Deadlines are tight. Requirements have been creeping. Everything is on its way, but you're not quite there yet. So you cheat. You say, "Hey, this is alright, because it will work this way soon." If you get away with it (long term, that is), then that's probably true.
Our sales group here is pretty aggressive. They always want to show off a new product before it's completely done. Generally, what we do is set up a demo script: a set of steps that we know will avoid the bugs that are still in the product. So the customer won't know it doesn't all work. Of course, sometimes that's not enough, so we might fake it a little, just to show them what it will look like. After all, we'll have it all fixed before they get it. So that's okay. Isn't it?
I disagree. After all, this is your mail. So it's not the same as getting someone else's mail in your mailbox. It's like getting someone else's mail in your envelope. (I do agree with the comment about insider info, though. IANAL, but I think it doesn't matter how you get the information.)
Why don't we explore this a bit. Let's say Mr. X is writing some letters, and he accidentally puts Mr. Y's letter in Mr. Z's envelope, and vice-versa. What are the legal implications of that? Are Mr. Y and Z free to use any information therein, even if it is clearly not meant for them?
Really, how much of a stretch of logic does it take to move this from parents watching their kids to the government watching all of us. If you can rationalize letting parents (or anyone, for that matter) have "tracking" abilities, then you can rationalize giving the government authority to track all of us. The arguments are all the same.
I'll tell you another thing. I think all these overprotective parents quoted in the article need to have their asses kicked. I suggest we start tracking their movements and let their parents see what they have for lunch. How bad does "fruit juice and ice cream" sound compared to "3 martinis"? Besides, if you think your kid isn't eating well at school, so what? Make him eat at home. It's called "Being a parent," give it a try.
It's Dark Side of the Moon not The Wall and it's not a coincidence. Pink Floyd had just lost the job of creating a soundtrack to another movie (I forget which one), and wanted to prove that they could do it. In fact, they wanted to prove they could do a better job than anyone else. And although they've never really acknowledged having done so, they've never denied it, either.
When you use the terms "pirated" or "piracy" or any variation thereof, you are perpetuating a false image created by the record companies. They want music sharing to be given a negative connotation, and they do this by evoking images of evil computer users with forked beards, eye patches, peg legs, and the occasional parrot. I personally have no peg leg, keep my beard short, and only wear an eye patch on special occasions. (I have not yet saved up enough for the parrot.) As you can see, this use of the term "pirated" is really inappropriate. Please resist the temptation to let the music industry control your thoughts. Thank you.
If payphones were a "dying breed" 1-800-COLLECT and 1-800-CALL-ATT wouldn't still be spending millions of dollars on advertising. No, they'll be around for a while.
Read the damn email, you idiot. The reason she went after them was because they specifically sent this email to people who chose to opt out of receiving emails.
I've got a friend who's been trying to get "hardknocks.edu" for years, but he couldn't since he isn't a school.:) Since they are apparently relaxing restrictions, does anyone know what it will now take to qualify for a.edu?
So what you're saying is that the paperclip should only pop up if you're doing something completely random (i.e. something it doesn't recognize as a pattern), or if you're doing something it recognizes as a certain pattern? Hmmm. Always, then. Yep, that would just about cover all the times the thing popped up.
What does it matter if BountyQuest decided that this guy didn't deserve a share in the bounty? Sure, he's obviously pissed, fine. But that doesn't equate to a "whitewash"; his submission is still there. It would be a whitewash only if they tried to make it look like he had never submitted at all.
Conway's logic here is like claiming that not winning the race is equivalent to not having raced at all. That's crazy. You may not be in the winner's circle, but people saw you on the track.
First let me state that I am always in favor of more options and new technology. I think that it is possible that Curl may become a very useful language for some web developments. But as someone who makes my living based on developing dynamic web applications, there are a few thoughts/concerns I would like to share.
The first concern is reliability. Anyone who has used client-side javascript is bound to have noticed that it's very difficult to get it to work reliably in multiple browsers. Ok, so the people behind Curl knows about this, and will probably do a better job of getting different browsers to at least try to use the same specs. Nevertheless, I don't like to trust any important script to the client. Furthermore, my customers also are generally wary of that. Keeping everything server-side is much more predictable and reliable, even if it does require better hardware.
