There will still be booms and busts, of course, but I do think people are a little wiser these days about how to make money on the web. (And no, I'm not talking about porn; anyone who, um, pokes around a little can find enough free porn to satisfy any appetite.) No amount of collective knowledge can save the truly stupid from themselves, but most folks do seem to realize that "... on the INTERNET!" is not in and of itself a recipe for making tons of cash. The truly successful dot-coms such as Google and Amazon and Ebay provide an example for internet business models that actually do make money, and smart would-be web entrepeneurs will study these few successes and (as well as the many, many failures) carefully.
The union would say that they weren't convicted, so they couldn't be fired, parents wouldn't allow them to be around kids, so they got paid teachers wages to move boxes in the district warehouse.
If they hadn't been convicted of anything, then the union was of course correct. The school district should have told the parents to fuck off.
Jython is Java + Python, not Javascript + Python. Two completely different beasties.
That being said, if the Squirrelfish VM and interpreter strategy are applicable to other languages besides JavaScript, some sort of "JSPython" strategy for putting lightweight (i.e., not requiring the JVM as Jython does) client-side Python scripts on web pages would be pretty cool. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion of that so far; presumably (and quite sensibly) the Squirrelfish folks are concentrating on getting everything right WRT JavaScript before they try expanding its scope like that.
It's the old "modular vs. monolithic" argument -- do you write your app as a bunch of small pieces that all communicate through some standard protocol, so you can swap them in and out and upgrade them at will, or do you make everything tightly coupled and interdependent? Browsers, like most apps, tend to go back and forth on this, because there are real advantages and disadvantages to each approach (and most apps end up meeting somewhere in the middle.) Every few years someone comes along with an idea that promises to Revolutionize! Programming! by making everything modular and completely independent, and everyone gets all excited about it and plays with it for a while, and then comes to the conclusion that if it works, it's still too slow. The good ideas that come out of these Revolutions! In! Programming! get absorbed into the mainstream (e.g. OOP, and to some degree microkernels) but they never seem to take over completely.
Algorithms for nigh-unbreakable encryption can be found in any elementary discrete math textbook, standard for second-year CS undergrads. Non-backdoored encryption may be outlawed at some point, but the knowledge is too widely dispersed to keep people from whipping up their own. Granted, whatever you hack together may not have all of TrueCrypt's bells and whistles, but if you do it right, it will be just as secure; and doing it right, for personal use on your own machine, is just dead easy.
Essentially, Homeland Security is now in charge of all immigration issues. State, which properly oversees such matters, has been reduced to a hollow shell (and not just on immigration; the Bush administration has basically been waging war on the entire department since the run-up to the Iraq war.) DHS is a hydra which has taken on many formerly well-defined functions of other departments and handles none of them well.
Java surpassed C++ performance many years ago, and by such a wide margin that no one even bothers running benchmarks anymore.
Okay, I'll agree that well-written Java code is generally performance-competitive with compiled code, but this is a pretty sweeping assertion. Do you have any evidence for it -- or is it just a little too convenient that "no one even bothers" with benchmarks?
It's the usual course of events. Remember, the reason the movie industry is in California instead of New York is that early moviemakers went out West to get away from Edison's attempts at patent enforcement (in the days when geographical distance actually had an effect on such matters.) Then the industry built itself into an establishment and... well, you know the rest.
They have no idea how to do science because they don't understand statistics. Their typical experiment is to try something five or ten times and then say that they've made some conclusion ("70% of the times the toast landed butter up!").
A lot of people who criticize Mythbusters' understanding of statistics themselves have no understanding of statistics. In the example you mention, the result wouldn't be significant with a sample size of 5 or 10, true... but it would be significant, at just under p = 0.05, with a sample size of 20. But you can bet there would still be people howling about how it's "statistically irrelevant" etc.
A while back, there was a story here on/. about someone debunking one of their shows by showing that their results weren't statistically significant. All well and good -- except that the method the guy used for the debunking (taking a Pearson correlation on binary data, and then insisting that a small correlation was insignificant regardless of sample size) was clearly and totally wrong. He got the right answer, but did so pretty much by accident. Those who tried to point this out were shouted down.
