I fail to see how google boosting its own search rankings is "evil".
When you are in a position of power (and I'd say that google qualifies), imposing different rules on the peons than you impose on yourself is often considered evil/bad.
Obviously they can do things as they please (decide how to rank things, etc - hell, they could give bonuses for their IP blocks) - but in telling Page owners not to behave a certain way, and then doing so themselves... Well, it obviously gives rise to certain questions. Otherwise we wouldn't have this topic, eh?
That is only half the truth. The other half is that the users are also it's customers. We come to google and ask them to provide a service. They do so in exchange for our time and thoughts (often this translates into viewing advertising).
I guess that makes them brokers/middle-men/whatever.
In the end, Google has 3 customer bases:
Users
Page Owners
Advertisers
In my book they've treated #1 and #2 very well so far. I really can't speak toward #3.
My answer to this question is always $0. It is worth it to me to eat this cost. But I've been doing this for a while, so the cost is about 0 at this point.
You might get $150 up front for furniture if you ask nice...
I won't argue as to whether or not that is true, but I'd say you'll need at least triple that to actually buy the furniture you'll need. Good chairs (that can be sat in for many hours/day) will easily be more than $200. Certainly I have yet to sit in a chair for $150 or less that I could really use. Then there is a desk, probably a filing cabinet, and maybe a table.
I guess there are a few. Various states make it illegal to send spam. I don't know offhand if there is a federal law (in whatever country you're in), but none of that matters.
American laws are not enforceable in
Given that trademark, copyright, etc, laws are not universally accepted/enforced, I'm thinking this is something that can not be outlawed.
A smallish part of the problem is that the SMTP protocol is broken in how naiive it is, but people are working on that (see http://spf.pobox.com/ etc).
How the hell do you think the national do-not-call list came about? Because people bitched and complained! I agree there are spam solutions out there but I still think there should be an easier, more fool-proof, and legally backed way of opting out of spam.
If phonecalls were free internationally (and just wait), the do-not-call list wouldn't mean squat.
Back in about 2000 I decided I'd leave my steady, fair job and look for a doctom here in the valley. Figured what the hell - ya only live once. I ended up NOT at a dotcom, but at SUN. It was a "hot job coding Java" for small systems.
I didn't much believe in the product. I didn't much believe in the manager. I didn't much believe in the tech lead. I didn't much believe in the product design.
I figured "what the hell, maybe I can make a difference!"
After 9 months of pure agony I left. I have tried to chalk it up as a learning experience, but it was a very very expensive lesson in terms of time and sanity. Not that I'm bitter, but the only thing that I can really smile about is the hope that my manager and his head lackey held onto all their stock until it was well underwater.
Don't stick with your crappy job.
I did find a dotcom, and I did make a difference, and I did have fun for a couple of years.
I've been nothing but disappointed with FreeBSD's inability to get a binary ditribution of Java for the platform. I have used, and continue to use, FreeBSD for my main server, but next round will be OSX.
There are plenty of reasons why it hasn't happened, and plenty of workarounds - but I don't care (welcome to the customer).
China walked out of a wireless standards meeting this week, accusing the International Organization for Standardization of favoritism. By Patrick Mannion EE Times
Just because Mannion is being a jackass and implying that the entire nation of china should be viewed as one upset entity doesn't mean that the submitters to/. or the editors should behave the same way.
So, let's rephrase: How can I access the information on my PC without using IP?
I've never worked for a company that didn't allow any outside access at all (including web). If there is ANY outside access (carrier pidgeon, http, ssh, etc), I would set up a tunnel. Either from the laptop in question (in which case you'll be routing through the company and back to your mac), or from a machine at work.
If not, I'd try a windows in a box solution and do the mirroring in there.
Either way, we don't have enough information to really answer the question.
Since we use Cisco's VPN client at work, I can't mount the drives on the PC from the Mac
OK, you have a PC laptop. You have a Cisco VPN. You have files. What files do you need to share?
If the files are on the laptop, just network the 2 boxes at home and share the files, right?
If the files are at work, get a Cisco VPN solution for the Mac (I used one for years).
If IT won't help (surprise, right?), and you're determined to break the law/policy/whatever, there are a lot of options:
Add an interface on the laptop and set it up as a router.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openvpn/, maybe over http://www.nocrew.org/software/httptunnel.html (either from the laptop or a machine in the office).