Another reason I wouldn't like this is intellectual property. I know there's a big tendency here to trash ip, and generally I agree. But I have to admit, sometimes you need to protect your code. I don't want my competitors to be able to get my code (source or binaries) merely by hitting a site. Keeping the code running on the server keeps the code out of your competitors hands.
The final reason is, ironically, one of the same arguments given in favor of Curl: integration. If you're starting a product from scratch, or don't mind rebuilding what you have, then this is not a problem. But if you already have a working system, how well will Curl integrate with it? Will it be any better than the current technologies? Will it further complicate already complex integrations? I don't know the answers to these questions, but they would definitely affect the chances of Curl becoming a widely-used language.
So those are my concerns. I don't mean any of this as a slam to the Curl people; in fact, I'll be very happy if they have some good answers to them. But for now, I think I'll keep my eyes and my mind open, but I won't be using Curl until I've seen some results.
I don't really have an answer for your question, but I would warn you about one thing. Trying to custom build a powerful system as small as possible, you will likely have trouble with the heat generated. I would suggest that you at least base your system on a pre-built model, so that you can be reasonably sure there are adequate heatsinks and cooling fans, and reasonable airflow through the case.
Well I guess you told me. Your sharp wit and clever innuendo are just too much for me. I've really seen the error of my ways. I bow before your obvious superiority. Now I see why you dare not put your name on your posts: you fear I would try to find you and lick your boots, a right of which I am so clearly not worthy. I beg you, please let me go crawl back under my rock, so I can hide from the blinding light which is you.
What a load of crap. The reason Windows is installed in MOST (not all, you fool) big, dumb businesses is because they want to use Word. It's simple momentum. Other companies use Word, we need to be able to share documents with other companies, therefore, we need Word, so we need Windows. (This is true of other products as well, but Word is one of the big ones.) Microsoft has a chokehold on the market, that's what that whole antitrust thing was about.
And as for Windows being easy to support? I laugh in your face! HAHAHAHA! What universe do you live in? Try telling that one to your IT guys. Windows is a pain in the ass to support - I've been there. Hell, Windows is so bad that at my old company we banned Win95 because it wouldn't work right with WinNT.
And as for that last paragraph, could you have missed the point any worse? You CAN'T have one GUI that satisfies everybody, particularly the "nerd" people (although we prefer "geek", you obvious "Org" person).
You don't have to let the KDE or Gnome teams decide for you. Use one sometimes and the other other times. Not what youi want? Take the code and make your own. Don't like that? Don't use a GUI at all. Like windows? Use windows. But don't act like whatever works for you should work for everyone.
GNOME and KDE are both GUI's. They both go beyond that, but that is their main difference. Their API's could be merged, but they would still be TWO GUI's. Miller specifically stated that the two should join together and make ONE GUI. He did NOT say that they should create two GUI's with shared API's. That would be a good idea, one that has been proposed repeatedly in the past, but THAT WAS NOT WHAT HE SAID!
Why don't you read the subject matter before you post in the future?
I personally feel it is too bad that the Linux community can't agree to build on one graphical environment.
What a typical narrow-minded, self-important Microsoft attitude. This fool actually believes the ridiculous notion that one and only one GUI could be best for everyone. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since this is perfectly in line with Microsoft's "we-know-what-you-need-better-than-you-do" attitude, but it still amazes me that people can be so blind.
KDE and Gnome both exist because different people need different things. Miller's suggestion that the two projects don't share with one another simply shows that he can't grasp the concept of open source. Of course they share, they're open source! Anything that goes into one can be used by the other.
At least until they can put a sensor on my eyes. Personally, I don't move my head enough for this to work. Of course, it could be just me. All alone. By myself. An outcast. Hey, you don't need to rub it in! Why is everybody always picking on me?
Slashdot Mirror
Deadlines are tight. Requirements have been creeping. Everything is on its way, but you're not quite there yet. So you cheat. You say, "Hey, this is alright, because it will work this way soon." If you get away with it (long term, that is), then that's probably true.
