I've suffered from the opposite problem, having content removed from Wikipeda because the reference cites were to a physical books so could not be readily verified and not an online source.
The real problem is the Wikipedia cabal's Groupthink; Cite your source or not, if you're not part of that cabal you may as well give up.
Assuming that the world isn't swallowed up by a black hole from the experiment
I can confidently assert that the world will not be swallowed up by a big black hole. When I'm right shown to be right my genius will be affirmed. Should I be proven wrong, nobody will be around to gloat.
Gather enough newspapers from all around the country and pretty much anything you find will be almost as reliable as finding something written by a random blogger on the web.
Historically newspapers were like blogs, they didn't have journalists, as paid employees, in the modern sense, they had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondent '>correspondents that would send letter, telegrams and military dispatches for publication.
The oldest newspaper are more like one long letters page.
Under British Law, the title of stolen property remains with the original owner even when bought in good faith. The Server was stolen from the disposal company by an employee who sold it on ebay. The purchaser does not legally own the goods, he does however have grounds for a claim against the seller & their agent (ebay).
[b]BS[/b], this is not a party political issue, the big data losses have in every major case been down to private companies working for the government. The only reason you know about them is that Government is forced to disclose them through the Freedom of Information Act request from Newspapers. The same thing is happening in the private sector every day, you just never hear about it.
When an armed civilian kills an armed soldier, they become an illegal combatant and war criminal under the Geneva Convention for the very simple reason that it places other civilians at risk. That is a deliberate act and grossly more dispicable than a solider (or robot) accidentally killing a civilian.
Would it not, perhaps, be better to invest time and energy into getting the quote right, which was picking out an array of potential targets--including uniformed troops, armed snipers perched in windows and roadside bombs instead of twisting it to meet your agenda.
The problem is not PERL but the 'legacy' attitude that PERL was a Golden Hammer capable of solving every problem for the company, now the company has a new Golden Hammer and it will suffer with the same problem again in the future, probably well before it's replace all that PERL.
However that same 'legacy' attitude shows clearly in the blogger's mind as much as the original company; which is why he is upset that his hammer is getting tarnished.
The real legacy issue here is the language wars, dogma and rhetoric and the 'legacy' attitude that there is one tool for all jobs.
The British Library's Turning the Pages is not just religious text, but includes wide range of old books including; The Diamond Sutra, probably the worlds oldest printed 'BOOK', Sketches by Leonardo, FIRST ATLAS OF EUROPE and others.
How the hell do you "Try to fire" someone.. either you do it or you don't.
I took that to mean that somebody in his management stack tried to sack him and either HR, his Lawyer or Union said No because there was not good cause.
It is illegal under the UK Data Protection Act to disclose personal data to a third party without the permission of the data subject. It is also Illegal to obtain or attempt to obtain personal data without authorisation of the data subject.
Therefore the Customs officer/boarder is breaking the law and attempting to force the traveller to break the law. The traveller has an obligation reason to say NO.
What you describe is illegal in the UK. A dominant supplier may not do any of the following, tying in (forcing you to use one service to access another), prevent entry by competitors or mandate exclusive deals.
However, the distinction is not as well understood among the general populations of both the Western and non-Western worlds. That's the sad part of it all. The resulting misconceptions about and misinterpretations of [any religion] are the cause of most of the violent and non-violent extremism shown by both sides.
I think the claimed distiction is more widely understood than your realise, the better informed choose to reject that distiction for a wholly different reason to that you imply.
They understand there is no such thing as moderate religion; all religious movements prime vunerable minds to accepting religious teaching and become vunerable to believing what they are told and punished for challenging or questining the teachings. It starts in childhood before they even have a chance to consider what is fact or fiction is, it is just the start of a very slippery slope. The is no such thing as a moderate when it comes to religion.
