Check out wxWidgets (formerly known as wxWindows) for an alternative. No, the support isn't as good as Qt, even if you pay. On the other hand, unlike GTK, your app won't look and run like ass on windows. And the community support via IRC and mailing list is excellent. wxWidgets is, in fact, the only toolkit I know of that is mature, cross-platform, and free. (I don't consider GTK to be mature in the cross-platform category)
</plug>
It's about expectation of privacy. People expect privacy in regular mail (because you have to open the envelope), but not in postcards (because it's right there for the world to see). The problem with email is that while technically, it's barely more secure than a postcard (a little bit. It's very hard to accidentally read email in-transit, almost unavoidable with a postcard), it doesn't APPEAR that way to the end user.
Personally, I would have ruled the other way. Technical details notwithstanding, you DO have to proactively attempt to read other peoples email (misdelivered/misaddressed email is a different issue). The guy in the case certainly wasn't glancing at a post card on his way to deliver it - he was actively seeking out and reading these emails.
I suggest getting Whole Tomatos excellent Visual Assist plugin. It's fantastic. It too has problems with deeply nested templates, but the developers are (usually) very quick with fixes, especially if you can send them a sample of the code thats broken. No affiliation, just a very contented user.
Re:More OT, but it must be said!
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
I'd be perfectly happy with this if people didn't ALSO quote from the old testament in support of whatever group they feel like excluding this week (homosexuals, abortion doctors, "witches", etc). I HAVE actually studied the Bible, not just browsed it. The idea that Christ is a new covenant is used alot to justify exactly the sort of thing I was ranting about - it lets you pick & choose what you're going to follow out of the Bible. If the Old Testament law isn't valid anymore, then theres no reason to be quoting from it when you're hating on gay people. Or witches. Or whatever. In fact, theres no reason to quote from it or even study it, except for historical interest. When I see people actually treating it that way I'll stop my ranting about it:P
The argument that you have to "study" it before it becomes clear is kinda specious in my mind. If it were "clear" then you wouldn't need to study it. That said, I have "studied" the Bible, probably in more depth than your average Christian. As a non-believer, I approach Bible study differently than a Christian would, however - you're (I'm assuming you're Christian here...) reading it as an article of faith and your faith is already established. I'm evaluating it as a book and contradictions and ambiguities are harder to explain away for me.
As a clarification: loving God and your fellow men
is the NEW covenant, NOT a clarification of the Old. The whole point of Christ was that he was a breaking away from the old law, that following the law without love wasn't enough to be saved (and, conversely, that love was sufficent even without following the old law). Defining "neighbor" as everyone instead of "other Jews" was also a new thing - it's a jewish stereotype to this day.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
Because I read the words that are actually in it, not the ones that people claim are in it. If you're gonna pick and choose which parts of the Bible you're going to follow, why have it at all? The ten commandments are in the Old Testament too, but that doesn't stop people from believeing in those (By the way, there are ten basic rules in the Old Testament. The commandments). Claiming to be a fundamentalist when you're just picking and choosing which parts of the faith you're actually going to follow is hypocritical. I've got no problem with people taking the best bits (ie, the parts that speak to them most) from the Bible and making it part of thier own belief system. But be honest about what you're doing. It's ridiculous to hold up the Bible as your guidebook when you just ignore the parts that bother you.
Have you actually read the Old Testament? The whole thing? It's basically a history of the tribes of Israel. They weren't really nice people. You know that walls of Jericho song everyone sings at Sunday school? Here's what happens AFTER the walls come down:
Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and
woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
The Israelites did lots of stuff like this. The laws of Israel weren't all that different from any warlike tribal society. The keeping of other Israelites as slaves was forbidden, but you could keep other people as slaves all you wanted. Rape is the same thing - taking women of other tribes as concubines was fine. You just couldn't molest Israelite women.
