XML is a standard from the World Wide Web Consortium.
Well, not really; XML is a recommendation from the W3C. The W3C is not a standards body. It is a vendor consortia.
The W3C puts out specs that it expects vendors and developers to agree on and work with. If all goes well after some period of time then it may be worth moving the spec onto a standards body, such as ISO.
Sadly, the word "standard" has become a substitute for "specification. Hence you hear about the Java(tm) "standard", the Atom "standard", and so on. Everytime somebody puts something down on paper they say, "Hey, we have this new standard." But it makes for great marketing to say, 'Oh, we're all standards-based.'
If I borrow and crash your car and I kill a horse (or something), and I have to repay you the worth of the car, and you accept my money, you also accept that you are responsible for crashing the car?
That wasn't the OP point. You borrow my car,crash it and do damage to other folk's property. I can call the cops and have you punished. You offer me money (of which you have *plenty*) to forget the whole thing. I say, "OK", and you get off easy.
As a practical matter, this may be the best thing, but it makes *me* look complicit. Still, if I weren't to accept your offer, I might have to spend years and a small fortune to see true justice. And I might lose.
. The only times that a company can get away with this is if it is either a monopoly or sells addictive products.
Any company can "get away with this" so long as consumers believe the final price is still below the relative value of the product. Happens all the time.
Will customers (particularly corporations) starting taking another look at alternatives? Of course. There's no assurance that Microsoft won't lose sales or profits because of a price increase, however much arrogance you ascribe to them.
(Rhetorical question: If Microsoft really can just riase prices with no repercussions, why don't they just charge $100K per copy of WinXP and speed things up?)
If you can publish something you developed in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, it's computer science. If you simply put together something from prefab pieces, it is NOT computer science.
Right on.
I went for a CS degree because I found it interesting. I learned about CPU design, J-K flipflops, algorithm analysis, discrete logic, and so on. Yeah, I learned a bunch of languages but, when I got an actual job writing software, very little of this appplied. Nowadays, with every employer asking for J2EE experience, "developers" don't even need to really *know* any languages; they need to be able to wire up the API du jour.
I looked through the report somewhat quickly, but I did not see any mention of the peculiar practice of sticking developers into small, noisy cubicles, with cheap, eye-straining fluorescent lighting, and then expecting them to foucs and produce top-quailty software.
I was walking around where I'm currently consulting, and I noticed that everybody had a set of headphones, and it just struck me as odd that software development should require specialized head gear.
Flamebait ( Re:A bad workman blames his tools)
on
PHP and SQL Security
·
· Score: 1
And it isn't PERL's fault that people use it to write utterly incomprehensible code.
I know this is flamebait, but I can't resist:
How in the world can someone who refers to Perl as PERL make disparging comments about Perl or its users?
You're right as to the qualities one might want in a general-purpose OOo mascott, though perhaps there's a misunderstanding about what this image is for.
Still, even for a kid's education program, the image suggests a goofy, amaturish feeling that implies OOo may be merely qualified as a children's application, i.e., not suitable for professional work
It's worth noting, too, that despite what the article says, people are refering to this as *the* OOo mascott. An unfortunate bit of misinformation that may be hard to squash.
(I also think that the doofy Tux penquin does not help the Linux image one bit, though apparently it hasn't hurt it much either.)
No, it's not. I opened up an XHTML file for editing in oowriter. Things looked good at first, but when I saved it back to disk I found that all the elements were changed to upper case, and the XHTML doctype declaration was replaced with one for HTML 4. Pure FrontPage bullshit, and unacceptable.
"Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use... "
I realize that putting quotes around words makes them look all offical or something, but the thing that makes a quote *really* effective is a source citation. Otherwise I'd have to think you just made that up because it suits your argument, not because it reflects a legal definition.
It is entirely posible to terrorize a single person for personal reasons, or to terrorize simply to make a point, or for perverse pleasure, without caring if anybody changes their policies or views.
Q: What prevents Sun from controlling or dominating the groups that develop and maintain Java specifications?
