Actually, most Java application developers work on business applications that never see the light of the public day. And I would disagree, again - well written Ruby can certainly be fast, if you're using Ruby in the right way. Of course, you wouldn't use Ruby to write the firmware for a cell phone, would you? No, didn't think so. You might use C, or you might drop to Assembler, and hey - that's appropriate for that use. I don't agree with the camp of folks that need to pit languages against each other and have one come out on top. Even languages like VB have their place, that's why folks use 'em and companies support 'em.
Java apologist? Listen, every language has its place. Ruby is an excellent script language, so is Python and Perl. C# is a rich language that simplifies development on Windows and qualifies as a RAD language in Visual Studio. Java is a good OO language, with compatible runtimes on practically every platform. It also has a rich developer community and a number of sophisticated frameworks, APIs, and specifications (J2EE, J2ME, etc.) that help businesses get rich applications developed quickly, consistently, and reliably. Many of the platform runtimes feature JIT-C, so platform independence performance penalties are minimized. Its not perfect, hardly any language out there is (Lisp is pretty darn close, though).
Anyhow, well written apps in any language will rock, whereas poorly written apps will suck. I've used all too many poorly written native Windows/Linux/MacOS apps to know that. I think Swing/SWT have plenty of well-written apps other than IDEs, like the Swinglabs demo at JavaOne 2006: Aerith (https://aerith.dev.java.net/) and LimeWire (http://www.limewire.com/english/content/home.shtm l) - not as clunky as Azureus.
X emacs is a console application augmented for GUI interaction, much the same as an xterm is a console augmented for GUI interaction. That, itself, does not make it a GUI application. X emacs is not Word, or Visual Studio, Eclipse, or iTunes, Keynote or Firefox. Certainly, it can perform some element of all of those applications... but, it is not a GUI application.
Actually, I use SWT a lot on the Mac. And while it isn't Cocoa, its no slouch, either. I haven't used it much on Linux, but I know of many who do and I haven't heard any complaints in this area from that camp. I agree, though - GWT is definitely not SWT.
Nope, but I don't think emacs degrades gracefully. Either I launch console emacs, or I launch the X version of emacs (I know there's XEmacs, but that's not the same as the console emacs, I don't think). And to be fair, even the GUI version of emacs is still pretty heavily a console application. I don't see something like Evolution degrade gracefully to pine or mutt.
Easy answer: because a lot of folks wear different hats in their organization. Its not easy to dive into an area and stay current and still have that be only 15-20% of your day-to-day responsibilities. The reality is, there is a need for developers to be able to create AJAX applications that aren't cobbled together, that can be unit tested with robust testing frameworks, and whose code can be audited, if necessary - and a lot of that just isn't going to happen easily, effectively, or affordably by saying "these folks just need to learn proper JavaScript/XHTML/CSS."
Its about focusing on the business part of your application and relying on a robust framework for the plumbing. In a way, it might be bad practice for a developer in a financial institution to be writing framework/plumbing code (like validation, string manipulation, AJAX RPC, session clustering, etc.) - they should use a robust underlying framework that does this for them, and then just write the business specific logic/configuration/etc. So, "validate this field isn't empty", versus writing code that actually does the check, raises an error, and initiates the appropriate response.
I can't complain about Eclipse or Sun's Studio Creator 2/Netbeans. The former is written in SWT and is damn snappy, the latter is written in Swing and its no slouch, either. And a previous poster's point holds as well: this is still AJAX and Web, just because the API and programming paradigm have resemblances to Swing/SWT, doesn't mean that there's any more resemblance than that.
OK, ignoring the fact that GWT uses Java as its initiation language (it could use Ruby or C++ or PHP) - I still have to disagree on a number of points.
The problem with the GWT and other framworks like it as it ignores the reality that browsers today suck.
Right, which is why something like GWT is nice because you don't really care that the browser sucks, you write your code and it works. Graceful degradation isn't really an issue in this case... GWT supports a number of browsers identically (i.e. your code will run identically to the end-user). If you're looking for graceful degradation to plain HTML w/o JS, then that's a bit of a pipe dream, since you're not talking the same application. That's analagous to writing a GUI app (on Windows or OS X or Linux/GTK/Qt) and having it gracefully degrade to a console application. Last I checked, anything that's more than a simple app doesn't do anything like that, and for good reasons. Endless backwards compatibility is a case of diminishing returns and while it may be "nice", it isn't practical or economical.
GWT tries to take Java code and translate it into a mish-mash... and the results are as mangled as one would expect.
