The idea that every fingerprint is unique is a untestable hypothesis, since you'd have to fingerprint everyone ever born, right? We assume it's correct because we've never found examples of fingerprints that were identical.
So my question is this: if we were to fingerprint everyone in the US (all 300+ million of us)... does anyone think we might find that matching set? No one has ever done a fingerprint database of that size, right? With a quick search, I couldn't find out how many prints were in AFIS.
On the topic more directly, I'd say this would be nearly impossible. Ignoring the privacy concerns that people would use to try to stop thing going into effect... does anyone think we would be able to convince most/all of the 20 million or so illegal aliens in the US to do this? I would think you would run into the same problems in just about any other country, except somewhere like China.
The problem is that this doesn't seem to work. The shows on TV now (and recently) seem to prove that. People don't watch what's best on TV, they tend to watch what is most shocking.
I'd like to hear some well reasoned arguments on why any of these shows are good for the country:
Fear Factor - Nothing but shock value
Moment of Truth - How could offering people money to ruin their relationship with their spouses (when they have minor children) possibly be bad?
The secret life of a soccer mom - Let's take someone who chose to take enough responsibility to raise their own kid, and lure them away from that with money because it's what "they want"
I'm not going to try to get actual censorship, because I'm sure that while it would solve my problems, it would be quickly abused and is not a good thing. But I think it's quite clear that the market doesn't work for this. Maybe because there isn't much of a market (since only a handful of companies control/produce most media).
Well argued. I hate it when the only answer I can get is something along the lines of "stop being a prude." There are a few other responses to my post that mostly agree with you. There is good reason to be fearful of government imposed censorship. Really, I think we should have more of a "gentleman's agreement" of self-censorship, like we used to. Of course, that exists because congress threatened censorship.....
Every time I make one of these posts about something like this, I forget to take into account that I keep expecting to have people have taste. That sort of corrupts my argument, or the "the market will work it out" argument.
Some people are offended by the use of the n-word. Should that censorship be overturned? Would you like it if every show on prime-time TV started using that word all the time?
I don't know if you'd care, but there are many groups that would fight that "uncensorhip" tooth-and-nail. "That's different" you might say. Why? Because it's more extreme? So was the f-word once. And if it is just different, where is the line? How do we draw the line between "OK" and "bad"?
There are many other things I could fit in instead of the n-word. Isn't preventing certain kinds of... let's call it deviant pornography... from being shown on TV censorship? Are you arguing against that as well?
Frankly I'm with the grandparent. I'd prefer a tougher line on this stuff. Your last statement applies just as well to you as to us:
"And why are your feelings more important than mine?"
My theory: in a case where two people have to agree on something and don't, the option that is the least harmful should win. Which is more likely to be harmful: no cursing, or tons of it? It's not a life or death question, granted. But why do we have to err on the side of "uncouth" language, and not the gentler option. If we let the n-word be used everywhere (like we do with the f-word), wouldn't it lose much of it's meaning? Then if you were to argue against it, wouldn't you be in the same position we are? I've put up my argument as to why our opinion should win out, what's your argument as to why it is more beneficial that people are able to cuss whenever they want on TV? Here is your question for you again:
"And why are your feelings more important than mine?"
The best you could do would be to alter the hardware (the actual CPU, not some external module) to verify cryptographic signatures. That would prevent you from accidently loading software like this, but it has it's own problems. For one, you have to stick your cryptographic key on the CPU. If they get compromised, they can't be updated. If they can be updated, then someone who cracks the device can just update to their own key and they are now in charge.
You could have a second CPU, acting as a watchdog, monitor the bus and make sure code is signed, nothing weird is going on, etc. That would be very difficult though.
Your best option that could be implemented now would be sending hashes across the network to verify stuff all the time. Since most people aren't going to have the ability to play man-in-the-middle with the cell phone network, this would be reasonably secure. That said, it would be a pain (especially with 3rd party programs going to be available). It would also tie up the cell network.
What they've done seems quite reasonable to me, for the amount of time it probably took to implement.
