To the best of my knowledge, the auto-patch would not download this as it was a "security improvement" not an "urgent repair". The only people who would get affected by this are the ones who manually downloaded it themselves.
So, they got lucky this time. I don't see any good reasons why an "urgent repair" can't contain a similar bug. On the contrary the word "urgent" usually seems to imply that the fix was done in an urgent manner, and probably did not receive quite as much testing as some other non-urgent (e.g. a security improvement) fixes.
When I read the letter I thought it was somewhat reasonable, though without merit... until I got to the RIAA part. At that moment I just had to double-check with my NTP-synced clock to make sure it wasn't April 1st...
Is this the official second fools day in one year?
The other tricky problem they have is detrimental reliance. Oh and don't discount the fact that getting into an IP pissing contest with IBM or Microsoft or any of the really big players is suicidal for any technology company, those guys have more patents to fire back in self defense its not funny.
it's not suicidal. IBM won't care about the lawsuit. And it probably won't buy SCO (unless it's dirt cheap) because they have little interest in it and/or their IP (I don't know their whole IP portfolio, but that's the impression I have right now).
On the other hand they could try to pull a few linux distributors (redhat, etc) into the suit and hope to be bought out by one of them. I don't know how much SCO and redhat are worth, so I don't know if such a stunt if feasible at all. If not feasible, then maybe SCO would like the distributions to band together in some sort of a partnership (like UnitedLinux) with the sole purpose of coughing up enough cash to buy the stupid thing.
I totally agree that they are looking forward to just selling to the highest bidder. There won't be a high bidder, or any bidder at all for that matter, unless they feel that they would get really screwed if they don't buy SCO. IBM won't get screwed, so it probably won't interested. The suit doesn't hurt IBM, it's reputation or it's customers, so it won't be interested. But some other companies might. The question is - which ones?
As it stands it still seems like SCO's jumping up and down and shouting "BUY ME NOW!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!"
I wonder what's cheaper - buy them or drag them through the courts till they die a natural death (which should be near)?
On a different (but related) note, when you mentioned them being a part of United Linux that brought some Rambus memories back to life. First you join a group, then you leave and sue everyone else involved. While the circumstances are different, it does seem to ring a bell. Since they themselves contributed to a Linux implementation, doesn't this invalidate their claims of infringement with respect to any part they ever touched?
In fact, I think one could go as far as accuse them of planting some code and/or ideas in linux with the sole purpose of suing the heck out of whoever uses linux later.
Since you mentioned COBOL... Employment is determined by demand, which in this case really depends on a lot of factors (the life expectancy of your code and how many bugs you left in there being just two of them:) - there are more.)
Think of an old coder as of an old chair. What is the difference between an old chair in an antique store and an old chair in a thrift store? None, except the price! Well, one might have been used by Elvis, while the other was not - but who cares it's the same old piece of junk. One got lucky (Elvis sat on it); the other did not. Tough luck. Same with us. You might be lucky because you are working with systems that will exist for the next 40 years. And I, with all my C/C++ coding skills, will become a dinosaur in less than a decade. Or maybe the other way around. We never know who will get lucky, and who won't. Just like the chairs.
a better question to ask would be what are the chances of a somewhat younger generation (say, retiring in 15-25 years) being emplyed in the field till retirement.
It is obvious that to develop radically new things you have got to have very open-minded attitude and flexible thinking (which diminishes with age - that's inevitable. After age of 30-35 you can stop even dreaming of that). So by the time my generation retires, the only thing people like me can count on is maintaining antique legacy stuff (aka bleeding edge technology of today).
Now, imagine that currently we have 1 person maintaining some legacy COBOL code per 10 people doing bleeding-edge stuff. In 30 years, say, only 5 people out of those 10 will still want to be employed in this field. Will there be enough work for those 5 people to maintain legacy C# code or linux kernel? Or will technological progress move so fast that their skills would be so obsolete that there will be at most need for just one person? Or will we create enough bugs in long-living applications that those 5 people would be an extremely a praised and valued asset?
