We run Plone (Zope) on Windows and Linux internally and FreeBSD externally. Most "portability" issues arise during the building phase, but I've never had one that set me back more than about an hour. Now, getting Java 1.4+ running on older versions of FreeBSD was a bit of a pain. Upgrading to FreeBSD 7 was a god send.
Now, all that said: you can run Python on the JVM, so, technically, Python is supported at least everywhere that Java is =]
I hope this guy is including the increased sales from all the free advertising he got in his numbers. If he is, and it is still only 11 pounds, then that truly shows the value of the song. Free advertising to the tune of 154 000 000 views (!) and almost no extra people buying the album or song. Ouch... Take your licks and move on buddy.
I live in Canada, so I actually pay for last.fm. I think $3/m is still a great deal, considering how much I listen to it. However, I wonder if last.fm would have statistics on how many customers they lost by charging and whether it was worth it or not.
I buy CDs too. I can only think of 1 CD I bought in the last year (out of ~15) that was NOT a direct result of last.fm. I think these record companies still don't quite realize that streaming music sites are also advertising...
Some places are even worse than 5%. IE6 represents almost 20% of our traffic (it makes sense, given our user base), so dropping IE6 support is a big no-no. That sad, I know the day is coming where this number will drop below 5%, especially with even MS seeming to want users to switch. I will still try to support IE6 to some degree, but I won't be wasting too much time on it.
Yeah, but it is the unproven authors that are the huge risks for publishing companies, not the guy who has repeatedly sold best sellers. They can risk losing some unproven authors. They can't risk losing their cash cows.
Might go for the iPad instead. But on the other hand, I still want paper books - I find there is something very calming in holding and reading a paper book, on a medium where you neither have to worry about power (eventually) running out.
If you don't want to worry about power, then the current e-book readers are far better than the iPad - battery life measured in days vs. hours.
Good thing most buyers are smart enough to ask for documentation about their diamonds origins and buy from reputable salers that only sell conflict-free diamonds; which are practically all stores in North America. The diamonds I bought all came from Canada.
Huh? I think the point he was driving at was that these companies will now have to support their own drivers, with no chance of letting the community take over. If they could merge their drivers into the main linux kernel, then other developers can take on the task of migrating it to new linux versions, improving it, and creating security fixes. Since they can't do this, they (or Google) will now be responsible for maintaining the driver, always.
When I was looking for an engagement ring, I brought up the idea of getting a mixed ruby/diamond engagement ring for my fiance with my family. It was pretty much unanimous that, in no circumstances, should I get anything other than diamonds. Part of it was that everyone likes diamonds, but other stones are hit and miss. The other part was that girls like to show off the ring to other girls and diamonds have more bragging power I guess...
I think you are confusing chip manufacturers with computer makers. MS got Asus, not Intel, to sell Windows XP on their netbooks. Intel, OTOH, designed a chip (the Atom) that could not support the current MS offering (the exact opposite of what your post would suggest they'd do). Now, MS has supported XP long beyond its life expectancy. I can assure you, it is not easy or cheap for them to do this; software development costs typically follow a bathtub curve and XP got out of the tub long ago. All this whole XP on netbooks deal proved was that people didn't mind paying an extra $50 for the same ol' familiar OS. And, as much as I'd hate to say it, people didn't want netbooks. They wanted a small laptop.
Also, Intel have been fantastic contributors to Linux.
I was using the Ford Pinto as an example of why you should not trust the Toyota Corporation to come clean about defects, and you started talking about cost analysis and why it was ok. The Pinto incident is NOT ok. Toyota didn't murder anyone (yet), but the Ford corporation certainly did. As I said, had a person done this they would be in prison for involuntary manslaughter.
I still think the Pinto was an extreme case, not the norm. That said, this accelerator problem was presumably the cause of an accident that killed a family.
After the Pinto (and two later incidents, the exploding Crown Vic and the SUV rollovers) I think that's a little naive of you.
Think what you want. While I won't implicitly trust a company, I will certainly look at its history as an example. Toyota does not have a long history of hiding killer defects. Ford quality in general is great right now and I won't hold the Pinto incident against them. I prefer to trust a little now and run the risk of disappointment later.