Could they have simply been required (by AT&T or the record companies) to implement some kind of security, and they simply didn't test it well enough because they didn't care enough? Perhaps this flaw exists because they simply considered it "good enough" and didn't think it worth the additional time to fix?
If I'm paying you a monthly fee, you are going to be hosting a reliable service. You will have an iTunes music store/Amazon store/whatever.
If I pay you, I'm not putting up with random qualities, names, ID3 tags, missing seeders, etc. I don't care how obscure my tastes, you have to host it for me. That's our deal: I pay, you let me download.
The "what if I don't want to" argument is a little weak in my opinion. If you are forced to pay it, I'm guessing you would end up using it (since you are already paying). If I had access to all of the songs on the iTunes Music Store, you can bet I would take advantage of it. I don't now because I don't want to pay for the tracks.
The "what about other groups" argument is fantastic. I don't know how someone could reasonably question how something like this become a precedent, causing every group under the sun to suddenly jump out and demand the same thing.
What I worry about is what happens if this goes into effect and gets challenged. I think it's safe to say that someone could mount a good challenge here in the US based on some law. So if I "take advantage" of this forced fee then it gets ruled illegal, do they get to come after me for all the music I "stole"? Do I have to give up everything I downloaded under the plan?
The "how do we divvy up the loot" question is the worst one. Do we put one group in charge (like the RIAA)? Do we really expect them to be fair to all the artists who aren't a member of their group? Or do only they get paid, thus effectively making the a de-facto monopoly? Does that mean there are "good" artists (who my fee pays for) and "bad" artists (who my fee doesn't, thus I can't download their stuff)? Should we let the government run it, thus making it an entitlement bureaucracy? Does every artist get an even share (good for little guys), or do the big artists get more (they are more popular... after all). Does the medium matter? Does my fee pay for me to have the rights to get free sheet music? Why not? If I'm an artist, can I opt out of this saying "no one downloads my music, despite the fee"?
There are so many unanswered/unanswerable questions for this. I don't know how they can push this with a straight face. I'm guessing most of their answers would be something along the lines of "don't worry about it".
The Canadian media tax doesn't seem to have helped much, or solved any of these questions. Why would the US be any different... just because it's a different medium being taxed?
They see $$$, they want in. They could build a subscription MP3 store (real MP3s), band together, and create a de facto (optional) "music tax" that people could pay and use. They don't need to force it through regulation... unless they aren't really looking out for our interests. That can't be true...
I'm going to play Devil's advocate here. I have a TiVo, I love the thing. I have a Series 3, which I paid full price for shortly after release.
I don't care much about the ads. I've been using TiVo since before then, and they don't bother me, I just tune them out. If they tried to stick in their own commercials, I would complain very VERY loudly. But adding a little extra item to the main menu? That's nothing. A little thing on their "you're done with this program, now what?" screen? Fine with me. The little "pop-ups" during commercials? Also doesn't bother me. If companies I cared about used them, I might click on one.
Do they charge you a monthly fee? Yes. Totally worth it. For that you get software updates, guide data, suggestions (which is what's most valuable). For the amount of TV I watch the the amount I love my TiVo, I consider it money well spent. You also get some of their services. The Amazon Unbox integration, the downloadable shows (like The Onion videocast), and some other things.
Paying for the extra features? If you're on Windows, you don't really have to pay for any of them as far as I know. That's OK. I don't care much about viewing my photos from my TiVo (which is free).
As for the YouTube feature? Kinda neat. I'll probably never use it. The only feature I'd like at this point is Netflix integration (especially HD movies). But that won't happen any time soon. I'm happy.
If you're on the Mac... they've forgot about you. It's sad. I'm on a Mac, and it annoys me. I used to be able to use TiVoDecodeManager (which was awesome), but that seems to have broken with Leopard. You could pay $100 to get some piece of junk from Roxio... but at least the option is there. Even that wasn't available just a few years ago.
