I know this seems evil, but in the end, journalism is important. And if newspapers are going to survive moving into the future, they need to start selling content and protecting content.
I think people should be able to quote 2-3 sentences, summarize your story and link to it. But fully copying content isn't cool. And while I assume I'll get some responses who suggest IP is imaginary and that all information should be free, this is reality. It costs money to produce content. You can give away your content for free if you wish, but content creators deserve the right to make money on their content if they so choose.
Journalism could only survive by doing a better job than the masses. This had to begin with addressing their deservedly tarnished reputation, which was earned by linking editing to ratings and failing to balance ethics with sensationalism. To put it another way, journalism has already died and all that's left is to argue over the carcass.
And Ford didn't design Pintos that blew up. And BP's not at fault for the oil spill. And Apple didn't design a bad antenna - it's "driver error" - they aren't holding the phones correctly.
People like me need to top blaming corporations. They love us.
The first link on those search results is Toyota saying that they have not found a computer problem.
The second link appears to be a list of diagnostic codes.
The third link, which I assume is what you find damning, is an article about an unrelated issue where a Prius could stall or shut down. That would be the complete opposite of what everyone else is talking about, and has nothing to do with ignoring input from the brake.
If you meant some other link, be more specific than a 85,500-result search query.
Toyota isn't saying they have never made programming errors. They are saying that they have not made one in this case. In the past when they have made errors, they admitted and remedied them. Isn't that what we want?
Cisco's entire worldwide partner ecosystem != Cisco Live! World of Solutions, which was a vendor booth exhibition at Cisco Live in Las Vegas last week.
I'm not sure how many partners were in World of Solutions but there were perhaps 200. Companies like EMC, APC, CA, etc. You want a light-up rubber ball or blinking shot glass or whatever shiny object they were giving away at their booths, you let them scan your badge. Some had booth babes running around with scanners, which was fairly effective at a conference where 95% of the attendees are men.
Every conference I've ever attended has worked this way.
Most place I've worked at recently have firefox installed, except for that one pesky intranet webapp that only runs in IE6 (and higher if you're lucky!)
I'm not advocating the tie-in to a specific version of Opera. However, with an army of IT support personnel keeping things real, I don't see it should be a huge deal, given whatever other cruft they routinely install and maintain in an SOE.
(Assuming of course this application is locked down to an internal network)
I'm assuming you've never worked anywhere with more than, say, 10,000 employees?
But that's beside the point. If you are going to dictate the browser application used to access a web application, what exactly is the point of developing it as a web application in the first place? Just develop it as a native OS app and move along.
If you want the platform independence of a web application, then that's what you develop.
The real world answer is go ignore IE and let all the people still using it go cry.
That's not a "real world answer". That's an absurd geek fantasy. Love it or hate it, most people still use IE.
If you're a web developer, you cannot afford to ignore that your users will make choices about which browser they use that may be different than your own.
that isn't clear from the description: Is this a tool meant to be used internally by the company or is it meant to be used by the general public?
Because if it's the latter, whatever your solution, it better work in every browser and not just specific older version of Opera.
It doesn't matter. You cannot guarantee what browser a user will have loaded today, much less a few years from now, whether it's in a corporate environment or not.
...is a much more serious bug than any possible printing problem.
I'd say mod parent up, but other people recognize the wisdom and have done so already.
Do not write a web application tied to a particular browser, or even two particular browsers. You will repeat mistakes made 15 years ago when people used to do the same thing for Internet Explorer or Netscape. Those who come after will curse your name forever.
Remember all those sites that used to say "Best viewed in IE5" or "Best viewed in Netscape"? You don't want that.
I'm unclear as to how a defunct and destroyed cut-rate '70's era NASA space station that was built out of Atlas rocket parts would have either a web server or the ability to annihilate humanity.
Well, it did rain debris all over Australia. So it's really just a question of accuracy.
