If you meant end-viewer, they aren't really germane to the discussion, since what we're discussing is in the blackbox to them.
It's only "blackbox" if the results cannot be differentiated from another browser/platform. The very fact that a page looks different on some browsers than on others violates the blackbox concept.
Again this goes back to the developers, since it is their duty to make sure their website looks good (or even is viewable) by the most number of people.
"The most of the people" is people who use IE--they still have a 74% marketshare. (Cite)
You really can't separate web developers from end users--web developers not only have to eat their own dogfood (test it on their preferred setup), but everybody else's (test it on non-preferred setups). As it stands, by your own arguments, that means web developers should be writing to IE's peculiarities rather than to standard.
But rms DOESN'T want to see more "linux" on the "market" -- he wants to see more GNU in use.
*sigh* I know. And I hate to say it, but GNU won't make a big splash on the market even if the Hurd is ever ready for release.
Oh, and as for the troll moderation--sorry I kicked your sacred cow. Sacred cows may make the best hamburger, even if their religious devotees scream the loudest.
If RMS wants to see more Linux on the market, he's going to have to get used to people trying to make money from it--and for a lot of people, that means working with some form of proprietary license. If he wants to keep "GLP Purity" as a religious devotion, he can be satisfied that Linux will remain a niche product that a lot of businesses will not support.
Don't get me wrong--I like Linux, and I support the GPL. But having market share means making compromises.
Agreed. I will admit that I have remarkably little sympathy for those who have to reconfig their sites to standards, I have to admit that's the wrong attitude on my part. Most users don't care about some arbitrary "standard," even if it was designed for optimum functionality and safety: all they care about is "Does it look good."
Espionage (even mutual espionage) has nothing to do with free trade, outsourcing, or socio-political philosophies. We spy on our trading partners, and we spy on countries we've never sent a single dollar or job to--the only difference, actually, is that it is easier to spy on nations that you have an established economic presence in.
Re:And the point of the article is...?
on
China's Cyber-Militia
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The US not only hacks into governments that don't "align with our interest," but in all probability with governments that do. Remember, we've had folks kicked out of Israel (and, IIRC, England) for espionage within the last two decades--and these are two of our staunchest allies.
But it seems to be a bit daft to be teaching a dying tool/language to fresh university students.
Until 2005, the core programming curriculum at the community college I attended was COBOL. I was actually the first programming major to graduate with no COBOL training, as I persuaded the dean to allow me to go the C/C++ route instead.
And no, COBOL is not entirely dead, but it is moribund on the market in general, and used only in very specialized environments with low employee turnover in this area.
The reason COBOL was still used at that school had nothing to do with the needs of our area industry, and everything to do with academic inertia. Fortunately, the year I graduated, the three "COBOL holdouts" all retired, and the department was able to implement other language tracks and areas of specialization.
If you equate the likelihood of a supermodel having sex with you to the likelihood of a judge doing the right thing in this case, your optimism of the US legal system is higher than mine!:D
The absolute shamelessness of these people is what amazes me.
There would only be shame involved if they knew, before they started, that the claim was bogus. If they are ignorant (through idiocy, unfamiliarity with the topic, or having been led astray by some fast-talking Singaporan patent lawyer), then they are not criminals--though they certainly can't be defended against idiocy.
Ah, but there's a difference: the patent system in US law is unbalanced and counterproductive. The stereotypical inability that geeks have of "getting the girl" is not unbalanced.
Though technically, the stereotype is unreproductive. (Is that even a word?)
What would be really sweet is if it went to court and the judge finds it technically valid but too onerous. Following the logic, it would be an open door to judicial review of the entire patent system.
But in all reality, the judge will probably just rule this particular patent invalid (for whatever reason) and refuse to tackle the larger issue.
Wouldn't it be rather trivial (at least in the States), to defend a business doing this? I mean, they're just trying to manage PR. That's a business purpose, isn't it?
An interesting analogy.:D
PR is, indeed, a "business purpose." But in the States, the business is restricted by privacy rules in all of their dealings. If said business abuses the privacy of its customers--for any purpose, with a very few clearly delineated exceptions--they've violated the law.
Now, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. For some, the profit line is more important than the moral line.
You're quite correct: I should have been more specific. I was referring to the telco monitoring my home or business account.
If this was monitoring calls placed within the telco to (whatever outside source), then the grounds for moral objection become a lot less clear. I had understood the article talking about board members calling people from their homes.
Morally questionable, at best. Business records are to be used for business purposes: here in America, there is an expectation of privacy that extends even to internal data usage at a company. Only the billing department should know about my call history, and then they only need to know the minimum information required to correctly calculate my bill. Who I call is no one's business--including the telco.