Our sales group here is pretty aggressive. They always want to show off a new product before it's completely done. Generally, what we do is set up a demo script: a set of steps that we know will avoid the bugs that are still in the product. So the customer won't know it doesn't all work. Of course, sometimes that's not enough, so we might fake it a little, just to show them what it will look like. After all, we'll have it all fixed before they get it. So that's okay. Isn't it?
I disagree. After all, this is your mail. So it's not the same as getting someone else's mail in your mailbox. It's like getting someone else's mail in your envelope. (I do agree with the comment about insider info, though. IANAL, but I think it doesn't matter how you get the information.)
Why don't we explore this a bit. Let's say Mr. X is writing some letters, and he accidentally puts Mr. Y's letter in Mr. Z's envelope, and vice-versa. What are the legal implications of that? Are Mr. Y and Z free to use any information therein, even if it is clearly not meant for them?
Actually, it would be 51/49 * time spent until now.
Really, how much of a stretch of logic does it take to move this from parents watching their kids to the government watching all of us. If you can rationalize letting parents (or anyone, for that matter) have "tracking" abilities, then you can rationalize giving the government authority to track all of us. The arguments are all the same.
I'll tell you another thing. I think all these overprotective parents quoted in the article need to have their asses kicked. I suggest we start tracking their movements and let their parents see what they have for lunch. How bad does "fruit juice and ice cream" sound compared to "3 martinis"? Besides, if you think your kid isn't eating well at school, so what? Make him eat at home. It's called "Being a parent," give it a try.
Usually, the Scientologists don't bother with trials. Generally, they just kill you.
It's Dark Side of the Moon not The Wall and it's not a coincidence. Pink Floyd had just lost the job of creating a soundtrack to another movie (I forget which one), and wanted to prove that they could do it. In fact, they wanted to prove they could do a better job than anyone else. And although they've never really acknowledged having done so, they've never denied it, either.
I'd say I work about 40 to 50 minutes a week. Oh, wait, did you mean the amount of time I spend working, or just the amount of time I spend at work?
I want the main unit to be no larger than a large man's finger
How large? I mean, if we're talking about Andre the Giant's finger, we're already there.
You can give them away. I'll take them.
When you use the terms "pirated" or "piracy" or any variation thereof, you are perpetuating a false image created by the record companies. They want music sharing to be given a negative connotation, and they do this by evoking images of evil computer users with forked beards, eye patches, peg legs, and the occasional parrot. I personally have no peg leg, keep my beard short, and only wear an eye patch on special occasions. (I have not yet saved up enough for the parrot.) As you can see, this use of the term "pirated" is really inappropriate. Please resist the temptation to let the music industry control your thoughts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Redbeard
If payphones were a "dying breed" 1-800-COLLECT and 1-800-CALL-ATT wouldn't still be spending millions of dollars on advertising. No, they'll be around for a while.
Read the damn email, you idiot. The reason she went after them was because they specifically sent this email to people who chose to opt out of receiving emails.
I've got a friend who's been trying to get "hardknocks.edu" for years, but he couldn't since he isn't a school. :) Since they are apparently relaxing restrictions, does anyone know what it will now take to qualify for a .edu?
I never felt paranoia before. I do now.
:)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
So what you're saying is that the paperclip should only pop up if you're doing something completely random (i.e. something it doesn't recognize as a pattern), or if you're doing something it recognizes as a certain pattern? Hmmm. Always, then. Yep, that would just about cover all the times the thing popped up.
What does it matter if BountyQuest decided that this guy didn't deserve a share in the bounty? Sure, he's obviously pissed, fine. But that doesn't equate to a "whitewash"; his submission is still there. It would be a whitewash only if they tried to make it look like he had never submitted at all.
Conway's logic here is like claiming that not winning the race is equivalent to not having raced at all. That's crazy. You may not be in the winner's circle, but people saw you on the track.
First let me state that I am always in favor of more options and new technology. I think that it is possible that Curl may become a very useful language for some web developments. But as someone who makes my living based on developing dynamic web applications, there are a few thoughts/concerns I would like to share.