Maybe run the VPN in an emulator layer (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/), give it access to the local filesystem, let the "outter layer" windows export the same filesystem, keep updating using rsync (just brainstorming, here).
Or just keep it simple, stupid. Get an external firewire drive, dump the files you need, and swap it to/from the mac/laptop.
I have minor disagreements with most of your points, but so be it.
Well, aren't all children required to go to school? Private schools are usually even more invasive when it comes to privacy, so I don't see how you can argue that.
That depends entirely on the school, homeschool, private tutor, etc. There's a pretty big range form military schools to Waldorf schools.
Also, it's my opinion that a person is entitled to their rights (even though privacy is a bit sketchy in the constitution) unless they themself choose to give them up.
I think that parents are responsible for protecting the rights of their children, and that children can not be made/deemed responsible for that burden. For better or for worse.
If parents could do this, they why not sell the kid to the circus or whatever?
They do so routinely. See also Holywood, the olimpics, etc, etc.
Because, like Television, it supplants actual supervision and human interaction with (potential) role-model adults.
I don't buy that. This wasn't meant (I think) to be a supervisory aid - I think it was meant to be more of a failsafe.
Because itinvites a plethora of abuses (directly, not slippery-slope arguments) such as ID-swapping to actually make cutting class easier.
That is a tricky one. I guess it depends on the specific details of how it was implemented, but I could certainly see where it would lead to problems.
Because it reduces physical security against those who should not enter a school or a classroom, ie, the psycho mommy who just lost custody in a divorce and plans to flee to Canada, but oh bother, she doesn't have a tag and so doesn't set off any red flags when she goes where she aught not.
Totally disagree: this wasn't meant to protect against psycho mom, but I think it does help. If Jill student IS wearing her tag and "goes missing", her absence should be noticed immediatly. Not that this is a reasonable arguement for or against - nothing stops mom from picking up "her kid" in the current system or the RFID system for a "doctor's appointment" - in canada...
Because, like it or not, kids have just as much of a deity-imparted (though legislatively deprived) right to privacy as anyone else.
If kids are in public schools, that right is released by their parents.
... Kids needs "parents", not "overseers".
There is no change from the current system to the RFID system in regards to this. At home they have (one hopes) parents. In school they have overseers.
Schools are legally liable for children. There is a carrot (if the kid isn't there, they don't get funding), and a stick (if the kid isn't there, the school is responsible for knowing their whereabouts). Why wouldn't a school want to do this? Why should it be a surprise? Finally, why would it be a bad thing (don't give me slippery slope crap - just any single reason it is a bad idea in and of itself)?
I'm an emacs person, so my config files are somewhat more extensive than "one or two text config files.":-)
While I agree that a professional software developer should expect to spend some time configuring their tools, and investing time into making them as efficient as they can be, I don't think that many developers have very different needs.
"everyone wants": Syntax coloring Indenting Word Completion (+ more (blocks, etc)) Macros
OO coders want: Class browser Method completion (+ constructors, etc)
Have I missed anything? Other than that we can argue about keybinding, insertion modes, and all that minor junk that should be configurable in any code editing tool.
Let's face it: the only reason I use emacs at all is that back in the day it was the best (some would argue only) game in town. I have a whole directory of stuff dedicated to the emacs modes I use, and I hate maintaining it, and it doesn't work quite the way I like (some would say I have not spent enough time maintaining my tools, but see below). But emacs (and I should think vim as well) is not a development tool; it is a workbox. If you put the right tools in the box, it's great for dev work. If you put other tools in, it's great for writing a thesis (I'm thinking tex). If you put still other tools, it's great for writing raw HTML.
If someone were to assert that emacs was the best tool for writing code, I'd call them an idiot. If they were to assert that emacs with the following 8 modes was the best tool, I'd bemoan the fact that you can't get all those packaged together, and that you wouldn't call a shop that sold hammer heads and sticks of wood a good tool vendor.
I use jEdit for almost everything now, and I'm pretty happy with it. While it doesn't come bundled with the stuff you need, it does have a built in UI that will let you install the stuff you need, and maintain the stuff you need. To me that's like a shop that will sell you a workbox and ask what you're going to use it for, and puts the stuff you need in the workbox. THAT is a good vendor. Frankly, they'd probably be better off selling you the box with the best of everything already installed, and let you remove or swap what you don't like, but I'm not gonna try to push that on them.
I was not saying that easy tools make someone dumb or lazy. The point I was trying to make was the opposite, The world is full of bad programmers that cannot get much done without such tools. I have nothing against people useing anything that saves them time, very much the opposite, but a good programmer can do a lot without these tools, wereas a bad programmer will tear their hair out.
