The only thing on a SS-card or a credit card might be the artwork, everything else has no copyright.
I used the term "principle" for a reason. The principle I'm referring to is control. The legal technicalities are different - which is why I specifically did not refer to them. But the principle is the same: the right of a person to control and/or limit the distribution of specific bits of information. To demand that right for one's self while at the same time trying to deny it to others is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
It also overlooks that the "information wants to be free" zealot crowd aren't necessarily the same
What crowd? The "copying a CD is not a crime" quote was exactly that - a direct copy-and-paste quote from an earlier post made by the person I replied to. I wasn't referring to any mythical "crowd", I was referring to two contradictory (IMHO) statements that were made by the same person.
You might also want to look up the definition of the term "troll" - it doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't anyone whose opinion you happen to disagree with. A troll makes statements that don't reflect its real opinion, because it's fishing (ask any fisherman what "trolling" is) for flames in response. I didn't do that. My intent is to point out the hypocrisy in an attitude that demands respect for one's own rights, while at the same time refusing to respect the rights of others.
They will pay for credit monitoring services, but will they pay for all the liability from a stolen ID?
It wasn't stolen, it was "shared". Making a copy doesn't take anything away from the original owners, right? They still have their names, social security numbers, etc.
That can reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars in real damage.
A few days ago you said "copying a CD is not a crime". Make up your mind. If information wants to be free, copyright should be abolished, etc., then the same principle applies just as much to your information as it does to a CD. Either "sharing" is OK, or it's not. You want it both ways.
How many Google Maps mashups have you made if any?
One so far. I began with zero experience with either AJAX or the Google Maps API. I had a working map in an hour, using only the online reference material provided by Google as a guide. In another hour I had added markers with custom icons pop-up information boxes.
They are not as easy as you think.
Actually it was far, far easier than I thought. If you need a 350-page book to spoon-feed it to you in small bites, you may have chosen the wrong career path.
You're the one who's lending authority to "facts" edited by anonymous bozos with no indication as to where they got their information.
Are you suggesting that an anonymous slashdot poster is somehow more credible? Why is that? (I'll ignore the "bozos" part - although I can't help but find it amusing that someone with a sig like yours is resorting to name-calling instead of citing better sources of information...)
You want more references, just Google for "invented the compiler" (include the quotes) - every link on the first page credits the invention to Admiral Hopper. You stated that "every reference I've ever seen credits John Backus with inventing the compiler." What references are you using then? I can't find a single one - not one that credits him for that.
You're getting your info from Wikipedia aren't you?
Yep. (Yeah, I know...)
Well, the entry on Flow-Matic is accurate enough, but is easy to misread. It says that Flow-Matic was the first "English-like compiled language". Which is perfectly true, but not the same thing as being "the first compiled language".
Yes, but I'm not talking about FLOW-MATIC when I refer to the first compiler, I'm talking about A-0. From Adm. Hopper's Wikipedia entry:
... A pioneer in the field, she was the first programmer of the Mark I Calculator and developed the first compiler for a computer programming language.
... In 1949, Hopper became an employee of the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation and joined the team developing the UNIVAC I. In the early 1950s the company was taken over by the Remington Rand corporation and it was while she was working for them that her original compiler work was done. The compiler was known as the A compiler and its first version was A-0. Later versions were released commercially as the ARITH-MATIC, MATH-MATIC and FLOW-MATIC compilers.
... In late 1953, John W. Backus submitted a proposal to his superiors at IBM to develop a more efficient alternative to assembly language for programming their IBM 704 mainframe computer.
1952 is earlier than 1953, right? Also, the Wikipedia entry for John Backus doesn't mention anything about his having invented the compiler, nor did I see anything in the FORTRAN entry about it being the first compiled language.
I may have failed to correct the idea that she invented COBOL - but since you were the one who suggested she did, you'll have to share the blame for that.:-)
Adm. Hopper's actual invention was A, the first compiler and the first of the so-called "third-generation" of "English-like" programming languages. A was released commercially as FLOW-MATIC, which later led to COBOL.
Think about what COBOL represented at the time. Adm. Hopper didn't just invent a new high-level language - she invented the concept of high-level programming languages, and the first compiler as well.
Two brilliant interviewees, (one of which is arguably the most influential and groundbreaking female engineer to ever work in this industry
I have to disagree. No disrespect to Ms. Perlman intended, but I think the term "groundbreaking" more accurately describes the work of Admiral Grace Hopper. I will give you however, that Ms. Perlman is arguably the most influential and groundbreaking female engineer currently working in this industry.
