But simply treating royalty as "if we get money, you get money". I see nothing wrong with this model.
Really? Apple has more money than any other company. They have a new streaming service. They want customers to use their service, because it's going to make money for Apple. The product that Apple is selling through this service is created by other people not affiliated with Apple. Apple, the most profitable company, has volunteered all of those creators for 3 months of not making any money in order for customers to sign up for Apple's service so that Apple can make even more money in the future. You don't see a problem with that? How about this: if Apple wants to not charge customers for 3 months for trying their service, how about that cost comes out of Apple's pocket instead of all of the creators? Your idea of royalties means that I can publicly perform any copyrighted work, and as long as I'm not making any money from doing so, everything is just fine. What do you think the content industry thinks of a model like that?
Like she says, Taylor Swift isn't personally going to be hurt very much by this, either way. But what about the new band getting ready to release their big single, and the release date happens to coincide with Apple's free trial? That band was counting on success from this single, but now Apple decides that they don't get paid for any plays through their service? How is that fair to the band? You see "nothing wrong with this model", so how is that fair? Why should Apple ask that band to take 3 months of income off the table when, again, Apple is the most profitable company ever? If Apple is selling their new service, why aren't they paying the costs of the free trial?
If there is no source of light to illuminate something, then it will be completely black. The reason why we can see objects inside a shadow on Earth is because the air in the atmosphere reflects light in every direction. You can notice that at home also. If you turn all of the lights off in your house at night then it will be black. If you turn one on then you'll notice that you are able to see places that do not have a line of sight to the light. That's because the air in the room (or other walls or surfaces) are reflecting the light. On the moon, surfaces like the ground might reflect light, but there's no air to do it.
I think that's kind of the point. We know that sometimes companies collaborate with their governments to add vulnerabilities, exploits, or data theft features to their products. The question is if Kaspersky is one of those companies.
I've literally never researched blog, forum, or wiki software that does not use PHP, so I don't know the answer to your question, but it does raise a few questions of my own. There's obviously a lot of hate for PHP. If no one has created a high-quality CMS that doesn't use PHP then I would wonder why that is. Are other languages less suited for that kind of application than PHP? Are the people who write in those languages less likely to create open source products? I don't know the answers to those questions, but it does seem a little bit interesting how PHP so completely dominates that software niche. With all of the hate from people like you, I would think there would be a major alternative competitor. If there's not, I'm sure that says something about PHP, other languages, and the developers that use them, but I'm not sure what.
If there's not a viable alternative, then maybe you should look into creating one. That attitude is actually exactly why PHP exists in the first place, and also why all of the popular applications are written in PHP. Someone saw a need, and they filled it with the choice that seemed most logical to them.
Now all they need is a way is to uniquely identify a robot in a way that can't be forged so that a passport can only apply to one specific robot. A picture of it isn't exactly going to fly, nor will a serial number that can be physically altered, nor an ID chip that can be changed or replaced. Unless they're talking about a single national certification for an entire model range rather than individuals.
PHP does nothing to help programmers write sane, maintainable code.
PHP does nothing to force programmers to write good code. It also doesn't force you to write bad code. It doesn't do anything, actually, other than waiting for you to use it however you want to. That means that the fact that you produce good or bad code is a reflection of your abilities instead of the language.
Don't even get me started on mysql_escape_string [php.net] vs. mysql_real_escape_string [php.net]
If you see anyone using the mysql extension then they deserve to receive as much shit as you can give them. It was outdated in 2004. People should be using PDO these days.
Yes, the PHP code is harder to maintain long term, but it's amazing how fast you can build things that work.
Don't worry, we have things like Zend Framework now. Your Java guys will catch up in no time. Or, I guess that should be the other way around. Either way, get your PHP guys on that and they'll spend a day to get a basic application online. If there's a simple bug, expect 3 hours of debugging time.
If you're writing extensions for PHP applications but you don't like PHP and don't want to use it, maybe you need to reconsider your job. That's like a Linux fanatic complaining about needing to use Microsoft products in their job as a programmer of Office add-ins. Or a vegan chef complaining about having to deal with meat at the steakhouse they opened. Or someone who is frightened of flying bitching about needing to go to work as a co-pilot tomorrow.
If you don't like PHP, then maybe don't work a job that requires PHP.
What bonuses and service charges? If I take a ride and it costs me $10, I know that my driver gets $7.20 and Uber takes $2.80. I'm already out $10, how are we both going to earn a profit by splitting $7.20?
Slashdot fails to find links to grammar of headlines.