Um, no. The results are a web-application that functions as you would expect. It is unknown if Google Calendar or Google Spreadsheet are using GWT, but according to Google, the pain they experienced writing Google Maps & GMail played a part in developing GWT - so those types of applications are certainly on the drawing board for GWT. I wouldn't call those apps mangled or anything along those lines. They're quite possibly best-of-breed.
I also disagree that Google's approach with GWT:
...always leads to bloated masses of code that frustrate users and hog bandwidth.
On the contrary, I think in reality, hand-coding, by the masses of programmers that cannot be experts at JavaScript and Browser Nuances, has already created bloated masses of code that not only frustrate users & hog bandwidth, but are also difficult to maintain, practically impossible to debug effectively, and a huge drain on an organization's resources. Its time to change that and I think GWT takes steps in the right direction. I haven't heard of masses of users being frustrated by Google Maps, Mail, or Calendar... at least not because its bloated or hogs bandwidth.
The individual effect is minimal, e.g. it doesn't maliciously do anything on your system. However, the cumulative effect on Yahoo's webmail, especially yahoo! groups, is tremendous. My wife participates in & manages yahoo groups and she was saying yesterday/today that they've taken all the groups off line, from what she can see. I'd say that's a serious DoS, right?
I am humored that Symantec is in charge of virus scanning and they're the ones telling people to scan their systems when they should know that this is a XSS attack that isn't affecting the local system.
I agree, the myth of the lone inventor is just that, a myth. Everyone stands on their predecessors shoulders. There have been some notable exceptions, but by in large, this is correct. WRT your example of the TV, though - even though three people successfully invented the device at roughly the same time, that's OK. They didn't do it all the same way and the patent only covers one way of doing it (at least it should!). Whoever designed the best one should win the day (in the marketplace). If the other two, besides Farnsworth, had looked at the end product that Farnsworth invented (without dissecting it or looking at the patent application), would they have said "aha! that's the missing part, that's what we needed." I don't think so, but I could be wrong - it isn't exactly my area of expertise. There wouldn't have been a "figured it out" type of revelation there. The difference is conceptual, I think.
Google's a great example. Say, for example, Google patents serving up remote ads based on the content of the page (AdSense). Someone else could easily figure out how to do that. That should not be patentable, but I think AdSense is in fact patented. Agreed?
Innovation is like a living organism: The shorter the generational gaps, the faster it mutates and evolves. Putting a 20yr hold on generations will only slow, not speed innovation.
Right, and (please correct me if I'm wrong), but the only way I see patents spurring innovation is if (a) developers were in the habit of following patent filings & reading through patent listings to develop new ideas and (b) they then used the knowledge and methods from the patents to develop something new (the innovation). Last I checked, not only does this not happen (reading through patent filings to get new ideas), but if it did, and ideas were based on that, that would be patently illegal, right? (pun intended)
IMO, the "non-obvious" rule should be differentiated from being "original". Being "original" should not provide grounds for gaining a patent. It should be used to gain a market advantage. If something is truly "non-obvious", then anyone should be able to see the end-result and not be able to duplicate it without seeing the code that's running behind the scenes.
Trade secrets are provided for being "first" to do something.. the assumption is that without your "secret", competitors will be behind you in duplicating what you've done. Just because software changes the rules, doesn't mean that patents should become more broad to compensate.
For me, it tends to boil down to this: figuring something out versus inventing something from scratch. Example: new video codec - someone figured out how to maintain the quality of video while reducing the bits needed to encode it. Excellent - that's great, and should probably be a trade secret and encapsulated in a proprietary product if you want to make money off it directly. If someone else comes across the same method, whether or not they've seen your product, great - someone else figured it out, too. Maybe they'll open source their system, maybe not.
Compare this to an internal combustion engine. Someone didn't just "figure it out" - that was invented/developed/etc. Once the base had been invented, I'd say that one-offs or incremental improvements probably don't deserve being patented. Inventing a jet engine versus a scramjet engine, though - yeah, that's probably significant enough. Ramjet versus scramjet, debateable.
Why? Well, when a ramjet was invented, it was obvious what the limitations were - it couldn't operate at supersonic speeds. With that obvious, it was logical to believe that someone would "figure out" what needs to be done to allow a ramjet to function at supersonic speeds. New invention? Probably. Patentable? Nah, not in my opinion.
