What a puerile piece! The Net as I knew it was not about listening to the radio and downloading movies. The Net used to about contacting people, sharing views and knowledge. How usage caps could impede this?
I'd highly doubt they'd donate again anonymously, with a much smaller sum than in the past, and to a center whose primary goal goes against the core principals of Billy Boy's business model =)
Well, this is the part that would make it worthwhile. You know, just to maintain the insanity around at a reasonably high level...
The word has been coined by a Czech (not Czechoslovakian for the dumb ones who don't feel the difference) author Karel Capek: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/people/karel_ca pek/
Your insistence on deluding yourself is quite amusing. Go on!
Metadiscussion note:
I didn't write, they innovate (although I think, they do - not that much, so this is beside the point). I have written, their products are of good (pardon, better word suggested below: adequate) quality and they know, how to peddle it.
It seems, that to succeede in the businessplace you need both, with emphasis on the latter, unfortunattely.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. If some other business magazine puts forward an article that concludes: "Microsoft is bad" (vide "The Economist"), they are righteous 'free press'. If they write something that contradicts the colective opinion of slashdotters, it is 'typical of business reporting', and obviously has something to do with 'millions, that MS...'.
Face the reality: MicroSoft is a damn effective company, that makes good software and knows, how to sell it.
And for the zealous ones: I didn't say, they were moral and nice. I have just stated the facts.
The essential nature of commercial software is anonymity.
From now on Anonymity is your name, Silence - yoyr mother tongue. You are not part of the system, you are above it, you are beyond it. You are MIB.
-m-
Are you responsible for the project? Do you want it to succeede?
If any of the above is true, focus on hiring _good_ developers. Everything else is irrelevant.
From my point of view, there is an additional reason.
Theoretical rudiments for relational databases do exist and are well understood by some. I am not referring to SQL here, but rather to math.
Term 'relation' is well defined. Math behind it is pretty and simple. Simple is good.
So, on the one side we have well defined mathematical concept that can be worked on. On the other hand - elusive 'art of objects'. Although I personally prefer the latter (makes me feel good about myself) I always appreciate ability to define software in more solid terms. A relational database engine (what it does, what it needs to do) can be defined in terms of quite comprehensible algebra.
There are similar efforts for OODBMS (evolving algebras, for instance) but these are relatively recent - and most people doesn't care about them.
Conclusion: relational database engines are simple in construction. OO databases are not. Simple is good. Complex is bad. Long live RDBMS.
The influx of information leading to the enlightenment of the populus was the downfall of East Germany and the Soviet Union.
Of course, pointing East Germany as the primary example proves your ignorance in the subject. And what us the 'Communism in the East' you are referring to?
Oh, c'mon. Does the obvious need to be stated? Of course, they are concerned with people finding the truth on a some serious issue more then with kids accessing porn. Or rather, they are afraid, some youngster might find, there *are* points of view other then the right one, as hold by the regime.
And they cannot state their intentions clearly. That could defeat the purpose.
-m-
I am not going to. I don't know the methodology behind the research because I have no idea, what particular study you are referring to. If you intend to use scientific research to support your point, you need to provide some reference.
BTW: It appears to be 'evidence' in form of social studies supporting both points of view. Credibility of both parties appears to be similar. I hate to say that, but as the matter of fact, the issue appears to be more the matter of one's beliefs than of any 'science'.
I see exactly, what is wrong with these kids and with their parents. It can be clearly seen from the outside. And yes, the culture itself is at fault. That very culture, the worship of guns is part of. This things are linked , and if you fail to see it, you are willingly blind.
And yes, limiting access to guns would make things better.
Now the Swiss. Daddy's assault rifle in Switzerland as far as I know is a part of his soldier's equipment that he receives upon completion of a necessary *military* training. That would include taking care of a gun in your possession in appropriate manner.
For most of my childhood my father kept his gun at home (it wasn't in the US). However, I hardly recall seeing it and I never had any access to it.
Now, imagine all the gun owners in the USA being required to go through a 3 month boot camp to be allowed to keep their guns.
Of course this is not fault of guns understood as a piece of metal. The problem is with easy access to guns.
The problem might be in someone's mind, but possesing a gun greatly increases one's capabilities.
A kid in a highschool simply wouldn't be able to do anything more than injure someone if not for the guns.
The virtual lack of gun control in the US *does* damage. Face the truth.
Now, this is a feature from Jon Katz that really makes sense. I have recently seen a program on CBC Newsworld about kids, that committed suicide as a consequence of years of bulling. So this is not a problem, that goes unnoticed, at least not here, in Canada.
One of the messages was that maybe extreme cases of bullying shouldn't be considered kids play anymore and should be prosecuted as what it really is: harassment and (occasionally) assault.
The whole issue is kind of scary for me, since my son has Asperger's Syndrome, thus being an oddball by definition. This makes him a perfect target for abuse. And surprise, I can watch, how it begins. How children, that don't know him start poking fun at him just because he has rather peculiar speech.
The funny part is, that children of his age (8) are quite tolerant. They see him tiresome, but not that different. These are the older ones, that notice oddities at instant and consider them as inferior.
Now, I do not think, the school system is at fault here. The school is actually rather helpful to me. This is simply the kind of animals, humans are. Herded. Plus the matter of peer pressure. At certain age it causes the most damage to the individuals indifferent to it.
Slashdot Mirror
What a puerile piece! The Net as I knew it was not about listening to the radio and downloading movies. The Net used to about contacting people, sharing views and knowledge. How usage caps could impede this?
-m-
In a suprising gambit Google introduces a new service that is expected to incure significant cost and will bring no revenue.
Way to go!
-m-
Well, this is the part that would make it worthwhile. You know, just to maintain the insanity around at a reasonably high level...
