I would argue that even though there was not a definite mass extinction during Siurian, Carboniferous, and Jurassic, there were significant changes (arrival of primative predators, arrival of reptiles/decline of trilobites, and arrival of birds/amphibians, respectively) that might suggest a tiny-mass extinction or other event that could cause fatalities in a single species (i.e., us).
How dare you label the conventional wisdom of Jebusland as 'insane'! You'll be booted straight to Camp Zulu (X-ray and Yankee are full now--eat more soylent green!) for that crack!!!!!111
But actually, that is how the average person relates to computers/technology. The point of the ad is not to introduce FF to people who already know what they're doing*, it is to introduce FF to the computer-owning salt of the earth.
*These people are in two camps: the IE-loving-believe-the-FUD-about-FOSS camp, or the I-already-use-FF camp. The former will not be swayed by an ad, and the latter do not care because they already have it.
You try the playground denial tactic of painting your team, the Republicans, as "falsely accused as evil" ~.
For an administration that pledged to "bring honor back to the office," they've done anything but; no one takes responsibility for anything. In fact, it is all Clinton's fault: Iraq, OBL, 9/11, Global Warming, and now, the failure of the "missile defense" pork barrel program.
The Reds now own the congress and the executive branch--they're the ones responsible for funding this stillborn dog. We've poured boatloads of cash into this stupid program that, as someone else pointed out, can be easily circumvented (all it takes is one direct hit for the US to lose, whereas the defense system must be accurate 100% of the time. Good luck with that 100% from any govt. program). No serious, respected scientists have ever claimed that this was a viable program, but Ronnie Raygun got it into his pointed head that he was Luke Skywalker, defending truth, justice and white, blonde virgins from the Evil Empire. The rest is history.
Oh, and nice way the Grandparent tried to spin this out as having some kind of residual benefit. He is correct, it will be residual, but unlike actual legitimate research programs, the nuggets of knowledge we can salvage from this POS will be worth much less than the amount of hard-earned taxes we paid into it.
You know, these tax-cut and spend Reds are really annoying. I wish there was a party that was all about fiscal responsibility.
~ if you can get everyone to use OOo's open document standards ~.
Better if OOo used MSO's document standards, because it is the standard for document exchange. MS will never use OOo's unless they are forced by the government (that will not happen), or they see value. How could MS's BOD ever justify a value in helping the competition to their shareholders? The answer on the other side of the fence MUST BE "embrace the existing standard."
Forcing customers to change without a compelling reason ("free" is only compelling to students and the poor, and the latter don't own computers) is a recipe for failure; you have to lower the cost of conversion as close to zero as you can in order to get most people to change.
Note that "cost" does not mean $/£ but effort, frustration, learning curve, etc.
So I go to IBM.jobs, and they have their resume-submittal criteria, or whatever, for people who are interested in gaining employment.
This is a very good thing. It will keep the chaff occupied with the mistaken idea that by spamming resumes to the world is the perfect way to get a job.
Meanwhile, those of us who know how to get in the door without relying on a CV (in word format, only!) will already be negotiating salary & benes while the unwashed monkies are clapping their hands when they receive the "Thanks for contacting IBM.jobs. Your resume has been submitted and will be reviewed. We'll call you... someday, maybe" email.
PostgreSQL 7.4 is very fast. 8.0, when it goes gold will be even faster. The main difference if that PostgreSQL is primarily designed for people who know how to normalize their data and want to take advantage of the DB engine to do most of the heavy lifting/ensure referential integrity.
MySQL, on the other hand, is great for quick-n-dirty setups, but lends itself to poorly designed solutions that are a bear to maintain.
Bottom line: learn about data normalization before you do anything. If you're building something that will be extended and maintained over time, use PostgreSQL. If you're building a throwaway app, use MySQL. If your throwaway app will turn into a production system that will have to be maintained, use PostgreSQL.
So how long will we allow these witch hunts over intellectual
property to continue?
Until everyone in power who was born under the old style of
brick-n-mortaring IP is dead or retired. Maybe when "IP" is not some
fancy thing that make people say, "Hmm" when they read stories
pertaining to it, it will be regulated to the fringe of irrelevancy
where it belongs.
