After Redhat mismanaged the discontinuation of RedHat Linux in favor of an enterprise focus, many people started fishing around for a replacement default Linux. (Yes, I know Redhat still has a desktop product, but the impression people got was that Redhat was going totally corporate.)
Add to that the legendary (even promised) instability of Fedora, which is explicitly and without apology presented as a testing vehicle.
In comes Ubuntu with the Circle of Friends imagery, the Ubuntu code of conduct, the word ubuntu itself ("open and available to others"), and the promise of "Linux for Human Beings".
The rapid growth of Ubuntu to #1 on Distrowatch was propelled by evangelism done by the same power users whose opinions are apparently not worth being listened to anymore.
The party doing the paying is the bank, not you. For this reason, it's considered more secure than a personal check.
If you pay by cashier's check the money has already been debited from your account. There's no possibility that you'll give a check, receive merchandise, and then empty your account before the seller has a chance to deposit the check.
Other names for cashier's check are: -bank draft -demand draft -banker's draft
The problem is there is no real standardization of "Software Engineer" titles. The result is programmers continuing to pimp themselves out.
Real engineers have professional associations that won't tolerate browbeating of engineers. And I've never heard of a software architecture that won't go forward without the written signature and permission of an engineer.
I don't really think the IEEEeee! puts the fear of anything into anyone.
But software developers are not domain experts in the financial industry, which has gotten more and more arcane over the years, from derivatives to credit-default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, on so forth.
Look at it this way:
1. If you're a programmer working on a medical device (to be used in a hospital), are you responsible for the amount of radiation given off, or is your M.D. supervisor responsible who told you the legally permissible dose?
2. If you're working on a medical records application, are you responsible for privacy controls or your supervisors who told you what HIPAA requires?
3. If you're working on a missile for Lockheed, are you responsible for following the parameters of the defense contract, or your superiors?
1) unclean hands. If you're accusing someone of doing something that did you harm, you can't have been acting in bad faith and doing a similar kind of evil.
2) mitigation. This means once you realize a harm has been done to you, you move to decrease the effect of the harm. Like if someone promised to sell you oil for your plant's machinery, you don't keep running the machinery without lubrication and then claim damages. You should shut down the plant.
Similarly, Viacon (sic) shouldn't have continued to upload YouTube video surreptitiously.
Shouldn't computing be a right in this day and age?
Finland has already declared a right to broadband.
It's time for the US to take a leadership position.
If it doesn't, the poor are going to fall further and further behind.
Every resident (whether citizen or not, taxpayer or not) has this right, because rights are not dependent upon citizenship status.
Everyone should get a computer, LCD monitor, mouse and keyboard with Windows. (That's every person, not every household. People have rights, not groups.) Everyone would get a new computer every 3 years, and free virus cleaning and computer "physicals". People might have to wait in a waiting list to get a computer, but this is better than the current system, which is based on a profit-motive, first-come, first-served basis.
One approach that I think could work is to have an open-format pledge bank.
I.e., Wikipedia has 13% of the Web, Youtube has 20?%. Once you get enough sites to add up to 50% or so committing to using open formats, it becomes a juggernaut. This is a good approach because it avoids any one site having to make the first step.
YouTube will continue to support Flash, which people will already have.
If people want to access the #6 site on the Web (Wikipedia) they'll be using open formats to do so. Maybe not every single Wikipedia user will immediately start using open formats, but it'll have an effect.
What? Wikipedia already has open-format video on Wikipedia.
Saying that a campaign to get open-format videos onto Wikipedia will be viewed as spam is like saying a campaign to get ASCII-format articles will be viewed as spam.
Oh, and they're actually working with the Wikipedia folks to streamline the video-upload procedure.
Say what you will about Google, but its level of evil is dwarfed by Facebook's.
*You can use much of Google without logging in, even without cookies or Javascript. Try that with Facebook. *Google gets criticized for privacy bugs in Buzz, but Facebook is entirely based on privacy violations *Google pioneered reasonable Internet ads (text ads). Though they later added other kinds of ads, Google showed it's possible for websites to earn revenue without being totally obnoxious. Facebook ads are evil incarnate. *Google is all about pointing people towards the World Wide Web. Facebook is about keeping people in a walled garden. *Google's birth story is 2 geeks building a better mousetrap. Facebook was conceived in privacy-impinging, account-hacking, contract-abrogating, trust-violating sin. New developments serve to confirm these initial trajectories.
By this interpretation, would the court also want to say that cable TV transmissions aren't covered under freedom of speech and the press because cable TV isn't a "press"?
OK, I'll agree with you on the on the fact that the blatant red is irritating.
It's also sad to see Sun subsumed.
But don't think that Oracle bought Sun to bury Java. To the contrary, Oracle's heavily invested in Java, using it all of their most important software packages (including parts of Oracle). They're heavily into J2EE.
At a time when Oracle has promised to increase budget for Java, this is the wrong time to get out.
Besides, do you think maniacal Larry Ellison wants to lose to Microsoft's.NET?
Slashdot Mirror
>Oh, and by the way. Since when did YOU get to decide whether Marks plans are valid or not?
Sorry, why doesn't he?
He can certainly decide for himself whether he likes Mark's work or not.
He can also speak (talk, chat, e-mail, comment, blog, etc.) about his opinions.
Or can he not?
After Redhat mismanaged the discontinuation of RedHat Linux in favor of an enterprise focus, many people started fishing around for a replacement default Linux. (Yes, I know Redhat still has a desktop product, but the impression people got was that Redhat was going totally corporate.)
Add to that the legendary (even promised) instability of Fedora, which is explicitly and without apology presented as a testing vehicle.