Hell, electrically charging the air (definately possible) would even cause a force to be exerted on the air particle (so long as it was initially moving)
Last time I checked, it wasn't the air that was charged, but the dust particles that happened to move close enough by the air stream. And, as I have hinted before, check the spelling of your definately word. You might be up for a surprise...:)
It's actual physics, and it definately works. Take a plastic spoon and rub it a bunch of times against wool. Then, go to your nearest sink and turn on the water so that you have a nice, smooth flow.
No, I'd rather observe it to definately move air, just as you have suggested.
Let me give you another example: take two magnets. One attracts the other, right? Yes, and with a force a lot stronger than your spoon attracts the water. Now take a room full of magnets... and brace yourself for a major magnet hurricane!
Both you and I know that won't happen. But, according to your reasoning, that's exactly what we are supposed to expect. How's that?
If you are too lazy to vote, chances are you are definitely too lazy to get deep into the issues you are voting for.
I'd go as far as to say we shouldn't let everyone vote, but only those who feel sufficiently strong about the issue being voted upon. Unfortunately, there is no good way to measure how strongly you feel, so you can't implement such restriction, but it would be nice (however utopian) to have this work.
I have noticed something really cool in the opensoruce development. In short you can summarize it as "Jumping through hoops helps". It goes like that:
If you want to affect any sufficiently mature open-source project, you have to jump through hoops. However inefficient that may be, it shows your interest. First, you have to post something useful to the mailing lists to get past moderators. If you have a patch, it has to be valuable AND follow THEIR coding style, not your own. The burder of getting YOUR change into the project is on YOU, and is YOUR responsibility. It is also YOUR problem if you didn't RTFM and asked stupid questions till people stopped answering you.
My point is that if you feel strongly about something, you will just through soome hoops to make yourself heard. You have the capability to change whatever it is you are trying to change, but you have to show some knowledge about the subject and respect to other people first. And will learn something valuable in the process.
Also, when I say 'I worked on such and such, and some of my code is running in your kernel (or app, or whatever) right now', I can be proud of that, because there is work and appreciation involved. Do I feel proud when I say 'I voted for Bush'? No. Why? Because it was so easy, and because 10 other people just checked the box at random. I wish I could be proud of that. But you've got to raise the bar first! (like that's ever going to happen...:( duh...)
Cheats on the internet probably shouldn't be allowed, it'll just piss people off.
Very true. However, it depends on how closely you want to mimick real life in a game. In real life a lot of people would love to piss you off. And even more wouldn't care one bit if they pissed you off. Heck, in real world people steal and do all sorts of other bad things - that pisses a lot of people off, yet we just live with that.
If a game is a "virtual world" should it be a "perfect virtual world" or "real virtual world"?
There is no room for freedom of speech in a war you stupid liberal.
please remind me to tell that to you when you are being prosecuted without trial.
Freedom is not a bonus; it's a right. Not for all, but at least as far as people in democratic countries believe. Freedom of speech is one of those rights. With that right taken away, you can say free press and justice bye-bye.
I know that there is serious war-related propaganda happening in every country. In Iraq it's anti-american; in US it's anti-iraqian; in some countries (e.g. France or Russia) it's mostly anti-american (although, regretfully, this is mostly due to threatened econimc interests that France and Russia have in the region). Most countries have already picked sides and their citizens get their healthy doze of propaganda every day. That's fine. It's a prerogative of the government and a weapon of war (to encourage and rally up your own citizens/troops and demoralize the enemies). Notice, for example, that I do not have a problem with dropping leaflets for Iraqis to surrender. Heck, it may save some lives - who knows. The problem is that I have yet to see a government where propaganda occurs without suppressing free speech, at least in the mass media. This isn't going to happen in Iraq - dictatorship does not go well with free speech, so such expectations would be silly at best. But I have a belief that this could be possible in a democratic country, and this is a good goal to strive for. I'll be cheering when/if that happens in any country. Right now, it's far from that.
