OK, am I the only one that thinks they all suck? "Hot" is the only one that's at least tolerable. The rest have no actual bearing on what they're trying to advertise, or are so campy as to be useless.
My issue with The GIMP is that anytime someone sends me a Photoshop file that uses a filter that was added to Photoshop after around version 6, GIMP ignores it. More often than not, that makes the image look like ass.
Photoshop is currently on version 9 or so.
It's the same issue as.Doc compatibility for OpenOffice, but GIMP's support is WAY behind. I simply can't work with, or create, a reasonably interesting (by even 2004 standards) composite graphic using The GIMP. I could if I had Photoshop, and everyone I work with that uses Photoshop does often. That's the biggest problem for me.
Actually by the sound of it, this is an actual novel and non-obvious invention. It's one of maybe a dozen items this year that are rightly patentable. It's the other 99% that is BS.:-)
So yeah, let's get rid of software patents but keep patents for something actually useful, like this.:-)
Ugh, could we have had a real browser, please? One that doesn't bastardize every desktop UI convention and trick people into a false sense of security by relying on the IE engine without telling you?
Seriously, vanilla Firefox would have offered them just as much opportunity to customize the L&F to be cluttered with HP branding to the point that it's unusable. That's what they're no doubt planning to do anyway.
Still, it's good news, even if only for the positive PR and the likely resulting reduction in the number of IE-engine users.
And that's precisely the idea. IBM figures if they "encourage" their most senior and skilled (read: most expensive) employees to go elsewhere, they can downsize without the PR unpleasantness of layoffs. It's the same logic as "early retirement" programs, but rather than buying out a contract you pay someone to go into teaching instead.
Frankly, IBM can have all the good PR they want from this move. Helping your employees to get another job before you fire them is great from a social responsibilty standpoint, and helping them into teaching, a field that always needs *experienced* people in it, is even better. Sure, IBM is doing it for primarily financial reasons but everyone wins in the end, so I'm perfectly fine with that.
As far as the resource argument goes, this only applies if you assume that technological advancement freezes at its current level and never, ever progresses again. Quite clearly that isn't going to happen.
No, it only applies if you assume that the total influx of energy into the system remains constant. As a matter of fact, it does, as virtually all energy entering the system comes from the sun at a constant annual rate.
We have millions of years of pent up energy to tap in the form of plants, soil nutrients, fossil fuels, etc., but we're using that at a much higher rate than it's being replenished by the sun. Eventually, those biological batteries will run out. Maybe not this decade, but sooner than you think. Technological advancement on its own can only slow that down, but in practice it tends to speed it up over time. (We're using up energy reserves far faster today than we were 100 years ago, which was more than 200 years ago, which was more than 300 years ago. etc.)
If the total expenditure of energy is larger than the total income of energy, then we are operating at a net loss as a planet. That's bad. Basic economics, just applied to energy rather than money. If we don't already have other planets colonized that we can strip mine once we're done stripmining our own, then we'll be screwed.
Al-Quaida stands for "The Base." It was a database of terrorist organizations, maintained by Bin Laden.
Sure, it had physical manifestations, but it has, from the very start, existed as an Internet entity.
The name "Al Queda" dates from the late '80s early '90s. There was no Internet in Afganistan at that point to exist as an entity of.
The organization itself goes back to the late '70s early '80s, under the name Muhejadeen . It was a US-funded, US-armed guerilla army of Islamists fighting against the USSR, which was trying to invade to shore up the local socialist government that the Muhejadeen were trying to overthrow.
After the war, it morphed into a clearing house and distribution network for weapons and information relating to pro-Islamic terrorism. That quickly turned anti-American after the US occupied the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi royal family, who themselves are a horribly corrupt regime that abuses Islam as a facade. And the rest is history.
I'm sure Al Queda has used the Internet for communications for a long time, but to say that it was an online organization like Slashdot since the beginning is flat out untrue. The organization itself predates the Internet.
Oh yeah, IT HASN'T. Unless your name is Habib and you wear a turbin to work then nobody gives a fvck what you do. I also know that if 9/11 occurred during the presidency of a Democrat you'd be STFUing right about now, you wouldn't even see 100000 crap articles like this on slashdot.
