Any reason in particular for distaste toward ASP? Even more than for PHP?
ASP is exactly the analogue of PHP, in a sense, so you should have equal levels of language snobbishness toward them.
Also, ASP isn't exactly a single language, but rather a technology that usually uses VB, but you could also use JavaScript. ASP is basically the same as PHP, including delimiters where you can output straight HTML and also code. Instead of PHP's cheesy $GET and $POST variables, you have the well-organized Response object.
Also, both of them are also like Java's JSP. So what were you referring to when you said there were better tools?
I'll ignore the presentation of your argument, and just make a few points:
Regarding the joy of creation, yeah, after I've made something (either tangible or software), I like to look at it, and I enjoy the fact that it's perfect.
However, not every creation is also a product, ready to sell. Taking a general view (and not just of Valve specifically), there's all sorts of stuff you have to do, which you really wouldn't want to do for free. Tracking down weird bugs, creating install programs, testing on myriad different configurations (Vista, 7, XP?, Mac, etc.) with various hardware, etc. That's stuff's highly boring and soul-grinding. It has to be done, but I doubt anybody would choose to do it if they had a choice.
So I'm not speaking up for "the man", but rather asking for practical advice on how he can be avoided.
The article said an analyst estimated somebody might pay $2.5 to buy the company, not that they have $2.5 bil in the bank.
Although Valveâ(TM)s finances are private, Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, estimates that the company could be worth around $2.5 billion today.
While it seems tempting to saying "Just work on what you think you should work on", it also seems risky.
The What Ifs. What if you hire somebody and tell him to work on whatever, and he just posts stuff like this to/. all day. Who would he be accountable to?
Or would the management structure suddenly come into being at that time?
Well, I don't quite know if the Supreme Court disagrees with that. They said in Citizens United that corps could exercise political speech, not that they could donate an unlimited amount to campaigns.
So, there's still a limit to sending a check to a campaign, but you can use whatever media you choose to get your message out (whatever that may be).
If you think about it, it's hard to see how it could be otherwise. Because if you want to restrict the ability of Citizens United to sell videotapes about Clinton, then how can you allow The New York Times Company to editorialize about Clinton (or Obama)? Or Village Voice Media?
If it's OK for Village Voice Media (a corp) to print and distribute tabloids in which they state their opinions, how can you restrict Citizens United (also a corp) from doing the same?
Next, if it's OK for Village Voice Media, it's surely OK for NBC (and its opinion subsidiary MSNBC). And so it's not just "media" corporations that can exercise speech, because NBC was owned by GE (now by Comcast).
So, basically, if you outlaw speech by corporations, you've just outlawed speech by anyone who doesn't own a printing press in his own name (as opposed to in concert with others).
By "medallion", is it meant a "virtual" medallion, like say, a medallion number, and all your info is on record with the city, and you can get a new certificate if you lose yours?
Or is it really a gold/copper/bronze/whatever chunk of metal, and you're supposed to hang this $1 million item off your rearview mirror so the police can easily verify you have it? That's pretty crazy, considering that it's only a, what, $50 piece of glass between a thief and $1 million?
Perhaps this could be put to good use in the net neutrality battle.
I.e., if Verizon says they want a portion of Google's pie because they're providing the pipes, well then, wouldn't that make them responsible for every Internet retailer out there?
Come to think of it, you're right (other than the fact that a billion dollar fine would bankrupt Mark Shuttleworth).
Since Apple already demonstrated its ability to win a judgement against shifty, inscrutable Orientals, now it can pit an American jury against an Evil Englishman.
Note: Shuttleworth is actually from S. Africa, but that's probably close enough for a jury.
>What else do you need to get work done, in the responsibilily area of the "desktop"?
Well, for one thing, are you using your computer for work or play (home)? And is it just you?
Because if you have just one more person, you'll likely need a network share. Right there you're talking about some usable way to work with network shares other than fiddling with NFS or smbclient on the command line.
If you're busy, you're likely managing a huge amount of "stuff" (notes, research, papers, etc.). A good desktop will have good search built-in. And also the ability to use files on remote filesystems seemlessly.
It'd be nice if the stuff you were working on just yesterday were conveniently available or listed so you wouldn't have to recreating your work environment every time.
For one, yeah, the pre-commercialization web of NCSA Mosaic was awesome. (Not being sarcastic.) It was content-heavy. Down-homey. Come as you are.
It's really nice to be able to read content by people who are just writing down their thoughts and aren't constrained by have to dream up a certain number of words every day for the sake of pageviews.