Some of the things I am writing are starting to get touchy. So, here is a disclaimer. 1. I do not, nor have a ever approved of a dictatorship, or the Iraqi regime in particular 2. The arguments I am making are to be viewed solely in the context of freedom of speech and nothing else; the war in Iraq has instigated the problems I observe with propaganda on both sides on the conflict, but that does not imply I support to Iraqi regime, etc.etc.etc. as some readers may assume. Quite on the contrary, I despise of it, but do believe in the need to keep the news and information free and flowing. 3. I do not contribute to that free flow of information, because I am not sure about how legal that would be in the country I currently reside in, and do not wish to test its laws, but I do believe that I have the right to express my opinions about that free flow of information. 4. These are my opinions, which are subject to change. Just show me the way - convince me I am wrong, show some proof to support your argument, and I'll advocate whatever way you showed me. It's that simple.
you can find it here. It's been hacked, but should come up shortly I bet. However, their controversial footage which is probably what you are looking for, is not available there. It's not available anywhere else due to heavy censorship, so you may have to check your favorite P2P network. Searching for 'jazeera' brings up some interesting results.
BTW, we've all heard claims that P2P networks are only used to steal music, movies, etc. This is about the first good example of P2P being used for a valid cause - to share news and avoid censorship. (aren't we supporting freedom of speech after all?)
It's persistent connections and a real working caching scheme, and not one that webmasters cheat to force a fresh page every time (making static content 'look' dynamic so they get more ad revenue).
yes, but what do you use fast connections for? I can google and even read slashdot on a 28.8. No problem there. What I really want is to be able to download a 700-meg divx faster than at 56K. Or stream a song. Or play Battlefield-1942.
Does compression help here? Not really. Does caching help? Not at all. Does stripping useless HTML tags and javascript comments help? Nada.
While all those techniques are cool and they do help, they all are addressing a problem that is not a problem anymore. I already can browse the web and read emails fast enough on a 56K. What I cannot (but want) to do is to be able to: 1. download hard-to-compress data fast. 2. have reasonable response times (ping time in quake).
None of the software techniques that I know of, however smart and cool, can help with that. In fact, piling them on top of each other hurts. Say, I am downloading a web-page that has already been gzipped by apache on the fly. You can't compress it any more than that. In fact, chances are, the resulting size will be slightly larger than the original. And then you have to kill a few CPU cycles to "uncompress" it. Latency increases, throughput decreases. Where's the win?
It said "winmodem" on the box, but I still feel like I lost...
This is clearly not true. Any method of gaining access that circumnavigates the established security procedures is a back door.
If they fire him tomorrow, they have no way of removing his access from the system, since they don't even know it's there
Everyone seems to focus on the actual piece of code that acts as a 'backdoor' and forgets that just knowledge of the system is just as dangerous. No sufficiently complex system can be foolproof both in design and implementation. During developent debugging code gets left over, some shortcuts are taken, etc.etc. Nobody except the developers who designed and wrote the stuff even know about what exactly is in the code. While I do not put any backdoors in my code intentionally, I have the sufficient knowledge of the system to poke a few holes big enough for a full compromise.
In short: If you have a sufficiently large system, chances are that a disgruntled developer can compromise or damage it even without placing any backdoors in the code ahead of time. Knowledge is power. Obviously, this does not apply to open-source projects that receive a fair amount of peer review (or just people tinkering with the code).
Very true. When in doubt, check your Bible for prior art. God has got the DNA one, and a few others too...
Seriously, though - it seems there is too much money involved for the USPTO to just be able to shut the whole thing down. While I am not accusing people there of lack of integrity, etc, etc, we all very well know that money buys a lot. Money buys congress seats, senators, president elections, laws - you name it. Don't you think that money can buy the Patent Office?
That said, I don't think that this is for real. Or, if it is, then it will be reverted or a loophole/workaround solution will be found in no time. Just wait. As always, I hope I am wrong...
It seems that Finnish equivalents of American RIAA, Teosto, which represents songwriters and publishers, and Gramex, which represents music producers and artists, want to force Finnish day nurseries to pay royalties every time nursery staff sings along with kids.
To test this, you just have to throw yourself at the floor... and miss!
