And this seems to be a major problem of the whole semantic web buzz. Search engines like Google can cut down on abuse because they're a third party that is unrelated to the content. The whole semantic web thing offloads categorization to the content source, the very party that is most likely to try to abuse the system.
It just doesn't seem like the best idea in the world to me.
I think you are missing the point of Semantic Web: you can refer or link to an object, not just document.
The company declares its URI. Now, If you are writing an article about this company, you can uniquely identify it and every web crawler knows *exactly* what company are you talking about. If the URI for the company is a hyperlink to its web site, then it can't be abused: the company itself declares what it is. The unique URI will in fact be a link to some file with information about company (maybe an RDF file -- doesn't really matter for the concept)
The system can (and will be abused) in the same way as an old web: irrelevant links, words, concepts -- nothing new for the crawler and can be defeated with existing techniques.
Again, Semantic Web = Links between concepts, not just documents, so please do not bury the good idea under the pile of misunderstanding.
Postgres is a good reliable database server. I just wish more projects supported it as an equal to MySQL.
The thing I dislike about MySQL is that it holds back many projects that are trying to be database independent.
For a quick example: how most universal
ORMs handle creation of the new object?
SELECT obj_id_sequence.nextval AS new_id
INSERT INTO my_table(id,...) VALUES (new_id,...)
While Postgres can do fine with single statement: INSERT... RETURNING (There are UPDATE... RETURNING and DELETE... RETURNING too ). All ORMs I know do not use this feature and end up doing two times more transactions than required.
..."Gorbachev moment"? That's when an authoritarian system is that has been propagandizing its people about how free and important they are, is suddenly confronted by people believing the propaganda and demanding that power? It can lead to peaceful change or bloody revolution, but it almost never leads back to the status quo.
This is not true. Oppression inevitably leads to bloody revolutions. As somebody said "Those who make evolution impossible make revolution inevitable".
Gorbachev brought people many of the freedoms, that were declared in the constitution, but the problem was, it was too late. The blood was boiling and violence was inevitable.
There is a problem with moderation, if you are using New Discussion System(TM). When you select some option, the comment gets moderated immediately, without confirmation. It is really easy to miss a required option and since moderation options are sorted alphabetically (IIRC -- Don't have them handy) I guess this is exactly what happened here.
Which may worry some people in power when impressionable children have access to all kinds of corrupting influences. "Daddy, what is 'capitalism'?" or "Teacher, why don't I have freedom of the press like my friends in America?"
Well, this is the point of OLPC to teach different kinds of things, including these.
You know, several years later, some of them may decide that blowing yourself up in the crowd is not such a good idea...
Well, most languages have a ternary operator ?:, which allows to get away without if in any situation. In Perl and Python you can do:
(CASE1 and STUFF_TODO) or (CASE2 and STUFF_TODO2) or...
Where CASEx is boolean and STUFF_TODOx is some statement. It has to return true in order to halt the search though, so, in general case you have to go for something like
(CASE1 and (STUFF_TODO1 or 1)) or (CASE2 and (STUFF_TODO2 or 1)) or...
As well as in your LISP example, this is ugly enough to be avoided whenever possible:)
I always though of Parrot as of a project that was born dead. What niche is it going to fit in, anyway? The same javish "write-once-support-anywhere" thing? Well, Java is doing pretty OK there: it has a pretty good market in small apps and games for cellphones, but I really doubt, that Parrot can make any difference there.
Large projects are usually targeted at some specific environment and nobody cares about OS independence, since OS is cheaper anyway.
I understand, that writing a VM can be fun, but I'm just wondering, are there any other reasons for working on this project? What merits it has?
If this had gone in they would have to add a whole new format implementation to their systems.
With all libraries available and being OS, this is not an issue. Opera managed to do it pretty easy.
One that is inferior to MPEG-4 in many aspects.
We are talking web here. Superior format is the one which is (1) Easy to implement (see above), (2) Definitely not proprietary (can be easily adopted).
When it comes to compression ratio, good enough is enough. It is better to give up some performance to make format easier (see point (2))
I'd say that you should always be proud of your code and always do your best writing it. I don't mean that your code must be perfect -- nobody is perfect, but if under current time constraints, requirements and all other circumstances you can do better, then do it.
When evaluating your old code you should take circumstances into account to: may be you were in a hurry and "fast" was more important than "good" at the moment -- it's OK, it's a part of a job. Go back and refactor later. Besides, you are making progress as a programmer, aren't you? So, of course your old code may seem as "bad" and "dirty" -- it's OK too, It's just a part of being a *good* programmer and making progress.
OLPC is a rich man's idea of what poor men need. It's like donating an expresso machine to a homeless shelter.
As you may or may not be aware, Nicholas Negroponte used to work in African schools. What he says struck him the most is exactly the fact that poor kids
were so much interested in technology.
Giving them these laptops is giving them access to millions of libraries, teachers, friends. Yes, the idea of the project is not to give shelter to homeless, but the idea is to give enough education so they can build it themselves (in metaphorical sense).
The last thing in the world I need is my hard drive deciding what files are and aren't okay to store.