If your biggest issue is the loss of a few perks, sounds like the cost-cutting was targeted perfectly.
Free Cokes may be fairly trivial (although for some people it probably represents a significant chunk of income...) but going from offices to cubes is not "the loss of a few perks." It's a fundamental downgrade in working conditions.
If you are running OS X there are no official builds yet. The main reason is that Apple X11 is badly broken, and Wine doesn't run well with it. We don't like giving users a bad impression of Wine.
I wonder how old that entry is and if it's still true -- I know that early versions of X11 for OS X were pretty bad, but it seems like since 10.3, everything X11-dependent I get from Fink or build myself works just fine. Hopefully the Wine folks will take another look at Apple's X11 soon.
Everything I said is well-documented. And while it's true that their are plenty of hypocritical Democrats (and Libertarians and Greens and what-have-you) the Republicans are really taking it to a whole different level these days. To deny this is to deny reality.
So if I do something I stupid when I'm younger and grow to regret it and speak against it as I age, I'm a hypocrite?
Not at all, and that were what Krvaric were doing, no problem. But that's not what he's doing; instead, in typical Republican fashion, he's blowing it off and suggesting that it must be Those Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes.
From the Raw Story article:
"Apparently there's a hit piece floating around on me, 'exposing' my wild high school, teenage years where I was in a computer club where we swapped Commodore 64 games (similar to how kids swap mp3 music files these days)," he wrote Monday.... "I don't know who is spreading this," he concluded, "but just wanted to let you know what's going on out there. Likely it's someone who wants us to take our eye off the ball in 2008, be it the democrats, labor or someone else. Either way, we're not going to let them get away with it. Thanks for your leadership."... Strider was asked in an interview if he had any regrets about his hacking days. "No," he replied.
You don't get it, do you? The sin is not, in and of itself, in being a Republican. The sin is the hypocrisy. The Republicans present themselves as the law'n'order party. Vote for us, they say, and we'll keep you safe from all those eeevil dark-skinned criminals and Muslim terrorists and hippie commie weirdos. Go to an approved church supported by your tax dollars, put no legal restrictions on the government, foot the bill for endless war, give us total control of your life, and in return the streets will be safe for God-Fearing Real Americans.
It really doesn't matter that John McCain dumped his wife (who waited for him the whole time he was a POW) for a newer model. It doesn't matter that Larry Craig likes cruising for anonymous blowjobs in men's rooms. It doesn't even matter all that much that Rush Limbaugh had to smuggle Viagra on a sex tour so he could get it up for underage hookers, and it matters only a little more that George W. Bush was a cokehead and a deserter, or that Laura Bush got away with drunk-driving manslaughter. And no, it doesn't matter at all that Tony Krvaric used to be a major warez d00d. What does matter, very much, is that the party which builds its entire platform on God and Country and Traditional Values continues to embrace these people.
Re:Generally, I disregard these
on
Second Person
·
· Score: 1
The prologue to Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Bloody Sun is a brilliant use of second person. The reader is being introduced to a character who's confused about his own identity, and the second-person narration clearly conveys the idea that someone knows what's going on but the character (who is being spoken to by the invisible, omniscient writer-god) definitely doesn't. Creepy and powerful.
Of course, the whole book isn't written that way, and it probably wouldn't be nearly as effective if it were.
Most of the outrages perpetrated by the current Democratic Congress have been the work of just enough of its "majority" members, of which Rockefeller is a prime example, knuckling under to the White House and going along with pretty much all the Republicans to pass every evil bill the Bush administration demands. Most Democratic representatives and senators are voting against these bills, but given how fine the balance of power is, all it takes is a few Democrats to go along with the Republican party line. Presumably, under an Obama or Clinton administration, the Rockefellers and Feinsteins and Liebermans will continue to be gutless for the White House, only this time they'll be gutless stooges for the (relatively speaking) good guys.
There's nothing wrong with having multiply redundant systems. C'mon, this is Slashdot; most people here understand that a "monoculture" OS market is a bad thing, and satellite navigation systems going bad can screw up a lot of people's day worse than any Windows virus ever will.