People named Habib who wear turbans to work deserve the same rights under the Constitution as those named Steve. By denying them that right, we are violating the fundamental principles of our society; of MY society. The laws and principles of MY country are being violated, and my fellow citizens (many of whom are named Habib) being denied their rights as citizens.
That anyone in DC even gives such a concept consideration is apauling and offensive.
As for a Democratic president, there were terrorist attacks under the last Democrat. The Bill of Rights was not violated under him the way it is being now. Instead, we had an impeachment hearing about a blow job.
You're right. Under a Democrat, we'd not be having this discussion. We'd be paying attention to a fake scandal cooked up by political hacks in order to cripple him. Welcome to Modern America.
Oh good. So we have a more efficient way to destroy one of the most critical resources in the world that has no alternative (water) in order to make a highly volatile fuel source that has viable alternatives.
Except in the "first world", water is not exactly cheap and plentiful. The US may be able to waste water on making hydrogen, but do you really think that Somalia is going to be able to? Or Bangladesh? Or Peru? There are much better things to do with water than break it. Other future-fuel sources, however, would be equally useful to any country and not waste a valuable resource.
Hydrogen is still a silly idea, especially when chicken guts and corn are far cheaper, and far more plentiful.:-)
If you are after gaming, multimedia, good WiFi+Bluetooth support, a lot of accessories and versatility, go with Pocket PC. If you are after small and stylish devices with good battery life, simple interface and simple PIM apps, go with PalmOS.
Oh good grief, would he please get out of the 20th century?
Every palmOne device in the past two years includes an "Agenda" view (aka Today screen). All but the very lowest end includes an MP3 player and an office suite that is more compatible with MS Office than Pocket PC's alternative is. Most of the new ones include Bluetooth. There are ample fancy games for Palms. Almost all Palms now use 320x320 or 320x480 screens, which are larger than the 240x320 standard for Pocket PCs. The palmOne LifeDrive has the most storage available of any handheld by several orders of magnitude. It's closest competitor is palmOne's own Tungsten T5. Their newer models use non-volatile storage so that your data isn't lost when the power runs down, unlike Pocket PCs.
If you're comparing against a Palm m505, sure, the comparison is true. But you'd then have to compare against a 4 year old HP, as well, and the Jornada's of that era sucked.:-) This whole article is a shill, or at least someone who hasn't done any research recently.
Your analysis is blindingly oversimplified. Most companies would rather GPL their own code than release it under a BSD license, but would rather have others release their code under a BSD license.
Which is one reason I am personally fond of the LGPL. It says, in essence, "MY code is Free and must stay that way. Do what you want with you parts." It also has the side-effect of encouraging good, modular, component-based design. That's a win-win for everyone. Why people keep forgetting the LGPL in these flamewars I don't know, as it is a perfectly reasonable compromise between the "do anything" BSD and the "hand of Midas" GPL. I am particularly fond of it for libraries, frameworks, APIs, etc.
That said, can we mod this entire story flamebait? I mean really, is the next Slashdot story going to be "Vi or Emacs, what does Slashdot think?"
OK, so how is a robot that travels around with a camera, spots suspicious activity, and calls the police more cost effective than three times as many fixed-point cameras tied to the same back end computer logic that can call the police?
I mean it's cool and all, but wouldn't just hooking the security cameras that we have now (at least in the US) up to the same trouble-spotting algorithm be much easier and cheaper and do the same thing?
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
Not in the least. Here's what the typical computer user will think:
"Hm, the last time I bought a computer it could play the MP3s I got off of Kazaa as soon as I turned it on. Then the EU yells at Microsoft a lot in court, and now I my new computer can't play my MP3s. Hey, MPs, stop beating up on Microsoft and let me listen to my illegally downloaded music!"
Computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, and their equivalents over in Europe) know that full well, so of course they don't care for Windows XP Reduced-sales-edition.
The "also offer a crappy version" deal was a huge mistake on the part of the EU. All it does is further convince people that Microsoft is the good guy and government the bad guy.
