This isn't a package delivery service, and the people most certainly could have gotten these "packages" where they already were -- the user can already reach that content. IFTTT isn't brokering access to something the user can't already access.
You apparently don't understand what IFTTT does. IFTTT isn't "brokering access" to content at all; they provide a simple (or simplistic) scripting engine that people find useful. Without IFTTT, users don't get that functionality because the original sites don't provide it, and they can't provide it.
This is a 3rd party who has injected themselves into the conversation, now claims that the value they provide is indispensable to you, and then demands you do some extra work for them and sign a license saying the extra work they've asked you to do for them is their property.
What IFTTT actually did was migrate their backend interfaces to new APIs, switching from web scraping and ad hoc interfaces to something standardized and well defined. Since IFTTT is pretty well established now, they don't need to do any web scraping and ad hoc interfaces anymore. And they are informing existing site users that they will only continue to be available as IFTTT backends if they migrate to the new APIs. I expect that in the future, as IFTTT becomes more popular, they may well start charging site owners for being included in IFTTT. There is no "demand" in there, just a business proposition.
IFTTT wrote code to access the content on someone else's site. Telling that site they must now use a new API and sign terms of service with you? Oh hell no. You want your shit to keep working, you fucking write it.
That's a valid response to IFTTT. I expect the response by IFTTT would be a politely worded "Pinboard doesn't actually matter to us, good luck with your business". Many companies actually seem to want to become IFTTT channels because it makes their products more useful.
You must have been working in a research lab that you encountered better APIs than Java's
Smalltalk and Objective-C were already in widespread commercial use at the time Java appeared. Java's APIs are actually derived from them, but because of Java's limitations, Java's libraries ended up not working as well as the originals. There were plenty of other commercial libraries, compilers, and frameworks around.
Java succeeded not because of the quality of its APIs (which people understood to be poor even back then), but because (1) it promised to deliver applets and sandboxing, and (2) Sun had promised to make Java a free and open standard while the alternatives were costly and proprietary. Sun ultimately failed to deliver on both points.
Can I apply for a job there?
You can try, but you probably shouldn't get your hopes up.
There is no evidence of that. C# has been standardized by standards organizations and unlike Sun/Oracle, Microsoft has made public legal commitments not to sue. If Sun/Oracle had done the same thing, Oracle couldn't be suing over Java now. Furthermore, there are several open source implementations of C#, some of which don't even use the.NET runtime. C# also lacks several of the serious technical deficiencies of Java, but it's similar enough so that many popular Java packages get ported over quickly.
"Feel free to use our products for free but if you get successful we will sue you to get a piece of the cake."
I miss Sun!
Why? Sun initially promised to make Java an open ANSI/ISO standard, which would have avoided all of this nonsense. Then, when Java was well established, they killed the standardization process. They killed it because most reputable standards organizations require a clear disclosure of intellectual property interests and clear disclosure of what license fees users of a standard need to pay, and Sun didn't like that.
So, Sun created the "community process". They forced people to assign rights to contributes to them. At the same time they pretended that Java was an open platform, even though they retained copyrights and patents. Along the way, they brow beat people into signing license agreements with them, threatened open source Java implementations, bought up commercial third party implementations, and were generally litigious.
What is happening now with Oracle and Google is a straightforward continuation of Sun's old policies; it's just that you may not have noticed before how evil Sun actually was before now. Java and Java intellectual property has always been at high risk, ever since Java failed to become standardized by one of the standards organizations that
The people from IFTTT who wrote that shit are utterly delusional, and have apparently lost sight of the fact that they're providing access to someone else's stuff, and that someone else doesn't owe them a damned thing.
I don't see them being "delusional". They provide a free service both to users and to Pinboard. They simply are telling Pinboard that if they want continued service, then they need to contribute. I wouldn't be surprised if IFTTT at some point actually told sites they provide access to that they need to pay to be an IFTTT channel. That's not about "owing" anybody anything, it's a business proposition, and it's rooted in the fact that IFTTT provides a service that users like and that businesses may need to pay for if they want to receive it. You know, just like mail delivery, Internet service, and... sewer pipes.
You know, reading that, it's hard not to think IFTTT (which I've never heard of) are being the dicks here... YOU wrote a tool which scrapes content from other sites
They aren't "scraping content", they are providing a service.
What, exactly, is IFTTT offering in return other than to say "in order to allow our users to access your site with our stuff, you have to agree to the following". Why would anybody accept random terms and conditions by a third party who merely redistributes your own stuff is a mystery to me.