100 years ago, anyone trying to build their own machine that could fly was challenged by the Wright Bros' insane patent law wars.
Today we laugh at the follies of our great-grandparents as we help
our kids build one from scratch.
approach to fighting software copyright/patent abuses. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Total chaos determining what code is protected under which law ( ) Legitimate uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (x) It is defenseless against Hong Kong dupe factories ( ) It will stop abuses for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of software will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (x) Requires too much cooperation from software companies (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (x) Many software developers cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential clients ( ) Code thieves don't care about patents or copyrights ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for determining if code is in violation (x) Foreign countries ( ) Difficulty of searching a code database of protected code ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new laws ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of licenses (x) Huge existing software investment ( ) Susceptibility of established software to copyright attack ( ) Willingness of users to upgrade existing software to new violation-free versions ( ) Willingness of users to pay more for the same software (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all copyright approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of patents ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with patent houses (x) Dishonesty on the part of some developers themselves (x) Development costs that are unaffected by copyrights/patents ( ) MS Office vs. OpenOffice
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) Any idea posted on/. is automatically branded the work of an id: 10T. ( ) The right to develop code independently should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Writing software should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your "prior art"? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/throwaway development in place of a real project is cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my source ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
Would you use a television that wasn't UHF and VHF
compliant?
Imagine that everyone got a free TeeVee with every home/apartment.
Now imagine that anyone with a bit of time could create a TeeVee station
that worked with the free TeeVee. The people who didn't know what they
were doing would make their stations compatible with the free TeeVee
because they have it, and so does everyone they know.
Then their boss at work says, "make a TeeVee station to display
information about our department." Because they all have the free TeeVee
at work, that's what they use to view their station.
Finally, some upstarts (long-haired, unwashed, obviously communist,
punks) say, "Hey, we have a TeeVee that is also free, but it is UHF/VHF
compliant, and you won't get all those annoying commercials and
stuff! Oh and people won't break into your home if you watch certain
stations!
The masses look at these upstarts with wonder and bewilderment. Just
what is this UHF/VHF that they're talking about? All they want to do is
watch TeeVee, and what they have works fine. Oh sure, every once in a
while, Cousin Midge's son (who is a TeeVee wiz) comes by and complains
that there is always a nest of mice or other creatures in the living
room ("They get in via the TeeVee," he says), but he always cleans them
out and you give him a fivver for his troubles. Sometimes the TeeVee
doesn't work, but if you wack it on the side enough times, it usually
straightens out, but it seems...slow lately.
Remember the problem back in the day: you can only address memory up to the 0xFFFF (65535) address space, so in order to add more, they added a "page frame", which was a chunk of space taken from the empty B7FF to EFFF (or therebouts) area and paged in and out. The memory manager for doing this was (natch) QEMM, or MS's EMM386.EXE.
Extended memory is simply memory added after 0xFFFF, but DOS couldn't get at it, being only 8 bit. In order to get at the extended memory, the CPU had to switch to protected mode, and then DOS apps had to use OS/2, or Win 3.0 in "enhanced" mode to run, because they needed a faked-out environment in order to call int 21 (DOS services). The OS would switching in and out of protected mode to make that happen, or emulate int 21 itself. The Win 9x branch thunked, but the NT branch emulated, so that whole marketing campaign about how Windows 95 didn't "have DOS under it" was a boldface lie.
Unfortunately, you can't get at the named element with getElementByID(). I suppose if you wanted to do so, you'd simply assign an ID and be done with it.
That is a tough delimma. If we allow idiots to continue to sloppily code their way through the net, then clean, fast, accessible pages will never become a reality. There needs to be a way to force these people to clean up their sloppy code, and to prevent those who don't know what they're doing from ever getting a job again until they educate themselves.
On the other hand, in some corners, it is all about market share, so you have to pander to the lowest common denominator.
I, for one, applaud FF's adherance to the standards, because when I make a page, I make sure it works right under FF, then hack it up to work under IE. Best of both worlds, but if you try it for any length of time, you'll realize what a stinking POS IE is...
He has a slashdot id, ergo he already subscribed to this service.
It is always a treat to converse with someone who does not speak the English language natively.
In your native language, what does the word "subscribed" mean?