How about "TSA Fails to Find Airport Workers' Links to Terrorism" instead? Unless the TSA was investigating the terrorism of airport workers, that headline is a little bit off.
If a person was walking down the street in a costume and it appeared like they had a gun, what is the appropriate responses and legal actions from law enforcement?
In this hypothetical scenario, is the person in a place where the possession of a gun is restricted? Because, if so, I think you know my answer.
Being cooperative with the police is not a requirement, and if you are innocent of any criminal actions the police have no right to question you or detain you.
You're suggesting that if you are walking near a school with a toy gun which looks at a glance like it might be real, that the police do not have the right to question you about whether the gun is real? If it's real, then you're breaking the law. If it's not real, then you aren't. If the police are only allowed to question you if you have broken the law, then how do they determine if you have?
What you wrote above is only partly correct. The police have every right to question you if they suspect you have broken a law. If the police walk up to you and start questioning you, you can often end that encounter by simply asking them if they suspect that you committed a crime and, if so, what. If you disagree, feel free to go buy a toy gun (like this one, for example) and then stroll around your neighborhood elementary or high school. When the police approach you, go ahead and tell them how you haven't committed any crime so they don't have the right to question you. Note how they say that they're trying to determine whether a crime has been committed, and they'd like to find out if that's a real gun.
your repeated claim that the Principle was right and repeatedly falsely claiming that a law (which you repeated linked) supports the principle and police actions
If there was a guy walking down the street, wearing a costume, carrying an actual weapon, with an intent to go on school grounds and start shooting people, and the principal saw this person and decided to ignore him because he was wearing a costume, would that principal be doing his job?
You keep mis-stating my position. My position is this:
1. The principal acted correctly in telling the police to make contact with the guy and check him out. 2. The law that I keep citing is what the principal may use to justify police making contact with the guy. If it was a real weapon, he would have been violating that law.
That's it. That's my position. Notice there's no judgment of what the police actually did. You're claiming that I am using that law to justify the police actions. No I'm not. That law does not say that the police can arrest someone for disturbing a school or loitering if they are carrying a toy gun. I'm not claiming that it does say that. The law is not a factor at all in how the police responded once they determined that the gun was not real, and I never said it did. The law is the reason why the principal would (and should) call the police in the first place. If that's a real gun then the principal isn't doing his job if he ignores it, it doesn't matter what the guy is wearing and it's not the job of the principal to determine if the weapon is real.
If you claim the principle was correct in calling the police the _only_ obvious implication is that the person was in the wrong, not the principle.
Why does someone have to be in the wrong? Why is there a good guy and a bad guy? The principal was correct and justified to do what he did. The costumed guy was justified to be walking down the street if that's what he felt like doing. I doubt the cops were justified in arresting the guy, but I didn't see the interaction they had. I find no fault with the principal or the costumed guy, assuming he proved early on that the gun wasn't real. If the police knew the gun wasn't real then the arrest probably was not justified. There's no reason to vilify the principal for doing his job though.
I'm definitely right, you just apparently think I'm arguing some point that I'm not. I'm arguing that the principal was correct to call the police, and that most likely the police messed up.
There is no probable cause for the Police to detain this person
How do you know that, were you there? Did you see the interaction? Do you know if the guy in costume was cooperative or did he argue with the police, refuse to let them inspect the gun, etc? You seem to have the details, so I'm curious what exactly transpired there. I can see a possible situation where the guy in costume deserved to get arrested, and I don't have the necessary details to know whether or not the cops acted correctly. I'm assuming that the cop was having a bad day and decided to be a dick, but I don't know if that's the case or not.
The principal did the right thing by calling the police to make contact with a guy walking by the school who appeared to be carrying a weapon. It's not the principal's job to figure out if it's a real weapon, that's the job of the police. I would say the police failed in this situation, but maybe the costumed guy was being an argumentative dick and the cop had a bad day. Either way, it's not the principal's fault. If the guy decided to put on a costume (because it conceals his identity), take a gun, and head to the school to shoot someone, and the principal decided not to call because the guy was wearing a movie costume, then it would most definitely be the principal's fault. It's his (or her) job to keep the kids safe, not verify whether a weapon is real.
Slashdot Mirror
But simply treating royalty as "if we get money, you get money". I see nothing wrong with this model.
Really? Apple has more money than any other company. They have a new streaming service. They want customers to use their service, because it's going to make money for Apple. The product that Apple is selling through this service is created by other people not affiliated with Apple. Apple, the most profitable company, has volunteered all of those creators for 3 months of not making any money in order for customers to sign up for Apple's service so that Apple can make even more money in the future. You don't see a problem with that? How about this: if Apple wants to not charge customers for 3 months for trying their service, how about that cost comes out of Apple's pocket instead of all of the creators? Your idea of royalties means that I can publicly perform any copyrighted work, and as long as I'm not making any money from doing so, everything is just fine. What do you think the content industry thinks of a model like that?