Just think through the consequences of making anyone who decides to file a suit automatically win if the Commander In Chief doesn't cave in and dole out things that it's foolish to divulge.
Thinking, thinking... "a free country" is the main consequence I keep coming up with.
I'm about as committed a Democrat as any, and I can tell you that I have no more problem with the idea of President Obama or President Clinton having to deal with this kind of condition than I do with President McCain having to do the same. This is not a partisan issue. This is a matter of the American people's right to know what their government -- the government which exists solely by the consent of the governed, coin a phrase -- is doing in their name.
If a Democrat gets elected President, then their administration will be held to a higher standard of accountability through this legislation.
If a Democrat gets elected President, you can guarantee they'll be held to a higher standard of accountability, period. In particular, all the Republicans who have been giving Bush a free pass pretty much ever since he took office will be all over anything Obama or Clinton does that even appears the least bit improper. Especially if it's Clinton -- their paranoia about that family knows no bounds. "B-b-but he lied about a blow job! That's the worstest thing any President has ever done EVAR!"
No, this is not how things are supposed to work. The feds are not supposed to "keep pushing." They're supposed to follow the law of the land.
You make it sound like there's some kind of moral equivalence between, say, the FBI and the EFF. There's not. The EFF wants to preserve freedom, and it is abundantly clear that the FBI, or at least its current administration, wants to take freedom away.
Who is this "we"? Certainly not the real world. Hopefully by "we" you mean your small group of still-in-college developers that are in for a rude awakening when you hit the real world.
By "we" he probably means "a group of knowledgeable developers who are lucky enough to be employed somewhere that they can choose the best tool for the task instead of having to go with whatever the PHB thinks is the hot buzzword this week." It's very true that the "real world" can be a difficult place, but people with attitudes like yours don't help make it any better. Fortunately, there are businesses where management knows enough to get the hell out of the way and let the developers make their own decisions on which tools to use.
Slashdot Mirror
There will still be booms and busts, of course, but I do think people are a little wiser these days about how to make money on the web. (And no, I'm not talking about porn; anyone who, um, pokes around a little can find enough free porn to satisfy any appetite.) No amount of collective knowledge can save the truly stupid from themselves, but most folks do seem to realize that "... on the INTERNET!" is not in and of itself a recipe for making tons of cash. The truly successful dot-coms such as Google and Amazon and Ebay provide an example for internet business models that actually do make money, and smart would-be web entrepeneurs will study these few successes and (as well as the many, many failures) carefully.
The union would say that they weren't convicted, so they couldn't be fired, parents wouldn't allow them to be around kids, so they got paid teachers wages to move boxes in the district warehouse.
If they hadn't been convicted of anything, then the union was of course correct. The school district should have told the parents to fuck off.
Jython is Java + Python, not Javascript + Python. Two completely different beasties.
That being said, if the Squirrelfish VM and interpreter strategy are applicable to other languages besides JavaScript, some sort of "JSPython" strategy for putting lightweight (i.e., not requiring the JVM as Jython does) client-side Python scripts on web pages would be pretty cool. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion of that so far; presumably (and quite sensibly) the Squirrelfish folks are concentrating on getting everything right WRT JavaScript before they try expanding its scope like that.
It's the old "modular vs. monolithic" argument -- do you write your app as a bunch of small pieces that all communicate through some standard protocol, so you can swap them in and out and upgrade them at will, or do you make everything tightly coupled and interdependent? Browsers, like most apps, tend to go back and forth on this, because there are real advantages and disadvantages to each approach (and most apps end up meeting somewhere in the middle.) Every few years someone comes along with an idea that promises to Revolutionize! Programming! by making everything modular and completely independent, and everyone gets all excited about it and plays with it for a while, and then comes to the conclusion that if it works, it's still too slow. The good ideas that come out of these Revolutions! In! Programming! get absorbed into the mainstream (e.g. OOP, and to some degree microkernels) but they never seem to take over completely.
Algorithms for nigh-unbreakable encryption can be found in any elementary discrete math textbook, standard for second-year CS undergrads. Non-backdoored encryption may be outlawed at some point, but the knowledge is too widely dispersed to keep people from whipping up their own. Granted, whatever you hack together may not have all of TrueCrypt's bells and whistles, but if you do it right, it will be just as secure; and doing it right, for personal use on your own machine, is just dead easy.
