You know... I'm no Microsoft-guru either (but I do know how to spell it correctly), but you know... There are cases where a network consists of more than your three networked Linux-machines. You know, big corporate networks which require central management.
I'm not saying it can't be done otherwise, and if you do happen to know other viable means, feel free to tell me, but for jobs like this Active Directory actually kicks ass. A simple update on your group policies and it's implemented network wide. Again, I'm not saying it can't be done in any otherway, but for tasks like this AFAIK OpenLDAP simply doesn't cut it.
the inclusion of the Serial Copying Management Systems in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit multi-generational audio copying (i.e., making copies of copies). This legislation will also apply to all future digital recording technologies, so Congress will not be forced to revisit the issue as each new product becomes available.
How nice of the RIAA to provide congress with instructions that doesn't require renewal for every new gadget that enters the market. I mean, you shouldn't exhaust your servants either.
Yes, you are right. That is, if we are talking about the grandparent of my original post. That's also why I mentioned "somewhat (but not entirely) valid" in my post.
However, the post I responded to equated DLing TV-shows with stealing and shoplifting cheese. I really didn't feel like touching the cheese part, but I do tend to point out when people compare copying digital content with stealing physical goods.
How about this - they offer the show for free download from their own servers - like 320x240 resolution
Er.... no? If I got the choice between an official "pirate" release in DVD resolution or better and some subpar (but legal) VHS-freebie, guess which one I'll be chosing. That's right, the quality release.
What about this? You start a 32kbps online music store and report back to tell us how well you are doing.
Of course, HBO could try the DRM route, but as we all know, around here that's tatamount to killing kittens.
Maybe it's just me, you know, as a/.er who also happens to be a FARKer... DRM equates killing kittens? I don't know how you get off, but if that's your thing, I guess I'll just have to accept that. But let me tell you: it sounds mighty weird!
The fact that someone compared DLing a TV-show with free cheese-samples, in a somewhat (but definitely not entirely) valid way, doesn't mean you should continue to use it.
First off. Media: digitizable, zero-cost reproducable, non tangeable goods. Cheese: actual, physical, unreproducable goods. Now copying something that inherently reproducable costs noone nothing. Stealing physical goods will result in expenses for the producer or store.
Please stop equating these to fundamental different things. Foe.
Why the hell would you transcode it more than once?
Yeah you got a point about transcoding. No, I don't like DRM any more than the other guy, but give me a break! That's the weakest anti-DRM argument I've seen in a long, long time.
Maybe I'm not that a sophisticated user, so would you please care to tell me: Why the hell would you transcode it more than once?
I am more concerned about the slipperly slope aspect of this, rather than this being BBC or whoever, and thus my reaction.
His atttitude towards it all seemed very much to lean against "I'd rather have DRMed content than none at all, if corporations aren't willing to provide us with what we are entitled to". At least that is how I read it.
If people have that kind of attitude, I can see the the suits smiling already.
Copyright-holders are entitled to copyright protection, given that the material will return to the public domain. DRM effectively hinders this, as only those with the proper keys are actually able to free the content when copyright expires.
And before anyone goes "but you don't have to buy the DRMed content"... I don't. I don't support copyright-holders breaking the intent of copyright.
I'm certianly not defending DRM on a wide scale, but I would rather the BBC provided this facility with DRM than not at all.
And there went the chance for the rest of us to live in a world without DRMed content. DRM being just another way of saying "fuck the public domain".
I can't believe how people time and time again seem totally oblivious of that consequence. DRM = Perpetual copyright, which in effect reverses the effect copyright was intended to have. For the record: Copyright doesn't mean right to profit.
How nice of you guys defending the big coprporations, IP mongerers and cash-reapers while they are not only getting away with your cash once again, but also are taking away what was supposed to be something that belonged to society.
No, No, No, the point is that you should NEVER has the data layer and the presentation layer talking directly to each other.... If you're talking about an Enterprise grade app then we're going to have to take you around back and flog you.