Nah, that's when it does NOT work. Unless you can consistently do that with a probability of 10^very_large_number to one. In which case, please feel free to email me with instructions on how to do so!:)
Everyone know that crashing in a car hurts. Many have experienced it firsthand. According to your reasoning, this warrants removing all the stop lights and warning signs, right?
I saw that picture long time ago by clicking on a misleading link on slashdot. It was more than enough not to want to see it ever again. Innocent or not I am, it still just hurt my brain. Or 'traumatizes' it, if you will. If you don't find it offensive, you are more than welcome to blow it up and make it your wallpaper or something like that - go right ahead. Others may disagree.
This is PROFESSIONAL PHP programming, not BEGINNING PHP. Why even have the 100 or so odd pages on installation? This book is not targetted at newbies, it is for the serious developer.
Because they went to great lengths to cover every single caveat. Note that there is really nothing in the book that you can't find online. On the contrary, google, will probably be more informative than the book.
Books are for those who are more comfortable with this kind of media (or have painfully slow internet access). And it will fit a few developers' needs. Aside from that, any sufficiently complicated issue is really hard to cover in a book, so online you go... I mean, you have a problem X, and trying to solve it results in behaviour Y. How can you possibly find an answer to that very specific question in a medium that can not be searched for Y, or a part of it? Alphabetical indexes are of some value, but still suck compared to a real search.
PHP 4.3 is still in the midst of release cycles, and things aren't perfectly smooth, as always. Chances are it won't be out for another few weeks (a month or so is probably a safe guess)
PHP5 will be ready... well, when it's ready. Nobody even started thinking what should go into PHP5 yet. Aside from Zend2, which you can use already with PHP4 tree.
If you have a big feature - ask for it, but currently there is nothing that is groundbreaking enough to even start working toward version 5.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they just moved the servers to the outer space and what you saw was a glitch during the transition.
To the best of my knowledge, the auto-patch would not download this as it was a "security improvement" not an "urgent repair". The only people who would get affected by this are the ones who manually downloaded it themselves.
So, they got lucky this time. I don't see any good reasons why an "urgent repair" can't contain a similar bug. On the contrary the word "urgent" usually seems to imply that the fix was done in an urgent manner, and probably did not receive quite as much testing as some other non-urgent (e.g. a security improvement) fixes.
When I read the letter I thought it was somewhat reasonable, though without merit... until I got to the RIAA part. At that moment I just had to double-check with my NTP-synced clock to make sure it wasn't April 1st...
Is this the official second fools day in one year?
The other tricky problem they have is detrimental reliance. Oh and don't discount the fact that getting into an IP pissing contest with IBM or Microsoft or any of the really big players is suicidal for any technology company, those guys have more patents to fire back in self defense its not funny.
it's not suicidal. IBM won't care about the lawsuit. And it probably won't buy SCO (unless it's dirt cheap) because they have little interest in it and/or their IP (I don't know their whole IP portfolio, but that's the impression I have right now).
On the other hand they could try to pull a few linux distributors (redhat, etc) into the suit and hope to be bought out by one of them. I don't know how much SCO and redhat are worth, so I don't know if such a stunt if feasible at all. If not feasible, then maybe SCO would like the distributions to band together in some sort of a partnership (like UnitedLinux) with the sole purpose of coughing up enough cash to buy the stupid thing.
I totally agree that they are looking forward to just selling to the highest bidder. There won't be a high bidder, or any bidder at all for that matter, unless they feel that they would get really screwed if they don't buy SCO. IBM won't get screwed, so it probably won't interested. The suit doesn't hurt IBM, it's reputation or it's customers, so it won't be interested. But some other companies might. The question is - which ones?
As it stands it still seems like SCO's jumping up and down and shouting "BUY ME NOW!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!"
I wonder what's cheaper - buy them or drag them through the courts till they die a natural death (which should be near)?
On a different (but related) note, when you mentioned them being a part of United Linux that brought some Rambus memories back to life. First you join a group, then you leave and sue everyone else involved. While the circumstances are different, it does seem to ring a bell. Since they themselves contributed to a Linux implementation, doesn't this invalidate their claims of infringement with respect to any part they ever touched?
