Likewise, the Colosseum has been looted for materials many times in its nearly 2000 year existence. During the Renessainse, for example, it was widely used as a source of marble, and I believe a lot of structual metal was also scavenged for reconstruction efforts during and after World War II.
Try looking at the redesigned onion site with flashblock enabled and you'll see pretty quickly an example of one of the changes I suspect he'd like to be able to make. There seem to be a lot of (IMO) mediocre designers who believe that straight CSS does not give them enough flexibility to make a well designed site, and the actual HTML content needs to be changed to meet their vision.
5 to 1 odds if you were to get a list of the architecture changes he'd like to be able to make in the process of redesigning Slashdot, the top two would be using flash or images to replace text headers and something else of a similar vein.
Not to mention you can do whatever you want and no matter how pissed off they get at you, they'll forget about you in a second when you get your car repainted.
The tutorials obviously don't go much beyond the basics, because they are *tutorials*.
I understand that. I guess my disappointment wasn't wasn't so much that the tutorials never go beyond the basics, but they all cover exactly the same basics, and they don't really give you any indication of how to move on.
My question wasn't really "Are there people who really use it?" It was more a matter of "While I see that this is a really convenient tool for developing CRUD applications, how is it more useful than php, jsp, [insert platform of choice here] for any other kind of project?" Because really, I doubt that more than 5-10% of my time is really spend on CRUD.
I've read a couple of articles and tutorials and other things about Ruby on Rails because I tend to think that something that's receiving this much hype must have some backing to it.
Ruby looks like a really interesting language, and I'd like to start using it on a regular basis soon. But for all I've looked so far, it looks like Rails is basically a great tool for rapidly building CRUD interfaces to your database, and it appears to be entirely designed for people who like to define an object for every table in their database, with load/store methods and instance variables corresponding to each column. Is this what all the hubbub is really about? Because it really seems quite underwhelming to me. Like I got all excited about this great new tool that came so highly reccomended, and then I read the tutorials and went "Oh. That's it? Ohhhh - Kaaay..." I mean, sure it looks like you could develop a full CRUD interface in no time flat, but that doesn't really seem very useful to me. And people I know who do make a lot of those kinds of interfaces already have a whole set of tools and scripts that they use that can generate the whole thing even faster than any of the examples I've seen.
So if I don't spend much of my time building CRUD interfaces, and I'm not somebody who likes my objects to be an exact representation of a database row, what does Rails actually offer me? (Especially seeing as I would already have to do extra work because I don't use their database naming conventions.)
What he did wasn't particular to the div tag- he could have done it with any tag. Mainly he used the fact that IE a) allows javascript within style attributes, and b) interprets "java\nscript" the same as "javascript". So any site that allows you to post the following would be suceptible, no matter which individual tags they allow or disallow:
<b style="background: url('java script:alert(1)');">pwned</b>
I've seen a couple of places where people claiming to have spoken with people inside google stated that Google fully intends to enable server to server communication with other jabber servers, but they are still working on the implementation. Of course, this is all hearsay, but it makes sense. Given the scale they are looking at, I would imagine that Google didn't just grab a random existing open source jabber server. They would have written their own in house specifically to meet their needs.
I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.
From your post: The original piece was not an article, but from the original slashdot story, "Anonymous Coward wrote to mention a Fox News article...". If you do a "search page" when bringing up the "read more"..., you'll not get a hit on "commentary" until way down the comments page where posters start pissing about it being a commentary.
So slashdot calling it a news article suddenly makes it one? Since we all know how closely the 'editors' pay attention to what they post... The original piece was an opinion piece, nothing more, nothing less. And citing a slashdot summary as your proof is nothing short of moronic.
Actually, AJAX was last century. They only thing "this century" about it is the name. (and the fact that it is finally just now gaining widespread popularity, i suppose)
Considering that I use gaim full time even when I am using windows because it is so much superior to the "official" clients for each network (and while gaim is one of the better linux instant messengers, there are certainly several that are of comparable quality), I'm not sure that I see how "even the best Linux instant messenging software" could be considered "antiquated". If gaim is antiquated, what does that make AIM?