Because IFTTT provides something people find useful, namely the ability to link different services to one another.
Think of it a bit like package delivery: would you rather live in a place where packages can be delivered or where package delivery operators refuse to go?
No, you're simply ignorant of good language design. Java's design is full of problems that a competent language designer could have avoided even in the 1990's: covariant arrays, type erasure, floating point semantics, lack of value types, slow FFI, string handling, bloated libraries, numerous holes in the type system, badly designed concurrency primitives, multiple failed attempts at creating a UI toolkit, and on and on.
If you're going to build phones with weak security and backdoors, like the iPhone 5C, don't pretend publicly that they are secure and don't get into a pissing contest with the FBI over it.
But that doesn't mean that he is bullish on unicorn culture. He says "Most of those businesses are fundamentally not good, they're poorly run, and they never should have been invested in in the first place. But the capital came in because the person who had control of the capital was able to justify it intellectually to themselves versus something else that could have become the next Facebook or Google. [...] The reality is, great companies can go public in any market.
The reality is also that you don't know what actually is a great company until it has succeeded. After all, both Facebook and Google looked like pretty crappy bets when they started out. And that's why startups have high returns on investment: they are risky.
Perhaps as a pointy haired boss with a contempt for programmers and who got lucky at Facebook, Mr. Palihapitiya never needed to understand either technology or economics, which is probably why he keeps making a fool of himself.
Censorship is not universally bad. It is entirely reasonable for a society to decide as a whole that something is so terrible that it needs to be suppressed.
"Society" can't decide anything; "society" is a delusion. What exists is a bunch of people in power and delusional fools like you.
and they should not be tolerated in polite company, precisely because their delusions are so dangerous.
It's fascists and totalitarians like you that shouldn't be tolerated in polite company.
Time to do some cheap statistical screening of competing hypotheses, however weak, and get on with the hard problem of gaining information about the real world in all its perplexity
Again, you are making the false assumption that people haven't done the "cheap statistical screening"; of course they have.
I've seen no evidence that CDC has bothered to establish such a general purpose ecological databases
Federal agencies don't have unlimited authority to create registries of the mental states of citizens, and hopefully they never will. If anything, we ought to scale back medical (and financial) reporting to the federal government, because it has gotten out of hand.
But let's forget about preliminary, cheap but weak studies like this and go straight to the ideal of unbiased case sampling.
You're never going to get "unbiased case sampling", because only a fool would let their kids get entered into a government database of people with mental disorders.
We're left with another "epidemic", the cause of which needs to be addressed
Since autism is not transmissible and is permanently prevalent, it's not an "epidemic" in the medical sense. Your misuse of the term "epidemic" is just intended to spread FUD.
When Samsung does something, it's a gimmick. When Apple does the same thing a couple of years later, it's a "wild new feature", "spectacular", and "highly innovative".
Also, don't forget: nobody would ever want a 5"+ phone or a pen with their tablet; what a silly idea!
I am surprised, and totally in joy that this film was pulled. Finally we are starting to see some common sense for proper science beating back hysteria and ideology.
Proper science doesn't censor incorrect results, it lets them speak for themselves.
Three things stood out: 1) The best single-variable...
Note that in this setting, failure to find a correlation tells you little about causation. Some factor X could vary greatly across states and correlate significantly with effect Y, yet at the state level (or at the level of other divisions), you would see no significant correlation.
The fact that the CDC hasn't conducted an all-out statistical assault of like this at the county level [...] They just don't care -- or don't want to know.
How exactly is that "a fact"? There have been dozens of statistical studies on the origins of autism over the last few decades.
If there were some statistically low hanging fruit like that, people would have found it by now.
Have you paid attention to the abysmal civil liberties record of our current Democratic president? If you think this is just a Republican issue you're a bloody fool, and you're part of the corruption and oppression.
So I'll run through it in very small steps for you.
At this point, I have no idea what you are even trying to prove. As I was saying:
You're welcome to believe that the PETM fails to demonstrate that climate change is harmless. But when climate change activists point to the PETM in order to raise alarm about climate change, as they did in TFA, they need to be told that they are full of shit.
Although it is outside the original argument, if you have examples of major extinction events where the primary cause has been established to have been a rapid increase in carbon dioxide and a rapid increase in temperatures, please name them. The PETM is not such an example, and so far, you have just regurgitated basic paleontology of no relevance to this point.
(Of course, even that is mostly an academic question, since there is no reason to believe that extinction events are intrinsically bad for humans: after all, the rise of a new, successful species, like h. sapiens, often leads to extinctions.)