Yet I have trouble finding that stuff anymore. Any normal web query you do will lead to the big sites (HuffPo, etc.) in the SERPs. And if you click on "blog" in Google, you'd expect to find posts by "real people". Instead, everything from the erstwhile AolNews to Time is included in "blog".
Anybody have a good handle on finding that old-time content? Gopher?
I don't quite know if we care about them, but just speaking about customized ads: I've been finding them quite useful of late.
For a long time I was using a dual Chromium/Chrome setup: No Javascript in the former and the majority of browsing in that, and only using Javascript on the latter when necessary for a specific site.
I got a new, faster computer and installed Ubuntu anew on it using Chromium with Javascript on. So I got to experience the web with custom ads.
I find it somewhat useful. For example I see a lot of ads for iWeb, Softlayer, and other hosting providers. I'm in the market for that, and so I don't think that's really bad, either.
What would be the point of showing rec vehicle ads to me?
Anyway, clear out your cookies on a regular basis, and you should be fine.
>I guess that would be relevant if Apple's design patent were just for "grid of colorful icons."
Your sentence is misleading. Are you implying that Apple has a patent for a whole bunch of stuff, and an icon grid is only one small part?
The link you gave describes a couple of Apple patents.
One of them is the icon grid patent. To wit: "The ornamental design for a [GUI] for a display screen or portion thereof, as shown and described" and then they give a picture of their icon grid.
So, if Apple's claiming the bit-for-bit exclusivity on their icons, sure they deserve that. But if they're just claiming the idea of an icon grid in a phone (colorful or otherwise), no, somebody did that before them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we just got the red river in China yesterday.
lawyers remember ethics for a few seconds?
Any reason in particular for distaste toward ASP? Even more than for PHP?
ASP is exactly the analogue of PHP, in a sense, so you should have equal levels of language snobbishness toward them.
Also, ASP isn't exactly a single language, but rather a technology that usually uses VB, but you could also use JavaScript. ASP is basically the same as PHP, including delimiters where you can output straight HTML and also code. Instead of PHP's cheesy $GET and $POST variables, you have the well-organized Response object.
Also, both of them are also like Java's JSP. So what were you referring to when you said there were better tools?
Wait, but if the price of the Google IPO didn't go up, how is it that Brin & Page are billionaires? Not to mention the Google chef phenomenon?
I'll ignore the presentation of your argument, and just make a few points:
Regarding the joy of creation, yeah, after I've made something (either tangible or software), I like to look at it, and I enjoy the fact that it's perfect.
However, not every creation is also a product, ready to sell. Taking a general view (and not just of Valve specifically), there's all sorts of stuff you have to do, which you really wouldn't want to do for free. Tracking down weird bugs, creating install programs, testing on myriad different configurations (Vista, 7, XP?, Mac, etc.) with various hardware, etc. That's stuff's highly boring and soul-grinding. It has to be done, but I doubt anybody would choose to do it if they had a choice.
So I'm not speaking up for "the man", but rather asking for practical advice on how he can be avoided.
True, but that's not what the article said.
The article said an analyst estimated somebody might pay $2.5 to buy the company, not that they have $2.5 bil in the bank.
While it seems tempting to saying "Just work on what you think you should work on", it also seems risky.
The What Ifs. What if you hire somebody and tell him to work on whatever, and he just posts stuff like this to /. all day. Who would he be accountable to?
Or would the management structure suddenly come into being at that time?
I don't even see how that (wired) monster is even relevant after Google Glasses.
Well, I don't quite know if the Supreme Court disagrees with that. They said in Citizens United that corps could exercise political speech, not that they could donate an unlimited amount to campaigns.
So, there's still a limit to sending a check to a campaign, but you can use whatever media you choose to get your message out (whatever that may be).
If you think about it, it's hard to see how it could be otherwise. Because if you want to restrict the ability of Citizens United to sell videotapes about Clinton, then how can you allow The New York Times Company to editorialize about Clinton (or Obama)? Or Village Voice Media?
If it's OK for Village Voice Media (a corp) to print and distribute tabloids in which they state their opinions, how can you restrict Citizens United (also a corp) from doing the same?
Next, if it's OK for Village Voice Media, it's surely OK for NBC (and its opinion subsidiary MSNBC). And so it's not just "media" corporations that can exercise speech, because NBC was owned by GE (now by Comcast).