Chances are, you already own a DVD player/DVD drive that decides for you what types of DVDs aren't okay to read/play.
Is this any different? It is also possible that the next hard drive you buy will restrict the type of files, that can be stored on it and it won't be mentioned anywhere in the specs.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you shouldn't. Get back to shopping.
I think you are missing the point of Semantic Web: you can refer or link to an object, not just document.
The company declares its URI. Now, If you are writing an article about this company, you can uniquely identify it and every web crawler knows *exactly* what company are you talking about. If the URI for the company is a hyperlink to its web site, then it can't be abused: the company itself declares what it is. The unique URI will in fact be a link to some file with information about company (maybe an RDF file -- doesn't really matter for the concept)
The system can (and will be abused) in the same way as an old web: irrelevant links, words, concepts -- nothing new for the crawler and can be defeated with existing techniques.
Again, Semantic Web = Links between concepts, not just documents, so please do not bury the good idea under the pile of misunderstanding.
I think HerSQL has a good tick to it.
The thing I dislike about MySQL is that it holds back many projects that are trying to be database independent.
For a quick example: how most universal ORMs handle creation of the new object?
- SELECT obj_id_sequence.nextval AS new_id
- INSERT INTO my_table(id,
...) VALUES (new_id, ...)
While Postgres can do fine with single statement: INSERTThe should rename their company to "Slashdotted"
Dude! Please, do not, I repeat DO NOT ever try to name something!
If AMD continues to do business the way they do now, there will be nothing to stick with.
This is not true. Oppression inevitably leads to bloody revolutions. As somebody said "Those who make evolution impossible make revolution inevitable". Gorbachev brought people many of the freedoms, that were declared in the constitution, but the problem was, it was too late. The blood was boiling and violence was inevitable.
There is a problem with moderation, if you are using New Discussion System(TM). When you select some option, the comment gets moderated immediately, without confirmation. It is really easy to miss a required option and since moderation options are sorted alphabetically (IIRC -- Don't have them handy) I guess this is exactly what happened here.
Well, this is the point of OLPC to teach different kinds of things, including these.
You know, several years later, some of them may decide that blowing yourself up in the crowd is not such a good idea...
Let us hope that may be they will change IP laws to make actual sense? (I'm talking about copyright)
Well, most languages have a ternary operator ?:, which allows to get away without if in any situation. In Perl and Python you can do:
Where CASEx is boolean and STUFF_TODOx is some statement. It has to return true in order to halt the search though, so, in general case you have to go for something likeAs well as in your LISP example, this is ugly enough to be avoided whenever possible :)
I only now realized that there was a pun in my post :)
I always though of Parrot as of a project that was born dead. What niche is it going to fit in, anyway? The same javish "write-once-support-anywhere" thing? Well, Java is doing pretty OK there: it has a pretty good market in small apps and games for cellphones, but I really doubt, that Parrot can make any difference there.
Large projects are usually targeted at some specific environment and nobody cares about OS independence, since OS is cheaper anyway.
I understand, that writing a VM can be fun, but I'm just wondering, are there any other reasons for working on this project? What merits it has?
With all libraries available and being OS, this is not an issue. Opera managed to do it pretty easy.
We are talking web here. Superior format is the one which is (1) Easy to implement (see above), (2) Definitely not proprietary (can be easily adopted).
When it comes to compression ratio, good enough is enough. It is better to give up some performance to make format easier (see point (2))
I'd say that you should always be proud of your code and always do your best writing it. I don't mean that your code must be perfect -- nobody is perfect, but if under current time constraints, requirements and all other circumstances you can do better, then do it.
When evaluating your old code you should take circumstances into account to: may be you were in a hurry and "fast" was more important than "good" at the moment -- it's OK, it's a part of a job. Go back and refactor later. Besides, you are making progress as a programmer, aren't you? So, of course your old code may seem as "bad" and "dirty" -- it's OK too, It's just a part of being a *good* programmer and making progress.
As you may or may not be aware, Nicholas Negroponte used to work in African schools. What he says struck him the most is exactly the fact that poor kids were so much interested in technology.
Giving them these laptops is giving them access to millions of libraries, teachers, friends. Yes, the idea of the project is not to give shelter to homeless, but the idea is to give enough education so they can build it themselves (in metaphorical sense).
Chances are, you already own a DVD player/DVD drive that decides for you what types of DVDs aren't okay to read/play.
Is this any different? It is also possible that the next hard drive you buy will restrict the type of files, that can be stored on it and it won't be mentioned anywhere in the specs.
They won't outlaw them. You will just have to pay a monthly fee as long as you remember [to do it].
I'd say that this is almost always the case.
If developers build a small 1 person helicopter, marketers will sell it as a space rocket (capable of going into space.)
Oh, and I thought it is because of excessive drinking! Now I know: blame FSF!
If there is an evidence, there should be a court order, otherwise it is a violation of "the right to privacy", based on speculations.
Yes, I do. But I also have a chinese DVD player from Shinco company. It allows to skip all crap, no matter what DVD thinks about it.
ISPs have to prepare for hard times as well. I don't think they will be too happy with this.