I don't want to attack your faith here. I know perfectly well that nothing I'm going to say is going to change your mind. I don't even WANT to change your mind, what you believe and how you worship is your own business. But when you're inconsistent and hypocritical in what you proclaim as your beliefs, I have to say something. The history of Christianity (and Judaism before it) is not pretty and sweet. I'd feel a lot better if self-proclaimed Fundamentalists would be willing to repudiate that part of the Bible and just be honest that there are parts of it they don't like.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
The random-word association I get in my spam would make people who wear black berets and drink very small cups of coffee cry with shame. Some of it is fantastic. Of course, it's just randomly generated, but who am I to decide whats art anyway.
Re:Political commentary at the Key Bridge in DC
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
I should point out that you're ignoring the specific and detailed instructions of the Bible by not believing those things, then. Genocide, rape, and slavery are all condoned and advocated by the Old Testament.
PROFESSIONAL sports, ie sports where players are paid to compete, are about spectators. At least to a degree. Competition, pride, etc also play a factor. It's only been fairly recently that we started viewing athletes as entertainers rather than as representatives. TV has a lot to do with it.
There are lots of non-professional sports. More than there are professional.
Umm, anyone can play a computer game? Anyone without a crippling physical disability (and even some people with one) can try to play baseball. It takes natural talent as well as practice and training to play at the professional level. It's the same with computer gaming (and just about anything else, really). Anyone can load up counterstrike and give it a go, but you've got to be really, really good to play in the professional leagues (and win, anyway). It'd be like saying anyone can become a chess master (and you don't even need both arms to play chess).
I have to agree that the article has a very put-out and almost bitter feel to it, which makes me less inclined to take it seriously. That said, there are perfectly valid criticisms in it. For example, not releasing the configuration data is clearly improper. Testing the accuracy of the filters against SpamAssassin is totally incorrect methodology! It looks good to apply the filter to such a huge body of email, but a smaller set would have made it much easier to validate the results. Misconfiguration of the filters is another issue, but something that should be corrected and addressed, it's not really a failure of methodology.
You can't force someone to abide by a contract they haven't read or agreed to. They can claim up and down all they want that it's a requirement of the game to comply with the EULA but such a statement has no legal force. The best they can do is deny you services. For example, Valve can shut down your access to Steam. They can't take away your copy of Half-life.
Breach of contract is not a crime. People do it every day, with no consequence whatsoever. Note also that I said AT BEST it's a contract, it's very iffy that an EULA fulfills the legal requirements of a contract. Half-life is sold as a product, and an EULA is an after-sale restriction. Case law is heavily against these sort of restrictions.
Heres an almost hackneyed but still legitimate counterpoint: by reading this post, you agree to abstain from posting to Slashdot. Think that would have any legal force? Of course not. I don't give you any opportunity for refusal. I don't offer you anything in exchange for your agreement (there's no consideration). I don't have any leverage I can use to require such an agreement. An EULA is on very similiar ground.
EULAs are not Federal laws. They are, at the VERY best (and there is zero case law that supports this) contracts. It is in fact perfectly possible (and legal!) to intall and run a game without ever agreeing to the EULA.
It is 100% NOT a violation of law to break an EULA, under any circumstances.
The most disgusting part of this whole issue is the legal games being played. For a country that likes to pat itself on the back about how much we respect human rights and how we're better than the dictatorships that didn't we sure do alot of ass-covering. The memos from white house lawyers about how to exploit loopholes to ensure that no one in the white house could be prosecuted for war crimes for example. Note that they didn't just say "Don't do shit that might be a war crime", which is what you'd think reasonable people who're honestly interested in restoring a nation previously under the rule of military dictatorship, and who truly respect the rights spoken of in the US Constitution would do. Instead, they come up with specific legal designations (like the "detainee" and "POW" issue) specifically intended to provide escape clauses around our own laws intended to prevent exactly these sort of abuses.
Also: the people who're being arrested in Iraq aren't POWs. They're criminals. There is no state of war in Iraq. As you mention, the army of Iraq is intact and there is a (loosely) functioning government with it's own body of laws. The treatement of people arrested in Iraq should be covered by it's own laws (although, as a matter of principle, the US should guarantee rights where US civil and military law do), not under the Geneva convention or any other international treaty.
It's worth pointing out that, as in many cases, hypocrisy abounds. The French "freedom fighters", who we supported and still glamourize in our history books were in the exact situation that the Iraqi's we demonize on TV are.