In fact, I think one could go as far as accuse them of planting some code and/or ideas in linux with the sole purpose of suing the heck out of whoever uses linux later.
Since you mentioned COBOL... Employment is determined by demand, which in this case really depends on a lot of factors (the life expectancy of your code and how many bugs you left in there being just two of them :) - there are more.)
Think of an old coder as of an old chair. What is the difference between an old chair in an antique store and an old chair in a thrift store? None, except the price! Well, one might have been used by Elvis, while the other was not - but who cares it's the same old piece of junk. One got lucky (Elvis sat on it); the other did not. Tough luck. Same with us. You might be lucky because you are working with systems that will exist for the next 40 years. And I, with all my C/C++ coding skills, will become a dinosaur in less than a decade. Or maybe the other way around. We never know who will get lucky, and who won't. Just like the chairs.
a better question to ask would be what are the chances of a somewhat younger generation (say, retiring in 15-25 years) being emplyed in the field till retirement.
It is obvious that to develop radically new things you have got to have very open-minded attitude and flexible thinking (which diminishes with age - that's inevitable. After age of 30-35 you can stop even dreaming of that). So by the time my generation retires, the only thing people like me can count on is maintaining antique legacy stuff (aka bleeding edge technology of today).
Now, imagine that currently we have 1 person maintaining some legacy COBOL code per 10 people doing bleeding-edge stuff. In 30 years, say, only 5 people out of those 10 will still want to be employed in this field. Will there be enough work for those 5 people to maintain legacy C# code or linux kernel? Or will technological progress move so fast that their skills would be so obsolete that there will be at most need for just one person? Or will we create enough bugs in long-living applications that those 5 people would be an extremely a praised and valued asset?
Hell, electrically charging the air (definately possible) would even cause a force to be exerted on the air particle (so long as it was initially moving)
:)
Last time I checked, it wasn't the air that was charged, but the dust particles that happened to move close enough by the air stream.
And, as I have hinted before, check the spelling of your definately word. You might be up for a surprise...
It's actual physics, and it definately works. Take a plastic spoon and rub it a bunch of times against wool. Then, go to your nearest sink and turn on the water so that you have a nice, smooth flow.
No, I'd rather observe it to definately move air, just as you have suggested.
Let me give you another example: take two magnets. One attracts the other, right? Yes, and with a force a lot stronger than your spoon attracts the water. Now take a room full of magnets... and brace yourself for a major magnet hurricane!
Both you and I know that won't happen. But, according to your reasoning, that's exactly what we are supposed to expect. How's that?
If you are too lazy to vote, chances are you are definitely too lazy to get deep into the issues you are voting for.
:( duh...)
I'd go as far as to say we shouldn't let everyone vote, but only those who feel sufficiently strong about the issue being voted upon. Unfortunately, there is no good way to measure how strongly you feel, so you can't implement such restriction, but it would be nice (however utopian) to have this work.
I have noticed something really cool in the opensoruce development. In short you can summarize it as "Jumping through hoops helps". It goes like that:
If you want to affect any sufficiently mature open-source project, you have to jump through hoops. However inefficient that may be, it shows your interest. First, you have to post something useful to the mailing lists to get past moderators. If you have a patch, it has to be valuable AND follow THEIR coding style, not your own. The burder of getting YOUR change into the project is on YOU, and is YOUR responsibility. It is also YOUR problem if you didn't RTFM and asked stupid questions till people stopped answering you.
My point is that if you feel strongly about something, you will just through soome hoops to make yourself heard. You have the capability to change whatever it is you are trying to change, but you have to show some knowledge about the subject and respect to other people first. And will learn something valuable in the process.
Also, when I say 'I worked on such and such, and some of my code is running in your kernel (or app, or whatever) right now', I can be proud of that, because there is work and appreciation involved. Do I feel proud when I say 'I voted for Bush'? No. Why? Because it was so easy, and because 10 other people just checked the box at random. I wish I could be proud of that. But you've got to raise the bar first! (like that's ever going to happen...
Cheats on the internet probably shouldn't be allowed, it'll just piss people off.