As for their revenue problems, I see a few reasons:
Dish Network - Stole their technology, advertised it out the ears, made a fortune, forced a lawsuit which they haven't paid up on yet (probably on appeal)
DirecTV - Held more TiVo subscribers than TiVo, I think. They dumped the far superior TiVo product so they could save $1 per month per box
Comcast/etc - Advertise their vastly inferior boxes as "Better than TiVo"
TV Guide - Have a junk patent on grid views of time. They sued TiVo, and now charge them a monthly fee and force the TV guide logo to be displayed on the boxes
Misc - TiVo has some expenses that could go away. They have to maintain dial-up accounts for all the boxes to dial in on (they have UUNet do that for them, IIRC). If they could get more subscribers over to broadband, they could cut the size of that down and thus reduce their costs
I understand. While someone read my letters, I don't think it was the CEO. I didn't ask for anything in my letters, I wrote them so he knew what kind of "service" I was receiving.
I like the complain to the government idea. I would have done that over writing to the CEO but I didn't think of it all all, the only thing I could think of was contacting the head of the company.
Thanks for the idea, should I have problems like this that sounds like an excellent solution.
Write the CEO. I had tons and TONS of problems getting AT&T service (both phone and DSL) setup. Executive customer service wasn't very nice and didn't really do anything for me.
So I wrote the CEO.
All of a sudden I had numerous people calling me and doing anything they could to help me.
You can read about my experience here and here. I didn't think it would work, but I was out of options. I'm glad I did it.
Because instead of making everyone take our their laptop, making some do it and not others based on some random criteria like what bag it is in will not slow things down at all.
What do you mean this year's Targus bags look just like last years? So they'll just make everyone take them out to search them because it's faster than figuring out who has a special bag?
Yea. Apple takes care of notifying users of updates. Apple takes care of bandwidth and server costs. Apple takes care of anti-piracy. Sounds rather nice to me. I'd be willing to give up only 30% of my possible profit to avoid all those different headaches. If your application becomes popular, those things can get complex and expensive.
It will be interesting to see what some of the Mac Developer Bloggers think about this (Daniel Jalkut, John Gruber, and Wil Shipley for example).
There are anti-junk fax laws, which is what we need for SPAM. CAN-SPAM does something, but it's just a drop in the bucket. We don't have a SPAM type problem in the US mail for two reasons: fail fraud and cost.
Sure, we all get junk in the mail, but it's limited. It's so expensive (relative to SPAM) that we don't see the same junk volume. At the same time, we have mail fraud laws so many things you see in SPAM (fake drugs, prescription drugs sold non-prescription, scams like 419s, etc) could actually be prosecuted and the responsible parties locked up. If we could do that with SPAM, things would come under control much faster.
But unlike the post office, anyone can send huge blocks of SPAM from anywhere. You can't just sneak 100,000 letters into the US mail, people would notice. It's easy with email through. The other problem is jurisdictional. The US mail is the US mail. You have to be in the US (where you can be arrested) or you're somewhere else (and we can just block your incoming letters). Since the 'net is open, neither tactic works.
Face it, there are only two solutions to spam. Education (ha), and technological (filtering/sender verification/white-list only/etc). It will be years before things get better. Also in the technological category would be something to replace email built without the weaknesses (IM seems to be used partially because for quite conversations not only is it easier, there isn't nearly as much SPAM).
OK. You "offer a good value". Let's ignore how tough it is to offer good value compared to something really cheap, how do you compete with free? Consumers can't judge "free" properly, the Consumerist just posted about that the other day. Wouldn't that make competing with Linux even tougher? As it gets closer and closer to acceptable for most people (and it's WAY better than it was 2/4/6+ years ago) the free thing makes it even worse for MS.
Um, I had a friend buy a brand new VW Jetta TDI (Turbo Diesel Injection) just two years ago. They may not be the most popular option, but companies sell new deisels. I thought Mercedes still sold a Diesel, and I'd be amazed if you couldn't get a couple of different trucks in a Diesel version. It's the Toyota Tundra available in Diesel, for example?
I have a 360. I couldn't care less. That was an add on who only served to play movies. It had no other function. The fact they will no longer sell it doesn't alter my opinion of the console.