...how do you set yourself to show as "Busy" on other people's clients, without going through each individual account (I have 7) to set the away message?
is "Tools -> Away -> Set All Away"(*) not what you are looking for?
(*) Also available through the "Away" button on the bottom of the buddy list.
Yeah, Microsoft and Yahoo would never support a communication service that would allow their users to communicate with users of other networks.
Wait, you mean like Hotmail and Yahoo mail?
I agree with you that given the opportunity, both companies would hold onto their proprietary networks forever, but the reality is that the decision won't be up to them. Maybe if merging would give them the single largest customer base by far, they could force the issue, but it won't. (And if they already had that kind of market share, they wouldn't need to merge.) Even after they merge they'll have about 2/3 the users of AOL's instant messenger service. So if (and this is a big if) every one else switched to an open protocol, they would have to follow suit, or they would face a long steady loss of users as the customers gradually jump ship.
It really comes down to AOL (who of course have a questionable past themselves), because right now AOL is the only other player that matters. I think the most likely situation will be that we will see an AIM vs. MSN/YIM standoff for the next who knows how many years until somebody (Google?) manages to shake things up enough that both are eventually forced to adopt an existing open protocol. Slightly less likely (IMO) will be that AOL will eventually agree to join up with Yahoo and Microsoft and then we will see the giant unified closed protocol that you fear. Even so, other people will be motivated enough to write third party clients to interoperate with the network, so while the protocol may be undocumented, it won't truly be 'closed'. They may try legal threats, patents, etc. but really, I don't think chat is enough of a money maker for them to care that much. All the networks have certainly had plenty of time to lock out third party users in the past, but all we've seen so far are half-assed challenges at login time which have been trivially discovered in every case.
I still have my MX300 in a drawer, on the off chance that someone with a soul gets an internship at Creative and leaks the driver source so that it can be updated for XP and Linux 2.6.
Mine's still in my computer. Works just fine for me...
And as a sysadmin, this would really take care of our ipv4 issues. Now we can get all those IP's back that we gave to the rest of the world. We won't have to move to IPv6 anytime soon.
If I remember correctly, we could get more IP addresses back if we could get MIT to share than we could from any Asian country except China. But hey, maybe MIT really does have a use for 16 million IP addresses. (Of course I pick on MIT, but there are at least a dozen or so other companies/organizations that also own an entire class A)
Looks to me like nothing more than a minor update to Outlook Web Access. If you like using Outlook, that's probably a good thing. If not....
Or, as a conversation at my job went not long after I started here: Coworker: John down in ops told me they just upgraded to the newest version of OWA on our Exchange server. According to him, it's almost exactly the same as actually using Outlook locally. Me: Wait, is that supposed to be a feature?
U.S. airlines can't turn a profit right now because driving 500 miles (in a country where almost every adult has a car) is substantially cheaper (especially with multiple passengers) and barely takes any longer than flying 500 miles, due to ridiculous security considerations, poor locations of airports, etc. and most people in the U.S. don't have much reason to travel further than that on a regular basis.
If they can make travelling long distances more attractive (particluarly on trans-oceanic flights where driving isn't an option) maybe they'd be able to make a little bit more money.
This is ridiculous. Any comments to the effect of "programming in language X is more fun" are going to be highly dependent on personal preference. While you may find C++ to be quite frustrating, I'm sure there are many people that agree with you. And I know for a fact that there are a lot of people out there who will tell you that Java is the greatest thing in the world (except for a nice MLT). Personally, I've never used C++ outside of college, and I avoid Java whenever possible, but I van tell you that the programming that I've enjoyed the most over the last three years has been in C. I personally love programming in C, and I find most higher level languages to be quite frustrating.
Of course that's just me, and I'm probably a little strange when it comes to programming tastes, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
It's really not that hard to imagine, for instance, that our government might force the root name servers to stop handing out answers for the.ir domain as a type of sanction against Iran. There are already several root servers outside the U.S. that could go right ahead and give out those answers.