Entirely. Furthermore, the argument of patents wrt innovation seems to ignore an important point. Without patents in software, a new feature (such as one-click) would be replicated, improved, or would spur new ideas, without fear of any recourse. Same would go for any other thing - I cannot think of anyone that would see one-click and think "hmmm, now HOW did they do that?!" - a detail that the patent would reveal. Software patents are being used to protect conceptual ideas (very tenuous ones, at that) that have no secret (hence trade secrets being useless). Nobody cares exactly how Amazon implemented one-click (unless I am mistaken, please correct me if you do). That's the difference I see with mechanical patents. Perhaps, if someone came up with a mechanism to cut diamonds that yielded less waste, then to replicate this, you couldn't avoid implementing the same mechanism. That is, unless you came up with something entirely different, that had the same effect (high quality cut, low waste). And as far as I understand patent law (IANAL), that would be O.K. Different mechanism, same end-effect, no problem. Not so for software. Different implementation, same end-effect (one-click ordering), and you're bound by the patent.
That's a problem and I think Paul overlooks this.
That said, Paul's post on this is an excellent essay on the topic from a number of different angles.
Entirely. Particularly since pornography is a subjective definition. Some items that would be considered pornography in the US would not be considered such in Europe, for example. And for the record, Europe seems quite a bit more open about things such as nakedness, sex, etc. and tend not to shield their children from it in quite the same way we do.
And despite your eloquent comments, you've missed the point like so many. This is not about child pornography. It is about children accessing pornography. Regular, legal, legitimate, though potentially immoral or distasteful, pornography.
When the ping attribute is present, user agents should clearly indicate to the user that following the hyperlink will also cause secondary requests to be sent in the background, possibly including listing the actual target URIs.
Ah, well - I would probably put the blame on myself. My memory is horrible and the chemistry conversation was a bit beyond me, anyway. I trust she stated it as you have indicated and I warped it when I paraphrased it!
I heard a comment from a mother on the playground this past summer regarding Splenda - apparently it achieves its desired effect by adding a hydroxyl (OH) group to the sucrose molecule. This makes it indigestable, apparently - so it passes through your system. (I'm no chemist & I'm paraphrasing). In any case, apparently this method is also what makes a lot of the pesticides and such so devastating to our environment (and so long lived) - they cannot be broken down in the food chain, so they persist and accumulate (somewhere).
I don't know. I've never been one to tie myself to a particular language. Lately, I think my opinion is that Java or any other "OO" language doesn't make your code OO. Proper use of design patterns and keeping the code, objects, responsibilities, etc. as simple as possible, make an OO system. Whether that's Java or Ruby doesn't really matter IMO. I've seen a heck of a lot of non-OO Java, and I imagine the same can go for Ruby, Python, Groovy, and certainly Perl (been there, done that). Create as many classes, inheritance, etc. as you like - it doesn't give you OO just by that virtue alone, that's certain. At least not "good" OO, as I would define it (and the GoF, et al).
Part of what I'm not fond of in Ruby (and maybe that's just because I'm a Ruby novice), but when I look at Ruby code (as a novice), it isn't particularly clear what's going on - there seems to be a heck of a lot of "behind-the-scenes" things going on, which IMO isn't always that great. Java has its fair share of "behind-the-scenes", too - but, maybe its a bit more granular than Ruby, not at as high a level, so the bigger picture is composed of more pixels, so to say.
In the end, every language has its place. Hopefully Ruby will get some traction with MDA/MDD and good expression of UML, as Java and many other "OO" languages have.
IMO, what is needed in this case is for consumers or technologists, even companies that are innovating new products, to demand that any technology that is written into a law that forces compliance meet certain Open standards. The technology needs to be entirely transparent and open, software interfaces/implementations are provided without any license/copyright/use restrictions. Any hardware is provided with full schematics, fully documented, etc. Any and all processes, technologies, software, algorithms, etc. are provided without patent encumbrances.
If this approach is not adopted, to its fullest extreme, innovation will be impacted. In a society and economy based on capitalism, dependent on ever increasing growth, anything less would be quite bad.
"Evolution is a scientific theory, not nessicarily a LAW."
In fact, the tenets behind the scientific theory of evolution are based on facts. The observations, experiments, etc. all have dealt with facts.
