Me too. The framework I used was JSRS. IIRC, it worked by creating hidden iframes on the fly for server-side communication and had dispatchers for PHP, ASP, perl and others. I don't recall if it was asynchronous or not, but pretty much anything can be made asynchronous in javascript by using the setInterval or setTimeout functions. The only thing I could tell was different was the fact that AJAX used the XMLHttpRequest object.
So, naturally I was dumbfounded when people started talking about how amazing and cool AJAX was. I thought, "Hasn't this been around for years?"
Troll?...Seriously?!? This is a perspective that I have never, ever heard, and I'm sure most slashdotters agree given that they ranked his two comments +5 Interesting and +5 Informative.
Those are fair questions (asked politely) and I am genuinely curious about the answers. I'm honestly not yet sure what to think about the whole US healthcare issue because, unlike some people, I don't make knee-jerk reactions to things I don't fully understand.
Don't say "corporations". In any corporation there are a small handful of *people* who are the executives and actually set policy and run the show. Motivations of intelligent people are complex and cannot be predicted using simple litmus tests. I've seen executives who have made seriously unethical business decisions also exhibit signs of tremendous compassion and empathy.
Every man is the hero of his own story, and human beings have a natural tendency to reciprocate the confidence that you place in them. Appealing to someone's good nature may not always work, but but demonizing them and trivializing their motivations *never* will. I'm not an idealist. I'm just pointing out your attitude is far too simplistic. It fosters a kind of us-versus-them groupthink that can never lead to anything but useless conflict.
That's quite an interesting perspective. Here in the US, almost anyone who criticizes nationalized healthcare is reminded of how supposedly brilliantly the single-payer systems of Canada and the UK work. So, I'm curious...What is your perspective on nationalized healthcare in general?
The usually don't talk about how doctors and nurses are treated, just the patients. Do the patients get poor service due to practitioners being overworked? Do you think it's a fair trade-off to put people in your wife's type of situation in exchange for providing free healthcare to the masses?
In other news, Iceland's financial sector nearly collapsed when it was revealed that Geöldmaan Skandiabanken sold trillions of Krona's worth of volcano-backed CDO's to unsuspecting investors. At the heart of the controversy -- notorious short-seller, Jón Pjollsson.
Basically the EFF said, "Hey Google, you guys are assholes for taking down these completely, obviously non-infringing parodies of this Hitler video." To make their case they gave an example of a work that was most definitely not an original parody of the Hitler video. And more ironically, their video did not actually get taken down. That's why I said it was a bad example.
Obviously, production quality (high or low) does not affect IP rights. I was trying to point out how completely trivial and insignificant the changes that the EFF made to the video actually were, relative to the work that went into producing the original. Whether or not this was a case of fair use, they are criticising Google's system for wrongly identifying infringing content, when in fact, any competent software maker would be hard-pressed to design a system in which the example video they gave would not trigger a false positive.
I can't fathom how that clip did not trigger a false positive in Google's Content ID system since it so clearly resembles the original. If the indication was intentional, then that probably means that Google designed the absolute best system ever. I'm guessing that there was some other reason it fell through the cracks though.
A form of speech protected by the First Amendment as a "distorted imitation" of an original work for the purpose of commenting on it.
The key words (from both our definitions) are "imitated" and "imitation". The work in question is not an imitation. It is an exact copy with some minor modifications. I should also point out that the work in question was not providing any type of commentary on the original.
Now, there may indeed be some fair use protection provided by the four factors outlined in the law, but nevertheless, this was a bad example that they themselves created. More convincing would have been a true, original parody that was taken down by Google's system.
It's not that I didn't believe you. I just wanted to get the details of the law you were referring to since those specifics seem especially relevant here. For instance, bricking the phone took away the finder's "knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner". All they knew was that it probably belonged to Apple, whom they contacted, thus satisfying the criteria of "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner". Here's a more detailed link that explains the timeline of events.
Even if Gizmodo was lying about this stuff, I doubt they would have gone ahead with their story before talking to their lawyers. If anyone in this case gets charged with a crime I'll concede my point, but I doubt that's going to happen.