No. No. No. Here's coming back at you.
If you are talking about enterprise grade apps, then you should use stored procedures or views that hide the database implementation from the application and shield the database from any flaws in the application. As an added bonus changes in the DB structure can be made without affecting the applications that use it.
There should be a middle layer that does that talking and filtering.
There is. You simply don't have to wrry about it, if the defaults suit you. The code implementation is autogenerated, but you are free to modify it if you feel like it. For presenting data the defaults will probably be fine. For updating data, you probably want to do some error-checking, which can also easily be done.
Let the database do what it does best, namely handle data, and let the application handle the logic. That's the multi-layered model I was taught anyway. Whatever is the best enterprise grade model can probably be debated to death, but don't think that ASP.NET isn't prepared for that either.
I just don't get you guys obsession with such a mediocre tool and programming paradigm.
Being mediocre or not may to some extent be a subjective opinion, so I'm not touching that. Especially since I haven't tried out a gazillion other web-development toolkits out there.
You may have noted my point about "the right tool for the right job". I didn't say ASP.NET is the answer to everything. Actually, I specificly said it isn't. Hows that for obession?
If you take my post with some perspective, you may note that I was just responding to someone claiming that ASP.NET had nothing to it, and were exclusively used by untalented semi-developers. I made a point that that's not neccacarerly the case.
ASP.net's primary market is commercial website development. People serving that market really should not be directly coupling web pages to the underlying data.
By that statement I ment that you can hook the a datasource directly to a GUI/HTML-element. You can filter it any way you like, to conceal confidential or sensitive data, but the point is that you don't need to involve any database-related programming to achieve this. You can make it one way, two way. You can add data-concistency checks, authorization and everything you like. Again the point was that hooking your web-application up to a database is a trivial task that is done in a second.
If you misunderstood my statement in the direction that anyone can get direct access to any date, I'm sorry for being wage in the first place, but I thought that it was rather obvious that clued people don't do that kind of stuff.
As for "bullocks code", how is working with a framework/api that does 99% of the datahandling for you (if you don't need all that control) make it "bullocks code"? Just interested to know your line of reasoning, that's all.
the last thing we need is a new generation of web developers who think that "omg cool functionality kthx" > accessibility
Huh? New? I thought that was the way it always had been? Trying to make people write (working) standard-compliant XHTML/CSS and convincing them that there is a reasons for doing so, is hard enough already.
Stuff like this will surely make it even harder. Not saying Gmail ain't funky though.
Hold your horses there cowboy! You are a 6-digit slashdot-uid like the rest of us.
Here's hoping a a sub-5-digit ID user will bash. If nothing else, for that link to nowwhere in your profile:)
ASP.Net are an initiative of what? An awkward merging of two technologies so that ASP developers won't be frightened away?
Say again? I've done all sorts of programming from Motorola assembly to php and java, both professionaly and purely on a hobby-basis, so I consider my sellf a more than competent and experienced enough developer. I've also worked quite a bit with ASP.NET.
Sure ASP.NET may not be the right tool for every job, but then again what is? Making web-applications with ASP.NET feels like breeze compared to doing the same stuff in say php. The fact that it's event-based with a solid foundation making that the underlying protocols and technology transparent to developer, actually means that you can immidiately focus on the application logic, and doesn't have to worry about every god damn thing involving web-communication.
Sure, I know how that works, I know the low-level protocols, I can implement it if I have to, but the fact that I don't need to feels damn good. The.NET Framework supplies tons of goodies for those who know how to take advantage of it.
For instance, directly coupled database to webpage data-linking, including the ability to manipulate date with next to no programming. Please tell me how this can be done in less than 10 lines of code in php. As a developer, I'm really happy that I don't have to rewrite the same DB-logic, reference the same db-field names, link them to similary named html-controls, and vice-verce for updates. It makes my life simpler. What's wrong with that?
Dismissing ASP.NET as something that only unskilled developers would use is ignorant at best.
Care to come up with a few examples?