A slightly better order would have been an "only offer a crappy version" order, in which case OEMs would have to find some other media player to package; they'd probably just roll their own or buy one from someone or something, but at least it wouldn't be MS-everywhere. People might still get cranky, but they'd be less cranky and less misguided in their crankiness.
(Of course, MS would then just license the WMA DRM format to all of those 3rd parties being bought by Dell et al and still have format monopoly. That's why we need to press the issue that *all* file formats that are not 100% open, unpatented, and DRM-free are inherently bad and should be avoided.)
If you agree with what Lessig says in this article (and it's about as uncontrovercial yet insightful as you can get, typical of Lessig), then the best way to honor it is to pass it along to family and friends (and maybe politicians) to read. I've been a fan of Lessig's for a while, and this is an excellent short summary of the issues involved, not from a technical level or an RMS-hippie-fist-raised standpoint, but from a very clear, calm, easily-approachable angle.
It's not about software. It's about culture. It's about the fabric of our lives (and I don't mean cotton).
And if the US is not careful, it will be about our marginalization as a country of any importance in the information sector. We'll have made it illegal for Americans to create or have culture. That's very sad, particularly as I am an American.
Spread the word. Then go read Lessig's book "Free Culture" (dead-tree or free electronic format). Excellent read.
In the end, alas, the Jedi do seem too "narrow" and "dogmatic," not the great sages Lucas presumably wanted them to be. Perhaps the "prophecy of the one who will bring balance to the Force" was misinterpreted after all: Perhaps the prophecy was really fulfilled not by Anakin destroying the Sith order, but by Luke humanizing the Jedi ethic.
Precisely! One thing that Ep. III touches on (and the DarthSide blog, one of the greatest SW fanfics ever, expands on) is that the Light and Dark side of the Force is NOT "good" and "bad". It's "life exists, let it be" vs "life exists, if you can take it by the horns you can make it a better place". The Jedi had long ago rejected the Dark Side completely on "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" grounds. The Sith, a specific small order of Dark Jedi, fully embraced the "control and order" aspect of the Force but were corrupted by it.
Luke, in the final battle with the Emperor and Vader in Ep. VI, is able to use his anger (dark side thing) to defeat Vader, but has the strength of will to pull back and not be tempted and corrupted by the power. (Parallel to Anakin vs. Tyranus, with the same person cheer-leading in both cases.) Why? Because he sees the growing parallel between himself and his father when he cuts off Vader's hand, and he realizes where that path leads. Sidious is about to kill him for it, when Vader (that prophesy dude) realizes what he has become and sacrifices himself to kill Sidious and end the Sith line. He sees that in his son is the true balance in the Force, and ensures that it is not destroyed prematurely.
The Force is already unbalanced with the Jedi, since they eschew the other branch of the Force completely. By bringing it back into balance, the light and dark sides are both recognized and accepted. Not something Mace Windu and Yoda would really have wanted, but but the end, Yoda's ghost seems to have come to terms with it.
My issue with Star Wars is that the overarching story concept (the above, at least as I see it), is AMAZINGLY GOOD! The actual execution is at best spotty, and at worst talks about sand. Still, stuff like the DarthSide blog, the fan stuff, really redeems a lot of it. Lucas has great ideas, but should leave the execution to someone else.
OK, so they release a version of WinXP that runs on a Pentium II 300, finally, but still has all the stability and connectivity features of "real" WinXP. So.... why buy the "real" WinXP for your 2.4 GHz P4? If WinXP-for-old-stuff is more efficient than WinXP-real-version, then it will run even faster on that 2.4 GHz system.
Which means that WinXP-for-old-stuff will have to be reduced functionality, too, in order to avoid cannibalizing their existing OS revenues. Just how much and what features I'm not sure, there's plenty to choose from, but expect another "Starter Edition" fiasco.
I coordially invite someone to give me one reason why XHTML (in its current form, served as text/html or text/xml) is better than HTML 4.0 strict? Is closing my link and meta tags really that life-changing?
Using/> instead of >, no. That won't make a great deal of difference. However, getting into the habit now will make it easier when you DO start sending the correct mimetype (read: when IE evolves out of the 20th century).