My understand is that the DVD playback on the 360 is horrid. I've never used it for that, but I've read about it. You can find more than a few examples with a quick Google search. That has always made me weary of the HD-DVD playback the console would offer.
In that case? Still the lover. The whole confessing to 8 murders thing prevents things from being a tough call.
Like I said, that's not enough to make a decision on. Between two otherwise perfectly normal people, it would weight my decision, but it wouldn't be enough to sway me.
Whether it's relevant or not is debatable. But it's being reported anyway, almost certainly because it's salacious. And because of that, people remember and repeat it.
I'm not going to say it makes him guilty, it's just one more card in the deck. If I had to choose the possibly Autistic husband or the lover who was into BDSM, confessed to 8 murders, and enjoyed something called "death yoga"... I'm not going to learn towards the husband.
That's Maven's job. It's supposed to get all the JARs you tell it to.
It's not Maven's job to figure out if you actually use a JAR (which gets complicated when code depends on JAR A, which depends on JAR B, which....).
The usual way to handle something like this is to use Maven to keep things up to date on your machine. You can deploy all those JARs with your program (as you seem to be doing) or you can keep them somewhere else on the server and update them manually. Maven makes sure you have the requisite stuff when you checkout someone else's project, and once you put it on the server that code is already there in the classpath so you don't have to upload all those JARs. If you open other projects all the time, having Maven pull random JARs for you can be a real plus compared to hunting them down yourself.
That said, I'm not a Maven fan. Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned. Maybe it's because I don't know the tool very well.
I guess it all fits with the idea of Java being for programmers who don't actually want to think about the code they write.
I could say about your "shoehorn everything into Maven and hope it works" mentality.
That's my understand too. I listed that to make the distinction between it and "you must have a space between the slash and bracket" set. Both upper and lowercase tags are allowed, but some people choose a side (like a bad parser that requires the space) and then require it like it's the law.
You'd think. Proper XML isn't a problem. What we run into is people who's XML parsers (which we usually suspect to be customer, often in the form of simple string extraction and not even real parsing) who have these weird little desires that are contrary to the XML spec. Some of it seems sane, some of it is way off (I've seen XML, that gets URL encoded, put in a CDATA block, in XML... and that was how they sent everything).
XML, done right is just fine. But some people just get it very very WRONG.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that every fingerprint is unique is a untestable hypothesis, since you'd have to fingerprint everyone ever born, right? We assume it's correct because we've never found examples of fingerprints that were identical.
So my question is this: if we were to fingerprint everyone in the US (all 300+ million of us)... does anyone think we might find that matching set? No one has ever done a fingerprint database of that size, right? With a quick search, I couldn't find out how many prints were in AFIS.
On the topic more directly, I'd say this would be nearly impossible. Ignoring the privacy concerns that people would use to try to stop thing going into effect... does anyone think we would be able to convince most/all of the 20 million or so illegal aliens in the US to do this? I would think you would run into the same problems in just about any other country, except somewhere like China.
The problem is that this doesn't seem to work. The shows on TV now (and recently) seem to prove that. People don't watch what's best on TV, they tend to watch what is most shocking.
I'd like to hear some well reasoned arguments on why any of these shows are good for the country:
I'm not going to try to get actual censorship, because I'm sure that while it would solve my problems, it would be quickly abused and is not a good thing. But I think it's quite clear that the market doesn't work for this. Maybe because there isn't much of a market (since only a handful of companies control/produce most media).
Well argued. I hate it when the only answer I can get is something along the lines of "stop being a prude." There are a few other responses to my post that mostly agree with you. There is good reason to be fearful of government imposed censorship. Really, I think we should have more of a "gentleman's agreement" of self-censorship, like we used to. Of course, that exists because congress threatened censorship.....
Every time I make one of these posts about something like this, I forget to take into account that I keep expecting to have people have taste. That sort of corrupts my argument, or the "the market will work it out" argument.
Some people are offended by the use of the n-word. Should that censorship be overturned? Would you like it if every show on prime-time TV started using that word all the time?