As to your response to the other comment in this post We can state how we ought to be viewed all day long; but that won't change how we are in fact seen., by referring to Pat Robertson as "One of our religious leaders" you only strengthen the misperception that he is one. If you want to be seen the way we think we should be seen, saying things like that doesn't help.
All those people who would pay $3 for a single use DVD can continue renting them rather than adding yet another one-off disposable item to American consumerism. Sorry, but it's just a dumb idea.
When I last used NVIDIA's binary driver, I couldn't ever switch between virtual consoles with X running, and I couldn't log out of X without shutting down the laptop, because the switch from X to console mode would hang the graphics card and I would then have to do a hard power off. I gave up and switched to the X.org driver. Likewise, I can only run WindowsXP in classic style, because the nvidia driver would cause (very) frequent blue screens with the XP style window decorations, and no driver revision I've tried to this day fixes the problem. So NVIDIA has their share of problems too.
Personally, my next card will likely be an ATI, as I've had far better experiences with ATI over the years than NVIDIA, and last I checked the open source ati driver was much better than the open source nv driver. In my experience, both of the companies' binary drivers are sh*t. But that's just me. Maybe I've far better experiences with ATI or worse experiences with NVIDIA in the past than most...
And BTW, NVIDIA seems to be just as guilty of stupid control panel apps as ATI.
Talking about Postgres in the context of Oracle and DB2 is probably just posturing. It would be years, if ever, before Postgres gets the kind of features that make Oracle a must have for many high end applications.
For true high end applications this may be true, but for what >90% of Oracle customers actually need, they could switch to PostgreSQL without sacrificing speed, features, or flexibilty, and they could do it while saving not only on Oracle licensing fees but also on the six figure salary Oracle DBA's typically command.
I'd also check again with regard to XP. I think the Redmond boys may have rewritten that stack by now.
Even in NT, they didn't use the BSD TCP/IP stack, despite the common misconception. The user programs (ftp, telnet, etc) borrowed heavily from BSD code, but the TCP/IP stack I am pretty certain came from elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise, the Colosseum has been looted for materials many times in its nearly 2000 year existence. During the Renessainse, for example, it was widely used as a source of marble, and I believe a lot of structual metal was also scavenged for reconstruction efforts during and after World War II.
Try looking at the redesigned onion site with flashblock enabled and you'll see pretty quickly an example of one of the changes I suspect he'd like to be able to make. There seem to be a lot of (IMO) mediocre designers who believe that straight CSS does not give them enough flexibility to make a well designed site, and the actual HTML content needs to be changed to meet their vision.
5 to 1 odds if you were to get a list of the architecture changes he'd like to be able to make in the process of redesigning Slashdot, the top two would be using flash or images to replace text headers and something else of a similar vein.
Not to mention you can do whatever you want and no matter how pissed off they get at you, they'll forget about you in a second when you get your car repainted.
The tutorials obviously don't go much beyond the basics, because they are *tutorials*.
I understand that. I guess my disappointment wasn't wasn't so much that the tutorials never go beyond the basics, but they all cover exactly the same basics, and they don't really give you any indication of how to move on.
My question wasn't really "Are there people who really use it?" It was more a matter of "While I see that this is a really convenient tool for developing CRUD applications, how is it more useful than php, jsp, [insert platform of choice here] for any other kind of project?" Because really, I doubt that more than 5-10% of my time is really spend on CRUD.
I've read a couple of articles and tutorials and other things about Ruby on Rails because I tend to think that something that's receiving this much hype must have some backing to it.
Ruby looks like a really interesting language, and I'd like to start using it on a regular basis soon. But for all I've looked so far, it looks like Rails is basically a great tool for rapidly building CRUD interfaces to your database, and it appears to be entirely designed for people who like to define an object for every table in their database, with load/store methods and instance variables corresponding to each column. Is this what all the hubbub is really about? Because it really seems quite underwhelming to me. Like I got all excited about this great new tool that came so highly reccomended, and then I read the tutorials and went "Oh. That's it? Ohhhh - Kaaay..." I mean, sure it looks like you could develop a full CRUD interface in no time flat, but that doesn't really seem very useful to me. And people I know who do make a lot of those kinds of interfaces already have a whole set of tools and scripts that they use that can generate the whole thing even faster than any of the examples I've seen.