I switched to the Mac for a while and couldn't wait to switch back. The Mac was never the better experience. It always felt like a dumbed-down interface to me...
I have to disagree with that assessment. Expose combined with the multi-touch pad rocks on a laptop.
When 2 extra key on your keyboard fucks you up for months, I don't believe it's the platform's fault.
Are you a fanboi or just deliberately misunderstanding me?
Here is a list of all the keyboard shortcuts on Mac.
There is a similar list for Windows, except the Mac keyboard doesn't have a bunch of keys that the PC keyboard does that PC users rely upon. Like home, end, delete, page up and page down. You need to memorize key combinations on the Mac for those functions.
That's just the really obvious stuff. There are other differences, such as Command-L to start typing a URL, as opposed to Alt-D. Command-, for preferences? WTF?
I'm not saying it's bad. It's just different, and it takes time to learn. I didn't mean that I couldn't make the Mac do what I wanted. It just took a while before I could do what I wanted in the same amount of time as the same task took me in Windows.
It doesn't require a lot of experience to switch between Windows and Mac. I'd expect someone with experience with one platform and absolutely zero on the other to be up to speed in a day or two.
I switched from Windows to Mac on my work laptop about eight months ago, so I have personal and recent experience.
It is not something that takes a day or two. It takes a month or two to regain all the lost productivity. Most people where I work that have switched to Mac have a similar experience. Just getting used to the keyboard with the extra meta keys, and missing keys you're used to, takes a long time.
Once you're over the learning curve it's a better experience, but it's not as easy as you think it is.
PARTS of MS Office is in OS X. Outlook is not. PowerPoint is not. The statistical [and other] add-ins for Excel are not (nor any of the other extremely useful VBA stuff).
When did you last run Office on a Mac? It must have been several years ago, at a minimum.
PowerPoint is part of Office 2008 Mac.
Outlook is not, but Entourage is. Entourage will talk fine to Exchange servers. Mac Mail will also talk to Exchange natively since Snow Leopard, so you don't even need Office for Exchange email.
Excel does include things like Pivot Tables, but you are correct that VBA is not supported on Mac.
Outlook will replace Entourage in Office 2010 Mac, which is supposed to ship late this year.
That doesn't change the fact that the system was vulnerable in the first place. Punish him for entering illegally but don't make him pay for repairs that should've been made anyway.
That's the same thing as telling someone who's house was robbed that the thief isn't responsible because they should have had better locks.
Clearly the systems should have been protected better. That in no way means it was legal to compromise them, even if doing so was trivial.
£1 may not be converted to 1 pound of sterling silver, but it is declared legal tender by the authorities, ie: worth something.
One has to wonder what the people in the southern half of the United States thought of the value of their government's legal tender after the government that authorized it collapsed. I have heard anecdotal stories of it being sold for toilet paper.
I'm stretching the point, but money isn't valuable, it merely represents value. The same can be said of gold or silver; they're rare, but not particularly valuable in and of themselves.
If they succeed in "capturing" all of the value created by their network, then we no longer have any reason to tolerate them because they won't be contributing to the economy. Economies grow specifically because companies don't "capture" all of the value that they create, and so you get genuine win-win situations.
I think any reasonable person would agree that you cannot really capture everything, but that the goal of a business is to capture as much as possible.
The goal of the consumer is to pay the least and receive the most value.
If an iPhone on AT&T does not provide sufficient value to offset what the consumer pays, there are three other major carriers and numerous smaller carriers in the USA to compete for their business.
Dear SmallFurryCreature,
In a capitalist society commodities are to be sold at lower prices due to competition. Although Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile may be 'competitors' they are rather an oligopoly. There is no true competition. In a capitalist society monopolies and oligopolies are usually the things people hate most. So yes, your right, they can charge whatever they want. If they were the only person to offer this service (data) because of a new technology, let them earn their money. But no, cellular data has been around for quite a while, and the oligopoly is just raking in the cash at every opportunity. Text messaging prices have INCREASED despite the fact that text messages cause NO effect on the network. So before you say 'this is the way things work in a socialist/capitalist market' consider the fact that its actually not a capitalist situation because there is no true competition. Regards, Rukie
Dear AT&T,
I hate you. Regards, Your Customer.