The first concern is reliability. Anyone who has used client-side javascript is bound to have noticed that it's very difficult to get it to work reliably in multiple browsers. Ok, so the people behind Curl knows about this, and will probably do a better job of getting different browsers to at least try to use the same specs. Nevertheless, I don't like to trust any important script to the client. Furthermore, my customers also are generally wary of that. Keeping everything server-side is much more predictable and reliable, even if it does require better hardware.
Another reason I wouldn't like this is intellectual property. I know there's a big tendency here to trash ip, and generally I agree. But I have to admit, sometimes you need to protect your code. I don't want my competitors to be able to get my code (source or binaries) merely by hitting a site. Keeping the code running on the server keeps the code out of your competitors hands.
The final reason is, ironically, one of the same arguments given in favor of Curl: integration. If you're starting a product from scratch, or don't mind rebuilding what you have, then this is not a problem. But if you already have a working system, how well will Curl integrate with it? Will it be any better than the current technologies? Will it further complicate already complex integrations? I don't know the answers to these questions, but they would definitely affect the chances of Curl becoming a widely-used language.
So those are my concerns. I don't mean any of this as a slam to the Curl people; in fact, I'll be very happy if they have some good answers to them. But for now, I think I'll keep my eyes and my mind open, but I won't be using Curl until I've seen some results.
I don't really have an answer for your question, but I would warn you about one thing. Trying to custom build a powerful system as small as possible, you will likely have trouble with the heat generated. I would suggest that you at least base your system on a pre-built model, so that you can be reasonably sure there are adequate heatsinks and cooling fans, and reasonable airflow through the case.
Well I guess you told me. Your sharp wit and clever innuendo are just too much for me. I've really seen the error of my ways. I bow before your obvious superiority. Now I see why you dare not put your name on your posts: you fear I would try to find you and lick your boots, a right of which I am so clearly not worthy. I beg you, please let me go crawl back under my rock, so I can hide from the blinding light which is you.
What a load of crap. The reason Windows is installed in MOST (not all, you fool) big, dumb businesses is because they want to use Word. It's simple momentum. Other companies use Word, we need to be able to share documents with other companies, therefore, we need Word, so we need Windows. (This is true of other products as well, but Word is one of the big ones.) Microsoft has a chokehold on the market, that's what that whole antitrust thing was about.
And as for Windows being easy to support? I laugh in your face! HAHAHAHA! What universe do you live in? Try telling that one to your IT guys. Windows is a pain in the ass to support - I've been there. Hell, Windows is so bad that at my old company we banned Win95 because it wouldn't work right with WinNT.
And as for that last paragraph, could you have missed the point any worse? You CAN'T have one GUI that satisfies everybody, particularly the "nerd" people (although we prefer "geek", you obvious "Org" person).
You don't have to let the KDE or Gnome teams decide for you. Use one sometimes and the other other times. Not what youi want? Take the code and make your own. Don't like that? Don't use a GUI at all. Like windows? Use windows. But don't act like whatever works for you should work for everyone.
GNOME and KDE are both GUI's. They both go beyond that, but that is their main difference. Their API's could be merged, but they would still be TWO GUI's. Miller specifically stated that the two should join together and make ONE GUI. He did NOT say that they should create two GUI's with shared API's. That would be a good idea, one that has been proposed repeatedly in the past, but THAT WAS NOT WHAT HE SAID!
Why don't you read the subject matter before you post in the future?
I personally feel it is too bad that the Linux community can't agree to build on one graphical environment.
What a typical narrow-minded, self-important Microsoft attitude. This fool actually believes the ridiculous notion that one and only one GUI could be best for everyone. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since this is perfectly in line with Microsoft's "we-know-what-you-need-better-than-you-do" attitude, but it still amazes me that people can be so blind.
KDE and Gnome both exist because different people need different things. Miller's suggestion that the two projects don't share with one another simply shows that he can't grasp the concept of open source. Of course they share, they're open source! Anything that goes into one can be used by the other.
read the whole thing!
At least until they can put a sensor on my eyes. Personally, I don't move my head enough for this to work. Of course, it could be just me. All alone. By myself. An outcast. Hey, you don't need to rub it in! Why is everybody always picking on me?