So if I don't spend much of my time building CRUD interfaces, and I'm not somebody who likes my objects to be an exact representation of a database row, what does Rails actually offer me? (Especially seeing as I would already have to do extra work because I don't use their database naming conventions.)
What he did wasn't particular to the div tag- he could have done it with any tag. Mainly he used the fact that IE a) allows javascript within style attributes, and b) interprets "java\nscript" the same as "javascript". So any site that allows you to post the following would be suceptible, no matter which individual tags they allow or disallow:
<b style="background: url('java
script:alert(1)');">pwned</b>
I've seen a couple of places where people claiming to have spoken with people inside google stated that Google fully intends to enable server to server communication with other jabber servers, but they are still working on the implementation. Of course, this is all hearsay, but it makes sense. Given the scale they are looking at, I would imagine that Google didn't just grab a random existing open source jabber server. They would have written their own in house specifically to meet their needs.
So slashdot calling it a news article suddenly makes it one? Since we all know how closely the 'editors' pay attention to what they post... The original piece was an opinion piece, nothing more, nothing less. And citing a slashdot summary as your proof is nothing short of moronic.
Actually, AJAX was last century. They only thing "this century" about it is the name. (and the fact that it is finally just now gaining widespread popularity, i suppose)
Considering that I use gaim full time even when I am using windows because it is so much superior to the "official" clients for each network (and while gaim is one of the better linux instant messengers, there are certainly several that are of comparable quality), I'm not sure that I see how "even the best Linux instant messenging software" could be considered "antiquated". If gaim is antiquated, what does that make AIM?
...how do you set yourself to show as "Busy" on other people's clients, without going through each individual account (I have 7) to set the away message?
is "Tools -> Away -> Set All Away"(*) not what you are looking for?
(*) Also available through the "Away" button on the bottom of the buddy list.
Yeah, Microsoft and Yahoo would never support a communication service that would allow their users to communicate with users of other networks.
Wait, you mean like Hotmail and Yahoo mail?
I agree with you that given the opportunity, both companies would hold onto their proprietary networks forever, but the reality is that the decision won't be up to them. Maybe if merging would give them the single largest customer base by far, they could force the issue, but it won't. (And if they already had that kind of market share, they wouldn't need to merge.) Even after they merge they'll have about 2/3 the users of AOL's instant messenger service. So if (and this is a big if) every one else switched to an open protocol, they would have to follow suit, or they would face a long steady loss of users as the customers gradually jump ship.
It really comes down to AOL (who of course have a questionable past themselves), because right now AOL is the only other player that matters. I think the most likely situation will be that we will see an AIM vs. MSN/YIM standoff for the next who knows how many years until somebody (Google?) manages to shake things up enough that both are eventually forced to adopt an existing open protocol. Slightly less likely (IMO) will be that AOL will eventually agree to join up with Yahoo and Microsoft and then we will see the giant unified closed protocol that you fear. Even so, other people will be motivated enough to write third party clients to interoperate with the network, so while the protocol may be undocumented, it won't truly be 'closed'. They may try legal threats, patents, etc. but really, I don't think chat is enough of a money maker for them to care that much. All the networks have certainly had plenty of time to lock out third party users in the past, but all we've seen so far are half-assed challenges at login time which have been trivially discovered in every case.
I still have my MX300 in a drawer, on the off chance that someone with a soul gets an internship at Creative and leaks the driver source so that it can be updated for XP and Linux 2.6.
Mine's still in my computer. Works just fine for me...
The stakes are high, with the European Commissioner responsible for the net, Viviane Reding, warning of a potential web meltdown.
So is she, like, the European Al Gore?
And as a sysadmin, this would really take care of our ipv4 issues. Now we can get all those IP's back that we gave to the rest of the world. We won't have to move to IPv6 anytime soon.