The main advantage I see is not the/> stuff, but the fact that closing tags are not optional in general. When you're writing CSS, it's important to know where the effect of a given style will end. If your p and li tags are not closed, how do you know? Well you can guess at where the browser will decide to end it (maybe easily, maybe not), or you can tell it explicitly with properly-nested closing tags at all times. Not leaving it up to the browser to guess is good coding practice, and in the long run makes your life easier.
Ibid. for quoting all attributes.
Ibid. for lowercasing all names. (Lowercase is easier to skim because of the variable height letters. That provides a visual hint to help you read it. A good syntax highlighter will make it easy to distinguish between tags and non-tags, that's what they're for.)
So when all is said and done, all of the XHTML differences except the self-closing tags are already what I'd say are best practices to start with. Forcing yourself to use XHTML forces yourself to use best coding practices from the get-go, which makes your life much easier in the long run. And, when you can start sending XHTML as XHTML instead of masquerading as HTML (there are ways to do that now depending on the browser), you're already set to go and can just change the mimetype and keep on chugging. No major code rewrites needed.
A prototype of the later is believed to the world's smallest flying web server.
There's competition for that title? Just how many flying web servers are there? (IIS boxes falling out of high office windows after being thrown do not count.)
Last year, a group of graduate students (myself being one of them) asked that exact question and came up with their (our) suggested answer. Link below. It's under a CC license. It's US-centric, but feel free to forward to any Australian (or anywhere else) leaders you feel it would positively impact.:-)
Well, having read TFA, I can say I have no interest in reading anything by Mr. Card, ever. It's rare that I see such pure arrogance. The last time I saw it was in my high school short story lit book, which talked about "mature readers" wanting deep, moving stories and only "immature readers" cared about actually enjoying the story.
Mr. Card, perhaps you were not aware that Trek, when it's good (meaning not when Berman is running things), offers some of the best and most insightful social commentary and discussion you'll see on film. There is a group where I live that gets together monthly at a Unitarian Church to watch an episode or two and then discuss the social, ethical, and moral implications thereof. It's been meeting for about 6 years, I think. Are there any groups that do that with Firefly? Or Smallville? I didn't think so.
Just because more people like Star Trek than like your books is no reason to declare them all immature grade schoolers. That's very grade school of you.
They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.
Gee, sounds like Microsoft's main problem; they're competing against Windows 98.:-)
Seriously, though. Would you rather watch a classy show like TNG any night of the week, or watch a crappy show like Enterprise that is bad even by normal Sci-Fi standards to say nothing of Trek standards on Friday night? Put a bad show in the death slot and ratings go down. Put a good show in the death slot and ratings go down. That's why it's called the death slot. Duh.
Enterprise's competition isn't reruns of old Trek, it's wanting to do something entertaining on a Friday night.:-)
Wait about 3-4 years, then bring back the Enterprise Season 4 team (Manny Coto, the Reeves-Stevenses, etc.), and make sure that Berman and Braga are not permitted anywhere close to the sound stage, and you'll probably get a good show out of it.
Last year I had a brief stint at a small software company that had just taken a project in-house that was developed by an outside contractor. My job was to take the code they'd just inherited (which no one there knew anything about) and add some features to it on a tight schedule. Documentation? What documentation?
The extent of all of the code comments it had was the following (and no, I'm not making this up):
if(...) {
break;// break }
If that wasn't bad enough, I knew the original developer personally. She was a former professor of mine and I'd worked for her company only a few months before she had taken that contract.
As someone who has had to deal with code with descriptive names and no comments or docs to go with them: If you write such code, may you rot in the lowest level of hell along with traitors, used car salesmen, and people who answer cell phones during movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of the children!
(Someone had to say it...)
OK, hear me out before you string me up...
1) MS is a monopoly. Legally defined as such in the US, and I believe EU now as well.
2) MS gets DRM monopoly through wheeling and dealing.
3) Competitors cry anti-competative behavior.
4) A non-corporate-stooge-necon is elected US President. (Let's hope for this anyway, regardless of MS, but I digress...)
5) DoJ sues MS yet again, forces them to open Windows DRM. With a non-stooge in office, they bother to enforce it this time.
6) Open DRM is by definition ineffective. Thus the monopoly DRM system is now effectively useless, as forced by the DoJ.
