overdraft on a debit-card purchase that THEY LET GO THROUGH? $35 fee. Etc.
Generally, my motto is "Your money is like your vote, only give it to somebody you want to have it." That's why I never shop at Wal Mart, Blockbuster, etc.
But there's just no alternative for this. Even Credit Unions are only slightly better, and they're still making Visa and MC rich.
If the US Banking System could be reformed (which it probably can't), we'd all be so much better for it.
Look at you. Sitting there, presumably in full control of your faculties, able to socialize, to date, to start and raise a family, to use your time as you wish, to banter back and forth on websites, or read a book, to build a career and take pride in your accomplishments, to further your education and expand your horizons.
Do you even KNOW anybody who suffers from any of these mild-to-mid-grade mental deficiencies? And I don't mean know OF, I mean KNOW and care for?
If you did, you'd see very clearly the tragedy that is a person who much of the time seems completely healthy and normal.
Wouldn't it be GREAT if pharma would give these things away for free? Sure. But this world today is not perfect. And you can't expect just a single industry to "disarm" and go socialized. Even if it WOULD benefit us all.
There's a test you can apply here: When a pharma company spends $1bn researching a drug that ends-up a flop, should we as taxpayers refund that cash to them? If the answer is "no," then you can't begrudge them for taking profits where they can.
And as much as I hate paying $4 for gas, I could say the same about oil: I don't know about you, but 8, 9 years ago when gas was $0.85/gallon, I never decided to pay $1.50 just to help out. Oil companies collapsed and consolodated when Oil was $20/barrel and now, I can't begrudge them for taking profits where they can.
Remember, nearly all of us are shareholders in these companies, whether directly, thru a 401k, thru a pension, thru a union, thru your local government which often invests a portion of its cash-on-hand, etc.
So the drug costs $1k. That's the reality of it. To suggest that being a "slave to the pharma industry" is as bad as being a prisoner of your own reduced faculties shows an abject lack of understanding, not to mention, a serious empathy deficit.
Yes, that's how I read it, anyway. My understanding is that Visa doesn't make much money from PIN transactions, so they don't guarantee them. Goes back to the "Your PIN is your Responsibility" schtick.
Of course, I see more and more stores that actually give me an incentive to pay using a PIN-based transaction. The Jewel supermarkets around here give you 1% off your bill. I imagine that's because they're paying more than 1% to Visa when you sign. I can't imagine any other reason that they'd give you that much off!
You're confusing two issues: An ATM Withdrawal and a Purchase.
Any Debit Card with a Visa or MC logo carries fraud protection. They both require that funds be put back into your account within 5 business days, and many banks do it same-day, mine included. This includes provisions for overdrafts that happened because of the fraudulent deduction.
In fact, on the Visa website, you'll see that the Debit Card page and the CC page both point to the same "Zero Liability" page.
Of course, as I said, you confused 2 issues: Purchases and PIN-Based ATM withdrawals.
If you take a cash advance from your CC at an ATM using your PIN, it won't be so simple as "okay, reversed." It's their policy that its your duty to keep your PIN secure and secret. And that applies equally to both Credit and Debit cards.
Don't get me wrong -- I do the same thing you do. Every online purchase, and many offline, I use my Credit Card and pay it off when the statement comes. But I do it for the added benefits: Points, extra warranty on everything I buy, etc.
And because I don't always check my bank balances every day. My bank has refunded fraudulent debit card purchases for me twice, and the money was back in my account within an hour or so, but I worry about the time that I don't check it for a couple days and the money isn't there when I need it. Sure, the bank will fix it promptly, but that doesn't help if I have a cart full of groceries.
Not to mention, the worst thing that could happen if your CC is fraudmeistered is that you can't charge anything until it's fixed. There's a lot more headache involved if your checking acct was just drained.
But I wouldn't worry about fraud response from banks. Visa and Mastercard are literally making BILLIONS off Americans using the debit cards in place of cash. They don't want to scare you off.
...
Source for WHAT?
Tort law? Or the specific McD's lawsui?
In either case, it's hardly complex or esoteric. Google it. I'm here to write casual comments, not create dissertations with footnotes and MLS cites.
You mean, unless they specifically set that album to be open to everybody. Which they can do.
