The source code is notoriously complex, a mark of the seriously ingenious Paul Kulchenko who created SOAP:Lite. As a result baffles most inexperienced Perl programmers, and indeed sends many of them running in shear terror. I myself am given the highest respect in my office for signing up to maintain the module for this fact alone - I work with some of the brightest and most experienced Perl programmers in the industry and they all look at SOAP::Lite in awe. And not the "good" kind of awe, the kind of awe that gives people a healthy, but fearful respect.
The ubiquity of frustrating, unhelpful software interfaces has motivated decades of research into "Human-Computer Interaction." In this paper, I suggest that the long-standing focus on "interaction" may be misguided. For a majority subset of software, called "information software," I argue that interactivity is actually a curse for users and a crutch for designers, and users' goals can be better satisfied through other means.
MARADI, NIGER--More than 60,000 urgently needed Bibles arrived to allay suffering throughout the famine-stricken nation of Niger Friday, in one of the largest humanitarian-relief operations ever attempted by a Christian ministry.
My bad #1: Meant to say "these *apps* don't run on Internet Explorer." My bad #2: Looked for a literal "designMode = 'On'" Don't know why I didn't see the execCommand.
I know Mozilla does the heavy lifting here, and it's not strictly speaking a cross-platform webapp, but I still think it's potentially very useful.
P.S. So *that's* what was behind the Flashblock icon.
He's not using "document.designMode = 'On'" or "execCommand" because these don't run on Internet Explorer.
Perhaps you meant that he's figured out how to do essentially the same thing on Mozilla, in which case you may be right (IANAP). The point, for me, is that he's created some usable demos that run from a web page but look and behave like real applications.
There's a cool demo of a simple web-based word processor done in PHP, Javascript and XUL. It works in Mozilla, Firefox and other Gecko based browsers.
Most of his demo apps are a long way from being usable, but they're good proofs of concept. You can see the source for all the apps here.
I think this kind of thing is really cool. I wouldn't be that crazy about hosting all my office applications and documents with google, but I would love to be able to host all the important apps and documents centrally in housr. No need for Citrix or any remote desktop trickery, you just need a web server and Mozilla based browsers for clients (...and a suite of useful apps obviously)
"what about isp's proxies, if it's cached on their hd are they responsible, by your reasoning their are just by the fact it's on a hd in their possesion"
And what about the the ISP which has, technically, distributed this image to their customer? Shouldn't they be considered partially legally responsible? What about the legislative bodies and law enforcement agencies that have failed to devise a framework for anything but selective enforcement of these laws?
Could our hypothetical defendant sue a state and/or business for failing to protect him from, or allowing him to be exposed to this illegal material?
Perhaps he _should_ be able to. It might prompt ISPs and governments to take some preventative action on the dissemination of illegal material.
I realize I'm talking about censorship here, but which would we prefer:
1) Being unable to view an illegal picture.
or...
2) Being busted for child porn you didn't know you had because you pissed off a cop, a judge or some government agency.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless of course his parents force fed him source code since he was an infant; which is probably the case if he is a real person.
Well, he is the son of this guy, who has been known to write some seriously gnarly code:
The source code is notoriously complex, a mark of the seriously ingenious Paul Kulchenko who created SOAP:Lite. As a result baffles most inexperienced Perl programmers, and indeed sends many of them running in shear terror. I myself am given the highest respect in my office for signing up to maintain the module for this fact alone - I work with some of the brightest and most experienced Perl programmers in the industry and they all look at SOAP::Lite in awe. And not the "good" kind of awe, the kind of awe that gives people a healthy, but fearful respect.
What do you want? A long-form birth certificate?
Nothing to see here folks.
My bad #1: Meant to say "these *apps* don't run on Internet Explorer."
My bad #2: Looked for a literal "designMode = 'On'" Don't know why I didn't see the execCommand.
I know Mozilla does the heavy lifting here, and it's not strictly speaking a cross-platform webapp, but I still think it's potentially very useful.
P.S. So *that's* what was behind the Flashblock icon.
He's not using "document.designMode = 'On'" or "execCommand" because these don't run on Internet Explorer.
Perhaps you meant that he's figured out how to do essentially the same thing on Mozilla, in which case you may be right (IANAP). The point, for me, is that he's created some usable demos that run from a web page but look and behave like real applications.
There's a cool demo of a simple web-based word processor done in PHP, Javascript and XUL. It works in Mozilla, Firefox and other Gecko based browsers.
Most of his demo apps are a long way from being usable, but they're good proofs of concept. You can see the source for all the apps here.
I think this kind of thing is really cool. I wouldn't be that crazy about hosting all my office applications and documents with google, but I would love to be able to host all the important apps and documents centrally in housr. No need for Citrix or any remote desktop trickery, you just need a web server and Mozilla based browsers for clients (...and a suite of useful apps obviously)
So *that's* where Dilbert works!
"what about isp's proxies, if it's cached on their hd are they responsible, by your reasoning their are just by the fact it's on a hd in their possesion"
And what about the the ISP which has, technically, distributed this image to their customer? Shouldn't they be considered partially legally responsible? What about the legislative bodies and law enforcement agencies that have failed to devise a framework for anything but selective enforcement of these laws?
Could our hypothetical defendant sue a state and/or business for failing to protect him from, or allowing him to be exposed to this illegal material?
Perhaps he _should_ be able to. It might prompt ISPs and governments to take some preventative action on the dissemination of illegal material.
I realize I'm talking about censorship here, but which would we prefer:
1) Being unable to view an illegal picture.
or...
2) Being busted for child porn you didn't know you had because you pissed off a cop, a judge or some government agency.
"...It just means that I don't know anything about BSD technical internals, so I'm the wrong person to ask. Ask somebody who uses both."
That said, he raised some interesting points about the differences in philosophy between the two camps.