7) Profit.
OK, so it's a stretch, but a guy can wish, can't he? There's got to be some good news for people who give a damn about freedom.
OK, am I the only one that thinks they all suck? "Hot" is the only one that's at least tolerable. The rest have no actual bearing on what they're trying to advertise, or are so campy as to be useless.
Sorry, but, why?
The DRM is the same as for any other song or video you buy on iTunes.
Which is precisely why I absolutely refuse to use it.
DRM is bad.
DRM is immoral.
DRM is in violation of the US Constitution in that it is by nature perpetual, and copyright is only supposed to be for a "limited time".
DRM is unacceptable.
DRM is based on the assumption that you are a criminal in the first place.
DRM is contrary to everything Free Software stands for.
How exactly do people still see iTunes DRM as acceptable? DRM is unacceptable. That it's Apple doing it doesn't make it suddenly OK.
How is this a hard concept to grasp?
My issue with The GIMP is that anytime someone sends me a Photoshop file that uses a filter that was added to Photoshop after around version 6, GIMP ignores it. More often than not, that makes the image look like ass.
.Doc compatibility for OpenOffice, but GIMP's support is WAY behind. I simply can't work with, or create, a reasonably interesting (by even 2004 standards) composite graphic using The GIMP. I could if I had Photoshop, and everyone I work with that uses Photoshop does often. That's the biggest problem for me.
Photoshop is currently on version 9 or so.
It's the same issue as
Actually by the sound of it, this is an actual novel and non-obvious invention. It's one of maybe a dozen items this year that are rightly patentable. It's the other 99% that is BS. :-)
:-)
So yeah, let's get rid of software patents but keep patents for something actually useful, like this.
Ugh, could we have had a real browser, please? One that doesn't bastardize every desktop UI convention and trick people into a false sense of security by relying on the IE engine without telling you?
Seriously, vanilla Firefox would have offered them just as much opportunity to customize the L&F to be cluttered with HP branding to the point that it's unusable. That's what they're no doubt planning to do anyway.
Still, it's good news, even if only for the positive PR and the likely resulting reduction in the number of IE-engine users.
That's nicer than firing them.
And that's precisely the idea. IBM figures if they "encourage" their most senior and skilled (read: most expensive) employees to go elsewhere, they can downsize without the PR unpleasantness of layoffs. It's the same logic as "early retirement" programs, but rather than buying out a contract you pay someone to go into teaching instead.
Frankly, IBM can have all the good PR they want from this move. Helping your employees to get another job before you fire them is great from a social responsibilty standpoint, and helping them into teaching, a field that always needs *experienced* people in it, is even better. Sure, IBM is doing it for primarily financial reasons but everyone wins in the end, so I'm perfectly fine with that.
As far as the resource argument goes, this only applies if you assume that technological advancement freezes at its current level and never, ever progresses again. Quite clearly that isn't going to happen.
No, it only applies if you assume that the total influx of energy into the system remains constant. As a matter of fact, it does, as virtually all energy entering the system comes from the sun at a constant annual rate.
We have millions of years of pent up energy to tap in the form of plants, soil nutrients, fossil fuels, etc., but we're using that at a much higher rate than it's being replenished by the sun. Eventually, those biological batteries will run out. Maybe not this decade, but sooner than you think. Technological advancement on its own can only slow that down, but in practice it tends to speed it up over time. (We're using up energy reserves far faster today than we were 100 years ago, which was more than 200 years ago, which was more than 300 years ago. etc.)
If the total expenditure of energy is larger than the total income of energy, then we are operating at a net loss as a planet. That's bad. Basic economics, just applied to energy rather than money. If we don't already have other planets colonized that we can strip mine once we're done stripmining our own, then we'll be screwed.
Al-Quaida stands for "The Base." It was a database of terrorist organizations, maintained by Bin Laden.
Sure, it had physical manifestations, but it has, from the very start, existed as an Internet entity.
The name "Al Queda" dates from the late '80s early '90s. There was no Internet in Afganistan at that point to exist as an entity of.
The organization itself goes back to the late '70s early '80s, under the name Muhejadeen . It was a US-funded, US-armed guerilla army of Islamists fighting against the USSR, which was trying to invade to shore up the local socialist government that the Muhejadeen were trying to overthrow.
