I think there was an article about this sort of thing a few months ago. Apparently St. Louis wanted to make a law about rowdiness in bars, which, of course, is totally absurd. But the police chief almost blatantly admitted that the purpose is to have some basis on which to arrest people who cause a problem. Obviously, they wouldn't care about rowdiness in bars in most cases, but if there is a particular situation that causes a problem, they can selectively enforce it in that instance.
That's not to say I agree with it, but that's the reasoning behind it.
Since you are so obviously dense, they didn't approve his expense. Their paying his expense is also agreed-upon.
A more apt analogy would be this:
You and your neighbors decide to start carpooling, and on the way home stop for lunch. You submit an expense report for it, hoping that it somehow gets approved.
I *never* said what he didn't isn't wrong, nor did I say it's not different. But you can't argue that many of those nonprofit CEOs are way overpayed, and are doing just as much harm to their causes as Wales. A $1300 dinner is small in comparison to the loot that some of those guys take home, and I'm sure they (attempt to) expense some ridiculous stuff as well. Wales just happens to be involved with a nonprofit that has is enjoying the public spotlight.
Oh yeah, the same people. The CEO's dinner that comes out of his pocket actually came out of the nonprofit's pocket. If Jimmy Wales is actually receiving a salary from Wikimedia that is comparable to your big nonprofit salary, and he's still expensing crap like that, you'd have a point. But either way, both of them are spending money for personal stuff that was probably not donated with that intent.
from other nonprofits? Some CEOs of nonprofits get paid hundreds of thousands per year of donated money, and this guy can't treat three friends to a $325 meal? Not saying I approve of his conduct, but this isn't really that damning.
Now the real problem is that he, the creator of wikipedia, hasn't been able to convince some private company to give him lots of money. You think that'd do pretty well on a resume.
Exactly. I like when people say managed code is totally useless because it doesn't have the level of control that C++ has. But the majority of software programs can do just fine with a generic memory management system, and a garbage collector isn't going to kill you. Obviously you wouldn't use managed code for a processor-intense game or graphics application or whatever, but if you're doing a point-of-sale application, or a web application, etc--in that case you'll be losing months of precious development time fiddling around with basic foundational crap before even getting around to the actual application itself.
I think the tradeoff is performance and control vs. development effort, and in many situations, performance and control aren't important enough to warrant spending the extra resources that are required to achieve that.
It's kinda one of those things where a term with a very obvious semantic meaning was hijacked, politicized, and became something entirely different. It may have been the case that at one point, before all the lawyering or whatever, availability of source code actually meant you could do whatever you want with it. Thus, "open source" implied free use, redistribution, etc. And clearly, people who support Open Source support those ideals, even if open source code does not necessarily imply that anymore.
It's kinda like Democratic vs. democratic. One is a political party with lobbyists, fake politicians, etc., and the other is a type of system where the people make the decisions.
It seems more like it's a meaningless representation of brain waves (or whatever) using physical actions of a robot. Until they think of a way to make the robot actually do what I'm dreaming about doing, it's not any kind of interpretation at all. It seems kinda like making a robot that interprets FM waves by dancing a little bit faster when the frequency is higher.
There you have it. It's not in 100% finished form. Have you done any software development before? Obviously you haven't, because then you're realize that code-complete does not mean you've tested it on every single possible hardware setup in every single possible environment. Could it be that maybe they're testing it for six weeks before releasing it implies that they haven't yet tested it in every single possible environment? Why the heck should we do testing at all if quality developers don't create code that does "garbage like this?" I'd really, really hate to buy software from you.
I'm no Microsoft fanboy by any means, but this is FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD, and more FUD.
LOL... How are you going to validate a document against a DTD without knowing what is in the DTD? That's like trying to send a SOAP message without the WSDL. As far as the validating parser is concerned, the DTD could be anything, and the DTD is exactly what it uses to do the validation. That's what determines if the document is valid.
I was just being facetious, first of all... But if you must...
The DTD won't change. That's the point of having a standard DTD.
