I don't want to sound like a troll, but considering all the oppressive crap we see coming out of China, it seems pretty petty to whine that their mandatory web filter software does not have a Linux version (or Mac)...Now if you want to talk about why China is so Microsoft-friendly, that one thing, but when someone installs a mandatory net nanny on a cheaply assembled PC and connects to a watered down approximation of the internet, where one thing internet users do best, "bitch about stuff", could possibly get them arrested, the inability to run Linux is not their biggest problem.
so I guess by your measure that must suck harder than a Thai ladyboy trying to fund her final op.
That's not funny, but asian transvestites get sucked in by the old "haha, that's a Thai ladyboy reference I understand" meme, and think it is.
And, by the way, you're no "Married with Children". "Married with Children" had toilet flushing sounds and required three uses of the word "boobie" per episode. Nothing can compete with that kind of social commentary.
Though still technically a rumor at this point, word is that 'Futurama' production offices have already opened and that casting is about to move forward.
Let's hope it's all the original cast. Wrong-sounding Muppets where no picnic, either (to paraphrase Family Guy).
Of course, Meg Griffin has been voiced by three different actresses (not counting the ones used for singing), so it wouldn't necessarily be the kiss of death for the show.
You are criticizing the data by asserting your opinion about things that are in no way relevant to TFA. TFA was simply about answering one question: Do financial incentives increase test scores?
Your assertions might be correct, but I suspect that you are just parroting some stereotype you have heard and decided to keep as the soap-box of the day. As for your assertion that achievement tests have gotten easier over the past twenty years, do you have any information comparing today's students and today's curricula with those of twenty years ago? I have done a quick search on the subject and found little other than people shrugging their shoulders, comparing us with foreign nations (which says nothing about whether we have backslid, or if they have improved), or people just yelling out opinions and expecting everyone else to believe it because it is the favored myth of the day.
Christ dude, if you're going to go car analogy, you have to go full-car. Leave out FFmpeg and MPEG and all that other confusing crap and just talk about cars.
Ok. You buy a car. As you're driving home, the guy in front of you slams on his brakes, and you go flying through the windshield, hitting face first against the rear bumper of the car in front of you. The ambulance arrives, but the driver steps on you, they drop you onto the concrete because the concept of requiring your EMTs to remain sober during office hours has been patented by an ambulance company that does not compete in your market.
The headache you would feel in this scenario is exactly the same as the kind of headache you would get trying to come up with a car analogy for the Google/FFMPEG/LGPL issue.
The term for the fallacy you describe is not false dichotomy, but assuming facts not in evidence, namely that child porn simulations decrease child rape.
A false dichotomy is when two choices are presented, and others are ignored. In this scenarios, there really are only two choice: ban or not ban. Those are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
I think he got his wires crossed a little, but I think that the dichotomy he was talking about was that we must choose between virtual crimes, or real ones, with "neither" being the ignored option. Of course I disagree with him, but I see a False diochotomy in there.
The X server is on the side of the application user, the app is the client.
This would defeat the purpose of having one common platform available to all (or a very large majority of) users. Instead, it would require the end user to install X, and a specialized version of openOffice (or something similar). In this scenario, Google's server would be nothing more than a centralized file server, and the use of X would be unnecessary.
The X protocol was meant for LANs anyway. But yes, it would have been better to retrofit all that than reinventing everything bottom up, badly.
Considering your "The X server is on the side of the application user" comment, I am not quite sure how you would intend to make this work, but the X server paradigm seems to either work in one of two ways:
All the application processing is done on one server, which incurs a heavy load on this one server. The beauty of Google's approach is that they avoid the need for a cluster of servers that can host a million login sessions and a million instances of some office program simultaneously, by moving much of the processing to the individual user.
X is run on the local machine, and there is no ubiquity
Wasn't OOP invented with this sole purpose?
Yes, it was, but what you're suggesting is a massive redesign of an application to make it do something it was never intended to do. Sometimes it makes sense to clear the slate and start over with a design that better fits your purpose, even if it does involve "reinventing the wheel".
But with that having been said, there may be a way to fork X into a new version that pushes the processing onto the client PCs and produces better scalability. I don't know enough about x to tell you what difficulties this would entail (in essence, X would be like a virtual operating system), but it seems like an interesting idea for a advanced degree thesis or project, but it also seems like a little too much for Google to tackle for this one project.
please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software."
You're just begging for a windows joke, aren't you?
I use four different computers on a weekly basis, and on one of them, I cannot install software. So, it's not just about platform. It's also about being able to go to any random "box" and access your documents.
Of course I should probably use Google docs more, but my night job is teaching Office 2007, which means having to get used to all the changes they made since XP.
Integration plugins would be nice, however. I am currently using ftp to sync the different systems, and would like something simpler.
So, you're suggesting that we create a perfectly safe answer to LSD and then ask congress to legalize it? I'm putting that on the "not in my lifetime" list.
It seems to make sense that, this should be treated like most other audits. If the auditor failed to notice a problem that it would be reasonable to assume a professional would get right, then he should be accountable. But this brings the same problem we have with IT patents: How do we fix our legal system so that the authorities are qualified to weed out the BS in complicated technical matters?