Like she says, Taylor Swift isn't personally going to be hurt very much by this, either way. But what about the new band getting ready to release their big single, and the release date happens to coincide with Apple's free trial? That band was counting on success from this single, but now Apple decides that they don't get paid for any plays through their service? How is that fair to the band? You see "nothing wrong with this model", so how is that fair? Why should Apple ask that band to take 3 months of income off the table when, again, Apple is the most profitable company ever? If Apple is selling their new service, why aren't they paying the costs of the free trial?
I thought it was the USS Eldridge that had the divide by zero issue.
Real programmers use 17.293884261109482 to represent division by zero.
The sixth infinity.
Ooooo, orrrrrrr, how about negative infinity? after all, 1/-.0000000000000000000000000001 is really close to that....
That's preposterous. 1/-.0000000000000000000000000001 is infinitely far from negative infinity.
Apparently so that everyone can hit some stupid Share button by mistake instead.
If there is no source of light to illuminate something, then it will be completely black. The reason why we can see objects inside a shadow on Earth is because the air in the atmosphere reflects light in every direction. You can notice that at home also. If you turn all of the lights off in your house at night then it will be black. If you turn one on then you'll notice that you are able to see places that do not have a line of sight to the light. That's because the air in the room (or other walls or surfaces) are reflecting the light. On the moon, surfaces like the ground might reflect light, but there's no air to do it.
UrtheCast has released high resolution videos of three Earth cities taken from its camera on ISS.
Thanks for qualifying that. If you had only said "cities", my first question would have been which planet are they on.
I like how you think that a telecommunications company might use excess cash to upgrade their service. That's funny right there.
I think that's kind of the point. We know that sometimes companies collaborate with their governments to add vulnerabilities, exploits, or data theft features to their products. The question is if Kaspersky is one of those companies.
we hear about China being a major source of "state-sponsored" advanced persistent threat (APC)
APC? Is that Advanced Persistent Chinese?
I second dave420's response.
I've literally never researched blog, forum, or wiki software that does not use PHP, so I don't know the answer to your question, but it does raise a few questions of my own. There's obviously a lot of hate for PHP. If no one has created a high-quality CMS that doesn't use PHP then I would wonder why that is. Are other languages less suited for that kind of application than PHP? Are the people who write in those languages less likely to create open source products? I don't know the answers to those questions, but it does seem a little bit interesting how PHP so completely dominates that software niche. With all of the hate from people like you, I would think there would be a major alternative competitor. If there's not, I'm sure that says something about PHP, other languages, and the developers that use them, but I'm not sure what.
If there's not a viable alternative, then maybe you should look into creating one. That attitude is actually exactly why PHP exists in the first place, and also why all of the popular applications are written in PHP. Someone saw a need, and they filled it with the choice that seemed most logical to them.
Now all they need is a way is to uniquely identify a robot in a way that can't be forged so that a passport can only apply to one specific robot. A picture of it isn't exactly going to fly, nor will a serial number that can be physically altered, nor an ID chip that can be changed or replaced. Unless they're talking about a single national certification for an entire model range rather than individuals.
PHP does nothing to help programmers write sane, maintainable code.
PHP does nothing to force programmers to write good code. It also doesn't force you to write bad code. It doesn't do anything, actually, other than waiting for you to use it however you want to. That means that the fact that you produce good or bad code is a reflection of your abilities instead of the language.
Don't even get me started on mysql_escape_string [php.net] vs. mysql_real_escape_string [php.net]
If you see anyone using the mysql extension then they deserve to receive as much shit as you can give them. It was outdated in 2004. People should be using PDO these days.
Yes, the PHP code is harder to maintain long term, but it's amazing how fast you can build things that work.
Don't worry, we have things like Zend Framework now. Your Java guys will catch up in no time. Or, I guess that should be the other way around. Either way, get your PHP guys on that and they'll spend a day to get a basic application online. If there's a simple bug, expect 3 hours of debugging time.
If you're writing extensions for PHP applications but you don't like PHP and don't want to use it, maybe you need to reconsider your job. That's like a Linux fanatic complaining about needing to use Microsoft products in their job as a programmer of Office add-ins. Or a vegan chef complaining about having to deal with meat at the steakhouse they opened. Or someone who is frightened of flying bitching about needing to go to work as a co-pilot tomorrow.