IF is the biggest word in the English language. You have no way of knowing how much effort they put into safety. Trust must be earned, and I've learned from incident after incident NOT to trust my safety to ANY corporation any more than I have to; deadly greed happens over and over. The chicken plant fire with the fire doors chained shut; the Jack in the Box hamburgers that killed children, the Pinto, the cigarette manufacturers, the poison peanut products last year, the list goes on. Trusting your safety to ANY corporation is the height of foolishness. This is why we have OSHA and other regulators.
How about the billions of burgers sold without incident? How about all those companies that put employee and customer safety as a top priority? For every bad example there are many more good examples. As I said, I'd prefer to trust a little and be disappointed, than live my life worrying about what I'm eating or driving. Yes, some precautions should be taken, but trust is an integral part of every aspect of our life, from relationships to politics to the economy.
Ford not only didn't make the effort, they hid the bug.
Companies and people can do bad things from time to time. However, I do not expect my neighbor to kill me, just because someone else's neighbor killed them. Similarly, I don't expect all companies to hide such fatal defects, just because Ford did.
No, there is no such thing. But if they know about a deadly defect they owe me a fix for it, or at least to let me know that it is, in fact, buggy.
As noted, fixing is expensive. Yes, I know, every life is priceless, but yet we still put a price on ours and our family's safety everyday and companies do the same. I think reasonable disclosure should be required. However, there comes a point where the risk is too remote to be worth the cost. In the Pinto case or this case, perhaps not, but there is always a cut-off point.
Yet they try to give the untrue impression that thay do in fact recall defective cars. This type of deceit is immoral and should be considered unethical, and should not be tolerated.
I've never really thought that. I think most people assume there will always be a cost-benefit analysis involved. However, clearly most companies cannot stand to take the abuse Toyota has over this incident. That is enough for many companies to actively seek out and fix problems. If all the companies really were being this deceitful, we would notice. People, in general, are not as stupid as some would think.
Odd that you are OK with a corporation murdering human beings. Had a human done what Ford did he'd be in prison for negligent manslaughter.
I was talking more about Toyota. That said, they are not murdering people. Your car is not bug free. It never will be. It may malfunction and you may die. If you are not OK with that, DO NOT BUY A CAR. They make a product that you choose to buy. I trust most car companies will make a best effort to keep their cars safe and disclose serious safety issues. Ford and the Pinto are a pretty extreme case and they really should have said something. But this is about Toyota's problem.
Now, negligent manslaughter? Please. This is not negligence. If you make a best effort to ensure the car is safe, then you were not negligent. As sad as it is, many children drown every year. Quite often this could've been prevented had an adult been around at just the right time. However, very few parents get charged with negligent manslaughter. Why? Because they did make a best effort to protect their child and, unfortunately, people, like cars, are not bug free. Sometimes are attention wavers and the unthinkable happens.
You seem to think that a corporation owes you a perfectly safe car. This CANNOT happen. Concessions will be made to fit your price point. We do not live in a perfectly safe world. Recalls are part of the price of a car. If a company always recalled everything that went wrong, the cost of cars would jump dramatically, as the cost would not include projected costs for all the recalls.
Car companies sell cars to people who buy them. Of course they do cost analysis. If they fixed all problems that had the slightest chance of hurting people, then their cars would cost a lot more. When you buy a Corolla over a Lexus IS, you yourself are making a choice of Money vs. Safety. The Lexus IS is certainly safer, but it also costs significantly more. You are trading off safety for cost savings. Why do you suddenly get bent out of shape when a corporation makes the exact same calculation? It's the world we live in. Toyota tries to make a car as safe as possible within a certain cost. If they were to fix all problems, the car would cost more and you would not buy it.
Concise, clear, and unambiguous writing should always be the goal in a "serious" publication. Just splattering commas everywhere ruins at least 2 of the 3 requirements I mentioned. However, cuz instead of because won't. Also, emoticons really help with detecting sarcasm. Some of the best papers I've read have at least a little humour injected into them. Perhaps in 10 years it won't be so uncommon to see a wink every once in a while;)
What this really highlights is that teens spend far more time writing to their friends in a casual tone (and in poor grammar) than they do writing papers. That isn't to say they write less essays/papers for school, but simply that it represents a significantly smaller portion of their total writing or reading time.