I'm starting to think we need a separate court system just to handle technology-related cases. One in which it is reasonable to say "If you can't explain DNS", then you're not qualified. But that's just a thought...
There may a more vague phasing involving something like "adheres to reasonable security practices", so that the auditor is covered if the user decides to yell his password out the window, or have it decorated onto a cake, or some other unpredictable and utterly retarded activity.
Are you sure you're never going back? I felt the same way, until my son was born. Because my mother and my wife's mother take turns babysitting when we are at work (and they don't have cell phones), we ended up getting a Vonage phone so that they would have some way to dial 911 in an emergency.
We have considered changing over to something like magic jack, because it can cut the price on a service we never use, but I have my reservations due to the way they do 911.
Anyway, the odds of this being relevant to you are low, but the point is that whatever plan you go with, try to make it future-proof. Some things to consider are:
Baby sitters may need a phone for emergencies, or just so you can check in kids, if and when you have them.
Some people have had success using the existing wiring to make vonage service work like a traditional landline network.
Someone else mentioned that a lack of phone wires may hurt resale value on your house. I would agree.
Ok. I think you have a point there. You seem to be suggesting that, had they been planning for a webui, they may have gone for something more like a more traditional event driven UI.
Did you read the part about needing the latest BETA? Even with Firefox 3.0, the site doesn't work. You need Firefox 3.5 beta.
Who modded this insightful?
I took that as a comparison to the days of sites that would redirect netscape users to a page that said "This site requires Internet explorer. Suck it, boy!". I wouldn't agree that it is a fair compariosn, but it would be nice if they let you see how it is rendered in your current browser (and maybe included a message that tells you to view it in Firefox 3.5 beta to see the "good" version).
But they do have one other thing in common. In the end, each one must present some content to the end user. The problem there is that it is only logical that the syntax used to describe a confirmation message be the same as that used to describe a blog post, and that the syntax used to markup the two items be of the same type as well.
Of course, if you were arguing for an HTML document subset with javascript/flash/html forms/etc removed, then that would be a technically clean way to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Another example is PHP. Good grief $A[1]==$A['1'], that is just wrong.
So why is that such a bad thing? Granted you can make the "unclean, unclean, UNCLEAN!" argument, but why is that the worst of php's atrocities?
I don't want to sound like a troll, but considering all the oppressive crap we see coming out of China, it seems pretty petty to whine that their mandatory web filter software does not have a Linux version (or Mac)...Now if you want to talk about why China is so Microsoft-friendly, that one thing, but when someone installs a mandatory net nanny on a cheaply assembled PC and connects to a watered down approximation of the internet, where one thing internet users do best, "bitch about stuff", could possibly get them arrested, the inability to run Linux is not their biggest problem.
Ok, I stand corrected. Evidence illegally obtained by law enforcement is not admissible. Please disregard my previous comment.
No...IANAL, but Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court.
so I guess by your measure that must suck harder than a Thai ladyboy trying to fund her final op.
That's not funny, but asian transvestites get sucked in by the old "haha, that's a Thai ladyboy reference I understand" meme, and think it is.
And, by the way, you're no "Married with Children". "Married with Children" had toilet flushing sounds and required three uses of the word "boobie" per episode. Nothing can compete with that kind of social commentary.
Though still technically a rumor at this point, word is that 'Futurama' production offices have already opened and that casting is about to move forward.
Let's hope it's all the original cast. Wrong-sounding Muppets where no picnic, either (to paraphrase Family Guy).
Of course, Meg Griffin has been voiced by three different actresses (not counting the ones used for singing), so it wouldn't necessarily be the kiss of death for the show.
You forgot your constants:
const PAT_BUCHANAN="AL_GORE";
const AL_GORE="Ralph Nader";
const GEORGE_BUSH=null;
const DB_ACCESS_PATH="c:\documents and settings\owner\my database.mdb";
You are criticizing the data by asserting your opinion about things that are in no way relevant to TFA. TFA was simply about answering one question: Do financial incentives increase test scores?
Your assertions might be correct, but I suspect that you are just parroting some stereotype you have heard and decided to keep as the soap-box of the day. As for your assertion that achievement tests have gotten easier over the past twenty years, do you have any information comparing today's students and today's curricula with those of twenty years ago? I have done a quick search on the subject and found little other than people shrugging their shoulders, comparing us with foreign nations (which says nothing about whether we have backslid, or if they have improved), or people just yelling out opinions and expecting everyone else to believe it because it is the favored myth of the day.
Christ dude, if you're going to go car analogy, you have to go full-car. Leave out FFmpeg and MPEG and all that other confusing crap and just talk about cars.
Ok. You buy a car. As you're driving home, the guy in front of you slams on his brakes, and you go flying through the windshield, hitting face first against the rear bumper of the car in front of you. The ambulance arrives, but the driver steps on you, they drop you onto the concrete because the concept of requiring your EMTs to remain sober during office hours has been patented by an ambulance company that does not compete in your market.