By default, profiles and pictures are hidden unless you grant access, which you can do both by friending somebody and by sending/replying to a message. (However, access granted to a recipient merely by sending them a message is temporary)
And those are the people who don't understand tort law in this country.
Two things and two things only lead to a cause of action: Foreseeability and/or Negligence.
If you do something that can cause foreseeable harm, you are culopable. If you are negligent, you are culpable.
In this particular case, the FTC (not the FDA AFAIK) warned McD's that their coffee was being served at too high of a temp. They changed nothing. I imagine it's because the hotter the coffee, the longer it will stay fresh. That seems logical to me, but it doesn't matter WHY they didn't lower the temp. All that matters is that they were told about the issue in an official way.
Therefore, by definition, the issue of possible burns was foreseeable. One could even argue that not fixing it was negligence.
This is as basic as it gets with tort law.
(IANAL, but I did take 2 years of pre-law)
I disagree. This is one of the major choices facing all platform developers.
For example:
In one corner, weighing in at 55 Million lines of code, wearing the ActiveDesktop, is the fully backwards compatible Mi-Cro-Soft Wiiiiiiiindoooooows.
In the other, weighing in at a 15 Million lines of code, wearing nothing but an iPod, is Ooooooh-Esssss-Exxxxxx.
In OSX you have to run old apps in an emulator.
It's just not possible to maintain full backwards compatibility without introducing bloat and cruft.
Even Microsoft has learned this. They're going to use the VM approach to backwards compatibility in Windows 7.
I mean, what is the downside to running a few versions side-by-side?
Mark Foley?
Do you think the C language was static from the moment the first C compiler was created?
Of COURSE not.
But back then, things were of a smaller scale. It didn't matter quite as much.
So maybe you "remember it" with the haze of something that happened 35 years ago?
Who said anything about Java?
Try this: Go back and actually read what I wrote. And then reply again, and quote me where I said I used IronPython for 2 years.
And then go check out the IronPython project and check the release dates for the 0.9x previews.
See? That wasn't so hard.
"You're moralizing"
No, actually I'm using a hypothetical argument against your hypothetical argument that the firmware wasn't updated because the guy didn't want it updated.
As for your other question: You should really think about what you're broadcasting. The vast majority of items you mentioned don't leak very far, if at all, outside of your structure.
Of the ones that do, if you take no steps to ensure privacy, don't be surprised to discover that you don't have it.
There is definitely a clear, broad line: If you have to actually DO SOMETHING to consume a signal that you know not to be yours, that's at best morally dubious and at worst illegal.
But if I'm seeking thru channels on a reciever and pick up you and your wife going at it via your baby monitor, how is that my fault? Ditto for cordless phones and cellphones. Of course, the latter 2 products include countermeasures for just that reason.
If you use something with a radio in it, you need to recognize what that means. You are broadcasting.
I have my notebook set to auto connect to any available network. If I turn it on and it finds a signal that you're broadcasting into my living room, that's no my problem, and it's not my fault, and I see no cause of action.
IANAL, of course, but I think of this like all privacy concerns. The legal test a judge or jury applies is "Was there a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Ignorance is not a defense. If you are broadcasting a signal with no countermeasures and no authentication and no monitoring, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Think of it another way... If I'm standing in my bedroom, and I look out my window into your bedroom, and you're enjoying your mate with the curtains open, am I being a peeping tom?
The answer is no: you're broadcasting yourself into my home. Your fault.
On that note.. It's been a good talk. I don't need to repeat myself, I think you can understand my position. I'm outta here for the night. Take care.
For the last 2 years I've been doing Python work with a little PHP but the 2 before that were spent almost exclusively in .Net (C# and IronPython).
.Net.
Right now on my dev box I have 4 versions of
They run side-by-side without issue.
There is no forced upgrade. It's like saying that C wasn't predictable because C++ emerged.
How about this.. if you don't want your neighbors to be able to access or modify your WAP, then prevent your WAP from entering my house.
You are BROADCASTING. You chose to do this for your own convenience and cost. You most likely have other options available to you (Ethernet and Wireless Broadband) but you chose WiFi. Every decision has consequences.
And if I'm on your front lawn using your WAP, you've got an argument.