Google makes alot of money from providing this service to companies already. See the ever-so-cool Google Search Appliance. I don't know why they'd cannibalize that market.
I just sent an email to a friend with a hotmail account (from my brand-new gmail account) and she recieved it in seconds. Maybe it's just hotmails general suckiness and losing email in general, and people are more "aware" because it's gmail?
I think this is valid in other types of agreements but not here. Consider that SCO had the code right in their view all along; is it not their responsibility to ensure all the code is OK? I'm/sure/ that people so hell bent on IP law made sure there're no violations in their own source before releasing it, right?
This really depends on the case but in general monied corporations can get away with the "but we didn't know what we were doing" defense. I'm not sure why. It sure doesn't work for people who sign crappy car loans or record deals.
That's debateable -my understanding is that all the code in that project should then be under the GPL, unless the stipulation that all rights to the code expire if it violates affects it somehow.
This one isn't debatable at all. Of the various remedies for copyright violation, forced acceptance of the license isn't one of them. It's remotely possible that a judge would order it but it'd be very unusual and would certainly be appealed. GPLing your code is probably the PROPER thing to do, and your only alternative is ceasing distribution (which could be no alternative at all in some cases), but it is very unlikely that it would be REQUIRED.
It's more clever than a lame one-liner from SNL like yours, or a self-promoting ebay link like mine. It also accurately reflects historical feelings about circumcision in Western society (no, not just America, thanks). It's also funny enough to make me smirk, if not laugh.
This one of the reasons I'm only half-joking when I call the Daily Show the best news on television. Unlike some other news shows (Fox, I'm very pointedly not looking at you), he doesn't harrase or ridicule his guests, even if they don't agree with him.
The Daily Show is generally (although not fanatically) liberal, and of course audience is mostly liberal. But when an extremely conservative guy wnt on the show to promote a book about how Bush is really a very smart man and he needs to get some respect, Jon Stewart was very respectful of him, did his best to keep the audience respectful, and really did his best to make the guy (who was obviously feeling very defensive, as well as pasionate about his book) feel at ease and like he was being heard. I think it really showed his skill as an interviewer, not just a newsman and I was really impressed.
He's not above sparring with guests if they rise to it or start it, though. Several years ago he had the Spice Girls on and just cut one of them to pieces when she said he wasn't funny (Either the athlete one or the posh one, I don't remember).
I was amazed when the daily show started getting "real" guests, though. For a long time the leads in new movies or whatever would be doing the circuit and the Daily Show would land the token character actor or whatever.
Did you read the parent? It's because theres an approved list of software. If zlib is the back end for an item thats on the approved list, maybe he can use it without going through the entire red tape process?
It's possible this ruling can be used as a defense against EULAs and (especially, and even more annoying) AUPs for websites. However, from the wording, I'm not sure. It sounds like the judge is taking the position that without an explicit and proactively argeed on policy, you have no expectation of privacy, and that just seems unreasonable to me.
Right, it's virtual because the test is method call overhead, not how good the compiler/environment is at inlining away method call overhead. This makes the server JVM results basically usless for comparison to the others, even the client JVM.
I just think this is a pointedly bad example because dynamic inlining is exactly the sort of case where you'd expect the JVM to have an advantage, but even in this case an apples to apples comparison isn't being provided. For example, in this case the JVM _could_ inline a virtual method call because the type is known. It can just recompile if the loop is called again with a different object. This is a clear example of JIT advantage.
Certainly he shouldn't be claiming this as "Java outperforms optimized C++", but "Java can outperform generic C++". One of things about C++ is that, while it gives great control to the programmer, that control comes at the cost needing to optimize. The JVM will dynamically inline for you, with C++ the programmer needs to be aware of these issues and write his functions so that they can be inlined (no virtual method calls in tight loops), and allow the compiler to do so (-O3 instead of-O2).
I used to work at a bookstore. If someone came back with a book that was physically damaged (ie, a binding flaw or something like it) we'll take it back as long as you've got a reciept. We'd do this because we can get OUR money back from the distributor, who in turn gets defective returns back from the publisher. There absolutely is an obligation to provide working products. It becomes a grey area in places where it's hard to tell if the damage was the users fault or not. I probably wouldn't accept returns of pages literally torn out of the book unless it was a recent sale. Scratches on a CD are similiarly hard to judge, although you can often tell by the general condition of the CD.