And to me that just sounds like more apologist crap. I like to think I'm a good programmer, and I tear my hair out without those tools. And why wouldn't I? Good tools exist; I should be using them. Frankly, I've seen more bad programmers using raw vi to edit code than I've seen good programmers using good tools - but then I've been in a lot of places with good programmers, and only a few with poor ones.
Wast majority of people doing any sort of programming in the world are quite frankly not that good. Thus they need easy, preconfigured tools that will help them do the basically simple things they have to do, but that seem so difficult and intimidating to them.
What a crock.
If "having easy, preconfigured tools that will help me do the basically simple thing I need to do" makes someone dumb/lazy/whatever, sign me up.
I don't want tools that could do something, or that can be tweaked to do something, or that can do something if you add other tools. I want tools that do what I want, right now.
Saying that those tools nearly exist, or can exist with some work, is saying that the DO NOT exist - only it makes it sound better to some OS folks.
I'm not sure if it is "Windows", or just "windows" that is TM. I'm also not sure if it's "Microsoft Windows" or just "Windows".
Just like McDonalds will sue you if you make your own McFoodItem - it is infringing on their McDonalds TM even though they don't sell McFoodItem, Microsoft will sue you if you sell "Lindows" because it infringes on "Microsoft Windows".
Slashdot Mirror
Please. All it takes is one person who forwards everyone's traffic through their machine, through your network, to foil the techno-solution.
That sounded great! Thought I'd take a look...
Many (50% or more) of the rules I looked at (not many) ended with the line
Tests: None
I didn't look at that many, so maybe I was just unlucky, but it didn't seem like a good sign.
I fail to see how google boosting its own search rankings is "evil".
When you are in a position of power (and I'd say that google qualifies), imposing different rules on the peons than you impose on yourself is often considered evil/bad.
Obviously they can do things as they please (decide how to rank things, etc - hell, they could give bonuses for their IP blocks) - but in telling Page owners not to behave a certain way, and then doing so themselves... Well, it obviously gives rise to certain questions. Otherwise we wouldn't have this topic, eh?
I guess that makes them brokers/middle-men/whatever.
In the end, Google has 3 customer bases:
In my book they've treated #1 and #2 very well so far. I really can't speak toward #3.
My answer to this question is always $0. It is worth it to me to eat this cost. But I've been doing this for a while, so the cost is about 0 at this point.
You might get $150 up front for furniture if you ask nice...
I won't argue as to whether or not that is true, but I'd say you'll need at least triple that to actually buy the furniture you'll need. Good chairs (that can be sat in for many hours/day) will easily be more than $200. Certainly I have yet to sit in a chair for $150 or less that I could really use. Then there is a desk, probably a filing cabinet, and maybe a table.
I guess there are a few. Various states make it illegal to send spam. I don't know offhand if there is a federal law (in whatever country you're in), but none of that matters.
American laws are not enforceable in
Given that trademark, copyright, etc, laws are not universally accepted/enforced, I'm thinking this is something that can not be outlawed.
A smallish part of the problem is that the SMTP protocol is broken in how naiive it is, but people are working on that (see http://spf.pobox.com/ etc).
How the hell do you think the national do-not-call list came about? Because people bitched and complained! I agree there are spam solutions out there but I still think there should be an easier, more fool-proof, and legally backed way of opting out of spam.
If phonecalls were free internationally (and just wait), the do-not-call list wouldn't mean squat.
We don't have TV, and we find that renting (netflix) a season of shows after the fact is much better than watching them tricle out on tele, anyway.
Except the daily show.
I'd pay money to see that "as it's aired" (or shortly thereafter).
your correcting my english but you use the word topicness?
topicness...riiiight, that showing a great command of the english language. Keep up the good work!
I feel like I have karma to burn, today:
You're correcting my English, but you use the word topicness?
topicness...riiiight, that's showing a great command of the English language. Keep up the good work!
In closing, I wouldn't rate the correcting of the spelling of a proper noun (somewhat incorrect, as I was) as being "correcting your English."
How about just changing it to
"J'ai bu CE QUI" - Socrate
(appologies from Google's translation)
Thanks to jericho4.0 for a lesson in French.
As for on topicness:
like pocky and mountain dew...i really need to stop touching my screen with dirty fingers... = )
En anglais, c'est "Socrates". En Francais, "Socrate" Tu et anglophone, non?