Re:1 Corinthians 13:11
on
Gen Con Bingo
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
The "fairy-tale" stuff that I was talking about was the Bible that the fundie suggested as a "grown-up" alternative to RPGs. So unless your dad really does go to a church where there are half-naked girls in fairy outfits, I think you misunderstood.:-)
Re:1 Corinthians 13:11
on
Gen Con Bingo
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I think we need an age limit on this fairy-tale stuff. Anybody 30 or over, who still believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or any kind of God, has issues. Start reading Playboy instead.
But I would think Virtual PC and Scripts in their Office Documents would be a big seller.
VPC yes, but VBA is not as popular as you might think. I used to work in a very large all-Mac organization - over 1000 employees, all of 'em on Macs. In two years+ there, I never saw a single VBA macro. Plenty of AppleScript, but no VBA. Obviously that's just one anecdote, but if it *is* representative then dropping VBA support for MacOffice is actually a pretty good decision - why pour development $$ into something your users aren't using?
I really do feel that manual memory management in most apps is now redundant.
Yes, it is. But, the "traditional" memory management in Cocoa is already at least 90% automated. What it amounts to is a few boilerplate calls in accessor methods. Xcode has been able to automatically generate simple accessors for quite some time, and for not-so-simple use there's Accessorizer.
The biggest stumbling block I see most newbies having is that a) they're accustomed to not doing any memory management at all in Java and assorted scripting languages, and b) they've heard all sorts of horror stories about how difficult MM is. So they tend to over-react and over-think it, and as a result make it far more complicated than it needs to be. Instead of simply following the simple design patterns suggested by Apple, they sprinkle -retain and -release messages throughout their code, and then try to figure out what's wrong by using the debugger to examine the reference counts directly.
In short, the problem with today's Cocoa memory management isn't that it's difficult to use as designed, it's simply that too many people won't read and follow the guidelines for using it as designed.
Oh, fer crying out loud. I said I wouldn't put it past him. That means I wouldn't be surprised if he tried - and that's all it means. It doesn't mean I'm predicting that he will try it, and it doesn't mean anything one way or another about what I think of his chances of succeeding might be if he did try. Besides, if he did try something like that, he wouldn't bother with something as cumbersome and unreliable as a constitutional amendment. It'd be more his style to simply issue an executive order, and then ship anyone who didn't obey it off to gitmo for "supporting terrorism."
And no, I'm not a dreamer, a Bush-hater, or ignorant of our political system. I made a flip, off-the-cuff comment on an internet discussion board. It was cynical, sarcastic, and intentionally ignored the nit-picky details of whether it might actually happen or not. The fact that you keep trying to categorize me into a neat little easy-to-understand category based on that one comment says more about you than it does me. Your own hyper-sensitive response to the smallest of negative comments about Bush says more about your own political leanings than my casual comment says about my own.
You have my permission to get the last word in though, if it'll make you feel like you've "won" the "argument".
And you've allowed your hate for Bush to color your knowledge
I hate to break your little black-and-white bubble, but not everyone who disagrees with Bush does so based on blind irrational hatred. Some of us even (gasp!) agree with some of the things he does, while disagreeing with others. Some of us prefer make up our own minds instead of just being unthinking cheerleaders.
This IS a Representative Democracy, and there ARE checks and balances.
In theory, yes. The theory breaks down when everyone who's supposed to provide such checks and balances are instead just rubber-stamping anything the executive branch decides to do, which is what's been happening for the past several years. Thankfully, such situations rarely last for very long. Even some of Bush's formerly die-hard supporters are beginning to question some of his decisions now.
Sorry you have so little knowledge of the US election system.
Sorry you can't read. I didn't say it would be legal for Bush to run again. I said it would be illegal and he wouldn't give a damn. He's demonstrated time and again a willingness to ignore any law he doesn't like, and the other two branches of government have demonstrated time and again that they're willing to roll over and let him do it.
You'd have to have been living in a cave for the past six years to have any faith left in our system of "checks and balances".
There was a president (I forget who) who served in the senate for many years after his term in the Oval Office was over.
Not in the past 50 years
It was Andrew Johnson. He was impeached in 1869, and elected as a Senator for Tennessee in 1875. He didn't serve as senator for very long though - he died a few months later.
and the 2 term limit only goes back to 1950 or whatever.
It was a tradition before that, which supposedly started when Washington declined to run for a third term. FDR ignored the tradition and got elected for four terms. As you said, after FDR died, a law was passed making two terms the legal maximum. Although I wouldn't put it past Bush to try changing that law, or to simply ignore it and run again anyway.
Still, you busted me fair and square. I am geeky enough to own every Futurama DVD, I'm not geeky enough to have actually read the lyrics to the songs. I'll turn in my card now.:-)
Doesn't the American election system stop you at 2 back-to-back terms?
The legal limit is just 2 terms, back-to-back or not. He can't legally run for president again, ever. Although, he is eligible for other offices. There was a president (I forget who) who served in the senate for many years after his term in the Oval Office was over.