Get into co-op. The employers expect you to have little experience and by the time you graduate you have experience. The job I got right out of school was with one of my co-op employers. The pay is in-line with the article's expectations.
I'd mod you up if I could. That said, don't some JIT VMs do both interpretation and compiling. Like, after a certain hunk of code has been hit 10 times, it compiles it. That would seem to be ideal for browsers as well. Hell, anything that improves that 5 seconds my browser is frozen for after loading a Slashdot page would be awesome.
Yet you test your sites on IE6. Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random_vulnerable browser. I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.
Perhaps some sites can get away with dropping IE6 support, but, at least for my employer's main public site, IE6 accounts for 20% of our users. Should they use a better browser? Yeah. Can we get away with kicking sand in the face of 1 in 5 of our users? Hell no.
When I was in high school, I'd read something like this and the first thing that would pop into my head would be: "cool!" Now the first thing that comes up is: "what a bunch of assholes." Has hacking* finally lost its mystique? I just see these guys as a bunch of idiots who enjoy defacing property and crave attention (ie. vandals).
* If the pejorative use of the term offends you, just pretend I used some other word that is more suiting
Your example is pretty outlandish. my.name@gmail.com or joe.blo@aol.com is a decent looking e-mail. I'd say doe.blo@aol.com is more akin to slacks and a golf shirt, rather than a victorian outfit. super_sexy_stud@aol.com, OTOH, is akin to coming in with an I'm With Stupid t-shirt. That said, stifling innovation? Let's rephrase what the GP said. If something works as its supposed to, then don't fix it and go work on something new and exciting instead! If we spend all our time making minor improvements to tech that is already meeting our requirements, then we CANNOT innovate. Believe it or not, some people don't think the matter of who owns the mail server their e-mail is going to makes a huge difference in their lives.
Slashdot Mirror
We run Plone (Zope) on Windows and Linux internally and FreeBSD externally. Most "portability" issues arise during the building phase, but I've never had one that set me back more than about an hour. Now, getting Java 1.4+ running on older versions of FreeBSD was a bit of a pain. Upgrading to FreeBSD 7 was a god send. Now, all that said: you can run Python on the JVM, so, technically, Python is supported at least everywhere that Java is =]
I hope this guy is including the increased sales from all the free advertising he got in his numbers. If he is, and it is still only 11 pounds, then that truly shows the value of the song. Free advertising to the tune of 154 000 000 views (!) and almost no extra people buying the album or song. Ouch... Take your licks and move on buddy.
I live in Canada, so I actually pay for last.fm. I think $3/m is still a great deal, considering how much I listen to it. However, I wonder if last.fm would have statistics on how many customers they lost by charging and whether it was worth it or not.
I buy CDs too. I can only think of 1 CD I bought in the last year (out of ~15) that was NOT a direct result of last.fm. I think these record companies still don't quite realize that streaming music sites are also advertising...
Some places are even worse than 5%. IE6 represents almost 20% of our traffic (it makes sense, given our user base), so dropping IE6 support is a big no-no. That sad, I know the day is coming where this number will drop below 5%, especially with even MS seeming to want users to switch. I will still try to support IE6 to some degree, but I won't be wasting too much time on it.
Yeah, but it is the unproven authors that are the huge risks for publishing companies, not the guy who has repeatedly sold best sellers. They can risk losing some unproven authors. They can't risk losing their cash cows.
Might go for the iPad instead. But on the other hand, I still want paper books - I find there is something very calming in holding and reading a paper book, on a medium where you neither have to worry about power (eventually) running out.
If you don't want to worry about power, then the current e-book readers are far better than the iPad - battery life measured in days vs. hours.
Good thing most buyers are smart enough to ask for documentation about their diamonds origins and buy from reputable salers that only sell conflict-free diamonds; which are practically all stores in North America. The diamonds I bought all came from Canada.
Huh? I think the point he was driving at was that these companies will now have to support their own drivers, with no chance of letting the community take over. If they could merge their drivers into the main linux kernel, then other developers can take on the task of migrating it to new linux versions, improving it, and creating security fixes. Since they can't do this, they (or Google) will now be responsible for maintaining the driver, always.
