And yet the comment textarea itself starts out at an idiotically tiny size. Ten rows? Okay, I can deal with that. But 50 columns? What the fuck, guys? Ever heard of CSS? Can you make the textarea flow with the size of the page, so that on my huge 1900 pixel wide monitor I get more than a measly 300 pixels of width for typing a reply? Since typing a reply is, you know, the *only thing I am doing* on the reply page, you'd think that maybe I'd want most of the space taken up by the box I type in to and not by "empty."
Essentially, ONLY that reference implementation is owned by Google
ffmpeg has an independent implementation of the decoder, but for the encoder you are correct.
The main problem with vp8 isn't that it hasn't been submitted to a standards body. That's trivial detail. The problem is that it's not meticulously documented, which means that conforming implementations are difficult. If I implement an encoder in a way which contradicts the reference implementation but does not contradict the documentation, does that make my implementation wrong, the documentation wrong, or the reference implementation wrong? Logically the answer should be "the reference implementation" because it contradicts the documentation, but I don't have much confidence that this will be borne out in reality.
I say "main problem" but in reality the above is just one problem, the biggest problem is actually weaknesses in the format (as have been pretty well enumerated by x264 developers, among others). The reason no one cares about mkv being non-standard but people do care about vp8 is that mkv is known to be an extremely good format with good documentation and essentially no flaws (albeit some tradeoffs were traded in ways some people do not prefer) whereas vp8 has clear flaws and insufficient documentation.
What lgw was explicitly saying was that physicists dislike the standard model, but cannot reject it precisely because the criterion isn't aesthetic, but experimental and factual.
And yet they keep trying, even though doing so is irrational. Eventually someone may succeed in finding a superior predictive model and it will be due this irrational behavior. Explaining this irrational behavior is part of what Feyerabend was trying to do.
It's irrelevant to say "The philosophy of science is useless." Being useless never stopped a philosopher before. Accepting the irrelevance is how you get your seat at the discussion table.
Bingo. This has nothing to do with science or the scientific method and everything to do with an attempt to philosophically prove the correctness of scientific theories based on the fact that the philosophically-defined scientific method was used to derive them.
Philosophers have been trying since the beginning of time to describe things The Truth and build small concepts in to big concepts in a way that explains everything and they'd like to be able to prove the validity of the scientific method philosophically, because that means that all theories derived using the scientific method would be objectively true, which means they could borrow "for free" a massive body of truth from science.
The book in this article seems to be contradicting Feyerabend, saying "No, look, I really can use philosophy to prove that the scientific method is correct." I'm not sure why we need yet another attempt, and this time by an amateur philosopher, but there we are. In the end this isn't of interest to people who aren't interested in the philosophy of science.
Only philosophers want science to lead to objective truth. Scientists know that science only leads to observable truth. The scientific method isn't about absolute, objective certainty, it's about forming a corpus of "best guess"es which are rigorously documented. Philosophers find this sort of thing very unsatisfying.
No, it's like someone breaking in to your house to use the toilet in your basement, using it, then telling you that you can't ever use it again without their permission because you've been using the one upstairs for the last six months. Violation of rights followed by ridiculous statements.
I've been saying this for years: Facebook is a fad. Yet Another Fad, and not a very good one at that. It's a fad like MySpace was a fad, even though people on MySpace swore up and down to me at its height that everybody was on it and I should get an account, too. But its time passed, it faded, and so too will Facebook.
What people like about Facebook are features it has which are not fads: Self publishing text and images, instant messaging, email. Keeping up to date with friends is not a fad, even though Twitter probably is too. (I say probably because Twitter-style microupdates is actually a lifestyle and for some people will never go away; it's just that it's mainstreamness is a fad.) There will always be ways to do these things which mass numbers of people will use, but it was always clear that Facebook would not be The Way.
Why was Facebook always doomed? For the same reason, as the article notes, that AOL was doomed: Its success was coincidental, based on happenstance more than merit, and it built a walled garden. Facebooks walls are not as high and stupid as AOLs were, but they're there. Both systems tried to leverage early popularity into an independent applications platform that gets people in, keeps them in and gives them everything. The problem is that you simply cannot compete with the entire world, no matter how good you are. Facebook is always going to be a tiny fraction of the Web, and so Facebook apps will not provide everything.
