Members of the RIAA aren't *complete* twits. If file sharing did indeed lead to increased sales, they would be encouraging it, not attempting to kill it. They have their own statisticians and such doing studies very similar to these, and if the studies suggested that free-for-all file sharing would increase net sales, then they would allow it wholeheartedly.
You may take the "IP protection" argument, which is a valid one. However, protecting IP would come a very distant second to priority one, making $$$. And if some compromise on the former led to an increase in the latter, the RIAA would not hesitate. They may be unethical, money-grubbing and overly lawsuit-happy, but they're not idiots.
Re:this reminds me of a trick for telemarketers
on
He Writes Back
·
· Score: 1
I worked as a telemarketer while at Uni, as it was one of the few jobs I could find that paid enough and was flexible enough, roster wise, to fit in with my classes while allowing me to pay for bills and rent.
Most telemarketers are in this position. They don't like their jobs - but they need to do it so they can pay their bills and make their rent.
This kind of ignorant attitude makes their jobs just that much harder. If you don't want the call, just act politely and the marketer will generally respect your opinion, and won't push the issue.
Politeness never hurts. Give it a try, and make someone elses life easier.
I don't believe that the tool used is particularly important - it is the principles being taught that is of the greatest relevance. In an OOP course, for instance, the principles of OOP should be emphasised, not the language of implementation. Once a student has a strong understanding of these principles, they will be able to apply them to any language that follows them - the C++ or Java question should be largely irrelevant.
That said, it could be argued that procedural programming should be taught before OOP, as procedural programming has traditionally been the optimal compromise between high-level design (OOP and so on) and the actual low-level structure of things (assembler programming and such), from which point it is easiest to grasp those higher and lower levels. However, in this enlightened day of RAD tools and such, perhaps this knowledge is not as relevant for "Joe Coder" as it is for those more oriented towards the science of such things.
Nonetheless, the main point is that the paradigm is what should be emphasised, not the language.
... you set the user-agent to something a bit more mainstream. I tried entering the site normally, and was rejected as using a bad browser. I change the user-agent to MSIE 5.5 / Windows NT, and it works just fine.
Does this not demonstrate that the site is rejecting browsers based only on their user-agent string, not on their actual capabilities?
Trip yourself, and get distracted by something.
I first read D.A. at the age of 7, after playing the Infocom game on a TRS-80.
May at least some of his eulogies (sp?) live on on Slash.
I'm currently programming a servlet-based frontend to a backend XML stockbroking system; the final system is to be deployed on a BEA WebLogic server (http://www.weblogic.com/), but I'm using Tomcat as a servlet environment for development I do at home.
I didn't find Tomcat all that difficult to set up, once I threw the instructions away. When I first attempted to install Tomcat, I spent hours picking through instructions on what to change in httpd.conf (to get servlet requests on port 80 directed by Apache to Tomcat), what to change in Tomcat's server.xml, and any other number of configuration files. If anything, I found the instructions to be misleading - on just looking at the config files and using some common sense, I didn't find it all that difficult to set up. Especially considering that a quick Google search on whatever startup error you get almost always turns up some kind of e-mail list correspondance with someone also having had the problem, and someone else presenting a solution.
In addition to this, you can just run the Tomcat startup script ([install_dir]/bin/tomcat.sh), and Tomcat will begin listening for requests on port 8080 out of the box, which I found was easiest if quick and easy setup was the goal. It's only really in redirecting port 80 stuff to Tomcat that things get tricky.
On the performance / stability issue, I've not found Tomcat to be inferior to any other servlet environment, in almost every respect. It is true that sometimes it would have to be restarted when only simple modifications had been made to a web app to get the modifications to deploy, and these cases never seemed to be consistent with any particular environmental state, but I didn't find that this occured with enough frequency to be considered a great problem (not that the problem shouldn't be fixed in any case).
But yeah - I've not had the chance to see it being used yet in a non-development environment, but my experiences with Tomcat would not dissuade me from recommending it to someone looking for a reasonable free servlet environment.
There's a very good reason why Microsoft will never buy itself an island and declare itself independant - it's a software company, not a government.
There is a lot more to starting up your own country than buying the land. Infrastructure being probably the most important. Not Microsoft, nor indeed any other commercial entity, is going to want to worry about waste disposal, road works, or any of the other business that's the domain of local and state government. Even though existing within a nation brings with it all manner of irritating restrictions (like all that anti-monopoly business), to not do so would be even more inconvenient.
Censorship can be about political ideology, but isn't as a rule. The censorship of say, porn, isn't about politics; even if the act of the censorship has political motivation, which it often would, on the face of it such censorship is concerned with protecting the public. The censorship of child pornography, for instance, is not primarily motivated by politics: it is genuinely censorship for the protection of the public.
