Everyone is looking at this as some kind of database or server side scripting problem, which is IMHO overdoing it a bit, and missing the point
Firstly, every webserver and browser worth using already handles default language handling. It's an integral part of HTTP. A french user can be given the french version of the page transparently by the server (as their browser already knows what languages they want). This part of the specifications is there for a reason, use it! People don't want cookies, logins and unnecesary choices.
If you use apache (the only server I have more than half a days experience with) search for content negotiation in the docs. It's actually set up by default (download the tar ball and look at the "It worked" page to see what I mean). In a nutshell, instead of a file foo.html, you have several files for each language, foo.html.en, foo.html.fr etc, and the server works out which one the user wants.
From what I understand, IIS also handles this kind of thing well, if you want to use it.
Getting the webserver to do this for you will almost certainly be quicker than anything you can write, as it is better integrated into the server. By serving static pages things get even quicker still. If you need Dynamic content, PHP, Perl, ASP or CGI scripts can all be programmed to use the default-language headers. If you want to generate dynamic content, choos ethe language this way rather than trying to create your own system (unless you already have a login system ala slash, in which case it wouldn't hurt to add it as an option).
None of this information is hard to find. In fact, it's pretty hard to avoid it when looking at the Apache config files, so I don't know why everyone else has missed it.
Okay, so they argue that Open Source Software isn't perfectly secure. Very little is. I see no argument that Closed Source Software is any more secure. And this implies...?
That both sides of the argument can carry on with the argument as before, whilst Security Focus gets the hits and banner ad sales and makes lots of money. Yay
So they've tied GIMP to a web server, and made it look pretty. Sounds like quite a good idea to me. And anyone can upload their snaps to use it, so you don't need to be a linux guru to get it to work, which is always a bonus.
But, wouldn't it make more sense for them to also offer the webified gimp for people to download and run on their own servers? It wouldn't have to be open source, just available.
That way, we don't need to upload our pictures onto their site, and they don't need to pay for all the bandwidth/processor cycles we use
When I think of a better voting system, I think of a cascading-vote type system. You rank the candidates from your favorite down to the one whom you would not let pet your dog. Then, the votes are tallied and the candidates who got the fewest votes are tossed out and those ballots are re-counted using the next-favorite candidate that is still in the race
This system is used widely in the unions in Britain, and many other places. It's known as Single Transferable Vote (STV) or the Alternative Voting System. (more info available here)
The main difference between STV and the system you describe is the addition of a candidate known as RON (Re-Open Nominations). Voting for RON is an active vote against candidates, whereas abstaining (not voting) is a vote for apathy.
It works quite well, although it's hard and time-consuming to count the votes. But, no country use it as a national voting system, which probably says something.
Now, see how long that user can survive in a web where stupid designers set background color to white while allowing the user to keep their preferred font color (which is white, in this case.)
Might be worth noting that ie5 corrects for black text on black backgrounds and similar crimes against common webdesign sense. I guess you could call it a feature...
Make sure you are coming from a university site too. Note that the difference between the two links that makes it work is the addition of a "www" before "guru".
That's strange, I see no difference in the site when I look at it through my isp or university. But then again, I guess ".ac.uk" isn't a university is it?
The best thing about it is that it is an open, easy to parse data format. Creating your own apps is easily done in any programming language, so you don't need to rely on other people to create the software for you.
And because an XML Document contains it's own DTD (the rules on what is allowed within a document), others can easily use their own XML software with your data in ways you never intended. Which is a feature, aparently.
But XML is, by definition, abstract. Once you start using it, it might make more sense. Look at it as a structured text file and it might be easier
how about a site detailing the important nerd-news, but aimed at non nerds?
Take the whole amazon/patents thing. Even in the trade papers it's only getting small amounts of coverage. Loads of/.ers are getting really angry and making lots of noise, but when you look at it, they are only preaching to the perverted. Outside the geek forums nobody knows about it.
If you took things like this, and covered them with all the techno jargon removed (or at least explained) then maybe the "stuff that matters" will propogate further
The cost of producing music today is GOOD because it pre-selects talented artists. There are tens of thousands of talented artists who produce music today. If anybody has the opportunity to produce music, then people will make MP3's of people singing in the shower. There will be a greater quantity of music, but it will be impossible to sift through it all, because the number of talented artists will not increase substantially.
So the world wide web won't work either because people won't be able to find what they want?
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone is looking at this as some kind of database or server side scripting problem, which is IMHO overdoing it a bit, and missing the point
Firstly, every webserver and browser worth using already handles default language handling. It's an integral part of HTTP. A french user can be given the french version of the page transparently by the server (as their browser already knows what languages they want). This part of the specifications is there for a reason, use it! People don't want cookies, logins and unnecesary choices.