But I'm not. I'm in my own home. And your signal is leaking into it. What if I don't want it there? What if your equipment is interfering with something I own?
If you lived in an apartment and you flooded it, and water leaked into my unit, who are you to tell me that I'm not allowed to absorb it?
Finally, let's be real. I can imagine no sitution in which a person savvy enough to even know what firmware is would leave their WAP wide-open without expecting somebody might use it. That is, we're talking an SSID of "Linksys," no WAP, no MAC filtering. This is either somebody who doesn't know, or doesn't care.
In either case, it's hard to make an argument that upgrading the firmware is offensive to the owner.
No, it's not. Perhaps you should "read up on it."
And seriously, you might get your yaya's being overly pedantic--that's certainly common here--but your replies lead me to think you're just being a dick on purpose, or you're really just clueless.
The idea that somebody with the SSID "Linksys," running without WAP or WEP, without Mac filtering, and with the SSID broadcast (which certainly isn't required), actually had a notion one way or the other about firmware? Does that pass the smell-test to you?
I didn't read the rest of your bass-ackwards reply, which is why I'm replying to this one. I learned enough about your POV from that very first sentence.
On more than one occassion (Ok, on 2 occassions) I updated the guys firmware for him.
So in that case, it's like walking thru an open door, fixing a few things, taking a sip from the faucet, and walking out.
Also, I don't know if I agree with the closed-door analogy. Seems to me an open WiFi that broadcasts its SSID and doesn't require a key nor uses any MAC filtering is akin to just leaving your door wide open and then prosecuting somebody who dare walks thru.
Taking just one of those steps would, to me, signal the intent of the network owner that he doesn't want you there.
Fair Enough. $75k isn't rich. No argument.
But it's also not "lower-middle-class," at least not in most of this country. I live in the midwest (Ohio) and I know a lot of good, hardworking people who have raised a family on $75k from TWO INCOMES.
I would defintiely say that THAT -- making $35-50k -- is lower middle class. But if you talk to somebody who works hard for their $45k salary and you start talking all "woes me, I only make $75k" they're going to rightfully roll their eyes.
And I'm not against what you're saying -- I'm in that group myself. But lets get real. It's time for a reality check: If you make $75k, you're in (at least) the 95th percentile of wage earners in this world.
Are we talking about the same Wine?
If WINE was anywhere near a complete, OS implementation of Win32 then you'd be on to something.
But it's not. Not even close. And it's not WINE's fault, the Win32 API is both huge and complex. Even if you somehow get past the fact that much of Win32 is not documented, or barely documented, you also have to deal with large, popular apps using undocumented "features" of the API.
But it doesn't matter WHY it's not a real replacement, it just matters that it is.
WINE, without a windows-install somewhere on the box, is basically useless for all but a handful of targeted applications and dirt-simple apps that call only the most popular Win32 methods. With a windows install on the box it's better, but still nowhere close to thorough. Though it's hardly a threat to the monopoly if you have to have a copy of Windows installed.
If you ask me, what that means is that the OSS community gets none of the benefit that you're describing.
And I think on balance it actually harms OSS: Imagine the CEO or Director of SomeSoftwareCo, Inc who decides that Linux should be supported.
It's not far fetched to envision a midlevel PHB who decides that, hey, we don't need to create a native Linux version of our app to run on Linux, because WINE is now 1.0!
This is the stuff PHB's salivate over: He can sell his management on the idea that the company product now runs on Linux but thanks to the PHBs genius tens-of-thousands in development costs were saved.
Net Effect: Windows Software still requires Windows, less Linux Software is written as uninformed managers decide that WINE is their own personal platform panacea.
PietjeJantje, you must have forgotten to log-in before posting this!
You probably didn't even realize you were posting as AC. I wouldn't worry about it, though: It's obvious.
Piet, I'd take a step back and ask yourself why every reply to your post said the same thing:
HTTP is stateless, applications that use HTTP are not. State is maintained in a variety of ways. Objects are not 'thrown away' and rebuilt for every request.
Any OO framework worth its salt has tools to assist with object caching.
There's really no reason to get your panties in a bunch. All I can figure is you're the programmer who hasn't learned OOP and rails against it so your lack of knowledge looks tactical rather than just lazy.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that's how you're coming across.