When will/. grok the fact that is well know in parser/grammar circles, that Ruby is a language with a problem so big it can only be considered fundamentally Borked. Slashdot used to be a place where most people where on the ball and a crude attempt like this to gain traction by leeching the good standing off K&R would have been spotted and binned.
This Ruby Grammar tree shows part of the problem, that god like Primary token in the middle. Ruby requires an arbitrary look-ahead parser, an LL(k) parser which are notoriously problematic. LL(k) parsers are inefficient, difficult to implement and result in ambiguous semantics. The result is that the Ruby grammar requires the token analyser and parser to be tightly coupled, a code smell in most programs. Token lexical analysis is dependent on syntactic context and syntactic context is dependent on semantic information from dynamicaly typed local variables. This is lethal for parsers.
It is not possible to separate the lexical grammar from the language grammar, nor is it possible to properly describe the language grammar in a rigorous way. What defines a good language is that its semantics are well defined and consistent without reference to an underlying mechanisms, The fact that Ruby needs a LL(k) makes the semantics ambiguity, the parser implementation must make arbitratory assumptions about the semantics.
The Ruby syntax cannot be defined with by rigorous context-free grammar, it is ambiguous. This is lethal in Parsers, because two different parser implementations can attach different semantics to the same source code. YES, that's right a Ruby program can run differently on two platforms, even if they have correctly implemented parsers.
This cannot be fixed because this big problem with Ruby is the very thing that makes it attractive, the syntactic flexibility. That flexibility cannot be decoupled from semantic ambiguity, making it error prone to write and more importantly read.
Wirth said of good languages, a language is not so much characterized by what it allows to program, but more so by what it prevents from being expressed. If you want a dynamic typed languages there are better choices with rigourous grammars.
No doubt I'll get modded down for defying the slashmind groupthink but the problem I have with WikiLeaks is their cavalier disregard of accountability.
They have ignored court orders. They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record. WikiLeaks is not a wiki in the true sense, there is no collaboration, the only people allowed to post are their little Cabal. Wikipedia, despite it's problems allows people to challenge its decisions in a publicly accountable way.
I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy. Dig beneath the surface and all I see is another self appointed authority with a poor regard for balance.
The biggest problem is most software developers are NOT chartered professional software engineers, so have no personal, professional and legal responsibility for their work. That is why IT is full of cowboys and trust is nearly none existent. Software Engineers must become a chartered only profession, so that people who are not chartered are not allowed to practice.
To qualify as a Professional Engineer we should place good practice above short term gains. Professional Engineers should be truthful and objective and have no tolerance for deception or corruption. Professional Engineers only work in areas were they are competant. Professional Engineers build their reputation on merit and their skills through continual learning and the skills of their charges through ongoing mentoring.
We wouldn't have to put up with the shoddy work of cowboys, because they wouldn't be allowed to practice. We wouldn't have to put up with orders that counteract professional ethics or good practice, because legal responsibility trumps commercial pressures. The professional wouldn't be undermined by fast to market but poor quality work. We could place trust in third party tools, software & services and we would not have to put up with EULA that diavowed responsibility for damage.
An admin deleted a link because the UK's Prime Ministers office wasn't considered an authoritative source on House of Lords reform. When Wikipedia lets it's admins practice group think and self evident bias daily, it cannot be considered creadible.
Slashdot Mirror
I've suffered from the opposite problem, having content removed from Wikipeda because the reference cites were to a physical books so could not be readily verified and not an online source.
The real problem is the Wikipedia cabal's Groupthink; Cite your source or not, if you're not part of that cabal you may as well give up.
Assuming that the world isn't swallowed up by a black hole from the experiment
I can confidently assert that the world will not be swallowed up by a big black hole.
When I'm right shown to be right my genius will be affirmed.
Should I be proven wrong, nobody will be around to gloat.
'You say that you have enjoyed my stories for years. Why did you wait until you disliked one story before writing to me?'
Because, if I sent you a fan letter after every story I liked you would probably have me arrested for stalking.