Essentially, Homeland Security is now in charge of all immigration issues. State, which properly oversees such matters, has been reduced to a hollow shell (and not just on immigration; the Bush administration has basically been waging war on the entire department since the run-up to the Iraq war.) DHS is a hydra which has taken on many formerly well-defined functions of other departments and handles none of them well.
no.the.main.problem.with.java.is.the.length.of.the.class.path.you.have.to.type.to.do.anything();
Java surpassed C++ performance many years ago, and by such a wide margin that no one even bothers running benchmarks anymore.
Okay, I'll agree that well-written Java code is generally performance-competitive with compiled code, but this is a pretty sweeping assertion. Do you have any evidence for it -- or is it just a little too convenient that "no one even bothers" with benchmarks?
It's the usual course of events. Remember, the reason the movie industry is in California instead of New York is that early moviemakers went out West to get away from Edison's attempts at patent enforcement (in the days when geographical distance actually had an effect on such matters.) Then the industry built itself into an establishment and ... well, you know the rest.
They have no idea how to do science because they don't understand statistics. Their typical experiment is to try something five or ten times and then say that they've made some conclusion ("70% of the times the toast landed butter up!").
... but it would be significant, at just under p = 0.05, with a sample size of 20. But you can bet there would still be people howling about how it's "statistically irrelevant" etc.
/. about someone debunking one of their shows by showing that their results weren't statistically significant. All well and good -- except that the method the guy used for the debunking (taking a Pearson correlation on binary data, and then insisting that a small correlation was insignificant regardless of sample size) was clearly and totally wrong. He got the right answer, but did so pretty much by accident. Those who tried to point this out were shouted down.
A lot of people who criticize Mythbusters' understanding of statistics themselves have no understanding of statistics. In the example you mention, the result wouldn't be significant with a sample size of 5 or 10, true
A while back, there was a story here on
If your biggest issue is the loss of a few perks, sounds like the cost-cutting was targeted perfectly.
...) but going from offices to cubes is not "the loss of a few perks." It's a fundamental downgrade in working conditions.
Free Cokes may be fairly trivial (although for some people it probably represents a significant chunk of income
Buried down at the bottom of the FAQ it says:
If you are running OS X there are no official builds yet. The main reason is that Apple X11 is badly broken, and Wine doesn't run well with it. We don't like giving users a bad impression of Wine.
I wonder how old that entry is and if it's still true -- I know that early versions of X11 for OS X were pretty bad, but it seems like since 10.3, everything X11-dependent I get from Fink or build myself works just fine. Hopefully the Wine folks will take another look at Apple's X11 soon.
Everything I said is well-documented. And while it's true that their are plenty of hypocritical Democrats (and Libertarians and Greens and what-have-you) the Republicans are really taking it to a whole different level these days. To deny this is to deny reality.
I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure truth is a defense against charges of slander.
Maybe you should choose a better class of people to idolize?
So if I do something I stupid when I'm younger and grow to regret it and speak against it as I age, I'm a hypocrite?
... "I don't know who is spreading this," he concluded, "but just wanted to let you know what's going on out there. Likely it's someone who wants us to take our eye off the ball in 2008, be it the democrats, labor or someone else. Either way, we're not going to let them get away with it. Thanks for your leadership." ... Strider was asked in an interview if he had any regrets about his hacking days. "No," he replied.
Not at all, and that were what Krvaric were doing, no problem. But that's not what he's doing; instead, in typical Republican fashion, he's blowing it off and suggesting that it must be Those Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes.
From the Raw Story article:
"Apparently there's a hit piece floating around on me, 'exposing' my wild high school, teenage years where I was in a computer club where we swapped Commodore 64 games (similar to how kids swap mp3 music files these days)," he wrote Monday.
You don't get it, do you? The sin is not, in and of itself, in being a Republican. The sin is the hypocrisy. The Republicans present themselves as the law'n'order party. Vote for us, they say, and we'll keep you safe from all those eeevil dark-skinned criminals and Muslim terrorists and hippie commie weirdos. Go to an approved church supported by your tax dollars, put no legal restrictions on the government, foot the bill for endless war, give us total control of your life, and in return the streets will be safe for God-Fearing Real Americans.