Any examples being codified into law would also be nice.
If you on top of that manage to find any which actually makes sense, that'd be an added bonus.
But I guess that's just me demanding a whole lot to much.
Record company owns the music. You pay for a privilege to use that music in some specific ways that you and the music company agree upon. If you don't like the agreement, you don't have to pay.
Bullshit. They own the copyright of the music, sure. That means I'm not entitled to make copies for illegitemate purposes, hand copies out or sell copies to others. That's it.
What's more, I didn't agree to anything. I paid money for a product. No rights waved, no agreements made.
In fact I'm having a hard time finding this contract or agreement people are talking about these days... Noone seemed to be talking about any kind of agreements before the RIAA started spreading this exact FUD. Funny thing, ey? Yet back then we all knew about copyright, no fictious "agreements" required. (100% obidience to copyright law ofcourse being a different matter.)
But you're right, I don't have to pay, and I don't. In fact I stopped buying music when the RIAA started acting like fascists. Up until then my music-buying habbits were on the rise like little else.
But as it's my perfectly legitemate right to listen to the music I've paid for in any damn way I please, I guess it's the RIAA 's legitemate right to screw over their own business. I have no troubles what so ever with that one.
Slashdot Mirror
But with this technology... We can make a Robocop to save us!
You know... I'm no Microsoft-guru either (but I do know how to spell it correctly), but you know... There are cases where a network consists of more than your three networked Linux-machines. You know, big corporate networks which require central management.
I'm not saying it can't be done otherwise, and if you do happen to know other viable means, feel free to tell me, but for jobs like this Active Directory actually kicks ass. A simple update on your group policies and it's implemented network wide. Again, I'm not saying it can't be done in any otherway, but for tasks like this AFAIK OpenLDAP simply doesn't cut it.
the inclusion of the Serial Copying Management Systems in all consumer digital audio recorders to limit multi-generational audio copying (i.e., making copies of copies). This legislation will also apply to all future digital recording technologies, so Congress will not be forced to revisit the issue as each new product becomes available.
How nice of the RIAA to provide congress with instructions that doesn't require renewal for every new gadget that enters the market. I mean, you shouldn't exhaust your servants either.
Yes, you are right. That is, if we are talking about the grandparent of my original post. That's also why I mentioned "somewhat (but not entirely) valid" in my post.
However, the post I responded to equated DLing TV-shows with stealing and shoplifting cheese. I really didn't feel like touching the cheese part, but I do tend to point out when people compare copying digital content with stealing physical goods.
Hope this clarifies.
How about this - they offer the show for free download from their own servers - like 320x240 resolution
Er.... no? If I got the choice between an official "pirate" release in DVD resolution or better and some subpar (but legal) VHS-freebie, guess which one I'll be chosing. That's right, the quality release.
What about this? You start a 32kbps online music store and report back to tell us how well you are doing.
Of course, HBO could try the DRM route, but as we all know, around here that's tatamount to killing kittens.
Maybe it's just me, you know, as a /.er who also happens to be a FARKer... DRM equates killing kittens? I don't know how you get off, but if that's your thing, I guess I'll just have to accept that. But let me tell you: it sounds mighty weird!
The fact that someone compared DLing a TV-show with free cheese-samples, in a somewhat (but definitely not entirely) valid way, doesn't mean you should continue to use it.
First off. Media: digitizable, zero-cost reproducable, non tangeable goods. Cheese: actual, physical, unreproducable goods. Now copying something that inherently reproducable costs noone nothing. Stealing physical goods will result in expenses for the producer or store.
Please stop equating these to fundamental different things. Foe.
It's internet. It's dangerous and scary. And once it's out there on the net, terrorists may use it to take America's freedom. Something like that.
Why the hell would you transcode it more than once?
Yeah you got a point about transcoding. No, I don't like DRM any more than the other guy, but give me a break! That's the weakest anti-DRM argument I've seen in a long, long time.
Maybe I'm not that a sophisticated user, so would you please care to tell me: Why the hell would you transcode it more than once?