Gather enough newspapers from all around the country and pretty much anything you find will be almost as reliable as finding something written by a random blogger on the web.
Historically newspapers were like blogs, they didn't have journalists, as paid employees, in the modern sense, they had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondent
'>correspondents that would send letter, telegrams and military dispatches for publication.
The oldest newspaper are more like one long letters page.
Under British Law, the title of stolen property remains with the original owner even when bought in good faith. The Server was stolen from the disposal company by an employee who sold it on ebay. The purchaser does not legally own the goods, he does however have grounds for a claim against the seller & their agent (ebay).
[b]BS[/b], this is not a party political issue, the big data losses have in every major case been down to private companies working for the government. The only reason you know about them is that Government is forced to disclose them through the Freedom of Information Act request from Newspapers. The same thing is happening in the private sector every day, you just never hear about it.
When an armed civilian kills an armed soldier, they become an illegal combatant and war criminal under the Geneva Convention for the very simple reason that it places other civilians at risk. That is a deliberate act and grossly more dispicable than a solider (or robot) accidentally killing a civilian.
Would it not, perhaps, be better to invest time and energy into getting the quote right, which was picking out an array of potential targets--including uniformed troops, armed snipers perched in windows and roadside bombs instead of twisting it to meet your agenda.
The problem is not PERL but the 'legacy' attitude that PERL was a Golden Hammer capable of solving every problem for the company, now the company has a new Golden Hammer and it will suffer with the same problem again in the future, probably well before it's replace all that PERL.
However that same 'legacy' attitude shows clearly in the blogger's mind as much as the original company; which is why he is upset that his hammer is getting tarnished.
The real legacy issue here is the language wars, dogma and rhetoric and the 'legacy' attitude that there is one tool for all jobs.
The British Library's Turning the Pages is not just religious text, but includes wide range of old books including; The Diamond Sutra, probably the worlds oldest printed 'BOOK', Sketches by Leonardo, FIRST ATLAS OF EUROPE and others.
How the hell do you "Try to fire" someone .. either you do it or you don't.
I took that to mean that somebody in his management stack tried to sack him and either HR, his Lawyer or Union said No because there was not good cause.
Because a single flaw may be exploitable through multiple vectors of attack.
Though in this case source port randomization isn't the fix, it a stop gap that makes the flaw difficult to exploit in practice.
The solutions is simple then - remove the human element.
Simpler still, a smaller subset - remove the criminal element.
when does the Head executive of the company refer to the company as "they" instead of "we"?
When they have a fully developed theory of mind. Try putting yourself in his shoes, putting himself in the shoes of a typical joe user.
We'd like to keep our private stuff private as well..
And some of us are legally bound to keep personal data private.
...want software development to be just like manufacturing.
Just manufacturing is moving to be like software development with continuous improvement programmes.
A lot of posters are jumping to the conclusion that the article's FUD is because Mr Walsh is against the GPL.
I think it most likely that the purpose of instilling Fear Uncertainty and Doubt with the article is get more clients.
It is illegal under the UK Data Protection Act to disclose personal data to a third party without the permission of the data subject. It is also Illegal to obtain or attempt to obtain personal data without authorisation of the data subject.
Therefore the Customs officer/boarder is breaking the law and attempting to force the traveller to break the law. The traveller has an obligation reason to say NO.
Complain to the BERR Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory (Previously the DTI).
What you describe is illegal in the UK. A dominant supplier may not do any of the following, tying in (forcing you to use one service to access another), prevent entry by competitors or mandate exclusive deals.
Being inclusive & liberal is not the same thing as being moderate.
Unitarian Universalists have given special attention to the religious lives of children for 200 years.
Indoctrinating children is not moderate. As I said before there is no such thing as moderate when it comes to religion.