The headache you would feel in this scenario is exactly the same as the kind of headache you would get trying to come up with a car analogy for the Google/FFMPEG/LGPL issue.
Maybe the supervillains have the right idea. We can block out the sun and prevent needless cancer deaths.
The term for the fallacy you describe is not false dichotomy, but assuming facts not in evidence, namely that child porn simulations decrease child rape.
A false dichotomy is when two choices are presented, and others are ignored. In this scenarios, there really are only two choice: ban or not ban. Those are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
I think he got his wires crossed a little, but I think that the dichotomy he was talking about was that we must choose between virtual crimes, or real ones, with "neither" being the ignored option. Of course I disagree with him, but I see a False diochotomy in there.
Because oh no, those poor imaginary cartoon characters need judicial protection!
Won't someone think of the imaginary children?
Somebody did, but "thinking of the imaginary children" is illegal now.
The X server is on the side of the application user, the app is the client.
This would defeat the purpose of having one common platform available to all (or a very large majority of) users. Instead, it would require the end user to install X, and a specialized version of openOffice (or something similar). In this scenario, Google's server would be nothing more than a centralized file server, and the use of X would be unnecessary.
The X protocol was meant for LANs anyway. But yes, it would have been better to retrofit all that than reinventing everything bottom up, badly.
Considering your "The X server is on the side of the application user" comment, I am not quite sure how you would intend to make this work, but the X server paradigm seems to either work in one of two ways:
Wasn't OOP invented with this sole purpose?
Yes, it was, but what you're suggesting is a massive redesign of an application to make it do something it was never intended to do. Sometimes it makes sense to clear the slate and start over with a design that better fits your purpose, even if it does involve "reinventing the wheel".
But with that having been said, there may be a way to fork X into a new version that pushes the processing onto the client PCs and produces better scalability. I don't know enough about x to tell you what difficulties this would entail (in essence, X would be like a virtual operating system), but it seems like an interesting idea for a advanced degree thesis or project, but it also seems like a little too much for Google to tackle for this one project.
How many times is this industry going to re-invent the same wheels badly.
So your suggestion is that google set up a X server and just let everybody connect and use their openOffice installation?
It's only reinventing the wheel if they can do the exact same thing with existing technology.
You don't get it. It's a "breakthrough" if it proves my point. It's "research" if it proves yours.
please DON'T DOWNLOAD THEM! Unless of course you are a developer or take great pleasure in incomplete, unpredictable, and potentially crashing software."
You're just begging for a windows joke, aren't you?
I use four different computers on a weekly basis, and on one of them, I cannot install software. So, it's not just about platform. It's also about being able to go to any random "box" and access your documents.
Of course I should probably use Google docs more, but my night job is teaching Office 2007, which means having to get used to all the changes they made since XP.
Integration plugins would be nice, however. I am currently using ftp to sync the different systems, and would like something simpler.
So, you're suggesting that we create a perfectly safe answer to LSD and then ask congress to legalize it? I'm putting that on the "not in my lifetime" list.
It seems to make sense that, this should be treated like most other audits. If the auditor failed to notice a problem that it would be reasonable to assume a professional would get right, then he should be accountable. But this brings the same problem we have with IT patents: How do we fix our legal system so that the authorities are qualified to weed out the BS in complicated technical matters?
I'm starting to think we need a separate court system just to handle technology-related cases. One in which it is reasonable to say "If you can't explain DNS", then you're not qualified. But that's just a thought...
There may a more vague phasing involving something like "adheres to reasonable security practices", so that the auditor is covered if the user decides to yell his password out the window, or have it decorated onto a cake, or some other unpredictable and utterly retarded activity.
We have considered changing over to something like magic jack, because it can cut the price on a service we never use, but I have my reservations due to the way they do 911.
Anyway, the odds of this being relevant to you are low, but the point is that whatever plan you go with, try to make it future-proof. Some things to consider are:
FWIW...
I'm an Apple fanboy and even I'm sick of this.
If they're not careful, pretty soon the PSP Go App Store is going to be the one making all the money. Hey Sony, PSPhone in the works?
It could come pre-rootkitted from the factory.
Ok. I think you have a point there. You seem to be suggesting that, had they been planning for a webui, they may have gone for something more like a more traditional event driven UI.
That makes a lot of sense.
Did you read the part about needing the latest BETA? Even with Firefox 3.0, the site doesn't work. You need Firefox 3.5 beta.
Who modded this insightful?
I took that as a comparison to the days of sites that would redirect netscape users to a page that said "This site requires Internet explorer. Suck it, boy!". I wouldn't agree that it is a fair compariosn, but it would be nice if they let you see how it is rendered in your current browser (and maybe included a message that tells you to view it in Firefox 3.5 beta to see the "good" version).
But they do have one other thing in common. In the end, each one must present some content to the end user. The problem there is that it is only logical that the syntax used to describe a confirmation message be the same as that used to describe a blog post, and that the syntax used to markup the two items be of the same type as well.
Of course, if you were arguing for an HTML document subset with javascript/flash/html forms/etc removed, then that would be a technically clean way to do it.