Slashdot Mirror
No way in hell I'm going to call you a loser--you were writing to the market.
It's only "blackbox" if the results cannot be differentiated from another browser/platform. The very fact that a page looks different on some browsers than on others violates the blackbox concept.
"The most of the people" is people who use IE--they still have a 74% marketshare. (Cite)
You really can't separate web developers from end users--web developers not only have to eat their own dogfood (test it on their preferred setup), but everybody else's (test it on non-preferred setups). As it stands, by your own arguments, that means web developers should be writing to IE's peculiarities rather than to standard.
*sigh* I know. And I hate to say it, but GNU won't make a big splash on the market even if the Hurd is ever ready for release.
Oh, and as for the troll moderation--sorry I kicked your sacred cow. Sacred cows may make the best hamburger, even if their religious devotees scream the loudest.
Don't get me wrong--I like Linux, and I support the GPL. But having market share means making compromises.
Agreed. I will admit that I have remarkably little sympathy for those who have to reconfig their sites to standards, I have to admit that's the wrong attitude on my part. Most users don't care about some arbitrary "standard," even if it was designed for optimum functionality and safety: all they care about is "Does it look good."
Actually I'm also hoping that if a slashdotter gets ahold of Linos and finds out more, they'll also update the WP article. (hint, hint)
Wikipedia is your friend. :)
Every time I hear about divesting from China, I think of this picture.
Espionage (even mutual espionage) has nothing to do with free trade, outsourcing, or socio-political philosophies. We spy on our trading partners, and we spy on countries we've never sent a single dollar or job to--the only difference, actually, is that it is easier to spy on nations that you have an established economic presence in.
The US not only hacks into governments that don't "align with our interest," but in all probability with governments that do. Remember, we've had folks kicked out of Israel (and, IIRC, England) for espionage within the last two decades--and these are two of our staunchest allies.
Until 2005, the core programming curriculum at the community college I attended was COBOL. I was actually the first programming major to graduate with no COBOL training, as I persuaded the dean to allow me to go the C/C++ route instead.
And no, COBOL is not entirely dead, but it is moribund on the market in general, and used only in very specialized environments with low employee turnover in this area.
The reason COBOL was still used at that school had nothing to do with the needs of our area industry, and everything to do with academic inertia. Fortunately, the year I graduated, the three "COBOL holdouts" all retired, and the department was able to implement other language tracks and areas of specialization.
Is it actually arrogance if he's that good?
'Cause it's piracy, matey. Signed, L. J. Silver, Esq.
Not all physics students are geeks. Indeed, not all science students are geeks, though the non-geeks do seem to be the minority.
I claim prior art. :P
nb: Not China--Singapore. But a valuable insight nonetheless.
If you equate the likelihood of a supermodel having sex with you to the likelihood of a judge doing the right thing in this case, your optimism of the US legal system is higher than mine! :D
There would only be shame involved if they knew, before they started, that the claim was bogus. If they are ignorant (through idiocy, unfamiliarity with the topic, or having been led astray by some fast-talking Singaporan patent lawyer), then they are not criminals--though they certainly can't be defended against idiocy.
Ah, but there's a difference: the patent system in US law is unbalanced and counterproductive. The stereotypical inability that geeks have of "getting the girl" is not unbalanced.
Though technically, the stereotype is unreproductive. (Is that even a word?)
What would be really sweet is if it went to court and the judge finds it technically valid but too onerous. Following the logic, it would be an open door to judicial review of the entire patent system.
But in all reality, the judge will probably just rule this particular patent invalid (for whatever reason) and refuse to tackle the larger issue.
Actually, that's one that's been missed.
So far.
An interesting analogy. :D
PR is, indeed, a "business purpose." But in the States, the business is restricted by privacy rules in all of their dealings. If said business abuses the privacy of its customers--for any purpose, with a very few clearly delineated exceptions--they've violated the law.
Now, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. For some, the profit line is more important than the moral line.
You're quite correct: I should have been more specific. I was referring to the telco monitoring my home or business account.
If this was monitoring calls placed within the telco to (whatever outside source), then the grounds for moral objection become a lot less clear. I had understood the article talking about board members calling people from their homes.
Morally questionable, at best. Business records are to be used for business purposes: here in America, there is an expectation of privacy that extends even to internal data usage at a company. Only the billing department should know about my call history, and then they only need to know the minimum information required to correctly calculate my bill. Who I call is no one's business--including the telco.