So does that mean that the office supply manager has a legal right to look through anything you write because the company gave you the legal pad and pencil to write it?
However, I did subscribe to the mail list, and I di follow it loosely (note the tense). As for the makeup of the comittee, it's not *really* made up of developers. Compiler writers yes, typical developers no. (No one ever said it consisted of lawyers or accountants).
Compiler writers obviously have a different agenda than developers. Where as a compiler writer would prefer those features that are easier to implements, I would prefer those that are easier to use.
Personally, I found it amazing that he completely blew off a perfectly legitimate question like this.
I work for a company that ships a dbms on 12+ different platforms. We've had to license a gui toolkit and write our own threading library, nevermind the lack of binary interface standards.
The c++ committee needs to get their heads out of the clouds and actually talk to developers rather than listen to others in their ivory towers.
People criticize java for being too closed, but at least sun listens and has process in place to insure their users are heard.
I'll ignore your statement about my perceived ignorance.
Wait, no I wont...
I grew up a Roman Catholic. Went through 12 years of religious indoctrination (school), and studied philosophy (which included plenty of religion) in college before I decided I'd like to be able to live at a certain standard after college and changed my major. I'm not expert, but I think I'm more familiar with the churchs teachings than the average person.
In particular I find it amusing how many catholics don't know what dogma means. The very definition of dogma excludes any free thought or discussion of an issue related to such. I honestly don't understand how anyone can reconcile that concept whereby a gods (if you believe in it) greatest gift to humanity (our capacity for thought) is squelched by those in power.
While your examples are possibly reasonable, I'd like to point out that none of those are unique to organized religion. There are plenty of people who do such things in a non-denominational manner; I'm not sure that they stand as examples of good things brought about by organized religion, they are rather good things brought about by good people.
You later state that organized religion has brought about stability but give vague examples that don't necessarily apply to organized religion as a whole. Please, where has organized religion done such? Have they ever done such when they action has done anything other than increase their own power?
I absolutely disagree that the church has educated people. Please explain where. The church may have taught people certain rules but those teachings were only to further their own power rather than to enlighten people. The church does not teach people how to think, to reason, they promote rote learning.
I agree with your last statement about religious people wanting to help the world, but you're confusing those people and the organizations they belong too. Those people haven't given me an opposite impression, the organizations have.
Don't take this personally, I don't dislike religious people unless I see them attempting to use religion to further themselves or reduce others (actually, I dislike anyone who uses anything to further themselves at the expense of others). My guess is that you do as well. The problem is that those people who are usually attracted to positions of power, wether it is in a church, government or business will do the above regularly to maintain their power. Hence my questioning the value of organized religion where people are placed in power over others.
Does anyone else look at religions in general and wonder what good has come out of them?
There seems to be a difference between spirituality and religion, with religion claiming to be the organization of spirituality, but in fact, I would argue that it stifles and kills spirituality.
From the crusades, to the inquisition, to terrorist actions to the suppression of the apple of knowledge throughout the history of man what has religion done for us?
This isn't a rhetorical question, i'd like to read an answer.
I dont know. Personally I thought it was a good idea as well.
The chief complaint seems to be "well the porn sites won't do it", combined with "they'll sneak in under.coms"
Neither of which seems insurmountable. The sneak in problem is fixed by either an official body responding to complaints (and there will be plenty of those) or by the isps.
As for the "they won't do it" argument: yes they will. If the option is they do it, or they don't have a site, my guess is that they'll choose to do it. It's the same thing that most city ordinances provide by either disallowing strip clubs next to schools/your home or federal law (i think) requiring movies to be rated and theaters to confirm the age of attendees.
In the more general sense, those two arguments fail because they presume there will *never* be a means to categorize sites based on content. If it's not done by the use of tld, then something will take it's place sooner or later. The industry might as well figure out some way to make it happen and the tld.xxx seems to be an easy to implement effective solution.
I don't know how true the statement is. I'm more willing to give this person the benefit of the doubt than an anonymous coward who claims they paid 4 kajillion dollars last year.
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/4526.ht ml
As an example, I live in downtown Boston. I now have service from comcast. They are my third cable provider in 2 years. (I haven't changed cable companies, they've changed on me).
Nothing has changed. In fact things only got worse since all improvements (read digital cable and internet access) were now 'put on hold indefinitely' while they figured out what the hell they could still afford to do.