Anyway, simple summary: Yes, people selling things are obligated to provide them in working order (with some exceptions, like with used products or when it's made clear up front that the product is broken).
Slashdot Mirror
Check out wxWidgets (formerly known as wxWindows) for an alternative. No, the support isn't as good as Qt, even if you pay. On the other hand, unlike GTK, your app won't look and run like ass on windows. And the community support via IRC and mailing list is excellent. wxWidgets is, in fact, the only toolkit I know of that is mature, cross-platform, and free. (I don't consider GTK to be mature in the cross-platform category)
</plug>
Personally, I would have ruled the other way. Technical details notwithstanding, you DO have to proactively attempt to read other peoples email (misdelivered/misaddressed email is a different issue). The guy in the case certainly wasn't glancing at a post card on his way to deliver it - he was actively seeking out and reading these emails.
I suggest getting Whole Tomatos excellent Visual Assist plugin. It's fantastic. It too has problems with deeply nested templates, but the developers are (usually) very quick with fixes, especially if you can send them a sample of the code thats broken. No affiliation, just a very contented user.
The argument that you have to "study" it before it becomes clear is kinda specious in my mind. If it were "clear" then you wouldn't need to study it. That said, I have "studied" the Bible, probably in more depth than your average Christian. As a non-believer, I approach Bible study differently than a Christian would, however - you're (I'm assuming you're Christian here...) reading it as an article of faith and your faith is already established. I'm evaluating it as a book and contradictions and ambiguities are harder to explain away for me.
As a clarification: loving God and your fellow men is the NEW covenant, NOT a clarification of the Old. The whole point of Christ was that he was a breaking away from the old law, that following the law without love wasn't enough to be saved (and, conversely, that love was sufficent even without following the old law). Defining "neighbor" as everyone instead of "other Jews" was also a new thing - it's a jewish stereotype to this day.
Have you actually read the Old Testament? The whole thing? It's basically a history of the tribes of Israel. They weren't really nice people. You know that walls of Jericho song everyone sings at Sunday school? Here's what happens AFTER the walls come down:
The Israelites did lots of stuff like this. The laws of Israel weren't all that different from any warlike tribal society. The keeping of other Israelites as slaves was forbidden, but you could keep other people as slaves all you wanted. Rape is the same thing - taking women of other tribes as concubines was fine. You just couldn't molest Israelite women.I don't want to attack your faith here. I know perfectly well that nothing I'm going to say is going to change your mind. I don't even WANT to change your mind, what you believe and how you worship is your own business. But when you're inconsistent and hypocritical in what you proclaim as your beliefs, I have to say something. The history of Christianity (and Judaism before it) is not pretty and sweet. I'd feel a lot better if self-proclaimed Fundamentalists would be willing to repudiate that part of the Bible and just be honest that there are parts of it they don't like.
The random-word association I get in my spam would make people who wear black berets and drink very small cups of coffee cry with shame. Some of it is fantastic. Of course, it's just randomly generated, but who am I to decide whats art anyway.
I should point out that you're ignoring the specific and detailed instructions of the Bible by not believing those things, then. Genocide, rape, and slavery are all condoned and advocated by the Old Testament.
Firefox supports NTLM, but you have to enter the name & password manually. It's a minor pain but you only have to do it once per session.
There are lots of non-professional sports. More than there are professional.
Umm, anyone can play a computer game? Anyone without a crippling physical disability (and even some people with one) can try to play baseball. It takes natural talent as well as practice and training to play at the professional level. It's the same with computer gaming (and just about anything else, really). Anyone can load up counterstrike and give it a go, but you've got to be really, really good to play in the professional leagues (and win, anyway). It'd be like saying anyone can become a chess master (and you don't even need both arms to play chess).