After the war, it morphed into a clearing house and distribution network for weapons and information relating to pro-Islamic terrorism. That quickly turned anti-American after the US occupied the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi royal family, who themselves are a horribly corrupt regime that abuses Islam as a facade. And the rest is history.
I'm sure Al Queda has used the Internet for communications for a long time, but to say that it was an online organization like Slashdot since the beginning is flat out untrue. The organization itself predates the Internet.
Oh yeah, IT HASN'T. Unless your name is Habib and you wear a turbin to work then nobody gives a fvck what you do. I also know that if 9/11 occurred during the presidency of a Democrat you'd be STFUing right about now, you wouldn't even see 100000 crap articles like this on slashdot.
People named Habib who wear turbans to work deserve the same rights under the Constitution as those named Steve. By denying them that right, we are violating the fundamental principles of our society; of MY society. The laws and principles of MY country are being violated, and my fellow citizens (many of whom are named Habib) being denied their rights as citizens.
That anyone in DC even gives such a concept consideration is apauling and offensive.
As for a Democratic president, there were terrorist attacks under the last Democrat. The Bill of Rights was not violated under him the way it is being now. Instead, we had an impeachment hearing about a blow job.
You're right. Under a Democrat, we'd not be having this discussion. We'd be paying attention to a fake scandal cooked up by political hacks in order to cripple him. Welcome to Modern America.
Oh good. So we have a more efficient way to destroy one of the most critical resources in the world that has no alternative (water) in order to make a highly volatile fuel source that has viable alternatives.
:-)
Except in the "first world", water is not exactly cheap and plentiful. The US may be able to waste water on making hydrogen, but do you really think that Somalia is going to be able to? Or Bangladesh? Or Peru? There are much better things to do with water than break it. Other future-fuel sources, however, would be equally useful to any country and not waste a valuable resource.
Hydrogen is still a silly idea, especially when chicken guts and corn are far cheaper, and far more plentiful.
If you are after gaming, multimedia, good WiFi+Bluetooth support, a lot of accessories and versatility, go with Pocket PC. If you are after small and stylish devices with good battery life, simple interface and simple PIM apps, go with PalmOS.
:-) This whole article is a shill, or at least someone who hasn't done any research recently.
Oh good grief, would he please get out of the 20th century?
Every palmOne device in the past two years includes an "Agenda" view (aka Today screen). All but the very lowest end includes an MP3 player and an office suite that is more compatible with MS Office than Pocket PC's alternative is. Most of the new ones include Bluetooth. There are ample fancy games for Palms. Almost all Palms now use 320x320 or 320x480 screens, which are larger than the 240x320 standard for Pocket PCs. The palmOne LifeDrive has the most storage available of any handheld by several orders of magnitude. It's closest competitor is palmOne's own Tungsten T5. Their newer models use non-volatile storage so that your data isn't lost when the power runs down, unlike Pocket PCs.
If you're comparing against a Palm m505, sure, the comparison is true. But you'd then have to compare against a 4 year old HP, as well, and the Jornada's of that era sucked.
Your analysis is blindingly oversimplified. Most companies would rather GPL their own code than release it under a BSD license, but would rather have others release their code under a BSD license.
Which is one reason I am personally fond of the LGPL. It says, in essence, "MY code is Free and must stay that way. Do what you want with you parts." It also has the side-effect of encouraging good, modular, component-based design. That's a win-win for everyone. Why people keep forgetting the LGPL in these flamewars I don't know, as it is a perfectly reasonable compromise between the "do anything" BSD and the "hand of Midas" GPL. I am particularly fond of it for libraries, frameworks, APIs, etc.
That said, can we mod this entire story flamebait? I mean really, is the next Slashdot story going to be "Vi or Emacs, what does Slashdot think?"
OK, so how is a robot that travels around with a camera, spots suspicious activity, and calls the police more cost effective than three times as many fixed-point cameras tied to the same back end computer logic that can call the police?
I mean it's cool and all, but wouldn't just hooking the security cameras that we have now (at least in the US) up to the same trouble-spotting algorithm be much easier and cheaper and do the same thing?