I don't know if you'd care, but there are many groups that would fight that "uncensorhip" tooth-and-nail. "That's different" you might say. Why? Because it's more extreme? So was the f-word once. And if it is just different, where is the line? How do we draw the line between "OK" and "bad"?
There are many other things I could fit in instead of the n-word. Isn't preventing certain kinds of... let's call it deviant pornography... from being shown on TV censorship? Are you arguing against that as well?
Frankly I'm with the grandparent. I'd prefer a tougher line on this stuff. Your last statement applies just as well to you as to us:
"And why are your feelings more important than mine?"
My theory: in a case where two people have to agree on something and don't, the option that is the least harmful should win. Which is more likely to be harmful: no cursing, or tons of it? It's not a life or death question, granted. But why do we have to err on the side of "uncouth" language, and not the gentler option. If we let the n-word be used everywhere (like we do with the f-word), wouldn't it lose much of it's meaning? Then if you were to argue against it, wouldn't you be in the same position we are? I've put up my argument as to why our opinion should win out, what's your argument as to why it is more beneficial that people are able to cuss whenever they want on TV? Here is your question for you again:
"And why are your feelings more important than mine?"
The best you could do would be to alter the hardware (the actual CPU, not some external module) to verify cryptographic signatures. That would prevent you from accidently loading software like this, but it has it's own problems. For one, you have to stick your cryptographic key on the CPU. If they get compromised, they can't be updated. If they can be updated, then someone who cracks the device can just update to their own key and they are now in charge.
You could have a second CPU, acting as a watchdog, monitor the bus and make sure code is signed, nothing weird is going on, etc. That would be very difficult though.
Your best option that could be implemented now would be sending hashes across the network to verify stuff all the time. Since most people aren't going to have the ability to play man-in-the-middle with the cell phone network, this would be reasonably secure. That said, it would be a pain (especially with 3rd party programs going to be available). It would also tie up the cell network.
What they've done seems quite reasonable to me, for the amount of time it probably took to implement.
Could they have simply been required (by AT&T or the record companies) to implement some kind of security, and they simply didn't test it well enough because they didn't care enough? Perhaps this flaw exists because they simply considered it "good enough" and didn't think it worth the additional time to fix?
P2P nothing.
If I'm paying you a monthly fee, you are going to be hosting a reliable service. You will have an iTunes music store/Amazon store/whatever.
If I pay you, I'm not putting up with random qualities, names, ID3 tags, missing seeders, etc. I don't care how obscure my tastes, you have to host it for me. That's our deal: I pay, you let me download.
I expect better service than P2P for $5 a month.
The "what if I don't want to" argument is a little weak in my opinion. If you are forced to pay it, I'm guessing you would end up using it (since you are already paying). If I had access to all of the songs on the iTunes Music Store, you can bet I would take advantage of it. I don't now because I don't want to pay for the tracks.
The "what about other groups" argument is fantastic. I don't know how someone could reasonably question how something like this become a precedent, causing every group under the sun to suddenly jump out and demand the same thing.
What I worry about is what happens if this goes into effect and gets challenged. I think it's safe to say that someone could mount a good challenge here in the US based on some law. So if I "take advantage" of this forced fee then it gets ruled illegal, do they get to come after me for all the music I "stole"? Do I have to give up everything I downloaded under the plan?
The "how do we divvy up the loot" question is the worst one. Do we put one group in charge (like the RIAA)? Do we really expect them to be fair to all the artists who aren't a member of their group? Or do only they get paid, thus effectively making the a de-facto monopoly? Does that mean there are "good" artists (who my fee pays for) and "bad" artists (who my fee doesn't, thus I can't download their stuff)? Should we let the government run it, thus making it an entitlement bureaucracy? Does every artist get an even share (good for little guys), or do the big artists get more (they are more popular... after all). Does the medium matter? Does my fee pay for me to have the rights to get free sheet music? Why not? If I'm an artist, can I opt out of this saying "no one downloads my music, despite the fee"?