What's the point of having a DTD if it won't change? Oh yeah, there is none. Conceptually, the DTD is there to define the data, and unless you know what is in the DTD, you cannot use it to validate, which is its purpose. And conceptually, if you assume the data is defined a certain way, you don't need a DTD.
If you're the one writing the xml this is almost no concern of yours.
Generally the DTD is for the person parsing the XML. If you're writing the XML, you don't need a DTD, because you already know the schema. If it's only for the XML writers, all you'd need to do is place your schema with the rest of the specs for your application.
Now I wasn't suggesting that in practice you should go to the server every time and fetch the DTD. But clearly you take things too seriously.
Hey, you made the specs. Why should you blame me if I'm conforming? Does the spec allow me to assume that all my documents are going to use that DTD, and that it won't change?
That's exactly the way I look at it. Is it morally reprehensible and possibly illegal for Facebook to be sharing that information? Of course. Does that mean you should assume they're not going to do it? Nope. I don't put anything on there that I wouldn't want potential future employers to know about me.
Herein lies the problem with trying to fit each console into a well-defined "generation." I played the Dreamcast a full year before it was released in the U.S.; it certainly was available during the PSX generation, though not officially in the States. If anything, their detriment was releasing it too late. Perhaps they were trying to milk the Saturn? I don't know, but I wouldn't by any means place the Dreamcast in the PS2/XBox generation.
People think twice about SMSing? Maybe that just doesn't apply to my friends and family that send useless garbage all the time. 90% of the texts I receive are totally useless.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd think they'd be happy to make such a groundbreaking discovery as bugs on Saturn's moon.
Did anybody ever think we would ever live to see a list of several entities, and be able to say that Microsoft is being the least evil?
I think there was an article about this sort of thing a few months ago. Apparently St. Louis wanted to make a law about rowdiness in bars, which, of course, is totally absurd. But the police chief almost blatantly admitted that the purpose is to have some basis on which to arrest people who cause a problem. Obviously, they wouldn't care about rowdiness in bars in most cases, but if there is a particular situation that causes a problem, they can selectively enforce it in that instance.
That's not to say I agree with it, but that's the reasoning behind it.
Since you are so obviously dense, they didn't approve his expense. Their paying his expense is also agreed-upon.
A more apt analogy would be this:
You and your neighbors decide to start carpooling, and on the way home stop for lunch. You submit an expense report for it, hoping that it somehow gets approved.
I *never* said what he didn't isn't wrong, nor did I say it's not different. But you can't argue that many of those nonprofit CEOs are way overpayed, and are doing just as much harm to their causes as Wales. A $1300 dinner is small in comparison to the loot that some of those guys take home, and I'm sure they (attempt to) expense some ridiculous stuff as well. Wales just happens to be involved with a nonprofit that has is enjoying the public spotlight.
Who pays the CEO's salary?
Who pays for the $325 meal?
Oh yeah, the same people. The CEO's dinner that comes out of his pocket actually came out of the nonprofit's pocket. If Jimmy Wales is actually receiving a salary from Wikimedia that is comparable to your big nonprofit salary, and he's still expensing crap like that, you'd have a point. But either way, both of them are spending money for personal stuff that was probably not donated with that intent.
from other nonprofits? Some CEOs of nonprofits get paid hundreds of thousands per year of donated money, and this guy can't treat three friends to a $325 meal? Not saying I approve of his conduct, but this isn't really that damning.
Now the real problem is that he, the creator of wikipedia, hasn't been able to convince some private company to give him lots of money. You think that'd do pretty well on a resume.
Exactly. I like when people say managed code is totally useless because it doesn't have the level of control that C++ has. But the majority of software programs can do just fine with a generic memory management system, and a garbage collector isn't going to kill you. Obviously you wouldn't use managed code for a processor-intense game or graphics application or whatever, but if you're doing a point-of-sale application, or a web application, etc--in that case you'll be losing months of precious development time fiddling around with basic foundational crap before even getting around to the actual application itself.