Very true. However, it depends on how closely you want to mimick real life in a game. In real life a lot of people would love to piss you off. And even more wouldn't care one bit if they pissed you off. Heck, in real world people steal and do all sorts of other bad things - that pisses a lot of people off, yet we just live with that.
If a game is a "virtual world" should it be a "perfect virtual world" or "real virtual world"?
There is no room for freedom of speech in a war you stupid liberal.
please remind me to tell that to you when you are being prosecuted without trial.
Freedom is not a bonus; it's a right. Not for all, but at least as far as people in democratic countries believe. Freedom of speech is one of those rights. With that right taken away, you can say free press and justice bye-bye.
I know that there is serious war-related propaganda happening in every country. In Iraq it's anti-american; in US it's anti-iraqian; in some countries (e.g. France or Russia) it's mostly anti-american (although, regretfully, this is mostly due to threatened econimc interests that France and Russia have in the region). Most countries have already picked sides and their citizens get their healthy doze of propaganda every day. That's fine. It's a prerogative of the government and a weapon of war (to encourage and rally up your own citizens/troops and demoralize the enemies). Notice, for example, that I do not have a problem with dropping leaflets for Iraqis to surrender. Heck, it may save some lives - who knows. The problem is that I have yet to see a government where propaganda occurs without suppressing free speech, at least in the mass media. This isn't going to happen in Iraq - dictatorship does not go well with free speech, so such expectations would be silly at best. But I have a belief that this could be possible in a democratic country, and this is a good goal to strive for. I'll be cheering when/if that happens in any country. Right now, it's far from that.
Some of the things I am writing are starting to get touchy. So, here is a disclaimer.
1. I do not, nor have a ever approved of a dictatorship, or the Iraqi regime in particular
2. The arguments I am making are to be viewed solely in the context of freedom of speech and nothing else; the war in Iraq has instigated the problems I observe with propaganda on both sides on the conflict, but that does not imply I support to Iraqi regime, etc.etc.etc. as some readers may assume. Quite on the contrary, I despise of it, but do believe in the need to keep the news and information free and flowing.
3. I do not contribute to that free flow of information, because I am not sure about how legal that would be in the country I currently reside in, and do not wish to test its laws, but I do believe that I have the right to express my opinions about that free flow of information.
4. These are my opinions, which are subject to change. Just show me the way - convince me I am wrong, show some proof to support your argument, and I'll advocate whatever way you showed me. It's that simple.
you can find it here. It's been hacked, but should come up shortly I bet. However, their controversial footage which is probably what you are looking for, is not available there. It's not available anywhere else due to heavy censorship, so you may have to check your favorite P2P network. Searching for 'jazeera' brings up some interesting results.
BTW, we've all heard claims that P2P networks are only used to steal music, movies, etc. This is about the first good example of P2P being used for a valid cause - to share news and avoid censorship. (aren't we supporting freedom of speech after all?)
It's not just compression.
It's persistent connections and a real working caching scheme, and not one that webmasters cheat to force a fresh page every time (making static content 'look' dynamic so they get more ad revenue).
yes, but what do you use fast connections for? I can google and even read slashdot on a 28.8. No problem there. What I really want is to be able to download a 700-meg divx faster than at 56K. Or stream a song. Or play Battlefield-1942.
Does compression help here? Not really.
Does caching help? Not at all.
Does stripping useless HTML tags and javascript comments help? Nada.
While all those techniques are cool and they do help, they all are addressing a problem that is not a problem anymore. I already can browse the web and read emails fast enough on a 56K. What I cannot (but want) to do is to be able to:
1. download hard-to-compress data fast.
2. have reasonable response times (ping time in quake).
None of the software techniques that I know of, however smart and cool, can help with that. In fact, piling them on top of each other hurts. Say, I am downloading a web-page that has already been gzipped by apache on the fly. You can't compress it any more than that. In fact, chances are, the resulting size will be slightly larger than the original. And then you have to kill a few CPU cycles to "uncompress" it. Latency increases, throughput decreases. Where's the win?
It said "winmodem" on the box, but I still feel like I lost...