It really doesn't matter that John McCain dumped his wife (who waited for him the whole time he was a POW) for a newer model. It doesn't matter that Larry Craig likes cruising for anonymous blowjobs in men's rooms. It doesn't even matter all that much that Rush Limbaugh had to smuggle Viagra on a sex tour so he could get it up for underage hookers, and it matters only a little more that George W. Bush was a cokehead and a deserter, or that Laura Bush got away with drunk-driving manslaughter. And no, it doesn't matter at all that Tony Krvaric used to be a major warez d00d. What does matter, very much, is that the party which builds its entire platform on God and Country and Traditional Values continues to embrace these people.
The prologue to Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Bloody Sun is a brilliant use of second person. The reader is being introduced to a character who's confused about his own identity, and the second-person narration clearly conveys the idea that someone knows what's going on but the character (who is being spoken to by the invisible, omniscient writer-god) definitely doesn't. Creepy and powerful.
Of course, the whole book isn't written that way, and it probably wouldn't be nearly as effective if it were.
Most of the outrages perpetrated by the current Democratic Congress have been the work of just enough of its "majority" members, of which Rockefeller is a prime example, knuckling under to the White House and going along with pretty much all the Republicans to pass every evil bill the Bush administration demands. Most Democratic representatives and senators are voting against these bills, but given how fine the balance of power is, all it takes is a few Democrats to go along with the Republican party line. Presumably, under an Obama or Clinton administration, the Rockefellers and Feinsteins and Liebermans will continue to be gutless for the White House, only this time they'll be gutless stooges for the (relatively speaking) good guys.
They were taken outside and shot. It's the only way to be sure.
You mean you didn't take off and nuke the site from orbit? What kind of geek are you, anyway?
Did he have a choice?
Yes.
And was there really anything fundamentally wrong with the group that would be obvious to a 14 year old child at the time?
Yes.
Any further questions?
There's nothing wrong with having multiply redundant systems. C'mon, this is Slashdot; most people here understand that a "monoculture" OS market is a bad thing, and satellite navigation systems going bad can screw up a lot of people's day worse than any Windows virus ever will.
Just think through the consequences of making anyone who decides to file a suit automatically win if the Commander In Chief doesn't cave in and dole out things that it's foolish to divulge.
... "a free country" is the main consequence I keep coming up with.
Thinking, thinking
I'm about as committed a Democrat as any, and I can tell you that I have no more problem with the idea of President Obama or President Clinton having to deal with this kind of condition than I do with President McCain having to do the same. This is not a partisan issue. This is a matter of the American people's right to know what their government -- the government which exists solely by the consent of the governed, coin a phrase -- is doing in their name.
If a Democrat gets elected President, then their administration will be held to a higher standard of accountability through this legislation.
If a Democrat gets elected President, you can guarantee they'll be held to a higher standard of accountability, period. In particular, all the Republicans who have been giving Bush a free pass pretty much ever since he took office will be all over anything Obama or Clinton does that even appears the least bit improper. Especially if it's Clinton -- their paranoia about that family knows no bounds. "B-b-but he lied about a blow job! That's the worstest thing any President has ever done EVAR!"
No, this is not how things are supposed to work. The feds are not supposed to "keep pushing." They're supposed to follow the law of the land.
You make it sound like there's some kind of moral equivalence between, say, the FBI and the EFF. There's not. The EFF wants to preserve freedom, and it is abundantly clear that the FBI, or at least its current administration, wants to take freedom away.
Who is this "we"? Certainly not the real world. Hopefully by "we" you mean your small group of still-in-college developers that are in for a rude awakening when you hit the real world.
By "we" he probably means "a group of knowledgeable developers who are lucky enough to be employed somewhere that they can choose the best tool for the task instead of having to go with whatever the PHB thinks is the hot buzzword this week." It's very true that the "real world" can be a difficult place, but people with attitudes like yours don't help make it any better. Fortunately, there are businesses where management knows enough to get the hell out of the way and let the developers make their own decisions on which tools to use.