Not in the least. Here's what the typical computer user will think:
Computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, and their equivalents over in Europe) know that full well, so of course they don't care for Windows XP Reduced-sales-edition.
The "also offer a crappy version" deal was a huge mistake on the part of the EU. All it does is further convince people that Microsoft is the good guy and government the bad guy.
A slightly better order would have been an "only offer a crappy version" order, in which case OEMs would have to find some other media player to package; they'd probably just roll their own or buy one from someone or something, but at least it wouldn't be MS-everywhere. People might still get cranky, but they'd be less cranky and less misguided in their crankiness.
(Of course, MS would then just license the WMA DRM format to all of those 3rd parties being bought by Dell et al and still have format monopoly. That's why we need to press the issue that *all* file formats that are not 100% open, unpatented, and DRM-free are inherently bad and should be avoided.)
If you agree with what Lessig says in this article (and it's about as uncontrovercial yet insightful as you can get, typical of Lessig), then the best way to honor it is to pass it along to family and friends (and maybe politicians) to read. I've been a fan of Lessig's for a while, and this is an excellent short summary of the issues involved, not from a technical level or an RMS-hippie-fist-raised standpoint, but from a very clear, calm, easily-approachable angle.
It's not about software. It's about culture. It's about the fabric of our lives (and I don't mean cotton).
And if the US is not careful, it will be about our marginalization as a country of any importance in the information sector. We'll have made it illegal for Americans to create or have culture. That's very sad, particularly as I am an American.
Spread the word. Then go read Lessig's book "Free Culture" (dead-tree or free electronic format). Excellent read.
In the end, alas, the Jedi do seem too "narrow" and "dogmatic," not the great sages Lucas presumably wanted them to be. Perhaps the "prophecy of the one who will bring balance to the Force" was misinterpreted after all: Perhaps the prophecy was really fulfilled not by Anakin destroying the Sith order, but by Luke humanizing the Jedi ethic.
Precisely! One thing that Ep. III touches on (and the DarthSide blog, one of the greatest SW fanfics ever, expands on) is that the Light and Dark side of the Force is NOT "good" and "bad". It's "life exists, let it be" vs "life exists, if you can take it by the horns you can make it a better place". The Jedi had long ago rejected the Dark Side completely on "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" grounds. The Sith, a specific small order of Dark Jedi, fully embraced the "control and order" aspect of the Force but were corrupted by it.
Luke, in the final battle with the Emperor and Vader in Ep. VI, is able to use his anger (dark side thing) to defeat Vader, but has the strength of will to pull back and not be tempted and corrupted by the power. (Parallel to Anakin vs. Tyranus, with the same person cheer-leading in both cases.) Why? Because he sees the growing parallel between himself and his father when he cuts off Vader's hand, and he realizes where that path leads. Sidious is about to kill him for it, when Vader (that prophesy dude) realizes what he has become and sacrifices himself to kill Sidious and end the Sith line. He sees that in his son is the true balance in the Force, and ensures that it is not destroyed prematurely.
The Force is already unbalanced with the Jedi, since they eschew the other branch of the Force completely. By bringing it back into balance, the light and dark sides are both recognized and accepted. Not something Mace Windu and Yoda would really have wanted, but but the end, Yoda's ghost seems to have come to terms with it.
My issue with Star Wars is that the overarching story concept (the above, at least as I see it), is AMAZINGLY GOOD! The actual execution is at best spotty, and at worst talks about sand. Still, stuff like the DarthSide blog, the fan stuff, really redeems a lot of it. Lucas has great ideas, but should leave the execution to someone else.
OK, so they release a version of WinXP that runs on a Pentium II 300, finally, but still has all the stability and connectivity features of "real" WinXP. So.... why buy the "real" WinXP for your 2.4 GHz P4? If WinXP-for-old-stuff is more efficient than WinXP-real-version, then it will run even faster on that 2.4 GHz system.
Which means that WinXP-for-old-stuff will have to be reduced functionality, too, in order to avoid cannibalizing their existing OS revenues. Just how much and what features I'm not sure, there's plenty to choose from, but expect another "Starter Edition" fiasco.