This is clearly not true. Any method of gaining access that circumnavigates the established security procedures is a back door.
If they fire him tomorrow, they have no way of removing his access from the system, since they don't even know it's there
Everyone seems to focus on the actual piece of code that acts as a 'backdoor' and forgets that just knowledge of the system is just as dangerous. No sufficiently complex system can be foolproof both in design and implementation. During developent debugging code gets left over, some shortcuts are taken, etc.etc. Nobody except the developers who designed and wrote the stuff even know about what exactly is in the code. While I do not put any backdoors in my code intentionally, I have the sufficient knowledge of the system to poke a few holes big enough for a full compromise.
In short: If you have a sufficiently large system, chances are that a disgruntled developer can compromise or damage it even without placing any backdoors in the code ahead of time. Knowledge is power. Obviously, this does not apply to open-source projects that receive a fair amount of peer review (or just people tinkering with the code).
Very true. When in doubt, check your Bible for prior art. God has got the DNA one, and a few others too...
Seriously, though - it seems there is too much money involved for the USPTO to just be able to shut the whole thing down. While I am not accusing people there of lack of integrity, etc, etc, we all very well know that money buys a lot. Money buys congress seats, senators, president elections, laws - you name it. Don't you think that money can buy the Patent Office?
That said, I don't think that this is for real. Or, if it is, then it will be reverted or a loophole/workaround solution will be found in no time. Just wait. As always, I hope I am wrong...
I've got a super-duper cool pacemaker. I can hear it going rhythmically beep-beep-beep-beep-beeeeeee.....
weird. Moderated as "Funny". It ain't funny. It's sad.
Next time RIAA knocks on your door, tell them they are funny. See if that helps. That will be funny.
It seems that Finnish equivalents of American RIAA, Teosto, which represents songwriters and publishers, and Gramex, which represents music producers and artists, want to force Finnish day nurseries to pay royalties every time nursery staff sings along with kids.
Doesn't matter one bit. They are violating the copyright anyway, even when kids are asleep.
To test this, you just have to throw yourself at the floor... and miss!
:)
Nah, that's when it does NOT work. Unless you can consistently do that with a probability of 10^very_large_number to one. In which case, please feel free to email me with instructions on how to do so!
Everyone know that crashing in a car hurts. Many have experienced it firsthand. According to your reasoning, this warrants removing all the stop lights and warning signs, right?
I saw that picture long time ago by clicking on a misleading link on slashdot. It was more than enough not to want to see it ever again. Innocent or not I am, it still just hurt my brain. Or 'traumatizes' it, if you will. If you don't find it offensive, you are more than welcome to blow it up and make it your wallpaper or something like that - go right ahead. Others may disagree.
better than having a bunch of people look at that nastiness. I'd use +1000 if I could
This is PROFESSIONAL PHP programming, not BEGINNING PHP. Why even have the 100 or so odd pages on installation? This book is not targetted at newbies, it is for the serious developer.
Because they went to great lengths to cover every single caveat. Note that there is really nothing in the book that you can't find online. On the contrary, google, will probably be more informative than the book.
Books are for those who are more comfortable with this kind of media (or have painfully slow internet access). And it will fit a few developers' needs. Aside from that, any sufficiently complicated issue is really hard to cover in a book, so online you go... I mean, you have a problem X, and trying to solve it results in behaviour Y. How can you possibly find an answer to that very specific question in a medium that can not be searched for Y, or a part of it? Alphabetical indexes are of some value, but still suck compared to a real search.
You can use Zend2 already - no need to wait till PHP5. Just check out the Zend2 tree from CVS instead of the current Zend, and off you go :)
It's not hitting the net anytime soon.
PHP 4.3 is still in the midst of release cycles, and things aren't perfectly smooth, as always. Chances are it won't be out for another few weeks (a month or so is probably a safe guess)
PHP5 will be ready... well, when it's ready. Nobody even started thinking what should go into PHP5 yet. Aside from Zend2, which you can use already with PHP4 tree.
If you have a big feature - ask for it, but currently there is nothing that is groundbreaking enough to even start working toward version 5.