But, more importantly than that:
Just because the company has changed, don't assume all the momos running around working for your local cable company have changed.
Neither have the momos woken up the next morning and said "Hey, It's a brand new day and I'm working for a brand new company. Maybe I won't suck so much ass today".
oops, it's cheaper to install than DSL and it potentially solves the connection problem for people who don't have cable or DSL available to them as options.
irrc, Platos beliefs included the concept of an 'ideal' thing or truth.
It's easiest explained with an example. When I write 'chair' you may think of one particular chair and I may think of another, except that we both know what a chair is without needing to know exactly what chair the other is thinking of.
That thing we both know of as a chair, but is not necessarily what each of us thinks of is the platonic ideal of a chair.
Sorry, I don't buy that. If cameras were ubiquitous then he'd be able to say "see, we went right back to work, here we are leaving the location I gave her flowers, here we're going back to the office, here we are in the office, etc..."
If the wife has suspicions they're going to be there no matter what. The camera is just as likely to disprove that he isn't involved w/ the secretary as it is to prove it. That's my point, it works both ways. It's only technology. It can be a tool of abuse as well as being an enabler.
Only it's easier for people to realize that they're being abused than it is for them to realize how the tools of the abuser can liberate them. (Hence all the complaining here)
"Errr, that DOES make it a privacy problem. Imagine the blackmail potential of the bit of footage of your boss meeting up with a secretary and doing something his wife wouldnt like all that much. "
If you wish to do something that someone else should not find out about, or may go against the social or even legal mores then the onus is on YOU to insure you're not caught. Your complaining here because you've been caught doing something you arguably shouldn't. Please don't complain because a traffic light camera takes a picture of you running said light. You've broken the law. In your example, you've broken your marriage vows.
"There are several services in the UK which give you traffic data that comes from Highways Agency's Control Centres, which base their data on the CCTV footage. They cannot, for privacy reasons, hand out the footage."
Thats a shame. If I decide to stand by the side of the road and watch cars go back and forth have I invaded their privacy? How does bringing a camera into the situation change the matter?
>>Errr, that DOES make it a privacy problem. Imagine the blackmail potential of the bit of footage of your boss meeting up with a secretary and doing something his wife wouldnt like all that much. >There are several services in the UK which give you traffic data that comes from Highways Agency's Control Centres, which base their data on the CCTV footage. They cannot, for privacy reasons, hand out the footage. >Imagine your hiding round a corner with a knife waiting for someone to get the cash off for your much needed fix. You pull out your wireless handheld and get the video feed of the street so you can spot a victim before they even turn the corner.
Interesting point, but your still on a level playing field (rather than at an advantage), which you may or may not have been on before.
You can still potentially keep track of those areas you will be heading into.
The fact that some criminal element has access to the technology still doesn't eliminate the benefit, only reduces it.
The problelm with surveillance isn't the act itself, but the limited access to it.
The video on all those cameras should be made available to the public.
Besides the obvious crime deterrents mentioned above:
Imagine pulling up mapquest with your route to work and being able to get a live video feed from those cameras that lie along your route. Now you can avoid traffic.
Imagine your walking down a dark street, unsure of the neighborhood. You don't know whats around the corner, but you pull out your wireless handheld and get the video feed of that upcoming corner.
That information being available to everyone, not just the authorities is what draws the line between a police state and a utopia.
Apparently I wasn't clear in stating that XHTML, which is a dialect (or application as you say) of XML IS replacing HTML. Which I think you are trying to convince me of anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
So does that mean that the office supply manager has a legal right to look through anything you write because the company gave you the legal pad and pencil to write it?
So tell me, how's your power trip going?
well, my guess is that the athlon is the new lower end...
Damn, I missed that link. my bad.
However, I did subscribe to the mail list, and I di follow it loosely (note the tense). As for the makeup of the comittee, it's not *really* made up of developers. Compiler writers yes, typical developers no. (No one ever said it consisted of lawyers or accountants).
Compiler writers obviously have a different agenda than developers.
Where as a compiler writer would prefer those features that are easier to implements, I would prefer those that are easier to use.
Personally, I found it amazing that he completely blew off a perfectly legitimate question like this.
I work for a company that ships a dbms on 12+ different platforms. We've had to license a gui toolkit and write our own threading library, nevermind the lack of binary interface standards.