Guess so. But if you're going to put the quote in English, you may as well put the spelling in English, too.
Famous last words: "I drank WHAT!?" - Socrate
Look, if you're going to put a lame quote in your footer, at least get the name right, please?
It's Socrates.
Back in about 2000 I decided I'd leave my steady, fair job and look for a doctom here in the valley. Figured what the hell - ya only live once. I ended up NOT at a dotcom, but at SUN. It was a "hot job coding Java" for small systems.
I didn't much believe in the product.
I didn't much believe in the manager.
I didn't much believe in the tech lead.
I didn't much believe in the product design.
I figured "what the hell, maybe I can make a difference!"
After 9 months of pure agony I left. I have tried to chalk it up as a learning experience, but it was a very very expensive lesson in terms of time and sanity. Not that I'm bitter, but the only thing that I can really smile about is the hope that my manager and his head lackey held onto all their stock until it was well underwater.
Don't stick with your crappy job.
I did find a dotcom, and I did make a difference, and I did have fun for a couple of years.
I've been nothing but disappointed with FreeBSD's inability to get a binary ditribution of Java for the platform. I have used, and continue to use, FreeBSD for my main server, but next round will be OSX.
There are plenty of reasons why it hasn't happened, and plenty of workarounds - but I don't care (welcome to the customer).
China walked out of a wireless standards meeting this week, accusing the International Organization for Standardization of favoritism.
/. or the editors should behave the same way.
By Patrick Mannion
EE Times
Just because Mannion is being a jackass and implying that the entire nation of china should be viewed as one upset entity doesn't mean that the submitters to
Is China some communications company I've never heard of? Or is the government in talks with the ISO board?
So, let's rephrase: How can I access the information on my PC without using IP?
I've never worked for a company that didn't allow any outside access at all (including web). If there is ANY outside access (carrier pidgeon, http, ssh, etc), I would set up a tunnel. Either from the laptop in question (in which case you'll be routing through the company and back to your mac), or from a machine at work.
If not, I'd try a windows in a box solution and do the mirroring in there.
Either way, we don't have enough information to really answer the question.
Since we use Cisco's VPN client at work, I can't mount the drives on the PC from the Mac
OK, you have a PC laptop. You have a Cisco VPN. You have files. What files do you need to share?
If the files are on the laptop, just network the 2 boxes at home and share the files, right?
If the files are at work, get a Cisco VPN solution for the Mac (I used one for years).
If IT won't help (surprise, right?), and you're determined to break the law/policy/whatever, there are a lot of options:
Add an interface on the laptop and set it up as a router.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openvpn/, maybe over http://www.nocrew.org/software/httptunnel.html (either from the laptop or a machine in the office).
Maybe run the VPN in an emulator layer (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/), give it access to the local filesystem, let the "outter layer" windows export the same filesystem, keep updating using rsync (just brainstorming, here).
Or just keep it simple, stupid. Get an external firewire drive, dump the files you need, and swap it to/from the mac/laptop.
I have minor disagreements with most of your points, but so be it.
Well, aren't all children required to go to school? Private schools are usually even more invasive when it comes to privacy, so I don't see how you can argue that.
That depends entirely on the school, homeschool, private tutor, etc. There's a pretty big range form military schools to Waldorf schools.
Also, it's my opinion that a person is entitled to their rights (even though privacy is a bit sketchy in the constitution) unless they themself choose to give them up.
I think that parents are responsible for protecting the rights of their children, and that children can not be made/deemed responsible for that burden. For better or for worse.
If parents could do this, they why not sell the kid to the circus or whatever?
They do so routinely. See also Holywood, the olimpics, etc, etc.
Because, like Television, it supplants actual supervision and human interaction with (potential) role-model adults.
... Kids needs "parents", not "overseers".
I don't buy that. This wasn't meant (I think) to be a supervisory aid - I think it was meant to be more of a failsafe.
Because itinvites a plethora of abuses (directly, not slippery-slope arguments) such as ID-swapping to actually make cutting class easier.
That is a tricky one. I guess it depends on the specific details of how it was implemented, but I could certainly see where it would lead to problems.
Because it reduces physical security against those who should not enter a school or a classroom, ie, the psycho mommy who just lost custody in a divorce and plans to flee to Canada, but oh bother, she doesn't have a tag and so doesn't set off any red flags when she goes where she aught not.