-m-
That wouldn't be out of place, if you think about it.
-m-
This nation boasts a smart and feisty IT community, who have been terribly under-represented in government.
Smart people are generally underrepresented in every government. Tough luck...
Turing: gone.
The Poles: absent.
The vilian: A Pole working at Bletchley Park(beep! there were none in the Real Life!), sspying for the Nazis.
And you call it 'slightly fictionalized'? That's a fine spin, thank you very much!
-m-
The word has been coined by a Czech (not Czechoslovakian for the dumb ones who don't feel the difference) author Karel Capek: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/people/karel_ca pek/
-m-
Shouldn't we consider Google a public service? How to maintain it, though?
Or better yet - a congregation: 'Church of Google'. Sounds good to me...
That must have been taken from Red Green show.
-m-
Your insistence on deluding yourself is quite amusing. Go on!
Metadiscussion note:
I didn't write, they innovate (although I think, they do - not that much, so this is beside the point). I have written, their products are of good (pardon, better word suggested below: adequate) quality and they know, how to peddle it.
It seems, that to succeede in the businessplace you need both, with emphasis on the latter, unfortunattely.
-m-
I have to admit: the word "adequate" seems to be more adequate in this context then "good".
Thank you,
-m-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. If some other business magazine puts forward an article that concludes: "Microsoft is bad" (vide "The Economist"), they are righteous 'free press'. If they write something that contradicts the colective opinion of slashdotters, it is 'typical of business reporting', and obviously has something to do with 'millions, that MS...'.
Face the reality: MicroSoft is a damn effective company, that makes good software and knows, how to sell it.
And for the zealous ones: I didn't say, they were moral and nice. I have just stated the facts.
-m-
-m-
Are you responsible for the project? Do you want it to succeede?
If any of the above is true, focus on hiring _good_ developers. Everything else is irrelevant.
Regards,
-m-
Every telco, I guess.
-m-
Yeah. Especially price and quality of beer in Czech Republic was on the 'sane' side. Last time I checked, anyway.
-m-
From my point of view, there is an additional reason.
Theoretical rudiments for relational databases do exist and are well understood by some. I am not referring to SQL here, but rather to math.
Term 'relation' is well defined. Math behind it is pretty and simple. Simple is good.
So, on the one side we have well defined mathematical concept that can be worked on. On the other hand - elusive 'art of objects'. Although I personally prefer the latter (makes me feel good about myself) I always appreciate ability to define software in more solid terms. A relational database engine (what it does, what it needs to do) can be defined in terms of quite comprehensible algebra.
There are similar efforts for OODBMS (evolving algebras, for instance) but these are relatively recent - and most people doesn't care about them.
Conclusion: relational database engines are simple in construction. OO databases are not. Simple is good. Complex is bad. Long live RDBMS.
-m-
And what us the 'Communism in the East' you are referring to?
-m-
Oh, c'mon. Does the obvious need to be stated? Of course, they are concerned with people finding the truth on a some serious issue more then with kids accessing porn. Or rather, they are afraid, some youngster might find, there *are* points of view other then the right one, as hold by the regime. And they cannot state their intentions clearly. That could defeat the purpose. -m-
Funny, doesn't work. Have check your link today, sir?
I am not going to. I don't know the methodology behind the research because I have no idea, what particular study you are referring to. If you intend to use scientific research to support your point, you need to provide some reference.
BTW: It appears to be 'evidence' in form of social studies supporting both points of view. Credibility of both parties appears to be similar. I hate to say that, but as the matter of fact, the issue appears to be more the matter of one's beliefs than of any 'science'.
-m-
I see exactly, what is wrong with these kids and with their parents. It can be clearly seen from the outside. And yes, the culture itself is at fault. That very culture, the worship of guns is part of. This things are linked , and if you fail to see it, you are willingly blind.
And yes, limiting access to guns would make things better.
Now the Swiss. Daddy's assault rifle in Switzerland as far as I know is a part of his soldier's equipment that he receives upon completion of a necessary *military* training. That would include taking care of a gun in your possession in appropriate manner.
For most of my childhood my father kept his gun at home (it wasn't in the US). However, I hardly recall seeing it and I never had any access to it.
Now, imagine all the gun owners in the USA being required to go through a 3 month boot camp to be allowed to keep their guns.
-m-
Of course this is not fault of guns understood as a piece of metal. The problem is with easy access to guns.
The problem might be in someone's mind, but possesing a gun greatly increases one's capabilities.
A kid in a highschool simply wouldn't be able to do anything more than injure someone if not for the guns.
The virtual lack of gun control in the US *does* damage. Face the truth.
Regards,
-m-
Class action lawsuits. Truly a big and quickly growing industry.
-m-
Now, this is a feature from Jon Katz that really makes sense. I have recently seen a program on CBC Newsworld about kids, that committed suicide as a consequence of years of bulling. So this is not a problem, that goes unnoticed, at least not here, in Canada.
One of the messages was that maybe extreme cases of bullying shouldn't be considered kids play anymore and should be prosecuted as what it really is: harassment and (occasionally) assault.
The whole issue is kind of scary for me, since my son has Asperger's Syndrome, thus being an oddball by definition. This makes him a perfect target for abuse. And surprise, I can watch, how it begins. How children, that don't know him start poking fun at him just because he has rather peculiar speech.
The funny part is, that children of his age (8) are quite tolerant. They see him tiresome, but not that different. These are the older ones, that notice oddities at instant and consider them as inferior.
Now, I do not think, the school system is at fault here. The school is actually rather helpful to me. This is simply the kind of animals, humans are. Herded. Plus the matter of peer pressure. At certain age it causes the most damage to the individuals indifferent to it.
-m-