The c++ committee needs to get their heads out of the clouds and actually talk to developers rather than listen to others in their ivory towers.
People criticize java for being too closed, but at least sun listens and has process in place to insure their users are heard.
I'll ignore your statement about my perceived ignorance.
Wait, no I wont...
I grew up a Roman Catholic. Went through 12 years of religious indoctrination (school), and studied philosophy (which included plenty of religion) in college before I decided I'd like to be able to live at a certain standard after college and changed my major. I'm not expert, but I think I'm more familiar with the churchs teachings than the average person.
In particular I find it amusing how many catholics don't know what dogma means. The very definition of dogma excludes any free thought or discussion of an issue related to such. I honestly don't understand how anyone can reconcile that concept whereby a gods (if you believe in it) greatest gift to humanity (our capacity for thought) is squelched by those in power.
While your examples are possibly reasonable, I'd like to point out that none of those are unique to organized religion. There are plenty of people who do such things in a non-denominational manner; I'm not sure that they stand as examples of good things brought about by organized religion, they are rather good things brought about by good people.
You later state that organized religion has brought about stability but give vague examples that don't necessarily apply to organized religion as a whole. Please, where has organized religion done such? Have they ever done such when they action has done anything other than increase their own power?
I absolutely disagree that the church has educated people. Please explain where. The church may have taught people certain rules but those teachings were only to further their own power rather than to enlighten people. The church does not teach people how to think, to reason, they promote rote learning.
I agree with your last statement about religious people wanting to help the world, but you're confusing those people and the organizations they belong too. Those people haven't given me an opposite impression, the organizations have.
Don't take this personally, I don't dislike religious people unless I see them attempting to use religion to further themselves or reduce others (actually, I dislike anyone who uses anything to further themselves at the expense of others). My guess is that you do as well. The problem is that those people who are usually attracted to positions of power, wether it is in a church, government or business will do the above regularly to maintain their power. Hence my questioning the value of organized religion where people are placed in power over others.
Does anyone else look at religions in general and wonder what good has come out of them?
There seems to be a difference between spirituality and religion, with religion claiming to be the organization of spirituality, but in fact, I would argue that it stifles and kills spirituality.
From the crusades, to the inquisition, to terrorist actions to the suppression of the apple of knowledge throughout the history of man what has religion done for us?
This isn't a rhetorical question, i'd like to read an answer.
If I could I'd mod you up.
"First of all, no corporation on earth has a guarantee that their business model will remain valid."
...
Well, unless your the US steel industry or one of the Baby bells or the automotive industry or the defense industry or
Second of all, your first of all is wrong if you have enough money for congress are deemed critical to the infrastructure of the country.
I dont know. Personally I thought it was a good idea as well.
.coms"
.xxx seems to be an easy to implement effective solution.
The chief complaint seems to be "well the porn sites won't do it", combined with "they'll sneak in under
Neither of which seems insurmountable. The sneak in problem is fixed by either an official body responding to complaints (and there will be plenty of those) or by the isps.
As for the "they won't do it" argument: yes they will. If the option is they do it, or they don't have a site, my guess is that they'll choose to do it. It's the same thing that most city ordinances provide by either disallowing strip clubs next to schools/your home or federal law (i think) requiring movies to be rated and theaters to confirm the age of attendees.
In the more general sense, those two arguments fail because they presume there will *never* be a means to categorize sites based on content. If it's not done by the use of tld, then something will take it's place sooner or later. The industry might as well figure out some way to make it happen and the tld
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/4526.html
la la la lalalala
I don't know how true the statement is. I'm more willing to give this person the benefit of the doubt than an anonymous coward who claims they paid 4 kajillion dollars last year.
t ml
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/4526.h
It'a all done with mirrors muh boy.
Does he really want to go there? Isn't msft one of the companies that has paid zero federal tax?
Forget it. Things aren't gonna change.
As an example, I live in downtown Boston. I now have service from comcast. They are my third cable provider in 2 years. (I haven't changed cable companies, they've changed on me).
Nothing has changed. In fact things only got worse since all improvements (read digital cable and internet access) were now 'put on hold indefinitely' while they figured out what the hell they could still afford to do.
But, more importantly than that:
Just because the company has changed, don't assume all the momos running around working for your local cable company have changed.