Yes, I did, I remember the dead-tree version flopping onto my doormat. Back when I paid around £100/year of my own money to have access to the science.
You criticized my statement that "nobody knows how fast temperatures were rising back then; we only know an upper limit on the time period, not a lower limit.". The paper you cite confirms my statement.
So, you're seeing that large perturbations have happened in the past, and that they lead to large climate perturbations, and significant extinctions
There are many instances of rapid climate change in earth's history that have not caused mass extinctions. The PETM is one example, and so is the current glaciation cycle. Therefore, the idea that changes in climate necessarily, or even likely, lead to mass extinctions is clearly disproven by the climate record. Furthermore, when climate change did coincide with a mass extinction, it was likely that a common event (e.g., asteroid strike, volcanic eruption) caused both the mass extinction and the climate change, and to the degree that climate change could have been involved in the causal chain at all, it would have been due to cooling, not warming.
You have got some serious disconnects in your logic.
European countries have had these laws for many years. Doesn't seem to help with preventing terrorist attacks. There are also many simple technical ways of getting around these laws: use IP telephony, order SIM cards from abroad and use international roaming, etc.
These kinds of laws are utterly pointless and ineffective in preventing terrorism. They are, however, very effective means by which government can terrorize law abiding citizens, by going on legal fishing expeditions and blackmailing people with legal but embarrassing personal conduct.
Unlimited free trade and open borders helps some Americans (low income people and the middle class) while hurting others (stockholders and business owners with strong lobbies).
Slashdot Mirror
You apparently don't understand what IFTTT does. IFTTT isn't "brokering access" to content at all; they provide a simple (or simplistic) scripting engine that people find useful. Without IFTTT, users don't get that functionality because the original sites don't provide it, and they can't provide it.
What IFTTT actually did was migrate their backend interfaces to new APIs, switching from web scraping and ad hoc interfaces to something standardized and well defined. Since IFTTT is pretty well established now, they don't need to do any web scraping and ad hoc interfaces anymore. And they are informing existing site users that they will only continue to be available as IFTTT backends if they migrate to the new APIs. I expect that in the future, as IFTTT becomes more popular, they may well start charging site owners for being included in IFTTT. There is no "demand" in there, just a business proposition.
That's a valid response to IFTTT. I expect the response by IFTTT would be a politely worded "Pinboard doesn't actually matter to us, good luck with your business". Many companies actually seem to want to become IFTTT channels because it makes their products more useful.
Switching to Swift might make sense. Of course, Google also has Go.
Smalltalk and Objective-C were already in widespread commercial use at the time Java appeared. Java's APIs are actually derived from them, but because of Java's limitations, Java's libraries ended up not working as well as the originals. There were plenty of other commercial libraries, compilers, and frameworks around.
Java succeeded not because of the quality of its APIs (which people understood to be poor even back then), but because (1) it promised to deliver applets and sandboxing, and (2) Sun had promised to make Java a free and open standard while the alternatives were costly and proprietary. Sun ultimately failed to deliver on both points.
You can try, but you probably shouldn't get your hopes up.
There is no evidence of that. C# has been standardized by standards organizations and unlike Sun/Oracle, Microsoft has made public legal commitments not to sue. If Sun/Oracle had done the same thing, Oracle couldn't be suing over Java now. Furthermore, there are several open source implementations of C#, some of which don't even use the .NET runtime. C# also lacks several of the serious technical deficiencies of Java, but it's similar enough so that many popular Java packages get ported over quickly.
Why? Sun initially promised to make Java an open ANSI/ISO standard, which would have avoided all of this nonsense. Then, when Java was well established, they killed the standardization process. They killed it because most reputable standards organizations require a clear disclosure of intellectual property interests and clear disclosure of what license fees users of a standard need to pay, and Sun didn't like that.
So, Sun created the "community process". They forced people to assign rights to contributes to them. At the same time they pretended that Java was an open platform, even though they retained copyrights and patents. Along the way, they brow beat people into signing license agreements with them, threatened open source Java implementations, bought up commercial third party implementations, and were generally litigious.
What is happening now with Oracle and Google is a straightforward continuation of Sun's old policies; it's just that you may not have noticed before how evil Sun actually was before now. Java and Java intellectual property has always been at high risk, ever since Java failed to become standardized by one of the standards organizations that
I don't see them being "delusional". They provide a free service both to users and to Pinboard. They simply are telling Pinboard that if they want continued service, then they need to contribute. I wouldn't be surprised if IFTTT at some point actually told sites they provide access to that they need to pay to be an IFTTT channel. That's not about "owing" anybody anything, it's a business proposition, and it's rooted in the fact that IFTTT provides a service that users like and that businesses may need to pay for if they want to receive it. You know, just like mail delivery, Internet service, and... sewer pipes.