To build a Facebook-like experience for people in a sustainable way you have to be open, that's the bottom line. You have to give up all control and let people do what they will. In short you have to be email, you have to be jabber, you have to be HTTP. You can't have one company owning the server farm and the protocols and the UI and the APIs, no matter how good those things are. The long-term Facebook replacement must be a system of systems communicating over open protocols that many people implement, allowing the UI to be a web browser or something else, allowing the back end to be written many ways, allowing the data to be stored many ways, and allowing the users, ultimately, many choices. When you can do all that and the users still find it easy to self-publish text and images, stay connected with friends and play silly little games you'll have a long-term Facebook-type system (but not a single site) that will not be a fad.
Except that in the jurisdiction in which The Pirate Bay operates there is no legal way to demand that you remove a link to copyrighted material that you do not yourself host. That's a USA law and not found in most other places.
I've rolled my own kernels in Debian since ~potato. It's never been very hard. Just aptitude build-dep your current kernel, cp/boot/config-$(uname -r) to.config in your vanilla source directory and start from there. If you're a bit more fanatical you can get the debian kernel patch set and see about applying that, but I have never bothered and have suffered no ill effects.
Personally, I'd start with An Unearthly Child and continue chronologically with the highlights.
I understand it may be too much for some people, like a DBZ marathon, but it's important to see the context and evolution. A brief skim through doctors 1-2, then settle in and watch most remaining Pertwee, then watch 4, 5, 6 and 7. Once finished go back and watch the ones you missed. Then start on the reconstructions and consider whether the new series is worth it.
Of course for this you need an experienced Who fan to set up the "playlist" of early episode.
If I make something and then get a patent on some or all of it, that's legitimate. If I don't make anything but one day say "You know what would be cool? Buying things on the internet but, like, you don't have to fill out a whole form, you only have to click once!" and then patenting it, then later suing online merchants who actually do this.
Overly broad patents based on real products are also problematic, too, of course.
If Google had used Java it would have had to use the crippled "Java Mobile Edition" and not the full suite. It is precisely because Google used the full suite as the basis for their language, and not the mobile subset, that Oracle has any problem with them at all.
Copyright's purpose is being abused, that's what's happening here.
It's not like the teachers are trying to produce pirated sheet music to undermine the legitimate owners' monopoly, or to make a profit themselves. Traditionally educational purposes have always been exempt or less restricted than personal and commercial enterprises when it comes to copyright. The reason is that educating children is more important than the petty profit of today. Education isn't a competing business interest, it's a complementary service which supports and enhances all other aspects of life and business.
This is really just short sightedness on the part of GEMA. There's plenty of time to milk the children for all they're worth once they reach adulthood.
Virtualization isn't a stepping stone to general purpose thin-client-everywhere computing. Virtualization in the enterprising and business space is a fact today and will be the only way to do business in the near future. For the user virtualization won't ever work this way. For the enterprise administrator it may be used as a way to cheaply reimage fat clients, but that's about it. Thin client computing is brittle and that's a fact which isn't changing soon. It's just too problematic to have your own personal computer be a VM running on a farm somewhere over a gigE link.
Where desktop users will see virtualization will be as a form of isolation. Think.app bundles of VMs + a single app, seamlessly integrated into the host OS so the user can't tell the difference. This is where VDI is going to show up for normal people. And, yes, it will be on a normal fat client!
Having seen visual foxpro in action I can assure you that they did not just "rename it and release it as access," unless you count castration as a usual part of the renaming process.
Better merging and branching can't fix problems that can't be fixed. Rather than ask "Doesn't this break it?" you should be asking "Does this break it any worse than it breaks when we do this while using a centralized VCS?" The answer is no. In fact, it's slightly less of a nightmare.
Buying delicious and rebranding it would be the cheapest way to get equivalent functionality. Their own system is junk; I tried to live with it for a whole and just couldn't cope.
AFAIK nothing else compares to delicious, but I have not looked in a while so maybe by now...
I certainly hope I can find something when me and my exported Netscape bookmark file go trolling for a new home.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet the comment textarea itself starts out at an idiotically tiny size. Ten rows? Okay, I can deal with that. But 50 columns? What the fuck, guys? Ever heard of CSS? Can you make the textarea flow with the size of the page, so that on my huge 1900 pixel wide monitor I get more than a measly 300 pixels of width for typing a reply? Since typing a reply is, you know, the *only thing I am doing* on the reply page, you'd think that maybe I'd want most of the space taken up by the box I type in to and not by "empty."
please disregard
Essentially, ONLY that reference implementation is owned by Google
ffmpeg has an independent implementation of the decoder, but for the encoder you are correct.