However, the distinction is not as well understood among the general populations of both the Western and non-Western worlds. That's the sad part of it all. The resulting misconceptions about and misinterpretations of [any religion] are the cause of most of the violent and non-violent extremism shown by both sides.
I think the claimed distiction is more widely understood than your realise, the better informed choose to reject that distiction for a wholly different reason to that you imply.
They understand there is no such thing as moderate religion; all religious movements prime vunerable minds to accepting religious teaching and become vunerable to believing what they are told and punished for challenging or questining the teachings. It starts in childhood before they even have a chance to consider what is fact or fiction is, it is just the start of a very slippery slope. The is no such thing as a moderate when it comes to religion.
When will /. grok the fact that is well know in parser/grammar circles, that Ruby is a language with a problem so big it can only be considered fundamentally Borked. Slashdot used to be a place where most people where on the ball and a crude attempt like this to gain traction by leeching the good standing off K&R would have been spotted and binned.
This Ruby Grammar tree shows part of the problem, that god like Primary token in the middle. Ruby requires an arbitrary look-ahead parser, an LL(k) parser which are notoriously problematic. LL(k) parsers are inefficient, difficult to implement and result in ambiguous semantics. The result is that the Ruby grammar requires the token analyser and parser to be tightly coupled, a code smell in most programs. Token lexical analysis is dependent on syntactic context and syntactic context is dependent on semantic information from dynamicaly typed local variables. This is lethal for parsers.
It is not possible to separate the lexical grammar from the language grammar, nor is it possible to properly describe the language grammar in a rigorous way. What defines a good language is that its semantics are well defined and consistent without reference to an underlying mechanisms, The fact that Ruby needs a LL(k) makes the semantics ambiguity, the parser implementation must make arbitratory assumptions about the semantics.
The Ruby syntax cannot be defined with by rigorous context-free grammar, it is ambiguous. This is lethal in Parsers, because two different parser implementations can attach different semantics to the same source code. YES, that's right a Ruby program can run differently on two platforms, even if they have correctly implemented parsers.
This cannot be fixed because this big problem with Ruby is the very thing that makes it attractive, the syntactic flexibility. That flexibility cannot be decoupled from semantic ambiguity, making it error prone to write and more importantly read.
Wirth said of good languages, a language is not so much characterized by what it allows to program, but more so by what it prevents from being expressed.
If you want a dynamic typed languages there are better choices with rigourous grammars.
No doubt I'll get modded down for defying the slashmind groupthink but the problem I have with WikiLeaks is their cavalier disregard of accountability.
They have ignored court orders. They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record. WikiLeaks is not a wiki in the true sense, there is no collaboration, the only people allowed to post are their little Cabal. Wikipedia, despite it's problems allows people to challenge its decisions in a publicly accountable way.
I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy. Dig beneath the surface and all I see is another self appointed authority with a poor regard for balance.
The biggest problem is most software developers are NOT chartered professional software engineers, so have no personal, professional and legal responsibility for their work. That is why IT is full of cowboys and trust is nearly none existent. Software Engineers must become a chartered only profession, so that people who are not chartered are not allowed to practice.
To qualify as a Professional Engineer we should place good practice above short term gains. Professional Engineers should be truthful and objective and have no tolerance for deception or corruption. Professional Engineers only work in areas were they are competant. Professional Engineers build their reputation on merit and their skills through continual learning and the skills of their charges through ongoing mentoring.
We wouldn't have to put up with the shoddy work of cowboys, because they wouldn't be allowed to practice. We wouldn't have to put up with orders that counteract professional ethics or good practice, because legal responsibility trumps commercial pressures. The professional wouldn't be undermined by fast to market but poor quality work. We could place trust in third party tools, software & services and we would not have to put up with EULA that diavowed responsibility for damage.
An admin deleted a link because the UK's Prime Ministers office wasn't considered an authoritative source on House of Lords reform. When Wikipedia lets it's admins practice group think and self evident bias daily, it cannot be considered creadible.