If you don't like PHP, then maybe don't work a job that requires PHP.
The most toolbars I've counted was at least 6
Amateur
What bonuses and service charges? If I take a ride and it costs me $10, I know that my driver gets $7.20 and Uber takes $2.80. I'm already out $10, how are we both going to earn a profit by splitting $7.20?
Slashdot fails to find links to grammar of headlines.
How about "TSA Fails to Find Airport Workers' Links to Terrorism" instead? Unless the TSA was investigating the terrorism of airport workers, that headline is a little bit off.
If a person was walking down the street in a costume and it appeared like they had a gun, what is the appropriate responses and legal actions from law enforcement?
In this hypothetical scenario, is the person in a place where the possession of a gun is restricted? Because, if so, I think you know my answer.
Being cooperative with the police is not a requirement, and if you are innocent of any criminal actions the police have no right to question you or detain you.
You're suggesting that if you are walking near a school with a toy gun which looks at a glance like it might be real, that the police do not have the right to question you about whether the gun is real? If it's real, then you're breaking the law. If it's not real, then you aren't. If the police are only allowed to question you if you have broken the law, then how do they determine if you have?
What you wrote above is only partly correct. The police have every right to question you if they suspect you have broken a law. If the police walk up to you and start questioning you, you can often end that encounter by simply asking them if they suspect that you committed a crime and, if so, what. If you disagree, feel free to go buy a toy gun (like this one, for example) and then stroll around your neighborhood elementary or high school. When the police approach you, go ahead and tell them how you haven't committed any crime so they don't have the right to question you. Note how they say that they're trying to determine whether a crime has been committed, and they'd like to find out if that's a real gun.
your repeated claim that the Principle was right and repeatedly falsely claiming that a law (which you repeated linked) supports the principle and police actions
If there was a guy walking down the street, wearing a costume, carrying an actual weapon, with an intent to go on school grounds and start shooting people, and the principal saw this person and decided to ignore him because he was wearing a costume, would that principal be doing his job?
You keep mis-stating my position. My position is this:
1. The principal acted correctly in telling the police to make contact with the guy and check him out.
2. The law that I keep citing is what the principal may use to justify police making contact with the guy. If it was a real weapon, he would have been violating that law.
That's it. That's my position. Notice there's no judgment of what the police actually did. You're claiming that I am using that law to justify the police actions. No I'm not. That law does not say that the police can arrest someone for disturbing a school or loitering if they are carrying a toy gun. I'm not claiming that it does say that. The law is not a factor at all in how the police responded once they determined that the gun was not real, and I never said it did. The law is the reason why the principal would (and should) call the police in the first place. If that's a real gun then the principal isn't doing his job if he ignores it, it doesn't matter what the guy is wearing and it's not the job of the principal to determine if the weapon is real.
If you claim the principle was correct in calling the police the _only_ obvious implication is that the person was in the wrong, not the principle.
Why does someone have to be in the wrong? Why is there a good guy and a bad guy? The principal was correct and justified to do what he did. The costumed guy was justified to be walking down the street if that's what he felt like doing. I doubt the cops were justified in arresting the guy, but I didn't see the interaction they had. I find no fault with the principal or the costumed guy, assuming he proved early on that the gun wasn't real. If the police knew the gun wasn't real then the arrest probably was not justified. There's no reason to vilify the principal for doing his job though.
I'm definitely right, you just apparently think I'm arguing some point that I'm not. I'm arguing that the principal was correct to call the police, and that most likely the police messed up.
There is no probable cause for the Police to detain this person
How do you know that, were you there? Did you see the interaction? Do you know if the guy in costume was cooperative or did he argue with the police, refuse to let them inspect the gun, etc? You seem to have the details, so I'm curious what exactly transpired there. I can see a possible situation where the guy in costume deserved to get arrested, and I don't have the necessary details to know whether or not the cops acted correctly. I'm assuming that the cop was having a bad day and decided to be a dick, but I don't know if that's the case or not.
The principal did the right thing by calling the police to make contact with a guy walking by the school who appeared to be carrying a weapon. It's not the principal's job to figure out if it's a real weapon, that's the job of the police. I would say the police failed in this situation, but maybe the costumed guy was being an argumentative dick and the cop had a bad day. Either way, it's not the principal's fault. If the guy decided to put on a costume (because it conceals his identity), take a gun, and head to the school to shoot someone, and the principal decided not to call because the guy was wearing a movie costume, then it would most definitely be the principal's fault. It's his (or her) job to keep the kids safe, not verify whether a weapon is real.