I think the tradeoff is performance and control vs. development effort, and in many situations, performance and control aren't important enough to warrant spending the extra resources that are required to achieve that.
If they would actually allow me the ability to actually terminate a runaway process through the task manager, I might upgrade them to "mild disdain."
It's kinda one of those things where a term with a very obvious semantic meaning was hijacked, politicized, and became something entirely different. It may have been the case that at one point, before all the lawyering or whatever, availability of source code actually meant you could do whatever you want with it. Thus, "open source" implied free use, redistribution, etc. And clearly, people who support Open Source support those ideals, even if open source code does not necessarily imply that anymore.
It's kinda like Democratic vs. democratic. One is a political party with lobbyists, fake politicians, etc., and the other is a type of system where the people make the decisions.
How about hashing the encrypted salted hash?
My favorite part is the use of the word "weblog." The whole thing has a very appropriate reminiscent theme.
Instead of rolling out the prerequisite three weeks before SP1, they could roll it out two weeks prior. It depends on how long that fix is delayed.
We're trying to bash Microsoft here. Stop being so damned reasonable!
Yeah, but this article is still not about SP1. It's about an update in anticipation of SP1.
It seems more like it's a meaningless representation of brain waves (or whatever) using physical actions of a robot. Until they think of a way to make the robot actually do what I'm dreaming about doing, it's not any kind of interpretation at all. It seems kinda like making a robot that interprets FM waves by dancing a little bit faster when the frequency is higher.
Here's the key phrase: There you have it. It's not in 100% finished form. Have you done any software development before? Obviously you haven't, because then you're realize that code-complete does not mean you've tested it on every single possible hardware setup in every single possible environment. Could it be that maybe they're testing it for six weeks before releasing it implies that they haven't yet tested it in every single possible environment? Why the heck should we do testing at all if quality developers don't create code that does "garbage like this?" I'd really, really hate to buy software from you.
I'm no Microsoft fanboy by any means, but this is FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD, and more FUD.
LOL... How are you going to validate a document against a DTD without knowing what is in the DTD? That's like trying to send a SOAP message without the WSDL. As far as the validating parser is concerned, the DTD could be anything, and the DTD is exactly what it uses to do the validation. That's what determines if the document is valid.
What's the point of having a DTD if it won't change? Oh yeah, there is none. Conceptually, the DTD is there to define the data, and unless you know what is in the DTD, you cannot use it to validate, which is its purpose. And conceptually, if you assume the data is defined a certain way, you don't need a DTD.
Generally the DTD is for the person parsing the XML. If you're writing the XML, you don't need a DTD, because you already know the schema. If it's only for the XML writers, all you'd need to do is place your schema with the rest of the specs for your application.
Now I wasn't suggesting that in practice you should go to the server every time and fetch the DTD. But clearly you take things too seriously.
Try getting a sense of humor.Hey, you made the specs. Why should you blame me if I'm conforming? Does the spec allow me to assume that all my documents are going to use that DTD, and that it won't change?
What to do, what to do...
That's exactly the way I look at it. Is it morally reprehensible and possibly illegal for Facebook to be sharing that information? Of course. Does that mean you should assume they're not going to do it? Nope. I don't put anything on there that I wouldn't want potential future employers to know about me.
I have friends in Beijing, and from what I hear, we can pretty much be guaranteed the skies will not be blue.
However, they are apparently planning to limit driving, shut down the coal plants, etc. for the olympics, so we'll see, huh?
Herein lies the problem with trying to fit each console into a well-defined "generation." I played the Dreamcast a full year before it was released in the U.S.; it certainly was available during the PSX generation, though not officially in the States. If anything, their detriment was releasing it too late. Perhaps they were trying to milk the Saturn? I don't know, but I wouldn't by any means place the Dreamcast in the PS2/XBox generation.
People think twice about SMSing? Maybe that just doesn't apply to my friends and family that send useless garbage all the time. 90% of the texts I receive are totally useless.
Oops, didn't see the AC post, as it was below my threshhold. I guess I'm the idiot after all. ;)