They aren't "scraping content", they are providing a service.
Because IFTTT provides something people find useful, namely the ability to link different services to one another.
Think of it a bit like package delivery: would you rather live in a place where packages can be delivered or where package delivery operators refuse to go?
The good thing about IFTTT is that it is so simplistic that it will be easy to replace when something better comes around.
No, you're simply ignorant of good language design. Java's design is full of problems that a competent language designer could have avoided even in the 1990's: covariant arrays, type erasure, floating point semantics, lack of value types, slow FFI, string handling, bloated libraries, numerous holes in the type system, badly designed concurrency primitives, multiple failed attempts at creating a UI toolkit, and on and on.
Java is such a p.o.s. that Oracle should pay damages for inflicting it upon the world.
If you're going to build phones with weak security and backdoors, like the iPhone 5C, don't pretend publicly that they are secure and don't get into a pissing contest with the FBI over it.
The reality is also that you don't know what actually is a great company until it has succeeded. After all, both Facebook and Google looked like pretty crappy bets when they started out. And that's why startups have high returns on investment: they are risky.
Perhaps as a pointy haired boss with a contempt for programmers and who got lucky at Facebook, Mr. Palihapitiya never needed to understand either technology or economics, which is probably why he keeps making a fool of himself.
Bullshit.
"Society" can't decide anything; "society" is a delusion. What exists is a bunch of people in power and delusional fools like you.
It's fascists and totalitarians like you that shouldn't be tolerated in polite company.
Again, you are making the false assumption that people haven't done the "cheap statistical screening"; of course they have.
Federal agencies don't have unlimited authority to create registries of the mental states of citizens, and hopefully they never will. If anything, we ought to scale back medical (and financial) reporting to the federal government, because it has gotten out of hand.
You're never going to get "unbiased case sampling", because only a fool would let their kids get entered into a government database of people with mental disorders.
Since autism is not transmissible and is permanently prevalent, it's not an "epidemic" in the medical sense. Your misuse of the term "epidemic" is just intended to spread FUD.
Correct. But proper science also doesn't censor bad propaganda films.
Also, don't forget: nobody would ever want a 5"+ phone or a pen with their tablet; what a silly idea!
Proper science doesn't censor incorrect results, it lets them speak for themselves.
Note that in this setting, failure to find a correlation tells you little about causation. Some factor X could vary greatly across states and correlate significantly with effect Y, yet at the state level (or at the level of other divisions), you would see no significant correlation.
How exactly is that "a fact"? There have been dozens of statistical studies on the origins of autism over the last few decades.
If there were some statistically low hanging fruit like that, people would have found it by now.
Have you paid attention to the abysmal civil liberties record of our current Democratic president? If you think this is just a Republican issue you're a bloody fool, and you're part of the corruption and oppression.
At this point, I have no idea what you are even trying to prove. As I was saying:
Although it is outside the original argument, if you have examples of major extinction events where the primary cause has been established to have been a rapid increase in carbon dioxide and a rapid increase in temperatures, please name them. The PETM is not such an example, and so far, you have just regurgitated basic paleontology of no relevance to this point.
(Of course, even that is mostly an academic question, since there is no reason to believe that extinction events are intrinsically bad for humans: after all, the rise of a new, successful species, like h. sapiens, often leads to extinctions.)
I only check anti-social media sites, like Slashdot.
You criticized my statement that "nobody knows how fast temperatures were rising back then; we only know an upper limit on the time period, not a lower limit.". The paper you cite confirms my statement.
There are many instances of rapid climate change in earth's history that have not caused mass extinctions. The PETM is one example, and so is the current glaciation cycle. Therefore, the idea that changes in climate necessarily, or even likely, lead to mass extinctions is clearly disproven by the climate record. Furthermore, when climate change did coincide with a mass extinction, it was likely that a common event (e.g., asteroid strike, volcanic eruption) caused both the mass extinction and the climate change, and to the degree that climate change could have been involved in the causal chain at all, it would have been due to cooling, not warming.
No, I'm afraid that describes your problem.
These kinds of laws are utterly pointless and ineffective in preventing terrorism. They are, however, very effective means by which government can terrorize law abiding citizens, by going on legal fishing expeditions and blackmailing people with legal but embarrassing personal conduct.
FTFY