However, the needed proof to establish evolution as a law (which, if I recall, indicate that exceptions do not exist), are not available. This is not in any way a failure of the theory, but most likely a function of the subject matter, which would dictate absolute knowledge of all species, and detailed information on the reproduction, DNS stability, mutations, etc. of all living organisms to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
The text is actually highlightable. Go check out the examples. I didn't have any problem highlighting the text. Now, searchable? Not sure... depends on how the underlying search works (since the text is still in the XHTML code).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, most Java application developers work on business applications that never see the light of the public day. And I would disagree, again - well written Ruby can certainly be fast, if you're using Ruby in the right way. Of course, you wouldn't use Ruby to write the firmware for a cell phone, would you? No, didn't think so. You might use C, or you might drop to Assembler, and hey - that's appropriate for that use. I don't agree with the camp of folks that need to pit languages against each other and have one come out on top. Even languages like VB have their place, that's why folks use 'em and companies support 'em.
Java apologist? Listen, every language has its place. Ruby is an excellent script language, so is Python and Perl. C# is a rich language that simplifies development on Windows and qualifies as a RAD language in Visual Studio. Java is a good OO language, with compatible runtimes on practically every platform. It also has a rich developer community and a number of sophisticated frameworks, APIs, and specifications (J2EE, J2ME, etc.) that help businesses get rich applications developed quickly, consistently, and reliably. Many of the platform runtimes feature JIT-C, so platform independence performance penalties are minimized. Its not perfect, hardly any language out there is (Lisp is pretty darn close, though).
Anyhow, well written apps in any language will rock, whereas poorly written apps will suck. I've used all too many poorly written native Windows/Linux/MacOS apps to know that. I think Swing/SWT have plenty of well-written apps other than IDEs, like the Swinglabs demo at JavaOne 2006: Aerith (https://aerith.dev.java.net/) and LimeWire (http://www.limewire.com/english/content/home.shtm l) - not as clunky as Azureus.
X emacs is a console application augmented for GUI interaction, much the same as an xterm is a console augmented for GUI interaction. That, itself, does not make it a GUI application. X emacs is not Word, or Visual Studio, Eclipse, or iTunes, Keynote or Firefox. Certainly, it can perform some element of all of those applications ... but, it is not a GUI application.
Actually, I use SWT a lot on the Mac. And while it isn't Cocoa, its no slouch, either. I haven't used it much on Linux, but I know of many who do and I haven't heard any complaints in this area from that camp. I agree, though - GWT is definitely not SWT.
Nope, but I don't think emacs degrades gracefully. Either I launch console emacs, or I launch the X version of emacs (I know there's XEmacs, but that's not the same as the console emacs, I don't think). And to be fair, even the GUI version of emacs is still pretty heavily a console application. I don't see something like Evolution degrade gracefully to pine or mutt.
Easy answer: because a lot of folks wear different hats in their organization. Its not easy to dive into an area and stay current and still have that be only 15-20% of your day-to-day responsibilities. The reality is, there is a need for developers to be able to create AJAX applications that aren't cobbled together, that can be unit tested with robust testing frameworks, and whose code can be audited, if necessary - and a lot of that just isn't going to happen easily, effectively, or affordably by saying "these folks just need to learn proper JavaScript/XHTML/CSS."
Its about focusing on the business part of your application and relying on a robust framework for the plumbing. In a way, it might be bad practice for a developer in a financial institution to be writing framework/plumbing code (like validation, string manipulation, AJAX RPC, session clustering, etc.) - they should use a robust underlying framework that does this for them, and then just write the business specific logic/configuration/etc. So, "validate this field isn't empty", versus writing code that actually does the check, raises an error, and initiates the appropriate response.
I can't complain about Eclipse or Sun's Studio Creator 2/Netbeans. The former is written in SWT and is damn snappy, the latter is written in Swing and its no slouch, either. And a previous poster's point holds as well: this is still AJAX and Web, just because the API and programming paradigm have resemblances to Swing/SWT, doesn't mean that there's any more resemblance than that.
OK, ignoring the fact that GWT uses Java as its initiation language (it could use Ruby or C++ or PHP) - I still have to disagree on a number of points.
Right, which is why something like GWT is nice because you don't really care that the browser sucks, you write your code and it works. Graceful degradation isn't really an issue in this case ... GWT supports a number of browsers identically (i.e. your code will run identically to the end-user). If you're looking for graceful degradation to plain HTML w/o JS, then that's a bit of a pipe dream, since you're not talking the same application. That's analagous to writing a GUI app (on Windows or OS X or Linux/GTK/Qt) and having it gracefully degrade to a console application. Last I checked, anything that's more than a simple app doesn't do anything like that, and for good reasons. Endless backwards compatibility is a case of diminishing returns and while it may be "nice", it isn't practical or economical.