The answer given in the FAQ says what Sun currently does with the JCP, and explains their current intent, but it does not address the actual question. Sun controls the copyright to the Java(tm) spec; short of turning that over to a third party, Sun can do what it likes with Java(tm). Nothing goes into Java(tm) unless Sun gives the final thumbs up.
You don't really get the idea of Free Software which is based on co-operation and sharing information.
Yeah, actually I really do get the idea, having written a fair amount of it.
In the world of Free Software people work for the community's benefit, not for their own selfish needs.
Right. And anybody not pure of heart is, what, magically forbidden from using open-source code? My point was that there may be less than decent folks who might use code obfuscation and and similar hacks to weasel around of GPL requirements.
For what it's worth, the reason I use and contribute free software is because I see an immediate, personal, selfish benefit. It may also happen that others benefit as well. But that's not my motivation.
GNU/Linux is free software, and thus there is nothing to reverse-engineer.
Unless you want to eat your cake and have it, too. Suppose you want to build on some OSS stuff, but don't want to have others be able to do the same with your own code. So, you follow the letter of the GPL and release the source, but make it so damn hard to decipher that it might just as well be binary.
Harold Davis has started with a marvelous idea, teaching programming using a language available on all platforms, Java
Maybe because, with Java, before you can even write Hello, World!, you need to have a class, plus public static void main, plus System.out. And then compile it.
With ECMAScript and a browser, it's println( "Hello, World!");
While that idea might be more accurately stated as "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids,...
Well, actually, it might be better put as, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will defend their homes and lives against burglars, muggers, and home invasions."
You completely missed the point.
The point is that using relative values ("we're not as bad off as those other countries") to defend the staus quo is bogus. I used a different example to (hopefully) point this out.
.. while the fact is that our tax burden is smaller than just about any other 1st-world country.
Which means what, exactly? That since we're not as screwed as most other places that things are hunky dory? That's bullshit.
By comparison, most 1st-world countries don't have the same protected freedoms and civil liberties as the USA. Should Americans just sit quietly if and when the USA slides towards a police state, since , hey, we're not bad as those other guys?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not really; XML is a recommendation from the W3C. The W3C is not a standards body. It is a vendor consortia.
The W3C puts out specs that it expects vendors and developers to agree on and work with. If all goes well after some period of time then it may be worth moving the spec onto a standards body, such as ISO.
Sadly, the word "standard" has become a substitute for "specification. Hence you hear about the Java(tm) "standard", the Atom "standard", and so on. Everytime somebody puts something down on paper they say, "Hey, we have this new standard." But it makes for great marketing to say, 'Oh, we're all standards-based.'
Yet, somehow, expressing the opinion that the boycott is wrong is not itself valid, while your comdemnation of that opinion is?
Just smile, shake your head, and go on about your day.But for heaven's sake don't actually express your displeasure, eh?
That wasn't the OP point. You borrow my car,crash it and do damage to other folk's property. I can call the cops and have you punished. You offer me money (of which you have *plenty*) to forget the whole thing. I say, "OK", and you get off easy.
As a practical matter, this may be the best thing, but it makes *me* look complicit. Still, if I weren't to accept your offer, I might have to spend years and a small fortune to see true justice. And I might lose.
Any company can "get away with this" so long as consumers believe the final price is still below the relative value of the product. Happens all the time.
Will customers (particularly corporations) starting taking another look at alternatives? Of course. There's no assurance that Microsoft won't lose sales or profits because of a price increase, however much arrogance you ascribe to them.
(Rhetorical question: If Microsoft really can just riase prices with no repercussions, why don't they just charge $100K per copy of WinXP and speed things up?)
Oh, right. Google/Blogger has picked sides in the feed format war.
What a shame.
Right on.
I went for a CS degree because I found it interesting. I learned about CPU design, J-K flipflops, algorithm analysis, discrete logic, and so on. Yeah, I learned a bunch of languages but, when I got an actual job writing software, very little of this appplied. Nowadays, with every employer asking for J2EE experience, "developers" don't even need to really *know* any languages; they need to be able to wire up the API du jour.