If you use apache (the only server I have more than half a days experience with) search for content negotiation in the docs. It's actually set up by default (download the tar ball and look at the "It worked" page to see what I mean). In a nutshell, instead of a file foo.html, you have several files for each language, foo.html.en, foo.html.fr etc, and the server works out which one the user wants.
From what I understand, IIS also handles this kind of thing well, if you want to use it.
Getting the webserver to do this for you will almost certainly be quicker than anything you can write, as it is better integrated into the server. By serving static pages things get even quicker still. If you need Dynamic content, PHP, Perl, ASP or CGI scripts can all be programmed to use the default-language headers. If you want to generate dynamic content, choos ethe language this way rather than trying to create your own system (unless you already have a login system ala slash, in which case it wouldn't hurt to add it as an option).
None of this information is hard to find. In fact, it's pretty hard to avoid it when looking at the Apache config files, so I don't know why everyone else has missed it.
hth
Okay, so they argue that Open Source Software isn't perfectly secure. Very little is. I see no argument that Closed Source Software is any more secure. And this implies...?
That both sides of the argument can carry on with the argument as before, whilst Security Focus gets the hits and banner ad sales and makes lots of money. YayFrom the article above:
:-)
I've had two SMS Spams from Phone companies, one from my network and one from my email->sms gateway (a different UK mobile network)
It had to happen sooner or later. So far it's not too intrusive. Let's hope it stays that way.
Are you under the mistaken impression that Kimball is doing this purely for philanthopic reasons?
Are you saying he's in it for the money?
Ad revenue maybe?
OK, maybe that's not what you meant :-)
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea, and maybe a downloadable source/binary will come eventually once they have market domination.
It was just a thought of an alternative way to do things (and possibly make them money, if the GPL doesn't get in the way), that is all...
So they've tied GIMP to a web server, and made it look pretty. Sounds like quite a good idea to me. And anyone can upload their snaps to use it, so you don't need to be a linux guru to get it to work, which is always a bonus.
But, wouldn't it make more sense for them to also offer the webified gimp for people to download and run on their own servers? It wouldn't have to be open source, just available.
That way, we don't need to upload our pictures onto their site, and they don't need to pay for all the bandwidth/processor cycles we use
or am i missing the point here?
When I think of a better voting system, I think of a cascading-vote type system. You rank the candidates from your favorite down to the one whom you would not let pet your dog. Then, the votes are tallied and the candidates who got the fewest votes are tossed out and those ballots are re-counted using the next-favorite candidate that is still in the race
This system is used widely in the unions in Britain, and many other places. It's known as Single Transferable Vote (STV) or the Alternative Voting System. (more info available here)
The main difference between STV and the system you describe is the addition of a candidate known as RON (Re-Open Nominations). Voting for RON is an active vote against candidates, whereas abstaining (not voting) is a vote for apathy.
It works quite well, although it's hard and time-consuming to count the votes. But, no country use it as a national voting system, which probably says something.
Now, see how long that user can survive in a web where stupid designers set background color to white while allowing the user to keep their preferred font color (which is white, in this case.)
Might be worth noting that ie5 corrects for black text on black backgrounds and similar crimes against common webdesign sense. I guess you could call it a feature...
Don't ask me how I know this
but people in England know they can go to www.amazon.co.uk and get prices in their currency.
Clued up people in Britain also know that they can go to amazon.com and get cheaper books and faster delivery.
No, it doesn't make sense to me either
Perunia(?) is probably paranoia
but what would I know?
Make sure you are coming from a university site too. Note that the difference between the two links that makes it work is the addition of a "www" before "guru".
That's strange, I see no difference in the site when I look at it through my isp or university. But then again, I guess ".ac.uk" isn't a university is it?
Musn't grumble...
www.xml.com has a good startup guide to XML for those who still don't know what it is.
The best thing about it is that it is an open, easy to parse data format. Creating your own apps is easily done in any programming language, so you don't need to rely on other people to create the software for you.
And because an XML Document contains it's own DTD (the rules on what is allowed within a document), others can easily use their own XML software with your data in ways you never intended. Which is a feature, aparently.
But XML is, by definition, abstract. Once you start using it, it might make more sense. Look at it as a structured text file and it might be easier
how about a site detailing the important nerd-news, but aimed at non nerds?
Take the whole amazon/patents thing. Even in the trade papers it's only getting small amounts of coverage. Loads of /.ers are getting really angry and making lots of noise, but when you look at it, they are only preaching to the perverted. Outside the geek forums nobody knows about it.
If you took things like this, and covered them with all the techno jargon removed (or at least explained) then maybe the "stuff that matters" will propogate further
possibly...
The cost of producing music today is GOOD because it pre-selects talented artists. There are tens of thousands of talented artists who produce music today. If anybody has the opportunity to produce music, then people will make MP3's of people singing in the shower. There will be a greater quantity of music, but it will be impossible to sift through it all, because the number of talented artists will not increase substantially.
So the world wide web won't work either because people won't be able to find what they want?