When I was looking for an engagement ring, I brought up the idea of getting a mixed ruby/diamond engagement ring for my fiance with my family. It was pretty much unanimous that, in no circumstances, should I get anything other than diamonds. Part of it was that everyone likes diamonds, but other stones are hit and miss. The other part was that girls like to show off the ring to other girls and diamonds have more bragging power I guess...
I think you are confusing chip manufacturers with computer makers. MS got Asus, not Intel, to sell Windows XP on their netbooks. Intel, OTOH, designed a chip (the Atom) that could not support the current MS offering (the exact opposite of what your post would suggest they'd do). Now, MS has supported XP long beyond its life expectancy. I can assure you, it is not easy or cheap for them to do this; software development costs typically follow a bathtub curve and XP got out of the tub long ago. All this whole XP on netbooks deal proved was that people didn't mind paying an extra $50 for the same ol' familiar OS. And, as much as I'd hate to say it, people didn't want netbooks. They wanted a small laptop. Also, Intel have been fantastic contributors to Linux.
I was using the Ford Pinto as an example of why you should not trust the Toyota Corporation to come clean about defects, and you started talking about cost analysis and why it was ok. The Pinto incident is NOT ok. Toyota didn't murder anyone (yet), but the Ford corporation certainly did. As I said, had a person done this they would be in prison for involuntary manslaughter.
I still think the Pinto was an extreme case, not the norm. That said, this accelerator problem was presumably the cause of an accident that killed a family.
After the Pinto (and two later incidents, the exploding Crown Vic and the SUV rollovers) I think that's a little naive of you.
Think what you want. While I won't implicitly trust a company, I will certainly look at its history as an example. Toyota does not have a long history of hiding killer defects. Ford quality in general is great right now and I won't hold the Pinto incident against them. I prefer to trust a little now and run the risk of disappointment later.
IF is the biggest word in the English language. You have no way of knowing how much effort they put into safety. Trust must be earned, and I've learned from incident after incident NOT to trust my safety to ANY corporation any more than I have to; deadly greed happens over and over. The chicken plant fire with the fire doors chained shut; the Jack in the Box hamburgers that killed children, the Pinto, the cigarette manufacturers, the poison peanut products last year, the list goes on. Trusting your safety to ANY corporation is the height of foolishness. This is why we have OSHA and other regulators.
How about the billions of burgers sold without incident? How about all those companies that put employee and customer safety as a top priority? For every bad example there are many more good examples. As I said, I'd prefer to trust a little and be disappointed, than live my life worrying about what I'm eating or driving. Yes, some precautions should be taken, but trust is an integral part of every aspect of our life, from relationships to politics to the economy.
Ford not only didn't make the effort, they hid the bug.
Companies and people can do bad things from time to time. However, I do not expect my neighbor to kill me, just because someone else's neighbor killed them. Similarly, I don't expect all companies to hide such fatal defects, just because Ford did.
No, there is no such thing. But if they know about a deadly defect they owe me a fix for it, or at least to let me know that it is, in fact, buggy.
As noted, fixing is expensive. Yes, I know, every life is priceless, but yet we still put a price on ours and our family's safety everyday and companies do the same. I think reasonable disclosure should be required. However, there comes a point where the risk is too remote to be worth the cost. In the Pinto case or this case, perhaps not, but there is always a cut-off point.
Yet they try to give the untrue impression that thay do in fact recall defective cars. This type of deceit is immoral and should be considered unethical, and should not be tolerated.
I've never really thought that. I think most people assume there will always be a cost-benefit analysis involved. However, clearly most companies cannot stand to take the abuse Toyota has over this incident. That is enough for many companies to actively seek out and fix problems. If all the companies really were being this deceitful, we would notice. People, in general, are not as stupid as some would think.
Odd that you are OK with a corporation murdering human beings. Had a human done what Ford did he'd be in prison for negligent manslaughter.