My Blackberry on Verizon tethers just fine for $10 a month. Offering identical functionality for half the price sure seems like competition to me. Perhaps you should consider a mobile device that works on more than one carrier before you complain about lack of competition?
If you log into my bank account you can steal something from me that is linked to a direct physical object (in theory its gold).
I don't know where you live, but in many countries (most?), including the USA and UK, currency has no link to gold. There isn't enough gold in the entire world to cover the currency circulating in the USA alone.
Even though the money in your bank account can be exchanged for currency, there's very little actual physical value in those small pieces of paper. They are only valued for what they represent, not what they are. Same thing with virtual goods.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I've only seen half of one Lost episode in my life, and I thank you for confirming my determination that it would have been an utter waste of life to watch.
And that differs from your dedication to commenting on a topic to which you have said you have no interest how exactly?
The two are only equivalent if he posts on this topic for five more years, annoying his friends the entire time.
Well if youtube goes VP8 and you can't watch youtube with IE, people will just start loading firefox, chrome, opera or what ever browser they think will work for them.
No, they won't. They will scream at Google for not making videos work in their browser. They don't understand and do not want to understand what a video codec is. They will not blame Microsoft, they will blame Google/Youtube. If you doubt this, just go read the comments at Youtube for an hour. You'll see what I mean.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this seems evil, but in the end, journalism is important. And if newspapers are going to survive moving into the future, they need to start selling content and protecting content.
I think people should be able to quote 2-3 sentences, summarize your story and link to it. But fully copying content isn't cool. And while I assume I'll get some responses who suggest IP is imaginary and that all information should be free, this is reality. It costs money to produce content. You can give away your content for free if you wish, but content creators deserve the right to make money on their content if they so choose.
Journalism could only survive by doing a better job than the masses. This had to begin with addressing their deservedly tarnished reputation, which was earned by linking editing to ratings and failing to balance ethics with sensationalism. To put it another way, journalism has already died and all that's left is to argue over the carcass.
How long until a conservatard tries to bring Obama up in regards to this...
Oh wait.
Please. You probably used to mock people who said things like this when Bush was President. Don't be naive.
Yeah I'm wrong. Toyota is completely innocent of making a programming error that ignored inputs from the brake or gear shift, despite this admission right here: http://www.google.com/search?q=toyota+programming+error
And Ford didn't design Pintos that blew up.
And BP's not at fault for the oil spill.
And Apple didn't design a bad antenna - it's "driver error" - they aren't holding the phones correctly.
People like me need to top blaming corporations.
They love us.
The first link on those search results is Toyota saying that they have not found a computer problem.
The second link appears to be a list of diagnostic codes.
The third link, which I assume is what you find damning, is an article about an unrelated issue where a Prius could stall or shut down. That would be the complete opposite of what everyone else is talking about, and has nothing to do with ignoring input from the brake.
If you meant some other link, be more specific than a 85,500-result search query.
Toyota isn't saying they have never made programming errors. They are saying that they have not made one in this case. In the past when they have made errors, they admitted and remedied them. Isn't that what we want?
Cisco's entire worldwide partner ecosystem != Cisco Live! World of Solutions, which was a vendor booth exhibition at Cisco Live in Las Vegas last week.
I'm not sure how many partners were in World of Solutions but there were perhaps 200. Companies like EMC, APC, CA, etc. You want a light-up rubber ball or blinking shot glass or whatever shiny object they were giving away at their booths, you let them scan your badge. Some had booth babes running around with scanners, which was fairly effective at a conference where 95% of the attendees are men.