There are so many unanswered/unanswerable questions for this. I don't know how they can push this with a straight face. I'm guessing most of their answers would be something along the lines of "don't worry about it".
The Canadian media tax doesn't seem to have helped much, or solved any of these questions. Why would the US be any different... just because it's a different medium being taxed?
They see $$$, they want in. They could build a subscription MP3 store (real MP3s), band together, and create a de facto (optional) "music tax" that people could pay and use. They don't need to force it through regulation... unless they aren't really looking out for our interests. That can't be true...
I'm going to play Devil's advocate here. I have a TiVo, I love the thing. I have a Series 3, which I paid full price for shortly after release.
I don't care much about the ads. I've been using TiVo since before then, and they don't bother me, I just tune them out. If they tried to stick in their own commercials, I would complain very VERY loudly. But adding a little extra item to the main menu? That's nothing. A little thing on their "you're done with this program, now what?" screen? Fine with me. The little "pop-ups" during commercials? Also doesn't bother me. If companies I cared about used them, I might click on one.
Do they charge you a monthly fee? Yes. Totally worth it. For that you get software updates, guide data, suggestions (which is what's most valuable). For the amount of TV I watch the the amount I love my TiVo, I consider it money well spent. You also get some of their services. The Amazon Unbox integration, the downloadable shows (like The Onion videocast), and some other things.
Paying for the extra features? If you're on Windows, you don't really have to pay for any of them as far as I know. That's OK. I don't care much about viewing my photos from my TiVo (which is free).
As for the YouTube feature? Kinda neat. I'll probably never use it. The only feature I'd like at this point is Netflix integration (especially HD movies). But that won't happen any time soon. I'm happy.
If you're on the Mac... they've forgot about you. It's sad. I'm on a Mac, and it annoys me. I used to be able to use TiVoDecodeManager (which was awesome), but that seems to have broken with Leopard. You could pay $100 to get some piece of junk from Roxio... but at least the option is there. Even that wasn't available just a few years ago.
As for their revenue problems, I see a few reasons:
Reminds me of the song Pollution by Tom Lehrer. Great song. Relevant lines, right near the end:
I understand. While someone read my letters, I don't think it was the CEO. I didn't ask for anything in my letters, I wrote them so he knew what kind of "service" I was receiving.
I like the complain to the government idea. I would have done that over writing to the CEO but I didn't think of it all all, the only thing I could think of was contacting the head of the company.
Thanks for the idea, should I have problems like this that sounds like an excellent solution.
Write the CEO. I had tons and TONS of problems getting AT&T service (both phone and DSL) setup. Executive customer service wasn't very nice and didn't really do anything for me.
So I wrote the CEO.
All of a sudden I had numerous people calling me and doing anything they could to help me.
You can read about my experience here and here. I didn't think it would work, but I was out of options. I'm glad I did it.
Because instead of making everyone take our their laptop, making some do it and not others based on some random criteria like what bag it is in will not slow things down at all.
What do you mean this year's Targus bags look just like last years? So they'll just make everyone take them out to search them because it's faster than figuring out who has a special bag?
Yea. Apple takes care of notifying users of updates. Apple takes care of bandwidth and server costs. Apple takes care of anti-piracy. Sounds rather nice to me. I'd be willing to give up only 30% of my possible profit to avoid all those different headaches. If your application becomes popular, those things can get complex and expensive.
It will be interesting to see what some of the Mac Developer Bloggers think about this (Daniel Jalkut, John Gruber, and Wil Shipley for example).
There are anti-junk fax laws, which is what we need for SPAM. CAN-SPAM does something, but it's just a drop in the bucket. We don't have a SPAM type problem in the US mail for two reasons: fail fraud and cost.
Sure, we all get junk in the mail, but it's limited. It's so expensive (relative to SPAM) that we don't see the same junk volume. At the same time, we have mail fraud laws so many things you see in SPAM (fake drugs, prescription drugs sold non-prescription, scams like 419s, etc) could actually be prosecuted and the responsible parties locked up. If we could do that with SPAM, things would come under control much faster.