First of all, this is Japan not San Francisco, so I doubt they are sending any "sailors" there.
It's either a "Sailor Moon" anime reference, or a reference to Futurama's "We're Sailors on the Moon" song in the "The Series Has Landed" episode. Either way, please turn in your Geek Card on your way out.:-)
I work with a lot of [non-geek] users and all they talk about is how great it is but when I mention Linux they respond with "But OS X is Linux" I try to tell them that OS X actually uses [geeky technobabble] but they say "same thing"
I've added a few things to the above. My additions are in brackets and bolded - they might help explain the disconnect you're seeing. To the end users you're talking to, Unix means "it doesn't lock up twice a day like %*$#@ MacOS 9 did". The rest is just boring technobabble they don't understand and don't want to.
That's why I first joined - I have several friends whose bands have pages there.
The irony of it is that MySpace is a great way for non-RIAA bands to promote themselves and network with other bands, finding new places to play, organizing shows, etc. Slashbots continually harp about how bands should be doing that kind of thing, bypassing the RIAA in favor of self-promotion - but when the bands actually start having a little success in doing so, the slashbots all line up to rag on them for it.
I guess it's easy to pick on a government funded research facility and call it overly bureaucratic, but doing the kinds of things they do involves thousands of engineers, quite often solving problems for the very first time.
When I refer to NASA as "beaurocratic", I'm not talking about the engineers. I have tons of respect for the guys and gals "in the trenches" at NASA. They are the reason I believe that NASA could accomplish so much more - if it weren't for the beaurocracy above them.
Obviously some managers are required, but at this point I think NASA has become far too bloated with layer after layer of managers - many of them, I suspect, political appointees with no real "vision" of what NASA should be doing or understanding of the science and engineering involved in doing it.
I remember seeing these amazing photos from Viking, Apollo, and Skylab missions when I was little. Been a fan of the space program ever since, and it's kind of sad to see the bureaucratic monster that NASA has become these days. Yeah, they do lots of neat stuff still - but I think they could do so much more if it weren't for the organizational mess down there. Hopefully private competition from Rutan et al will shake things up a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
GUIs that catch fish? You're just trolling.
What crowd? The "copying a CD is not a crime" quote was exactly that - a direct copy-and-paste quote from an earlier post made by the person I replied to. I wasn't referring to any mythical "crowd", I was referring to two contradictory (IMHO) statements that were made by the same person.
You might also want to look up the definition of the term "troll" - it doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't anyone whose opinion you happen to disagree with. A troll makes statements that don't reflect its real opinion, because it's fishing (ask any fisherman what "trolling" is) for flames in response. I didn't do that. My intent is to point out the hypocrisy in an attitude that demands respect for one's own rights, while at the same time refusing to respect the rights of others.
It wasn't stolen, it was "shared". Making a copy doesn't take anything away from the original owners, right? They still have their names, social security numbers, etc.
A few days ago you said "copying a CD is not a crime". Make up your mind. If information wants to be free, copyright should be abolished, etc., then the same principle applies just as much to your information as it does to a CD. Either "sharing" is OK, or it's not. You want it both ways.
One so far. I began with zero experience with either AJAX or the Google Maps API. I had a working map in an hour, using only the online reference material provided by Google as a guide. In another hour I had added markers with custom icons pop-up information boxes.
Actually it was far, far easier than I thought. If you need a 350-page book to spoon-feed it to you in small bites, you may have chosen the wrong career path.
Are you suggesting that an anonymous slashdot poster is somehow more credible? Why is that? (I'll ignore the "bozos" part - although I can't help but find it amusing that someone with a sig like yours is resorting to name-calling instead of citing better sources of information...)
You want more references, just Google for "invented the compiler" (include the quotes) - every link on the first page credits the invention to Admiral Hopper. You stated that "every reference I've ever seen credits John Backus with inventing the compiler." What references are you using then? I can't find a single one - not one that credits him for that.
Yep. (Yeah, I know...)
Yes, but I'm not talking about FLOW-MATIC when I refer to the first compiler, I'm talking about A-0. From Adm. Hopper's Wikipedia entry:
The Wikipedia entry for A-0 agrees:
Meanwhile, the FORTRAN entry says:
1952 is earlier than 1953, right? Also, the Wikipedia entry for John Backus doesn't mention anything about his having invented the compiler, nor did I see anything in the FORTRAN entry about it being the first compiled language.
If I'm wrong about all that - blame Wikipedia. :-)
I may have failed to correct the idea that she invented COBOL - but since you were the one who suggested she did, you'll have to share the blame for that. :-)
Adm. Hopper's actual invention was A, the first compiler and the first of the so-called "third-generation" of "English-like" programming languages. A was released commercially as FLOW-MATIC, which later led to COBOL.