On one level, you are correct. I use this "service." Considering the competency level of the developers (i.e., very low), why would you exemplify/. as high-quality code? Have you even bothered to examine its architecture? I think not.
Your average (read, doesn't know what he's doing) web dev could get at that name field by using
thatname = document.getstuff.name.value;
This javascript will work in IE, but in order to get it to work under FireFox, you have to reference the field properly:
thatname = document.forms.getstuff.name.value;
IE allows sloppy developers to get away with murder. An example of poorly-written HTML that renders properly under IE (and Netscape...), not under FireFox:
>When you install winamp an option to install a component into the machine's MBR ~.
Either you don't know anything about low-level disk functions, or you are a Mac user. Or both.
I'll drop a troll-pellet, though:
Please explain to us what "component" WinAmp writes to the MBR, specifically, what sectors/tracks are written, and with what data. Also, please explain how WinAmp bypasses the HAL.
With some smarts, you install a keystroke logger/ICQ bot/VNC/what-have-you (for future use). That is nice, but it won't actually run when the user returns...
So, I install a KL on the CFO's machine, grab your acutal SOX docs (not the "doctored" ones you want to release) and send them to the feds. Your key people go to jail for flagrant violations, and then I move in, install my own people into key positions and wait...
Slashdot Mirror
*These people are in two camps: the IE-loving-believe-the-FUD-about-FOSS camp, or the I-already-use-FF camp. The former will not be swayed by an ad, and the latter do not care because they already have it.
The Reds now own the congress and the executive branch--they're the ones responsible for funding this stillborn dog. We've poured boatloads of cash into this stupid program that, as someone else pointed out, can be easily circumvented (all it takes is one direct hit for the US to lose, whereas the defense system must be accurate 100% of the time. Good luck with that 100% from any govt. program). No serious, respected scientists have ever claimed that this was a viable program, but Ronnie Raygun got it into his pointed head that he was Luke Skywalker, defending truth, justice and white, blonde virgins from the Evil Empire. The rest is history.
Oh, and nice way the Grandparent tried to spin this out as having some kind of residual benefit. He is correct, it will be residual, but unlike actual legitimate research programs, the nuggets of knowledge we can salvage from this POS will be worth much less than the amount of hard-earned taxes we paid into it.
You know, these tax-cut and spend Reds are really annoying. I wish there was a party that was all about fiscal responsibility.
And you're confused. He was essentially held without trial or a bail hearing for 4 1/2 years.
It is easy to confuse price with value, but that is a mistake.
Forcing customers to change without a compelling reason ("free" is only compelling to students and the poor, and the latter don't own computers) is a recipe for failure; you have to lower the cost of conversion as close to zero as you can in order to get most people to change.
Note that "cost" does not mean $/£ but effort, frustration, learning curve, etc.
This is a very good thing. It will keep the chaff occupied with the mistaken idea that by spamming resumes to the world is the perfect way to get a job.
Meanwhile, those of us who know how to get in the door without relying on a CV (in word format, only!) will already be negotiating salary & benes while the unwashed monkies are clapping their hands when they receive the "Thanks for contacting IBM.jobs. Your resume has been submitted and will be reviewed. We'll call you... someday, maybe" email.
MySQL, on the other hand, is great for quick-n-dirty setups, but lends itself to poorly designed solutions that are a bear to maintain.
Bottom line: learn about data normalization before you do anything. If you're building something that will be extended and maintained over time, use PostgreSQL. If you're building a throwaway app, use MySQL. If your throwaway app will turn into a production system that will have to be maintained, use PostgreSQL.
Until everyone in power who was born under the old style of brick-n-mortaring IP is dead or retired. Maybe when "IP" is not some fancy thing that make people say, "Hmm" when they read stories pertaining to it, it will be regulated to the fringe of irrelevancy where it belongs.