Legally speaking, it doesn't matter what the director thinks because this was a work-for-hire. As another commenter noted, he's not getting royalties either. So, yeah, I'd probably not care about people distributing my IP without authorization if I had no way to make any more money for it either.
I like the EFF and all, but its a little hard to take them seriously considering the example video they use in TFA. Making an exact duplicate of a well-produced (meaning they spent time and money to make it) film-clip and then spending probably 15-20 minutes adding subtitles is not a parody, as they claim.
It would be like me making an exact copy of Avatar and adding "That's what she said" after each of the Na'vi-to-English subtitles
Given current trends toward cloud computing I bet it will soon be possible for students who are just starting out with Linux to never once have to run it outside of a virtual environment. Unless of course troubleshooting hardware is part of their job description. For most, it probably won't be.
The problem with the original post is that he is asking for a distro recommendation when he should have asked for VM software. Common sense would dictate that you just use whatever distro is being taught in the class and pick a virtualization platform that handles it well.
So...you're asking for a recommendation on a distro that students can use and experiment with completely for free on their own home computers. How about any Linux distro ever made? If I'm not mistaken, that was the whole point of Linux in the first place.
Also, you say that you are looking for a "semi-stable" distro, but then go on to complain about it not working correctly on your students computers. It sounds like what you are looking for is a "stable" distro. Fortunately they are not hard to come by.
You then say that you want an Ubuntu or Fedora derived OS -- Gee, I don't know, how about using Ubuntu or Fedora? Both have very low-impact installation methods.
No way was this a marketing ploy. Now that people know that the iPhone4 is just around the corner, the news will have a seriously negative impact on sales of the current 3GS model. This leak will probably end up costing them millions of dollars.
Apple is a huge and famous company that doesn't need to resort to silly dotcom-esqe shennanigans to generate publicity. The reason you see news about it being locked down, etc. is because you read sites like slashdot. Try reading MacWorld or any of the other hundreds (thousands?) of Apple/Mac news sites out there and see what gets reported.
When Apple said "here, carry around this priceless prototype phone and test it out"
What's really priceless is the photo of the guy who lost the phone holding an open container of Jack Daniel's. Not exactly the first guy I would entrust with the device.
And if you're unable to contact or find the owner, CA law also indicates that you are then to turn it in to the local police...
Umm...citation please? Here's a link to Gizmodo's account of how the finder attempted to return it.
A reasonable attempt to return the phone was clearly made, but was hampered by the fact that Apple bricked the phone on that same night. The article just says that the finder poked around a bit (who wouldn't?). There's nothing to indicate that he had the owner's personal information, or would have even remembered it the next day, having presumably been intoxicated.
I doubt that a reasonable person's first thought in this scenario would be: "Wow, I found someone's cool new phone...I should call the cops". That being said, they could have just left it at the bar in the back office or a lost-and-found bin.
As for Gizmodo -- they are in the busiess of reporting news about gadgets. Successfully suing them under the UTSA would set a dangerous precedent that could hamper other forms of investigative journalism. Kind of like how some organizations try to use the DMCA to silence their critics.
Does the fact that C is #1 mean I should start writing my websites with it
Actually, yes! According to TFA, the TIOBE index is an excellent resource for making "a strategic decision about what programming language should be adopted when starting to build a new software system"
There are lots of companies I like that have really good track records. Sony is not one of them. Next time I make a joke, I'll be sure to come up with a detailed list of companies, subsidiaries, corporate officers, etc. that are the target of said joke. That'll make it waaay better.
Slashdot Mirror
Me too. The framework I used was JSRS. IIRC, it worked by creating hidden iframes on the fly for server-side communication and had dispatchers for PHP, ASP, perl and others. I don't recall if it was asynchronous or not, but pretty much anything can be made asynchronous in javascript by using the setInterval or setTimeout functions. The only thing I could tell was different was the fact that AJAX used the XMLHttpRequest object.
So, naturally I was dumbfounded when people started talking about how amazing and cool AJAX was. I thought, "Hasn't this been around for years?"