Neither have the momos woken up the next morning and said "Hey, It's a brand new day and I'm working for a brand new company. Maybe I won't suck so much ass today".
ohhh, yes, what a witty and clever response.
oops, it's cheaper to install than DSL and it potentially solves the connection problem for people who don't have cable or DSL available to them as options.
*snort*
AT&T Broadband is just the company name, they bought the cable franchise and equipment from cablevision one or two years ago.
Just because they have the word broadband in their name doesn't mean it's available in Boston.
I make my check out to AT&T Broadband as well. Trust me, they don't offer internet access or digital cable in Boston.
irrc, Platos beliefs included the concept of an 'ideal' thing or truth.
It's easiest explained with an example. When I write 'chair' you may think of one particular chair and I may think of another, except that we both know what a chair is without needing to know exactly what chair the other is thinking of.
That thing we both know of as a chair, but is not necessarily what each of us thinks of is the platonic ideal of a chair.
Sorry, I don't buy that. If cameras were ubiquitous then he'd be able to say "see, we went right back to work, here we are leaving the location I gave her flowers, here we're going back to the office, here we are in the office, etc..."
If the wife has suspicions they're going to be there no matter what. The camera is just as likely to disprove that he isn't involved w/ the secretary as it is to prove it. That's my point, it works both ways. It's only technology. It can be a tool of abuse as well as being an enabler.
Only it's easier for people to realize that they're being abused than it is for them to realize how the tools of the abuser can liberate them. (Hence all the complaining here)
Bah, half of my message got cut off.
"Errr, that DOES make it a privacy problem. Imagine the blackmail potential of the bit of footage of your boss meeting up with a secretary and doing something his wife wouldnt like all that much. "
If you wish to do something that someone else should not find out about, or may go against the social or even legal mores then the onus is on YOU to insure you're not caught. Your complaining here because you've been caught doing something you arguably shouldn't. Please don't complain because a traffic light camera takes a picture of you running said light. You've broken the law. In your example, you've broken your marriage vows.
"There are several services in the UK which give you traffic data that comes from Highways Agency's Control Centres, which base their data on the CCTV footage. They cannot, for privacy reasons, hand out the footage."
Thats a shame. If I decide to stand by the side of the road and watch cars go back and forth have I invaded their privacy? How does bringing a camera into the situation change the matter?
My other reply continues..
>>Errr, that DOES make it a privacy problem. Imagine the blackmail potential of the bit of footage of your boss meeting up with a secretary and doing something his wife wouldnt like all that much. >There are several services in the UK which give you traffic data that comes from Highways Agency's Control Centres, which base their data on the CCTV footage. They cannot, for privacy reasons, hand out the footage. >Imagine your hiding round a corner with a knife waiting for someone to get the cash off for your much needed fix. You pull out your wireless handheld and get the video feed of the street so you can spot a victim before they even turn the corner.
Interesting point, but your still on a level playing field (rather than at an advantage), which you may or may not have been on before.
You can still potentially keep track of those areas you will be heading into.
The fact that some criminal element has access to the technology still doesn't eliminate the benefit, only reduces it.
The problelm with surveillance isn't the act itself, but the limited access to it.
The video on all those cameras should be made available to the public.
Besides the obvious crime deterrents mentioned above:
Imagine pulling up mapquest with your route to work and being able to get a live video feed from those cameras that lie along your route. Now you can avoid traffic.
Imagine your walking down a dark street, unsure of the neighborhood. You don't know whats around the corner, but you pull out your wireless handheld and get the video feed of that upcoming corner.
That information being available to everyone, not just the authorities is what draws the line between a police state and a utopia.
That is, the nforce is *NOT* via.
Via sucks.
Apparently I wasn't clear in stating that XHTML, which is a dialect (or application as you say) of XML IS replacing HTML. Which I think you are trying to convince me of anyways.
XML WILL replace HTML.
More specifically, a dialiect of XML known as XHTML will replace it.
Go talk to the w3c if you think it shouldn't
"When do I use an attribute and when do I nest a sub-element? "
:)
Typically its a matter of taste. Howver there are several cases where you must use one of the other.
e.g.
If you wish to maintain ordering you must use shild elements.
If you wish to use duplicate names you must use sub elements.
If you wish to enforce certain value types you must use attributes. (from your DTD...get a book for more info)
there are more...sign up for my class, I'll give you all the gory details
oh, obvious and incorrect (if you consider the telephone to be the first instance of this) I mean..