The main problem with vp8 isn't that it hasn't been submitted to a standards body. That's trivial detail. The problem is that it's not meticulously documented, which means that conforming implementations are difficult. If I implement an encoder in a way which contradicts the reference implementation but does not contradict the documentation, does that make my implementation wrong, the documentation wrong, or the reference implementation wrong? Logically the answer should be "the reference implementation" because it contradicts the documentation, but I don't have much confidence that this will be borne out in reality.
I say "main problem" but in reality the above is just one problem, the biggest problem is actually weaknesses in the format (as have been pretty well enumerated by x264 developers, among others). The reason no one cares about mkv being non-standard but people do care about vp8 is that mkv is known to be an extremely good format with good documentation and essentially no flaws (albeit some tradeoffs were traded in ways some people do not prefer) whereas vp8 has clear flaws and insufficient documentation.
LOL.
That is all.
What lgw was explicitly saying was that physicists dislike the standard model, but cannot reject it precisely because the criterion isn't aesthetic, but experimental and factual.
And yet they keep trying, even though doing so is irrational. Eventually someone may succeed in finding a superior predictive model and it will be due this irrational behavior. Explaining this irrational behavior is part of what Feyerabend was trying to do.
It's irrelevant to say "The philosophy of science is useless." Being useless never stopped a philosopher before. Accepting the irrelevance is how you get your seat at the discussion table.
Bingo. This has nothing to do with science or the scientific method and everything to do with an attempt to philosophically prove the correctness of scientific theories based on the fact that the philosophically-defined scientific method was used to derive them.
Philosophers have been trying since the beginning of time to describe things The Truth and build small concepts in to big concepts in a way that explains everything and they'd like to be able to prove the validity of the scientific method philosophically, because that means that all theories derived using the scientific method would be objectively true, which means they could borrow "for free" a massive body of truth from science.
The book in this article seems to be contradicting Feyerabend, saying "No, look, I really can use philosophy to prove that the scientific method is correct." I'm not sure why we need yet another attempt, and this time by an amateur philosopher, but there we are. In the end this isn't of interest to people who aren't interested in the philosophy of science.
Only philosophers want science to lead to objective truth. Scientists know that science only leads to observable truth. The scientific method isn't about absolute, objective certainty, it's about forming a corpus of "best guess"es which are rigorously documented. Philosophers find this sort of thing very unsatisfying.
Heidegger Heidegger was a boozy begger who could think you under the table...
No, it's like someone breaking in to your house to use the toilet in your basement, using it, then telling you that you can't ever use it again without their permission because you've been using the one upstairs for the last six months. Violation of rights followed by ridiculous statements.
I've been saying this for years: Facebook is a fad. Yet Another Fad, and not a very good one at that. It's a fad like MySpace was a fad, even though people on MySpace swore up and down to me at its height that everybody was on it and I should get an account, too. But its time passed, it faded, and so too will Facebook.
What people like about Facebook are features it has which are not fads: Self publishing text and images, instant messaging, email. Keeping up to date with friends is not a fad, even though Twitter probably is too. (I say probably because Twitter-style microupdates is actually a lifestyle and for some people will never go away; it's just that it's mainstreamness is a fad.) There will always be ways to do these things which mass numbers of people will use, but it was always clear that Facebook would not be The Way.
Why was Facebook always doomed? For the same reason, as the article notes, that AOL was doomed: Its success was coincidental, based on happenstance more than merit, and it built a walled garden. Facebooks walls are not as high and stupid as AOLs were, but they're there. Both systems tried to leverage early popularity into an independent applications platform that gets people in, keeps them in and gives them everything. The problem is that you simply cannot compete with the entire world, no matter how good you are. Facebook is always going to be a tiny fraction of the Web, and so Facebook apps will not provide everything.