Um, no. The results are a web-application that functions as you would expect. It is unknown if Google Calendar or Google Spreadsheet are using GWT, but according to Google, the pain they experienced writing Google Maps & GMail played a part in developing GWT - so those types of applications are certainly on the drawing board for GWT. I wouldn't call those apps mangled or anything along those lines. They're quite possibly best-of-breed.
I also disagree that Google's approach with GWT:
On the contrary, I think in reality, hand-coding, by the masses of programmers that cannot be experts at JavaScript and Browser Nuances, has already created bloated masses of code that not only frustrate users & hog bandwidth, but are also difficult to maintain, practically impossible to debug effectively, and a huge drain on an organization's resources. Its time to change that and I think GWT takes steps in the right direction. I haven't heard of masses of users being frustrated by Google Maps, Mail, or Calendar ... at least not because its bloated or hogs bandwidth.
The individual effect is minimal, e.g. it doesn't maliciously do anything on your system. However, the cumulative effect on Yahoo's webmail, especially yahoo! groups, is tremendous. My wife participates in & manages yahoo groups and she was saying yesterday/today that they've taken all the groups off line, from what she can see. I'd say that's a serious DoS, right?
I am humored that Symantec is in charge of virus scanning and they're the ones telling people to scan their systems when they should know that this is a XSS attack that isn't affecting the local system.
I agree, the myth of the lone inventor is just that, a myth. Everyone stands on their predecessors shoulders. There have been some notable exceptions, but by in large, this is correct. WRT your example of the TV, though - even though three people successfully invented the device at roughly the same time, that's OK. They didn't do it all the same way and the patent only covers one way of doing it (at least it should!). Whoever designed the best one should win the day (in the marketplace). If the other two, besides Farnsworth, had looked at the end product that Farnsworth invented (without dissecting it or looking at the patent application), would they have said "aha! that's the missing part, that's what we needed." I don't think so, but I could be wrong - it isn't exactly my area of expertise. There wouldn't have been a "figured it out" type of revelation there. The difference is conceptual, I think.
Google's a great example. Say, for example, Google patents serving up remote ads based on the content of the page (AdSense). Someone else could easily figure out how to do that. That should not be patentable, but I think AdSense is in fact patented. Agreed?
Right, and (please correct me if I'm wrong), but the only way I see patents spurring innovation is if (a) developers were in the habit of following patent filings & reading through patent listings to develop new ideas and (b) they then used the knowledge and methods from the patents to develop something new (the innovation). Last I checked, not only does this not happen (reading through patent filings to get new ideas), but if it did, and ideas were based on that, that would be patently illegal, right? (pun intended)
IMO, the "non-obvious" rule should be differentiated from being "original". Being "original" should not provide grounds for gaining a patent. It should be used to gain a market advantage. If something is truly "non-obvious", then anyone should be able to see the end-result and not be able to duplicate it without seeing the code that's running behind the scenes.
Trade secrets are provided for being "first" to do something .. the assumption is that without your "secret", competitors will be behind you in duplicating what you've done. Just because software changes the rules, doesn't mean that patents should become more broad to compensate.
For me, it tends to boil down to this: figuring something out versus inventing something from scratch. Example: new video codec - someone figured out how to maintain the quality of video while reducing the bits needed to encode it. Excellent - that's great, and should probably be a trade secret and encapsulated in a proprietary product if you want to make money off it directly. If someone else comes across the same method, whether or not they've seen your product, great - someone else figured it out, too. Maybe they'll open source their system, maybe not.
Compare this to an internal combustion engine. Someone didn't just "figure it out" - that was invented/developed/etc. Once the base had been invented, I'd say that one-offs or incremental improvements probably don't deserve being patented. Inventing a jet engine versus a scramjet engine, though - yeah, that's probably significant enough. Ramjet versus scramjet, debateable.
Why? Well, when a ramjet was invented, it was obvious what the limitations were - it couldn't operate at supersonic speeds. With that obvious, it was logical to believe that someone would "figure out" what needs to be done to allow a ramjet to function at supersonic speeds. New invention? Probably. Patentable? Nah, not in my opinion.