If I remember correctly, we could get more IP addresses back if we could get MIT to share than we could from any Asian country except China. But hey, maybe MIT really does have a use for 16 million IP addresses. (Of course I pick on MIT, but there are at least a dozen or so other companies/organizations that also own an entire class A)
Yes, we know what it means. We have them here too. Thanks very much.
Looks to me like nothing more than a minor update to Outlook Web Access. If you like using Outlook, that's probably a good thing. If not....
Or, as a conversation at my job went not long after I started here:
Coworker: John down in ops told me they just upgraded to the newest version of OWA on our Exchange server. According to him, it's almost exactly the same as actually using Outlook locally.
Me: Wait, is that supposed to be a feature?
U.S. airlines can't turn a profit right now because driving 500 miles (in a country where almost every adult has a car) is substantially cheaper (especially with multiple passengers) and barely takes any longer than flying 500 miles, due to ridiculous security considerations, poor locations of airports, etc. and most people in the U.S. don't have much reason to travel further than that on a regular basis.
If they can make travelling long distances more attractive (particluarly on trans-oceanic flights where driving isn't an option) maybe they'd be able to make a little bit more money.
This is ridiculous. Any comments to the effect of "programming in language X is more fun" are going to be highly dependent on personal preference. While you may find C++ to be quite frustrating, I'm sure there are many people that agree with you. And I know for a fact that there are a lot of people out there who will tell you that Java is the greatest thing in the world (except for a nice MLT). Personally, I've never used C++ outside of college, and I avoid Java whenever possible, but I van tell you that the programming that I've enjoyed the most over the last three years has been in C. I personally love programming in C, and I find most higher level languages to be quite frustrating.
Of course that's just me, and I'm probably a little strange when it comes to programming tastes, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
My suggestion: Get rid of your TV.
I can't- my playstation wouldn't work then.
It's really not that hard to imagine, for instance, that our government might force the root name servers to stop handing out answers for the .ir domain as a type of sanction against Iran.
There are already several root servers outside the U.S. that could go right ahead and give out those answers.
As to your response to the other comment in this post We can state how we ought to be viewed all day long; but that won't change how we are in fact seen., by referring to Pat Robertson as "One of our religious leaders" you only strengthen the misperception that he is one. If you want to be seen the way we think we should be seen, saying things like that doesn't help.
All those people who would pay $3 for a single use DVD can continue renting them rather than adding yet another one-off disposable item to American consumerism. Sorry, but it's just a dumb idea.
When I last used NVIDIA's binary driver, I couldn't ever switch between virtual consoles with X running, and I couldn't log out of X without shutting down the laptop, because the switch from X to console mode would hang the graphics card and I would then have to do a hard power off. I gave up and switched to the X.org driver. Likewise, I can only run WindowsXP in classic style, because the nvidia driver would cause (very) frequent blue screens with the XP style window decorations, and no driver revision I've tried to this day fixes the problem. So NVIDIA has their share of problems too.
Personally, my next card will likely be an ATI, as I've had far better experiences with ATI over the years than NVIDIA, and last I checked the open source ati driver was much better than the open source nv driver. In my experience, both of the companies' binary drivers are sh*t. But that's just me. Maybe I've far better experiences with ATI or worse experiences with NVIDIA in the past than most...
And BTW, NVIDIA seems to be just as guilty of stupid control panel apps as ATI.
Talking about Postgres in the context of Oracle and DB2 is probably just posturing. It would be years, if ever, before Postgres gets the kind of features that make Oracle a must have for many high end applications.
For true high end applications this may be true, but for what >90% of Oracle customers actually need, they could switch to PostgreSQL without sacrificing speed, features, or flexibilty, and they could do it while saving not only on Oracle licensing fees but also on the six figure salary Oracle DBA's typically command.
I'd also check again with regard to XP. I think the Redmond boys may have rewritten that stack by now.
Even in NT, they didn't use the BSD TCP/IP stack, despite the common misconception. The user programs (ftp, telnet, etc) borrowed heavily from BSD code, but the TCP/IP stack I am pretty certain came from elsewhere.