As for the Ninja Turtles, I was referring to the schoolyard mentality of your garden-variety public outcry: if you've gotta get up in arms, make sure you're going with the flow - to avoid embarrasing expressions of your own free thought.
And I take pride in my questionable extremist morals, thanks.;-)
The tendancy of the general public is always to go with what they've been brought up to believe as "right" - in a sense, the mass public reaction to the DMCA issues (mainly DeCSS) reminds me very much of the reaction to 'net censorship (especially here in Australia), the hype around any given Doom-'em-up, even Ninja Turtles back ten odd years ago. Censorship protects the children, Doom & Ninja Turtles make people hurt each other, the DMCA is about fair play. Are Joe and Jane Citizen more likely to side, prima facie, with the Government and the Media, or the morally-questionable extremists who disagree with them?
Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the article itself that I mentioned (FYI, it was a late 1998 issue of Australian Personal Computer magazine), but it is entirely possible that in the last 18 odd months that the Internet2 project has diverged into an acutal network (The Grid) and the protocol set (Internet2), distinct from each other.
The best I can say is that I'm certain the issue was treating both the network and the protocols as a unified Internet2 project, purely for academic and similar use.
According to an article I read a couple of years ago, the Internet-2 network wasn't ever destined to become a public network - access would be restricted to academic bodies and such, partially in order to restrict the bloating and commercialisation that happened to the existing Internet. As such, it's not really necessary for it to be connected to the Internet(1) in order for it to flourish, as an earlier comment suggested - it would flourish in its own way, quality rather than quantity.
After briefly searching around the CMU website, I found a document entitled How Forum2000 works, it seems by Andrej Bauer. Assuming that this isn't just smokescreen to conceal the hoax, it seems to be pretty good, if brief, background on how Forum2000 works.
I think the phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth" applies here. The combined skill of the world's chess players is not cumulative, and I'm sure Mr. Kasparov knows it.;-)
Seems to me that this is just more hype from the powers that be. I'm an Australian, and as such have been witnessing my government's ignorant panic to censor the web - this is just more of the same. "Cyberwarfare", outside of using the net to send warfare-related e-mails and running DoS attacks on the webserver of the country of your enemies just isn't feasable. Bollocks, in a word.
Slashdot Mirror
Members of the RIAA aren't *complete* twits. If file sharing did indeed lead to increased sales, they would be encouraging it, not attempting to kill it. They have their own statisticians and such doing studies very similar to these, and if the studies suggested that free-for-all file sharing would increase net sales, then they would allow it wholeheartedly.
You may take the "IP protection" argument, which is a valid one. However, protecting IP would come a very distant second to priority one, making $$$. And if some compromise on the former led to an increase in the latter, the RIAA would not hesitate. They may be unethical, money-grubbing and overly lawsuit-happy, but they're not idiots.
I worked as a telemarketer while at Uni, as it was one of the few jobs I could find that paid enough and was flexible enough, roster wise, to fit in with my classes while allowing me to pay for bills and rent.
Most telemarketers are in this position. They don't like their jobs - but they need to do it so they can pay their bills and make their rent.
This kind of ignorant attitude makes their jobs just that much harder. If you don't want the call, just act politely and the marketer will generally respect your opinion, and won't push the issue.
Politeness never hurts. Give it a try, and make someone elses life easier.
Adding one letter does not mean you're safe, any more than a clone of Windows named GWindows would be reasonable.
At risk of stating the obvious...
X-Windows...?
I don't believe that the tool used is particularly important - it is the principles being taught that is of the greatest relevance. In an OOP course, for instance, the principles of OOP should be emphasised, not the language of implementation. Once a student has a strong understanding of these principles, they will be able to apply them to any language that follows them - the C++ or Java question should be largely irrelevant.
That said, it could be argued that procedural programming should be taught before OOP, as procedural programming has traditionally been the optimal compromise between high-level design (OOP and so on) and the actual low-level structure of things (assembler programming and such), from which point it is easiest to grasp those higher and lower levels. However, in this enlightened day of RAD tools and such, perhaps this knowledge is not as relevant for "Joe Coder" as it is for those more oriented towards the science of such things.
Nonetheless, the main point is that the paradigm is what should be emphasised, not the language.
... you set the user-agent to something a bit more mainstream. I tried entering the site normally, and was rejected as using a bad browser. I change the user-agent to MSIE 5.5 / Windows NT, and it works just fine.
Does this not demonstrate that the site is rejecting browsers based only on their user-agent string, not on their actual capabilities?
Trip yourself, and get distracted by something. I first read D.A. at the age of 7, after playing the Infocom game on a TRS-80. May at least some of his eulogies (sp?) live on on Slash.
I'm currently programming a servlet-based frontend to a backend XML stockbroking system; the final system is to be deployed on a BEA WebLogic server (http://www.weblogic.com/), but I'm using Tomcat as a servlet environment for development I do at home.