I was talking more about Toyota. That said, they are not murdering people. Your car is not bug free. It never will be. It may malfunction and you may die. If you are not OK with that, DO NOT BUY A CAR. They make a product that you choose to buy. I trust most car companies will make a best effort to keep their cars safe and disclose serious safety issues. Ford and the Pinto are a pretty extreme case and they really should have said something. But this is about Toyota's problem.
Now, negligent manslaughter? Please. This is not negligence. If you make a best effort to ensure the car is safe, then you were not negligent. As sad as it is, many children drown every year. Quite often this could've been prevented had an adult been around at just the right time. However, very few parents get charged with negligent manslaughter. Why? Because they did make a best effort to protect their child and, unfortunately, people, like cars, are not bug free. Sometimes are attention wavers and the unthinkable happens.
You seem to think that a corporation owes you a perfectly safe car. This CANNOT happen. Concessions will be made to fit your price point. We do not live in a perfectly safe world. Recalls are part of the price of a car. If a company always recalled everything that went wrong, the cost of cars would jump dramatically, as the cost would not include projected costs for all the recalls.
Car companies sell cars to people who buy them. Of course they do cost analysis. If they fixed all problems that had the slightest chance of hurting people, then their cars would cost a lot more. When you buy a Corolla over a Lexus IS, you yourself are making a choice of Money vs. Safety. The Lexus IS is certainly safer, but it also costs significantly more. You are trading off safety for cost savings. Why do you suddenly get bent out of shape when a corporation makes the exact same calculation? It's the world we live in. Toyota tries to make a car as safe as possible within a certain cost. If they were to fix all problems, the car would cost more and you would not buy it.
Given Toyota's "fix" for the problem, it would seem to be a physical issue - the actual pedal got stuck.
Concise, clear, and unambiguous writing should always be the goal in a "serious" publication. Just splattering commas everywhere ruins at least 2 of the 3 requirements I mentioned. However, cuz instead of because won't. Also, emoticons really help with detecting sarcasm. Some of the best papers I've read have at least a little humour injected into them. Perhaps in 10 years it won't be so uncommon to see a wink every once in a while ;)
What this really highlights is that teens spend far more time writing to their friends in a casual tone (and in poor grammar) than they do writing papers. That isn't to say they write less essays/papers for school, but simply that it represents a significantly smaller portion of their total writing or reading time.
Get into co-op. The employers expect you to have little experience and by the time you graduate you have experience. The job I got right out of school was with one of my co-op employers. The pay is in-line with the article's expectations.
Well, it says ~40m for "print." I imagine that number is balanced between kids who read 1-2h a day and those who don't read at all.
I'd mod you up if I could. That said, don't some JIT VMs do both interpretation and compiling. Like, after a certain hunk of code has been hit 10 times, it compiles it. That would seem to be ideal for browsers as well. Hell, anything that improves that 5 seconds my browser is frozen for after loading a Slashdot page would be awesome.
Yet you test your sites on IE6. Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random_vulnerable browser. I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.
Perhaps some sites can get away with dropping IE6 support, but, at least for my employer's main public site, IE6 accounts for 20% of our users. Should they use a better browser? Yeah. Can we get away with kicking sand in the face of 1 in 5 of our users? Hell no.
If they are inside the cage, then yes.
When I was in high school, I'd read something like this and the first thing that would pop into my head would be: "cool!" Now the first thing that comes up is: "what a bunch of assholes." Has hacking* finally lost its mystique? I just see these guys as a bunch of idiots who enjoy defacing property and crave attention (ie. vandals). * If the pejorative use of the term offends you, just pretend I used some other word that is more suiting
Your example is pretty outlandish. my.name@gmail.com or joe.blo@aol.com is a decent looking e-mail. I'd say doe.blo@aol.com is more akin to slacks and a golf shirt, rather than a victorian outfit. super_sexy_stud@aol.com, OTOH, is akin to coming in with an I'm With Stupid t-shirt. That said, stifling innovation? Let's rephrase what the GP said. If something works as its supposed to, then don't fix it and go work on something new and exciting instead! If we spend all our time making minor improvements to tech that is already meeting our requirements, then we CANNOT innovate. Believe it or not, some people don't think the matter of who owns the mail server their e-mail is going to makes a huge difference in their lives.
The patent is NOT about distributing encrypted files, that is just one requirement of the process. RTFP.