Troll?...Seriously?!? This is a perspective that I have never, ever heard, and I'm sure most slashdotters agree given that they ranked his two comments +5 Interesting and +5 Informative.
Those are fair questions (asked politely) and I am genuinely curious about the answers. I'm honestly not yet sure what to think about the whole US healthcare issue because, unlike some people, I don't make knee-jerk reactions to things I don't fully understand.
Go ahead...mod me down again, jerk!
Apple actually acknowledged that Android exists! I thought that was a big no-no
Don't say "corporations". In any corporation there are a small handful of *people* who are the executives and actually set policy and run the show. Motivations of intelligent people are complex and cannot be predicted using simple litmus tests. I've seen executives who have made seriously unethical business decisions also exhibit signs of tremendous compassion and empathy.
Every man is the hero of his own story, and human beings have a natural tendency to reciprocate the confidence that you place in them. Appealing to someone's good nature may not always work, but but demonizing them and trivializing their motivations *never* will. I'm not an idealist. I'm just pointing out your attitude is far too simplistic. It fosters a kind of us-versus-them groupthink that can never lead to anything but useless conflict.
That's quite an interesting perspective. Here in the US, almost anyone who criticizes nationalized healthcare is reminded of how supposedly brilliantly the single-payer systems of Canada and the UK work. So, I'm curious...What is your perspective on nationalized healthcare in general?
The usually don't talk about how doctors and nurses are treated, just the patients. Do the patients get poor service due to practitioners being overworked? Do you think it's a fair trade-off to put people in your wife's type of situation in exchange for providing free healthcare to the masses?
In other news, Iceland's financial sector nearly collapsed when it was revealed that Geöldmaan Skandiabanken sold trillions of Krona's worth of volcano-backed CDO's to unsuspecting investors. At the heart of the controversy -- notorious short-seller, Jón Pjollsson.
Basically the EFF said, "Hey Google, you guys are assholes for taking down these completely, obviously non-infringing parodies of this Hitler video." To make their case they gave an example of a work that was most definitely not an original parody of the Hitler video. And more ironically, their video did not actually get taken down. That's why I said it was a bad example.
Obviously, production quality (high or low) does not affect IP rights. I was trying to point out how completely trivial and insignificant the changes that the EFF made to the video actually were, relative to the work that went into producing the original. Whether or not this was a case of fair use, they are criticising Google's system for wrongly identifying infringing content, when in fact, any competent software maker would be hard-pressed to design a system in which the example video they gave would not trigger a false positive.
I can't fathom how that clip did not trigger a false positive in Google's Content ID system since it so clearly resembles the original. If the indication was intentional, then that probably means that Google designed the absolute best system ever. I'm guessing that there was some other reason it fell through the cracks though.
The legal definition of "parody" is:
A form of speech protected by the First Amendment as a "distorted imitation" of an original work for the purpose of commenting on it.
The key words (from both our definitions) are "imitated" and "imitation". The work in question is not an imitation. It is an exact copy with some minor modifications. I should also point out that the work in question was not providing any type of commentary on the original.
Now, there may indeed be some fair use protection provided by the four factors outlined in the law, but nevertheless, this was a bad example that they themselves created. More convincing would have been a true, original parody that was taken down by Google's system.
It's not that I didn't believe you. I just wanted to get the details of the law you were referring to since those specifics seem especially relevant here. For instance, bricking the phone took away the finder's "knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner". All they knew was that it probably belonged to Apple, whom they contacted, thus satisfying the criteria of "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner". Here's a more detailed link that explains the timeline of events.
Even if Gizmodo was lying about this stuff, I doubt they would have gone ahead with their story before talking to their lawyers. If anyone in this case gets charged with a crime I'll concede my point, but I doubt that's going to happen.
Python has been around for nearly 20 years and yet people seem to be continuously "discovering" it. I'd say it has withstood the test of time.