100 years ago, anyone trying to build their own machine that could fly was challenged by the Wright Bros' insane patent law wars. Today we laugh at the follies of our great-grandparents as we help our kids build one from scratch.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting software copyright/patent abuses. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Total chaos determining what code is protected under which law
( ) Legitimate uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(x) It is defenseless against Hong Kong dupe factories
( ) It will stop abuses for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of software will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from software companies
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many software developers cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential clients
( ) Code thieves don't care about patents or copyrights
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for determining if code is in violation
(x) Foreign countries
( ) Difficulty of searching a code database of protected code
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new laws
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of licenses
(x) Huge existing software investment
( ) Susceptibility of established software to copyright attack
( ) Willingness of users to upgrade existing software to new violation-free versions
( ) Willingness of users to pay more for the same software
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all copyright approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of patents
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with patent houses
(x) Dishonesty on the part of some developers themselves
(x) Development costs that are unaffected by copyrights/patents
( ) MS Office vs. OpenOffice
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Any idea posted on
( ) The right to develop code independently should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Writing software should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your "prior art"?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/throwaway development in place of a real project is cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my source
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
Stop-loss & recall: the military is like a giant roach motel. Once you sign up, you can't get out. If you got out before, you'll get roped back in.
Imagine that everyone got a free TeeVee with every home/apartment. Now imagine that anyone with a bit of time could create a TeeVee station that worked with the free TeeVee. The people who didn't know what they were doing would make their stations compatible with the free TeeVee because they have it, and so does everyone they know.
Then their boss at work says, "make a TeeVee station to display information about our department." Because they all have the free TeeVee at work, that's what they use to view their station.
Finally, some upstarts (long-haired, unwashed, obviously communist, punks) say, "Hey, we have a TeeVee that is also free, but it is UHF/VHF compliant, and you won't get all those annoying commercials and stuff! Oh and people won't break into your home if you watch certain stations!
The masses look at these upstarts with wonder and bewilderment. Just what is this UHF/VHF that they're talking about? All they want to do is watch TeeVee, and what they have works fine. Oh sure, every once in a while, Cousin Midge's son (who is a TeeVee wiz) comes by and complains that there is always a nest of mice or other creatures in the living room ("They get in via the TeeVee," he says), but he always cleans them out and you give him a fivver for his troubles. Sometimes the TeeVee doesn't work, but if you wack it on the side enough times, it usually straightens out, but it seems...slow lately.
Maybe he doesn't know how to write HTML. Most people don't.
Extended memory is simply memory added after 0xFFFF, but DOS couldn't get at it, being only 8 bit. In order to get at the extended memory, the CPU had to switch to protected mode, and then DOS apps had to use OS/2, or Win 3.0 in "enhanced" mode to run, because they needed a faked-out environment in order to call int 21 (DOS services). The OS would switching in and out of protected mode to make that happen, or emulate int 21 itself. The Win 9x branch thunked, but the NT branch emulated, so that whole marketing campaign about how Windows 95 didn't "have DOS under it" was a boldface lie.
Damn, I'm old.
If it were really that important, he'd be with his wife, not on a plane, where there's no way he can do anything except spin and flutter, no?
On the other hand, in some corners, it is all about market share, so you have to pander to the lowest common denominator.
I, for one, applaud FF's adherance to the standards, because when I make a page, I make sure it works right under FF, then hack it up to work under IE. Best of both worlds, but if you try it for any length of time, you'll realize what a stinking POS IE is...
On one level, you are correct. I use this "service." Considering the competency level of the developers (i.e., very low), why would you exemplify /. as high-quality code? Have you even bothered to examine its architecture? I think not.
My hat's off you, sir, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
For example, suppose you had
Your average (read, doesn't know what he's doing) web dev could get at that name field by using
This javascript will work in IE, but in order to get it to work under FireFox, you have to reference the field properly:
IE allows sloppy developers to get away with murder. An example of poorly-written HTML that renders properly under IE (and Netscape...), not under FireFox:
The correct HTML:Either you don't know anything about low-level disk functions, or you are a Mac user. Or both.
I'll drop a troll-pellet, though:
Please explain to us what "component" WinAmp writes to the MBR, specifically, what sectors/tracks are written, and with what data. Also, please explain how WinAmp bypasses the HAL.
Thank you.
So, I install a KL on the CFO's machine, grab your acutal SOX docs (not the "doctored" ones you want to release) and send them to the feds. Your key people go to jail for flagrant violations, and then I move in, install my own people into key positions and wait...
You're right; thanks for the correction!