I coordially invite someone to give me one reason why XHTML (in its current form, served as text/html or text/xml) is better than HTML 4.0 strict? Is closing my link and meta tags really that life-changing?
/> instead of >, no. That won't make a great deal of difference. However, getting into the habit now will make it easier when you DO start sending the correct mimetype (read: when IE evolves out of the 20th century).
/> stuff, but the fact that closing tags are not optional in general. When you're writing CSS, it's important to know where the effect of a given style will end. If your p and li tags are not closed, how do you know? Well you can guess at where the browser will decide to end it (maybe easily, maybe not), or you can tell it explicitly with properly-nested closing tags at all times. Not leaving it up to the browser to guess is good coding practice, and in the long run makes your life easier.
Using
The main advantage I see is not the
Ibid. for quoting all attributes.
Ibid. for lowercasing all names. (Lowercase is easier to skim because of the variable height letters. That provides a visual hint to help you read it. A good syntax highlighter will make it easy to distinguish between tags and non-tags, that's what they're for.)
So when all is said and done, all of the XHTML differences except the self-closing tags are already what I'd say are best practices to start with. Forcing yourself to use XHTML forces yourself to use best coding practices from the get-go, which makes your life much easier in the long run. And, when you can start sending XHTML as XHTML instead of masquerading as HTML (there are ways to do that now depending on the browser), you're already set to go and can just change the mimetype and keep on chugging. No major code rewrites needed.
A prototype of the later is believed to the world's smallest flying web server.
There's competition for that title? Just how many flying web servers are there? (IIS boxes falling out of high office windows after being thrown do not count.)
Last year, a group of graduate students (myself being one of them) asked that exact question and came up with their (our) suggested answer. Link below. It's under a CC license. It's US-centric, but feel free to forward to any Australian (or anywhere else) leaders you feel it would positively impact. :-)
http://www.garfieldtech.com/copyright/
Well, having read TFA, I can say I have no interest in reading anything by Mr. Card, ever. It's rare that I see such pure arrogance. The last time I saw it was in my high school short story lit book, which talked about "mature readers" wanting deep, moving stories and only "immature readers" cared about actually enjoying the story.
Mr. Card, perhaps you were not aware that Trek, when it's good (meaning not when Berman is running things), offers some of the best and most insightful social commentary and discussion you'll see on film. There is a group where I live that gets together monthly at a Unitarian Church to watch an episode or two and then discuss the social, ethical, and moral implications thereof. It's been meeting for about 6 years, I think. Are there any groups that do that with Firefly? Or Smallville? I didn't think so.
Just because more people like Star Trek than like your books is no reason to declare them all immature grade schoolers. That's very grade school of you.
They are convinced the ratings dropped due to the show competing against other Trek re-runs.
:-)
:-)
Gee, sounds like Microsoft's main problem; they're competing against Windows 98.
Seriously, though. Would you rather watch a classy show like TNG any night of the week, or watch a crappy show like Enterprise that is bad even by normal Sci-Fi standards to say nothing of Trek standards on Friday night? Put a bad show in the death slot and ratings go down. Put a good show in the death slot and ratings go down. That's why it's called the death slot. Duh.
Enterprise's competition isn't reruns of old Trek, it's wanting to do something entertaining on a Friday night.
Wait about 3-4 years, then bring back the Enterprise Season 4 team (Manny Coto, the Reeves-Stevenses, etc.), and make sure that Berman and Braga are not permitted anywhere close to the sound stage, and you'll probably get a good show out of it.
I love telling this story...
// break
Last year I had a brief stint at a small software company that had just taken a project in-house that was developed by an outside contractor. My job was to take the code they'd just inherited (which no one there knew anything about) and add some features to it on a tight schedule. Documentation? What documentation?
The extent of all of the code comments it had was the following (and no, I'm not making this up):
if(...) {
break;
}
If that wasn't bad enough, I knew the original developer personally. She was a former professor of mine and I'd worked for her company only a few months before she had taken that contract.
As someone who has had to deal with code with descriptive names and no comments or docs to go with them: If you write such code, may you rot in the lowest level of hell along with traitors, used car salesmen, and people who answer cell phones during movies.