I looked through the report somewhat quickly, but I did not see any mention of the peculiar practice of sticking developers into small, noisy cubicles, with cheap, eye-straining fluorescent lighting, and then expecting them to foucs and produce top-quailty software.
I was walking around where I'm currently consulting, and I noticed that everybody had a set of headphones, and it just struck me as odd that software development should require specialized head gear.
I know this is flamebait, but I can't resist: How in the world can someone who refers to Perl as PERL make disparging comments about Perl or its users?
My laptop came with Windows. Does that make Windows free?
You're right as to the qualities one might want in a general-purpose OOo mascott, though perhaps there's a misunderstanding about what this image is for.
Still, even for a kid's education program, the image suggests a goofy, amaturish feeling that implies OOo may be merely qualified as a children's application, i.e., not suitable for professional work
It's worth noting, too, that despite what the article says, people are refering to this as *the* OOo mascott. An unfortunate bit of misinformation that may be hard to squash.
(I also think that the doofy Tux penquin does not help the Linux image one bit, though apparently it hasn't hurt it much either.)
So, when the the outcome does not meet your expectations, the outcome is bizarre, rather than your model? Interesting
If Perl6 continues on the path to becoming what Ruby is now, it will.
No, it's not. I opened up an XHTML file for editing in oowriter. Things looked good at first, but when I saved it back to disk I found that all the elements were changed to upper case, and the XHTML doctype declaration was replaced with one for HTML 4. Pure FrontPage bullshit, and unacceptable.
Hippy
Maybe not a hippy, but what in the world was the point of mentioning contaminated Oceans [sic]?
And why is that word capitalized?
No, but he works for both the EFF and for Disney's PR department. Odd bedfollows, but there you go.
Maybe that counts for street cred or something.
I realize that putting quotes around words makes them look all offical or something, but the thing that makes a quote *really* effective is a source citation. Otherwise I'd have to think you just made that up because it suits your argument, not because it reflects a legal definition.
It is entirely posible to terrorize a single person for personal reasons, or to terrorize simply to make a point, or for perverse pleasure, without caring if anybody changes their policies or views.
The answer given in the FAQ says what Sun currently does with the JCP, and explains their current intent, but it does not address the actual question. Sun controls the copyright to the Java(tm) spec; short of turning that over to a third party, Sun can do what it likes with Java(tm). Nothing goes into Java(tm) unless Sun gives the final thumbs up.
What does this mean if my source comes from a code generator?
Yeah, actually I really do get the idea, having written a fair amount of it.
In the world of Free Software people work for the community's benefit, not for their own selfish needs.
Right. And anybody not pure of heart is, what, magically forbidden from using open-source code? My point was that there may be less than decent folks who might use code obfuscation and and similar hacks to weasel around of GPL requirements.
For what it's worth, the reason I use and contribute free software is because I see an immediate, personal, selfish benefit. It may also happen that others benefit as well. But that's not my motivation.
Unless you want to eat your cake and have it, too. Suppose you want to build on some OSS stuff, but don't want to have others be able to do the same with your own code. So, you follow the letter of the GPL and release the source, but make it so damn hard to decipher that it might just as well be binary.
Please try here, here, and here. Oh, and here
Harold Davis has started with a marvelous idea, teaching programming using a language available on all platforms, Java
Maybe because, with Java, before you can even write Hello, World!, you need to have a class, plus public static void main, plus System.out. And then compile it.
With ECMAScript and a browser, it's
println( "Hello, World!");
Well, actually, it might be better put as, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will defend their homes and lives against burglars, muggers, and home invasions."
You completely missed the point. The point is that using relative values ("we're not as bad off as those other countries") to defend the staus quo is bogus. I used a different example to (hopefully) point this out.
Which means what, exactly? That since we're not as screwed as most other places that things are hunky dory? That's bullshit.
By comparison, most 1st-world countries don't have the same protected freedoms and civil liberties as the USA. Should Americans just sit quietly if and when the USA slides towards a police state, since , hey, we're not bad as those other guys?