I didn't find Tomcat all that difficult to set up, once I threw the instructions away. When I first attempted to install Tomcat, I spent hours picking through instructions on what to change in httpd.conf (to get servlet requests on port 80 directed by Apache to Tomcat), what to change in Tomcat's server.xml, and any other number of configuration files. If anything, I found the instructions to be misleading - on just looking at the config files and using some common sense, I didn't find it all that difficult to set up. Especially considering that a quick Google search on whatever startup error you get almost always turns up some kind of e-mail list correspondance with someone also having had the problem, and someone else presenting a solution.
In addition to this, you can just run the Tomcat startup script ([install_dir]/bin/tomcat.sh), and Tomcat will begin listening for requests on port 8080 out of the box, which I found was easiest if quick and easy setup was the goal. It's only really in redirecting port 80 stuff to Tomcat that things get tricky.
On the performance / stability issue, I've not found Tomcat to be inferior to any other servlet environment, in almost every respect. It is true that sometimes it would have to be restarted when only simple modifications had been made to a web app to get the modifications to deploy, and these cases never seemed to be consistent with any particular environmental state, but I didn't find that this occured with enough frequency to be considered a great problem (not that the problem shouldn't be fixed in any case).
But yeah - I've not had the chance to see it being used yet in a non-development environment, but my experiences with Tomcat would not dissuade me from recommending it to someone looking for a reasonable free servlet environment.
I bet Starscream will destroy it before the Deceptacons can even think about using it to bring reinforcements from Cybertron. ;-)
Space elevator, space bridge... c'mon, people!
There's a very good reason why Microsoft will never buy itself an island and declare itself independant - it's a software company, not a government.
There is a lot more to starting up your own country than buying the land. Infrastructure being probably the most important. Not Microsoft, nor indeed any other commercial entity, is going to want to worry about waste disposal, road works, or any of the other business that's the domain of local and state government. Even though existing within a nation brings with it all manner of irritating restrictions (like all that anti-monopoly business), to not do so would be even more inconvenient.
Censorship is about political ideology.
;-)
Censorship can be about political ideology, but isn't as a rule. The censorship of say, porn, isn't about politics; even if the act of the censorship has political motivation, which it often would, on the face of it such censorship is concerned with protecting the public. The censorship of child pornography, for instance, is not primarily motivated by politics: it is genuinely censorship for the protection of the public.
As for the Ninja Turtles, I was referring to the schoolyard mentality of your garden-variety public outcry: if you've gotta get up in arms, make sure you're going with the flow - to avoid embarrasing expressions of your own free thought. And I take pride in my questionable extremist morals, thanks.
The tendancy of the general public is always to go with what they've been brought up to believe as "right" - in a sense, the mass public reaction to the DMCA issues (mainly DeCSS) reminds me very much of the reaction to 'net censorship (especially here in Australia), the hype around any given Doom-'em-up, even Ninja Turtles back ten odd years ago. Censorship protects the children, Doom & Ninja Turtles make people hurt each other, the DMCA is about fair play. Are Joe and Jane Citizen more likely to side, prima facie, with the Government and the Media, or the morally-questionable extremists who disagree with them?
Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the article itself that I mentioned (FYI, it was a late 1998 issue of Australian Personal Computer magazine), but it is entirely possible that in the last 18 odd months that the Internet2 project has diverged into an acutal network (The Grid) and the protocol set (Internet2), distinct from each other.
The best I can say is that I'm certain the issue was treating both the network and the protocols as a unified Internet2 project, purely for academic and similar use.
According to an article I read a couple of years ago, the Internet-2 network wasn't ever destined to become a public network - access would be restricted to academic bodies and such, partially in order to restrict the bloating and commercialisation that happened to the existing Internet. As such, it's not really necessary for it to be connected to the Internet(1) in order for it to flourish, as an earlier comment suggested - it would flourish in its own way, quality rather than quantity.
Over here in Australia, Mr. Accident movie posters have begin to appear on bus station walls. The rumour need be unsubstantiated no longer.
After briefly searching around the CMU website, I found a document entitled How Forum2000 works, it seems by Andrej Bauer. Assuming that this isn't just smokescreen to conceal the hoax, it seems to be pretty good, if brief, background on how Forum2000 works.
Yes, but assumedly it'll run on ice, sand, water, Venus, etc... and all without changing the tyres... ;-)
I think the phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth" applies here. The combined skill of the world's chess players is not cumulative, and I'm sure Mr. Kasparov knows it. ;-)
Seems to me that this is just more hype from the powers that be. I'm an Australian, and as such have been witnessing my government's ignorant panic to censor the web - this is just more of the same. "Cyberwarfare", outside of using the net to send warfare-related e-mails and running DoS attacks on the webserver of the country of your enemies just isn't feasable. Bollocks, in a word.