But unlike the post office, anyone can send huge blocks of SPAM from anywhere. You can't just sneak 100,000 letters into the US mail, people would notice. It's easy with email through. The other problem is jurisdictional. The US mail is the US mail. You have to be in the US (where you can be arrested) or you're somewhere else (and we can just block your incoming letters). Since the 'net is open, neither tactic works.
Face it, there are only two solutions to spam. Education (ha), and technological (filtering/sender verification/white-list only/etc). It will be years before things get better. Also in the technological category would be something to replace email built without the weaknesses (IM seems to be used partially because for quite conversations not only is it easier, there isn't nearly as much SPAM).
OK. You "offer a good value". Let's ignore how tough it is to offer good value compared to something really cheap, how do you compete with free? Consumers can't judge "free" properly, the Consumerist just posted about that the other day. Wouldn't that make competing with Linux even tougher? As it gets closer and closer to acceptable for most people (and it's WAY better than it was 2/4/6+ years ago) the free thing makes it even worse for MS.
Um, I had a friend buy a brand new VW Jetta TDI (Turbo Diesel Injection) just two years ago. They may not be the most popular option, but companies sell new deisels. I thought Mercedes still sold a Diesel, and I'd be amazed if you couldn't get a couple of different trucks in a Diesel version. It's the Toyota Tundra available in Diesel, for example?
I seem to remember Joel having good ideas.
Hire people who want to program. Hire the people who would program in their spare time if you didn't pay them. Those are the people you want.
I have a 360. I couldn't care less. That was an add on who only served to play movies. It had no other function. The fact they will no longer sell it doesn't alter my opinion of the console.
My understand is that the DVD playback on the 360 is horrid. I've never used it for that, but I've read about it. You can find more than a few examples with a quick Google search. That has always made me weary of the HD-DVD playback the console would offer.
In that case? Still the lover. The whole confessing to 8 murders thing prevents things from being a tough call.
Like I said, that's not enough to make a decision on. Between two otherwise perfectly normal people, it would weight my decision, but it wouldn't be enough to sway me.
Whether it's relevant or not is debatable. But it's being reported anyway, almost certainly because it's salacious. And because of that, people remember and repeat it.
Yes. How could a link between violence/pain and sexual pleasure ever go wrong.
It's not like that's been seen before.
I'm not going to say it makes him guilty, it's just one more card in the deck. If I had to choose the possibly Autistic husband or the lover who was into BDSM, confessed to 8 murders, and enjoyed something called "death yoga"... I'm not going to learn towards the husband.
What about the Lunakhod rovers? Lunakhod 1 lasted 322 earth days, Lunakhod 2 lasted 4 months.
That's Maven's job. It's supposed to get all the JARs you tell it to.
It's not Maven's job to figure out if you actually use a JAR (which gets complicated when code depends on JAR A, which depends on JAR B, which....).
The usual way to handle something like this is to use Maven to keep things up to date on your machine. You can deploy all those JARs with your program (as you seem to be doing) or you can keep them somewhere else on the server and update them manually. Maven makes sure you have the requisite stuff when you checkout someone else's project, and once you put it on the server that code is already there in the classpath so you don't have to upload all those JARs. If you open other projects all the time, having Maven pull random JARs for you can be a real plus compared to hunting them down yourself.
That said, I'm not a Maven fan. Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned. Maybe it's because I don't know the tool very well.
I could say about your "shoehorn everything into Maven and hope it works" mentality.
That's my understand too. I listed that to make the distinction between it and "you must have a space between the slash and bracket" set. Both upper and lowercase tags are allowed, but some people choose a side (like a bad parser that requires the space) and then require it like it's the law.
You'd think. Proper XML isn't a problem. What we run into is people who's XML parsers (which we usually suspect to be customer, often in the form of simple string extraction and not even real parsing) who have these weird little desires that are contrary to the XML spec. Some of it seems sane, some of it is way off (I've seen XML, that gets URL encoded, put in a CDATA block, in XML... and that was how they sent everything).
XML, done right is just fine. But some people just get it very very WRONG.