Every conference I've ever attended has worked this way.
I attended last week and have not received any emails of this type.
Pronounced "See Us".
Most place I've worked at recently have firefox installed, except for that one pesky intranet webapp that only runs in IE6 (and higher if you're lucky!)
I'm not advocating the tie-in to a specific version of Opera. However, with an army of IT support personnel keeping things real, I don't see it should be a huge deal, given whatever other cruft they routinely install and maintain in an SOE.
(Assuming of course this application is locked down to an internal network)
I'm assuming you've never worked anywhere with more than, say, 10,000 employees?
But that's beside the point. If you are going to dictate the browser application used to access a web application, what exactly is the point of developing it as a web application in the first place? Just develop it as a native OS app and move along.
If you want the platform independence of a web application, then that's what you develop.
The real world answer is go ignore IE and let all the people still using it go cry.
That's not a "real world answer". That's an absurd geek fantasy. Love it or hate it, most people still use IE.
If you're a web developer, you cannot afford to ignore that your users will make choices about which browser they use that may be different than your own.
that isn't clear from the description: Is this a tool meant to be used internally by the company or is it meant to be used by the general public?
Because if it's the latter, whatever your solution, it better work in every browser and not just specific older version of Opera.
It doesn't matter. You cannot guarantee what browser a user will have loaded today, much less a few years from now, whether it's in a corporate environment or not.
...is a much more serious bug than any possible printing problem.
I'd say mod parent up, but other people recognize the wisdom and have done so already.
Do not write a web application tied to a particular browser, or even two particular browsers. You will repeat mistakes made 15 years ago when people used to do the same thing for Internet Explorer or Netscape. Those who come after will curse your name forever.
Remember all those sites that used to say "Best viewed in IE5" or "Best viewed in Netscape"? You don't want that.
I'm unclear as to how a defunct and destroyed cut-rate '70's era NASA space station that was built out of Atlas rocket parts would have either a web server or the ability to annihilate humanity.
Well, it did rain debris all over Australia. So it's really just a question of accuracy.
I switched to the Mac for a while and couldn't wait to switch back. The Mac was never the better experience. It always felt like a dumbed-down interface to me...
I have to disagree with that assessment. Expose combined with the multi-touch pad rocks on a laptop.
When 2 extra key on your keyboard fucks you up for months, I don't believe it's the platform's fault.
Are you a fanboi or just deliberately misunderstanding me?
Here is a list of all the keyboard shortcuts on Mac.
There is a similar list for Windows, except the Mac keyboard doesn't have a bunch of keys that the PC keyboard does that PC users rely upon. Like home, end, delete, page up and page down. You need to memorize key combinations on the Mac for those functions.
That's just the really obvious stuff. There are other differences, such as Command-L to start typing a URL, as opposed to Alt-D. Command-, for preferences? WTF?
I'm not saying it's bad. It's just different, and it takes time to learn. I didn't mean that I couldn't make the Mac do what I wanted. It just took a while before I could do what I wanted in the same amount of time as the same task took me in Windows.
It doesn't require a lot of experience to switch between Windows and Mac. I'd expect someone with experience with one platform and absolutely zero on the other to be up to speed in a day or two.
I switched from Windows to Mac on my work laptop about eight months ago, so I have personal and recent experience.
It is not something that takes a day or two. It takes a month or two to regain all the lost productivity. Most people where I work that have switched to Mac have a similar experience. Just getting used to the keyboard with the extra meta keys, and missing keys you're used to, takes a long time.
Once you're over the learning curve it's a better experience, but it's not as easy as you think it is.
PARTS of MS Office is in OS X. Outlook is not. PowerPoint is not. The statistical [and other] add-ins for Excel are not (nor any of the other extremely useful VBA stuff).
When did you last run Office on a Mac? It must have been several years ago, at a minimum.
PowerPoint is part of Office 2008 Mac.