In comes Ubuntu with the Circle of Friends imagery, the Ubuntu code of conduct, the word ubuntu itself ("open and available to others"), and the promise of "Linux for Human Beings".
The rapid growth of Ubuntu to #1 on Distrowatch was propelled by evangelism done by the same power users whose opinions are apparently not worth being listened to anymore.
Just sayin'.
http://lynx.isc.org/
A cashier's check is a check issued by a bank.
The party doing the paying is the bank, not you. For this reason, it's considered more secure than a personal check.
If you pay by cashier's check the money has already been debited from your account. There's no possibility that you'll give a check, receive merchandise, and then empty your account before the seller has a chance to deposit the check.
Other names for cashier's check are:
-bank draft
-demand draft
-banker's draft
brits.uk/~username ?
The problem is there is no real standardization of "Software Engineer" titles. The result is programmers continuing to pimp themselves out.
Real engineers have professional associations that won't tolerate browbeating of engineers. And I've never heard of a software architecture that won't go forward without the written signature and permission of an engineer.
I don't really think the IEEEeee! puts the fear of anything into anyone.
They should tell the Feds they were told this was a secret CIA program to short Saudi holdings.
Really? Agile and company are all about testing, mock objects, dependency injection, etc.
Is there a legal requirement that testing of financial software not be done using the actual names and values of stocks?
But software developers are not domain experts in the financial industry, which has gotten more and more arcane over the years, from derivatives to credit-default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, on so forth.
Look at it this way:
1. If you're a programmer working on a medical device (to be used in a hospital), are you responsible for the amount of radiation given off, or is your M.D. supervisor responsible who told you the legally permissible dose?
2. If you're working on a medical records application, are you responsible for privacy controls or your supervisors who told you what HIPAA requires?
3. If you're working on a missile for Lockheed, are you responsible for following the parameters of the defense contract, or your superiors?
But if someone (like Madoff) is making hundreds of millions of dollars, how much do you think the life of 2 nerds is worth?
It looks like Google can get them for
1) unclean hands. If you're accusing someone of doing something that did you harm, you can't have been acting in bad faith and doing a similar kind of evil.
2) mitigation. This means once you realize a harm has been done to you, you move to decrease the effect of the harm. Like if someone promised to sell you oil for your plant's machinery, you don't keep running the machinery without lubrication and then claim damages. You should shut down the plant.
Similarly, Viacon (sic) shouldn't have continued to upload YouTube video surreptitiously.
Their business case is simply that somebody or another is going to control online video, and they'd rather it be Google.
If damage can occur in just a matter of hours, does this mean that the moon landing hoax theories were actually true?
Shouldn't computing be a right in this day and age?
Finland has already declared a right to broadband.
It's time for the US to take a leadership position.
If it doesn't, the poor are going to fall further and further behind.
Every resident (whether citizen or not, taxpayer or not) has this right, because rights are not dependent upon citizenship status.
Everyone should get a computer, LCD monitor, mouse and keyboard with Windows. (That's every person, not every household. People have rights, not groups.) Everyone would get a new computer every 3 years, and free virus cleaning and computer "physicals". People might have to wait in a waiting list to get a computer, but this is better than the current system, which is based on a profit-motive, first-come, first-served basis.
One approach that I think could work is to have an open-format pledge bank.
I.e., Wikipedia has 13% of the Web, Youtube has 20?%. Once you get enough sites to add up to 50% or so committing to using open formats, it becomes a juggernaut. This is a good approach because it avoids any one site having to make the first step.
It's not necessarily an either-or scenario.
YouTube will continue to support Flash, which people will already have.
If people want to access the #6 site on the Web (Wikipedia) they'll be using open formats to do so. Maybe not every single Wikipedia user will immediately start using open formats, but it'll have an effect.
What? Wikipedia already has open-format video on Wikipedia.
Saying that a campaign to get open-format videos onto Wikipedia will be viewed as spam is like saying a campaign to get ASCII-format articles will be viewed as spam.
Oh, and they're actually working with the Wikipedia folks to streamline the video-upload procedure.
Exactly what is the difference in bandwidth for H.264 vs. Theora?
Only for now.
What phones support Ogg Theora?
Say what you will about Google, but its level of evil is dwarfed by Facebook's.
*You can use much of Google without logging in, even without cookies or Javascript. Try that with Facebook.
*Google gets criticized for privacy bugs in Buzz, but Facebook is entirely based on privacy violations
*Google pioneered reasonable Internet ads (text ads). Though they later added other kinds of ads, Google showed it's possible for websites to earn revenue without being totally obnoxious. Facebook ads are evil incarnate.
*Google is all about pointing people towards the World Wide Web. Facebook is about keeping people in a walled garden.
*Google's birth story is 2 geeks building a better mousetrap. Facebook was conceived in privacy-impinging, account-hacking, contract-abrogating, trust-violating sin. New developments serve to confirm these initial trajectories.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/234204/Facebook-Founder-Accused-of-Hacking-Into-Rivals-Email
Thanks for the summary.
Major error on the court's part. The mail was not "delivered" to the ISP. It was holding it for pickup by the addressee.
By this interpretation, would the court also want to say that cable TV transmissions aren't covered under freedom of speech and the press because cable TV isn't a "press"?
Anything wrong with WebDAV?
OK, I'll agree with you on the on the fact that the blatant red is irritating.
It's also sad to see Sun subsumed.
But don't think that Oracle bought Sun to bury Java. To the contrary, Oracle's heavily invested in Java, using it all of their most important software packages (including parts of Oracle). They're heavily into J2EE.
At a time when Oracle has promised to increase budget for Java, this is the wrong time to get out.
Besides, do you think maniacal Larry Ellison wants to lose to Microsoft's .NET?