Entirely. Furthermore, the argument of patents wrt innovation seems to ignore an important point. Without patents in software, a new feature (such as one-click) would be replicated, improved, or would spur new ideas, without fear of any recourse. Same would go for any other thing - I cannot think of anyone that would see one-click and think "hmmm, now HOW did they do that?!" - a detail that the patent would reveal. Software patents are being used to protect conceptual ideas (very tenuous ones, at that) that have no secret (hence trade secrets being useless). Nobody cares exactly how Amazon implemented one-click (unless I am mistaken, please correct me if you do). That's the difference I see with mechanical patents. Perhaps, if someone came up with a mechanism to cut diamonds that yielded less waste, then to replicate this, you couldn't avoid implementing the same mechanism. That is, unless you came up with something entirely different, that had the same effect (high quality cut, low waste). And as far as I understand patent law (IANAL), that would be O.K. Different mechanism, same end-effect, no problem. Not so for software. Different implementation, same end-effect (one-click ordering), and you're bound by the patent.
That's a problem and I think Paul overlooks this.
That said, Paul's post on this is an excellent essay on the topic from a number of different angles.
Entirely. Particularly since pornography is a subjective definition. Some items that would be considered pornography in the US would not be considered such in Europe, for example. And for the record, Europe seems quite a bit more open about things such as nakedness, sex, etc. and tend not to shield their children from it in quite the same way we do.
And despite your eloquent comments, you've missed the point like so many. This is not about child pornography. It is about children accessing pornography. Regular, legal, legitimate, though potentially immoral or distasteful, pornography.
This is not about child pornography.
Quoting the spec:
Any questions?
Ah, well - I would probably put the blame on myself. My memory is horrible and the chemistry conversation was a bit beyond me, anyway. I trust she stated it as you have indicated and I warped it when I paraphrased it!
I heard a comment from a mother on the playground this past summer regarding Splenda - apparently it achieves its desired effect by adding a hydroxyl (OH) group to the sucrose molecule. This makes it indigestable, apparently - so it passes through your system. (I'm no chemist & I'm paraphrasing). In any case, apparently this method is also what makes a lot of the pesticides and such so devastating to our environment (and so long lived) - they cannot be broken down in the food chain, so they persist and accumulate (somewhere).
Golf Cart.
QED
I don't know. I've never been one to tie myself to a particular language. Lately, I think my opinion is that Java or any other "OO" language doesn't make your code OO. Proper use of design patterns and keeping the code, objects, responsibilities, etc. as simple as possible, make an OO system. Whether that's Java or Ruby doesn't really matter IMO. I've seen a heck of a lot of non-OO Java, and I imagine the same can go for Ruby, Python, Groovy, and certainly Perl (been there, done that). Create as many classes, inheritance, etc. as you like - it doesn't give you OO just by that virtue alone, that's certain. At least not "good" OO, as I would define it (and the GoF, et al).
Part of what I'm not fond of in Ruby (and maybe that's just because I'm a Ruby novice), but when I look at Ruby code (as a novice), it isn't particularly clear what's going on - there seems to be a heck of a lot of "behind-the-scenes" things going on, which IMO isn't always that great. Java has its fair share of "behind-the-scenes", too - but, maybe its a bit more granular than Ruby, not at as high a level, so the bigger picture is composed of more pixels, so to say.
In the end, every language has its place. Hopefully Ruby will get some traction with MDA/MDD and good expression of UML, as Java and many other "OO" languages have.
Actually, I think its called the Liskov Substitution Principle
IMO, what is needed in this case is for consumers or technologists, even companies that are innovating new products, to demand that any technology that is written into a law that forces compliance meet certain Open standards. The technology needs to be entirely transparent and open, software interfaces/implementations are provided without any license/copyright/use restrictions. Any hardware is provided with full schematics, fully documented, etc. Any and all processes, technologies, software, algorithms, etc. are provided without patent encumbrances.
If this approach is not adopted, to its fullest extreme, innovation will be impacted. In a society and economy based on capitalism, dependent on ever increasing growth, anything less would be quite bad.
Hehe, thanks for doing more legwork than I did! I stand corrected, and gladly so.
Actually, its not even quite this.
In fact, the tenets behind the scientific theory of evolution are based on facts. The observations, experiments, etc. all have dealt with facts.
However, the needed proof to establish evolution as a law (which, if I recall, indicate that exceptions do not exist), are not available. This is not in any way a failure of the theory, but most likely a function of the subject matter, which would dictate absolute knowledge of all species, and detailed information on the reproduction, DNS stability, mutations, etc. of all living organisms to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
The text is actually highlightable. Go check out the examples. I didn't have any problem highlighting the text. Now, searchable? Not sure ... depends on how the underlying search works (since the text is still in the XHTML code).
Cheers