I have to agree that the article has a very put-out and almost bitter feel to it, which makes me less inclined to take it seriously. That said, there are perfectly valid criticisms in it. For example, not releasing the configuration data is clearly improper. Testing the accuracy of the filters against SpamAssassin is totally incorrect methodology! It looks good to apply the filter to such a huge body of email, but a smaller set would have made it much easier to validate the results. Misconfiguration of the filters is another issue, but something that should be corrected and addressed, it's not really a failure of methodology.
Breach of contract is not a crime. People do it every day, with no consequence whatsoever. Note also that I said AT BEST it's a contract, it's very iffy that an EULA fulfills the legal requirements of a contract. Half-life is sold as a product, and an EULA is an after-sale restriction. Case law is heavily against these sort of restrictions.
Heres an almost hackneyed but still legitimate counterpoint: by reading this post, you agree to abstain from posting to Slashdot. Think that would have any legal force? Of course not. I don't give you any opportunity for refusal. I don't offer you anything in exchange for your agreement (there's no consideration). I don't have any leverage I can use to require such an agreement. An EULA is on very similiar ground.
It is 100% NOT a violation of law to break an EULA, under any circumstances.
Also: the people who're being arrested in Iraq aren't POWs. They're criminals. There is no state of war in Iraq. As you mention, the army of Iraq is intact and there is a (loosely) functioning government with it's own body of laws. The treatement of people arrested in Iraq should be covered by it's own laws (although, as a matter of principle, the US should guarantee rights where US civil and military law do), not under the Geneva convention or any other international treaty.
It's worth pointing out that, as in many cases, hypocrisy abounds. The French "freedom fighters", who we supported and still glamourize in our history books were in the exact situation that the Iraqi's we demonize on TV are.
It's described in the patent they have on it, of course, but what they actually use is pretty clearly not exactly whats in the patent.
Google makes alot of money from providing this service to companies already. See the ever-so-cool Google Search Appliance. I don't know why they'd cannibalize that market.
I just sent an email to a friend with a hotmail account (from my brand-new gmail account) and she recieved it in seconds. Maybe it's just hotmails general suckiness and losing email in general, and people are more "aware" because it's gmail?
In summary: lighten the hell up.
Disclaimer: I'm both American and uncircumcised.
The Daily Show is generally (although not fanatically) liberal, and of course audience is mostly liberal. But when an extremely conservative guy wnt on the show to promote a book about how Bush is really a very smart man and he needs to get some respect, Jon Stewart was very respectful of him, did his best to keep the audience respectful, and really did his best to make the guy (who was obviously feeling very defensive, as well as pasionate about his book) feel at ease and like he was being heard. I think it really showed his skill as an interviewer, not just a newsman and I was really impressed.
I was amazed when the daily show started getting "real" guests, though. For a long time the leads in new movies or whatever would be doing the circuit and the Daily Show would land the token character actor or whatever.
Did you read the parent? It's because theres an approved list of software. If zlib is the back end for an item thats on the approved list, maybe he can use it without going through the entire red tape process?
Think they would care that zlib is the back end for the WinXP zip library? (Note that WinXP had to be patched for the zlib exploit a year or so ago)
It's possible this ruling can be used as a defense against EULAs and (especially, and even more annoying) AUPs for websites. However, from the wording, I'm not sure. It sounds like the judge is taking the position that without an explicit and proactively argeed on policy, you have no expectation of privacy, and that just seems unreasonable to me.
I just think this is a pointedly bad example because dynamic inlining is exactly the sort of case where you'd expect the JVM to have an advantage, but even in this case an apples to apples comparison isn't being provided. For example, in this case the JVM _could_ inline a virtual method call because the type is known. It can just recompile if the loop is called again with a different object. This is a clear example of JIT advantage.
Certainly he shouldn't be claiming this as "Java outperforms optimized C++", but "Java can outperform generic C++". One of things about C++ is that, while it gives great control to the programmer, that control comes at the cost needing to optimize. The JVM will dynamically inline for you, with C++ the programmer needs to be aware of these issues and write his functions so that they can be inlined (no virtual method calls in tight loops), and allow the compiler to do so (-O3 instead of-O2).
Anyway, simple summary: Yes, people selling things are obligated to provide them in working order (with some exceptions, like with used products or when it's made clear up front that the product is broken).