To build a Facebook-like experience for people in a sustainable way you have to be open, that's the bottom line. You have to give up all control and let people do what they will. In short you have to be email, you have to be jabber, you have to be HTTP. You can't have one company owning the server farm and the protocols and the UI and the APIs, no matter how good those things are. The long-term Facebook replacement must be a system of systems communicating over open protocols that many people implement, allowing the UI to be a web browser or something else, allowing the back end to be written many ways, allowing the data to be stored many ways, and allowing the users, ultimately, many choices. When you can do all that and the users still find it easy to self-publish text and images, stay connected with friends and play silly little games you'll have a long-term Facebook-type system (but not a single site) that will not be a fad.
But, it won't get any buzz.
Except that in the jurisdiction in which The Pirate Bay operates there is no legal way to demand that you remove a link to copyrighted material that you do not yourself host. That's a USA law and not found in most other places.
No.
Rapidshare hosts (unknowingly) copyrighted content, not guilty.
PirateBay does not host any copyrighted content, guilty.
I've rolled my own kernels in Debian since ~potato. It's never been very hard. Just aptitude build-dep your current kernel, cp /boot/config-$(uname -r) to .config in your vanilla source directory and start from there. If you're a bit more fanatical you can get the debian kernel patch set and see about applying that, but I have never bothered and have suffered no ill effects.
Personally, I'd start with An Unearthly Child and continue chronologically with the highlights.
I understand it may be too much for some people, like a DBZ marathon, but it's important to see the context and evolution. A brief skim through doctors 1-2, then settle in and watch most remaining Pertwee, then watch 4, 5, 6 and 7. Once finished go back and watch the ones you missed. Then start on the reconstructions and consider whether the new series is worth it.
Of course for this you need an experienced Who fan to set up the "playlist" of early episode.
Err, those are the same thing
No, they're not.
If I make something and then get a patent on some or all of it, that's legitimate. If I don't make anything but one day say "You know what would be cool? Buying things on the internet but, like, you don't have to fill out a whole form, you only have to click once!" and then patenting it, then later suing online merchants who actually do this.
Overly broad patents based on real products are also problematic, too, of course.
If Google had used Java it would have had to use the crippled "Java Mobile Edition" and not the full suite. It is precisely because Google used the full suite as the basis for their language, and not the mobile subset, that Oracle has any problem with them at all.
Copyright's purpose is being abused, that's what's happening here.
It's not like the teachers are trying to produce pirated sheet music to undermine the legitimate owners' monopoly, or to make a profit themselves. Traditionally educational purposes have always been exempt or less restricted than personal and commercial enterprises when it comes to copyright. The reason is that educating children is more important than the petty profit of today. Education isn't a competing business interest, it's a complementary service which supports and enhances all other aspects of life and business.
This is really just short sightedness on the part of GEMA. There's plenty of time to milk the children for all they're worth once they reach adulthood.
Virtualization isn't a stepping stone to general purpose thin-client-everywhere computing. Virtualization in the enterprising and business space is a fact today and will be the only way to do business in the near future. For the user virtualization won't ever work this way. For the enterprise administrator it may be used as a way to cheaply reimage fat clients, but that's about it. Thin client computing is brittle and that's a fact which isn't changing soon. It's just too problematic to have your own personal computer be a VM running on a farm somewhere over a gigE link.
Where desktop users will see virtualization will be as a form of isolation. Think .app bundles of VMs + a single app, seamlessly integrated into the host OS so the user can't tell the difference. This is where VDI is going to show up for normal people. And, yes, it will be on a normal fat client!
Why is the parent scored 0? Modded down for quoting relevant facts?
Having seen visual foxpro in action I can assure you that they did not just "rename it and release it as access," unless you count castration as a usual part of the renaming process.
That's blasphemy and you know it.
Better merging and branching can't fix problems that can't be fixed. Rather than ask "Doesn't this break it?" you should be asking "Does this break it any worse than it breaks when we do this while using a centralized VCS?" The answer is no. In fact, it's slightly less of a nightmare.
Interestingly enough this was covered by Mr. Joel himself in relatively recent times.
tl;dr: DVCS' are fundamentally better and anyone can benefit from this, even in-house corporate teams working on a single central source base.
Grinding? More like freeform simulation. It draws people from the puzzle/sims crowd, too.
Buying delicious and rebranding it would be the cheapest way to get equivalent functionality. Their own system is junk; I tried to live with it for a whole and just couldn't cope.
AFAIK nothing else compares to delicious, but I have not looked in a while so maybe by now...
I certainly hope I can find something when me and my exported Netscape bookmark file go trolling for a new home.