Think about what COBOL represented at the time. Adm. Hopper didn't just invent a new high-level language - she invented the concept of high-level programming languages, and the first compiler as well.
The "fairy-tale" stuff that I was talking about was the Bible that the fundie suggested as a "grown-up" alternative to RPGs. So unless your dad really does go to a church where there are half-naked girls in fairy outfits, I think you misunderstood. :-)
I think we need an age limit on this fairy-tale stuff. Anybody 30 or over, who still believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or any kind of God, has issues. Start reading Playboy instead.
The biggest stumbling block I see most newbies having is that a) they're accustomed to not doing any memory management at all in Java and assorted scripting languages, and b) they've heard all sorts of horror stories about how difficult MM is. So they tend to over-react and over-think it, and as a result make it far more complicated than it needs to be. Instead of simply following the simple design patterns suggested by Apple, they sprinkle -retain and -release messages throughout their code, and then try to figure out what's wrong by using the debugger to examine the reference counts directly.
In short, the problem with today's Cocoa memory management isn't that it's difficult to use as designed, it's simply that too many people won't read and follow the guidelines for using it as designed.
Oh, fer crying out loud. I said I wouldn't put it past him. That means I wouldn't be surprised if he tried - and that's all it means. It doesn't mean I'm predicting that he will try it, and it doesn't mean anything one way or another about what I think of his chances of succeeding might be if he did try. Besides, if he did try something like that, he wouldn't bother with something as cumbersome and unreliable as a constitutional amendment. It'd be more his style to simply issue an executive order, and then ship anyone who didn't obey it off to gitmo for "supporting terrorism."
And no, I'm not a dreamer, a Bush-hater, or ignorant of our political system. I made a flip, off-the-cuff comment on an internet discussion board. It was cynical, sarcastic, and intentionally ignored the nit-picky details of whether it might actually happen or not. The fact that you keep trying to categorize me into a neat little easy-to-understand category based on that one comment says more about you than it does me. Your own hyper-sensitive response to the smallest of negative comments about Bush says more about your own political leanings than my casual comment says about my own.
You have my permission to get the last word in though, if it'll make you feel like you've "won" the "argument".
I hate to break your little black-and-white bubble, but not everyone who disagrees with Bush does so based on blind irrational hatred. Some of us even (gasp!) agree with some of the things he does, while disagreeing with others. Some of us prefer make up our own minds instead of just being unthinking cheerleaders.
In theory, yes. The theory breaks down when everyone who's supposed to provide such checks and balances are instead just rubber-stamping anything the executive branch decides to do, which is what's been happening for the past several years. Thankfully, such situations rarely last for very long. Even some of Bush's formerly die-hard supporters are beginning to question some of his decisions now.
Sorry you can't read. I didn't say it would be legal for Bush to run again. I said it would be illegal and he wouldn't give a damn. He's demonstrated time and again a willingness to ignore any law he doesn't like, and the other two branches of government have demonstrated time and again that they're willing to roll over and let him do it.
You'd have to have been living in a cave for the past six years to have any faith left in our system of "checks and balances".
It was Andrew Johnson. He was impeached in 1869, and elected as a Senator for Tennessee in 1875. He didn't serve as senator for very long though - he died a few months later.
It was a tradition before that, which supposedly started when Washington declined to run for a third term. FDR ignored the tradition and got elected for four terms. As you said, after FDR died, a law was passed making two terms the legal maximum. Although I wouldn't put it past Bush to try changing that law, or to simply ignore it and run again anyway.
Is it "whalers"? I must have mis-heard it.
:-)
Still, you busted me fair and square. I am geeky enough to own every Futurama DVD, I'm not geeky enough to have actually read the lyrics to the songs. I'll turn in my card now.
That's why I first joined - I have several friends whose bands have pages there.
The irony of it is that MySpace is a great way for non-RIAA bands to promote themselves and network with other bands, finding new places to play, organizing shows, etc. Slashbots continually harp about how bands should be doing that kind of thing, bypassing the RIAA in favor of self-promotion - but when the bands actually start having a little success in doing so, the slashbots all line up to rag on them for it.
Obviously some managers are required, but at this point I think NASA has become far too bloated with layer after layer of managers - many of them, I suspect, political appointees with no real "vision" of what NASA should be doing or understanding of the science and engineering involved in doing it.
I remember seeing these amazing photos from Viking, Apollo, and Skylab missions when I was little. Been a fan of the space program ever since, and it's kind of sad to see the bureaucratic monster that NASA has become these days. Yeah, they do lots of neat stuff still - but I think they could do so much more if it weren't for the organizational mess down there. Hopefully private competition from Rutan et al will shake things up a bit.