Totally disagree: this wasn't meant to protect against psycho mom, but I think it does help. If Jill student IS wearing her tag and "goes missing", her absence should be noticed immediatly. Not that this is a reasonable arguement for or against - nothing stops mom from picking up "her kid" in the current system or the RFID system for a "doctor's appointment" - in canada...
Because, like it or not, kids have just as much of a deity-imparted (though legislatively deprived) right to privacy as anyone else.
If kids are in public schools, that right is released by their parents.
There is no change from the current system to the RFID system in regards to this. At home they have (one hopes) parents. In school they have overseers.
Schools are legally liable for children. There is a carrot (if the kid isn't there, they don't get funding), and a stick (if the kid isn't there, the school is responsible for knowing their whereabouts). Why wouldn't a school want to do this? Why should it be a surprise? Finally, why would it be a bad thing (don't give me slippery slope crap - just any single reason it is a bad idea in and of itself)?
I'm an emacs person, so my config files are somewhat more extensive than "one or two text config files." :-)
While I agree that a professional software developer should expect to spend some time configuring their tools, and investing time into making them as efficient as they can be, I don't think that many developers have very different needs.
"everyone wants":
Syntax coloring
Indenting
Word Completion (+ more (blocks, etc))
Macros
OO coders want:
Class browser
Method completion (+ constructors, etc)
Have I missed anything? Other than that we can argue about keybinding, insertion modes, and all that minor junk that should be configurable in any code editing tool.
Let's face it: the only reason I use emacs at all is that back in the day it was the best (some would argue only) game in town. I have a whole directory of stuff dedicated to the emacs modes I use, and I hate maintaining it, and it doesn't work quite the way I like (some would say I have not spent enough time maintaining my tools, but see below). But emacs (and I should think vim as well) is not a development tool; it is a workbox. If you put the right tools in the box, it's great for dev work. If you put other tools in, it's great for writing a thesis (I'm thinking tex). If you put still other tools, it's great for writing raw HTML.
If someone were to assert that emacs was the best tool for writing code, I'd call them an idiot. If they were to assert that emacs with the following 8 modes was the best tool, I'd bemoan the fact that you can't get all those packaged together, and that you wouldn't call a shop that sold hammer heads and sticks of wood a good tool vendor.
I use jEdit for almost everything now, and I'm pretty happy with it. While it doesn't come bundled with the stuff you need, it does have a built in UI that will let you install the stuff you need, and maintain the stuff you need. To me that's like a shop that will sell you a workbox and ask what you're going to use it for, and puts the stuff you need in the workbox. THAT is a good vendor. Frankly, they'd probably be better off selling you the box with the best of everything already installed, and let you remove or swap what you don't like, but I'm not gonna try to push that on them.
I was not saying that easy tools make someone dumb or lazy. The point I was trying to make was the opposite, The world is full of bad programmers that cannot get much done without such tools. I have nothing against people useing anything that saves them time, very much the opposite, but a good programmer can do a lot without these tools, wereas a bad programmer will tear their hair out.
And to me that just sounds like more apologist crap. I like to think I'm a good programmer, and I tear my hair out without those tools. And why wouldn't I? Good tools exist; I should be using them. Frankly, I've seen more bad programmers using raw vi to edit code than I've seen good programmers using good tools - but then I've been in a lot of places with good programmers, and only a few with poor ones.
Wast majority of people doing any sort of programming in the world are quite frankly not that good. Thus they need easy, preconfigured tools that will help them do the basically simple things they have to do, but that seem so difficult and intimidating to them.
What a crock.
If "having easy, preconfigured tools that will help me do the basically simple thing I need to do" makes someone dumb/lazy/whatever, sign me up.
I don't want tools that could do something, or that can be tweaked to do something, or that can do something if you add other tools. I want tools that do what I want, right now.
Saying that those tools nearly exist, or can exist with some work, is saying that the DO NOT exist - only it makes it sound better to some OS folks.
(lover of jEdit, gnumake, etc)
Damn, hit post too fast.
I'm not sure if it is "Windows", or just "windows" that is TM. I'm also not sure if it's "Microsoft Windows" or just "Windows".
Just like McDonalds will sue you if you make your own McFoodItem - it is infringing on their McDonalds TM even though they don't sell McFoodItem, Microsoft will sue you if you sell "Lindows" because it infringes on "Microsoft Windows".
IANAL, etc, etc.
I *think* that trademark laws changed in that time. Not sure - IANAL, etc.