Outlook is not, but Entourage is. Entourage will talk fine to Exchange servers. Mac Mail will also talk to Exchange natively since Snow Leopard, so you don't even need Office for Exchange email.
Excel does include things like Pivot Tables, but you are correct that VBA is not supported on Mac.
Outlook will replace Entourage in Office 2010 Mac, which is supposed to ship late this year.
That doesn't change the fact that the system was vulnerable in the first place. Punish him for entering illegally but don't make him pay for repairs that should've been made anyway.
That's the same thing as telling someone who's house was robbed that the thief isn't responsible because they should have had better locks.
Clearly the systems should have been protected better. That in no way means it was legal to compromise them, even if doing so was trivial.
£1 may not be converted to 1 pound of sterling silver, but it is declared legal tender by the authorities, ie: worth something.
One has to wonder what the people in the southern half of the United States thought of the value of their government's legal tender after the government that authorized it collapsed. I have heard anecdotal stories of it being sold for toilet paper.
I'm stretching the point, but money isn't valuable, it merely represents value. The same can be said of gold or silver; they're rare, but not particularly valuable in and of themselves.
If they succeed in "capturing" all of the value created by their network, then we no longer have any reason to tolerate them because they won't be contributing to the economy. Economies grow specifically because companies don't "capture" all of the value that they create, and so you get genuine win-win situations.
I think any reasonable person would agree that you cannot really capture everything, but that the goal of a business is to capture as much as possible.
The goal of the consumer is to pay the least and receive the most value.
If an iPhone on AT&T does not provide sufficient value to offset what the consumer pays, there are three other major carriers and numerous smaller carriers in the USA to compete for their business.
Dear SmallFurryCreature,
In a capitalist society commodities are to be sold at lower prices due to competition. Although Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile may be 'competitors' they are rather an oligopoly. There is no true competition. In a capitalist society monopolies and oligopolies are usually the things people hate most. So yes, your right, they can charge whatever they want. If they were the only person to offer this service (data) because of a new technology, let them earn their money. But no, cellular data has been around for quite a while, and the oligopoly is just raking in the cash at every opportunity. Text messaging prices have INCREASED despite the fact that text messages cause NO effect on the network. So before you say 'this is the way things work in a socialist/capitalist market' consider the fact that its actually not a capitalist situation because there is no true competition.
Regards,
Rukie
Dear AT&T,
I hate you.
Regards,
Your Customer.
My Blackberry on Verizon tethers just fine for $10 a month. Offering identical functionality for half the price sure seems like competition to me. Perhaps you should consider a mobile device that works on more than one carrier before you complain about lack of competition?
Who the hell says they're supposed to "capture" all the "value" created by their networks?
Their shareholders? Common sense? Either makes sense.
If you log into my bank account you can steal something from me that is linked to a direct physical object (in theory its gold).
I don't know where you live, but in many countries (most?), including the USA and UK, currency has no link to gold. There isn't enough gold in the entire world to cover the currency circulating in the USA alone.
Even though the money in your bank account can be exchanged for currency, there's very little actual physical value in those small pieces of paper. They are only valued for what they represent, not what they are. Same thing with virtual goods.
You've just described what multicast was designed to solve.
https://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6552/products_ios_technology_home.html
Too bad it isn't enabled on the public Internet.
And that differs from your dedication to commenting on a topic to which you have said you have no interest how exactly?
The two are only equivalent if he posts on this topic for five more years, annoying his friends the entire time.
Not for me, at least, since Google Maps will show my car and trash cans from space, too.
Well if youtube goes VP8 and you can't watch youtube with IE, people will just start loading firefox, chrome, opera or what ever browser they think will work for them.
No, they won't. They will scream at Google for not making videos work in their browser. They don't understand and do not want to understand what a video codec is. They will not blame Microsoft, they will blame Google/Youtube. If you doubt this, just go read the comments at Youtube for an hour. You'll see what I mean.