So, basically, if you outlaw speech by corporations, you've just outlawed speech by anyone who doesn't own a printing press in his own name (as opposed to in concert with others).
I think they're saying that if the guy is registered, at least the police can get a lead to trace.
By "medallion", is it meant a "virtual" medallion, like say, a medallion number, and all your info is on record with the city, and you can get a new certificate if you lose yours?
Or is it really a gold/copper/bronze/whatever chunk of metal, and you're supposed to hang this $1 million item off your rearview mirror so the police can easily verify you have it? That's pretty crazy, considering that it's only a, what, $50 piece of glass between a thief and $1 million?
Why, what do they do?
Hmm, very interesting idea.
Perhaps this could be put to good use in the net neutrality battle.
I.e., if Verizon says they want a portion of Google's pie because they're providing the pipes, well then, wouldn't that make them responsible for every Internet retailer out there?
sniffing a police station's or an FBI office's wifi isn't wiretapping, either, right?
Nice, thanks.
Yeah, this.
Set it to a small value, and your program will crash because it can't allocate enough memory for all its objects.
So you allocate a huge amount (half gig, .75 gig, whatever). Then what happens is your program increases to that huge size.
Come to think of it, you're right (other than the fact that a billion dollar fine would bankrupt Mark Shuttleworth).
Since Apple already demonstrated its ability to win a judgement against shifty, inscrutable Orientals, now it can pit an American jury against an Evil Englishman.
Note: Shuttleworth is actually from S. Africa, but that's probably close enough for a jury.
>What else do you need to get work done, in the responsibilily area of the "desktop"?
Well, for one thing, are you using your computer for work or play (home)? And is it just you?
Because if you have just one more person, you'll likely need a network share. Right there you're talking about some usable way to work with network shares other than fiddling with NFS or smbclient on the command line.
If you're busy, you're likely managing a huge amount of "stuff" (notes, research, papers, etc.). A good desktop will have good search built-in. And also the ability to use files on remote filesystems seemlessly.
It'd be nice if the stuff you were working on just yesterday were conveniently available or listed so you wouldn't have to recreating your work environment every time.
Do you have specific complaints? I'm guessing it would be about the small stuff (devil in the details).
The attack vector argument is a very good one.
I've seen multiple instances of malware-laden ads being served by "mainstream" ad networks on multiple sub-1000 Alexa sites.
Some or another advertiser throws up some script (by design or not), and suddenly, you're getting pwned.
For one, yeah, the pre-commercialization web of NCSA Mosaic was awesome. (Not being sarcastic.) It was content-heavy. Down-homey. Come as you are.
It's really nice to be able to read content by people who are just writing down their thoughts and aren't constrained by have to dream up a certain number of words every day for the sake of pageviews.
Yet I have trouble finding that stuff anymore. Any normal web query you do will lead to the big sites (HuffPo, etc.) in the SERPs. And if you click on "blog" in Google, you'd expect to find posts by "real people". Instead, everything from the erstwhile AolNews to Time is included in "blog".
Anybody have a good handle on finding that old-time content? Gopher?
I don't quite know if we care about them, but just speaking about customized ads: I've been finding them quite useful of late.
For a long time I was using a dual Chromium/Chrome setup: No Javascript in the former and the majority of browsing in that, and only using Javascript on the latter when necessary for a specific site.
I got a new, faster computer and installed Ubuntu anew on it using Chromium with Javascript on. So I got to experience the web with custom ads.
I find it somewhat useful. For example I see a lot of ads for iWeb, Softlayer, and other hosting providers. I'm in the market for that, and so I don't think that's really bad, either.
What would be the point of showing rec vehicle ads to me?
Anyway, clear out your cookies on a regular basis, and you should be fine.
>I guess that would be relevant if Apple's design patent were just for "grid of colorful icons."
Your sentence is misleading. Are you implying that Apple has a patent for a whole bunch of stuff, and an icon grid is only one small part?
The link you gave describes a couple of Apple patents.
One of them is the icon grid patent. To wit: "The ornamental design for a [GUI] for a display screen or portion thereof, as shown and described" and then they give a picture of their icon grid.
So, if Apple's claiming the bit-for-bit exclusivity on their icons, sure they deserve that. But if they're just claiming the idea of an icon grid in a phone (colorful or otherwise), no, somebody did that before them.
You need "permission" to publish stuff? What country do you live in?
>Doesn't mean anything unless AT&T patented it.
Oh, so people have been doing $X for years, and it doesn't matter until Apple comes along to claim it all for itself.
Got it.