Legally speaking, it doesn't matter what the director thinks because this was a work-for-hire. As another commenter noted, he's not getting royalties either. So, yeah, I'd probably not care about people distributing my IP without authorization if I had no way to make any more money for it either.
Yeah! I never would have heard about the movie and subsequently downloaded it from The Pirate Bay if not for the Youtube parodies too!
I like the EFF and all, but its a little hard to take them seriously considering the example video they use in TFA. Making an exact duplicate of a well-produced (meaning they spent time and money to make it) film-clip and then spending probably 15-20 minutes adding subtitles is not a parody, as they claim.
It would be like me making an exact copy of Avatar and adding "That's what she said" after each of the Na'vi-to-English subtitles
Given current trends toward cloud computing I bet it will soon be possible for students who are just starting out with Linux to never once have to run it outside of a virtual environment. Unless of course troubleshooting hardware is part of their job description. For most, it probably won't be.
The problem with the original post is that he is asking for a distro recommendation when he should have asked for VM software. Common sense would dictate that you just use whatever distro is being taught in the class and pick a virtualization platform that handles it well.
If I will see a person who learned how to use Linux by running it in VM, I will punch him in the face.
Yeah...that'll teach the bastard for trying to further his education!
So...you're asking for a recommendation on a distro that students can use and experiment with completely for free on their own home computers. How about any Linux distro ever made? If I'm not mistaken, that was the whole point of Linux in the first place.
Also, you say that you are looking for a "semi-stable" distro, but then go on to complain about it not working correctly on your students computers. It sounds like what you are looking for is a "stable" distro. Fortunately they are not hard to come by.
You then say that you want an Ubuntu or Fedora derived OS -- Gee, I don't know, how about using Ubuntu or Fedora? Both have very low-impact installation methods.
Seems like common sense
I hear it runs on everything
No way was this a marketing ploy. Now that people know that the iPhone4 is just around the corner, the news will have a seriously negative impact on sales of the current 3GS model. This leak will probably end up costing them millions of dollars.
Apple is a huge and famous company that doesn't need to resort to silly dotcom-esqe shennanigans to generate publicity. The reason you see news about it being locked down, etc. is because you read sites like slashdot. Try reading MacWorld or any of the other hundreds (thousands?) of Apple/Mac news sites out there and see what gets reported.
When Apple said "here, carry around this priceless prototype phone and test it out"
What's really priceless is the photo of the guy who lost the phone holding an open container of Jack Daniel's. Not exactly the first guy I would entrust with the device.
And if you're unable to contact or find the owner, CA law also indicates that you are then to turn it in to the local police...
Umm...citation please? Here's a link to Gizmodo's account of how the finder attempted to return it.
A reasonable attempt to return the phone was clearly made, but was hampered by the fact that Apple bricked the phone on that same night. The article just says that the finder poked around a bit (who wouldn't?). There's nothing to indicate that he had the owner's personal information, or would have even remembered it the next day, having presumably been intoxicated.
I doubt that a reasonable person's first thought in this scenario would be: "Wow, I found someone's cool new phone...I should call the cops". That being said, they could have just left it at the bar in the back office or a lost-and-found bin.
As for Gizmodo -- they are in the busiess of reporting news about gadgets. Successfully suing them under the UTSA would set a dangerous precedent that could hamper other forms of investigative journalism. Kind of like how some organizations try to use the DMCA to silence their critics.
My PS3 isn't fat, its just full of features you insensitive clod!
(in all seriousness, it does have a multi-card reader and the ability to play PS2 games)
I'm sure he's crying himself to sleep every night with nothing to console him but his endless millions upon millions of dollars.
This story originally came from an NPR interview. Here is a link.
Does the fact that C is #1 mean I should start writing my websites with it
Actually, yes! According to TFA, the TIOBE index is an excellent resource for making "a strategic decision about what programming language should be adopted when starting to build a new software system"
Too bad common sense isn't mentioned.
There are lots of companies I like that have really good track records. Sony is not one of them. Next time I make a joke, I'll be sure to come up with a detailed list of companies, subsidiaries, corporate officers, etc. that are the target of said joke. That'll make it waaay better.