I am more concerned about the slipperly slope aspect of this, rather than this being BBC or whoever, and thus my reaction.
His atttitude towards it all seemed very much to lean against "I'd rather have DRMed content than none at all, if corporations aren't willing to provide us with what we are entitled to". At least that is how I read it.
If people have that kind of attitude, I can see the the suits smiling already.
Copyright-holders are entitled to copyright protection, given that the material will return to the public domain. DRM effectively hinders this, as only those with the proper keys are actually able to free the content when copyright expires.
And before anyone goes "but you don't have to buy the DRMed content"... I don't. I don't support copyright-holders breaking the intent of copyright.
I'm certianly not defending DRM on a wide scale, but I would rather the BBC provided this facility with DRM than not at all.
And there went the chance for the rest of us to live in a world without DRMed content. DRM being just another way of saying "fuck the public domain".
I can't believe how people time and time again seem totally oblivious of that consequence. DRM = Perpetual copyright, which in effect reverses the effect copyright was intended to have. For the record: Copyright doesn't mean right to profit.
How nice of you guys defending the big coprporations, IP mongerers and cash-reapers while they are not only getting away with your cash once again, but also are taking away what was supposed to be something that belonged to society.
Well done.
Oh well. Guess I misread your post, and you obviously misread mine.
Now that slashdot is actually XHTML/CSS-based anything can happen, right? So let's just admit our mistakes and call it even :)
Nooooooooo!
You think?
No, No, No, the point is that you should NEVER has the data layer and the presentation layer talking directly to each other. ... If you're talking about an Enterprise grade app then we're going to have to take you around back and flog you.
No. No. No. Here's coming back at you.
If you are talking about enterprise grade apps, then you should use stored procedures or views that hide the database implementation from the application and shield the database from any flaws in the application. As an added bonus changes in the DB structure can be made without affecting the applications that use it.
There should be a middle layer that does that talking and filtering.
There is. You simply don't have to wrry about it, if the defaults suit you. The code implementation is autogenerated, but you are free to modify it if you feel like it. For presenting data the defaults will probably be fine. For updating data, you probably want to do some error-checking, which can also easily be done.
Let the database do what it does best, namely handle data, and let the application handle the logic. That's the multi-layered model I was taught anyway. Whatever is the best enterprise grade model can probably be debated to death, but don't think that ASP.NET isn't prepared for that either.
I just don't get you guys obsession with such a mediocre tool and programming paradigm.
Being mediocre or not may to some extent be a subjective opinion, so I'm not touching that. Especially since I haven't tried out a gazillion other web-development toolkits out there.
You may have noted my point about "the right tool for the right job". I didn't say ASP.NET is the answer to everything. Actually, I specificly said it isn't. Hows that for obession?
If you take my post with some perspective, you may note that I was just responding to someone claiming that ASP.NET had nothing to it, and were exclusively used by untalented semi-developers. I made a point that that's not neccacarerly the case.
ASP.net's primary market is commercial website development. People serving that market really should not be directly coupling web pages to the underlying data.
By that statement I ment that you can hook the a datasource directly to a GUI/HTML-element. You can filter it any way you like, to conceal confidential or sensitive data, but the point is that you don't need to involve any database-related programming to achieve this. You can make it one way, two way. You can add data-concistency checks, authorization and everything you like. Again the point was that hooking your web-application up to a database is a trivial task that is done in a second.
If you misunderstood my statement in the direction that anyone can get direct access to any date, I'm sorry for being wage in the first place, but I thought that it was rather obvious that clued people don't do that kind of stuff.
As for "bullocks code", how is working with a framework/api that does 99% of the datahandling for you (if you don't need all that control) make it "bullocks code"? Just interested to know your line of reasoning, that's all.
the last thing we need is a new generation of web developers who think that "omg cool functionality kthx" > accessibility
Huh? New? I thought that was the way it always had been? Trying to make people write (working) standard-compliant XHTML/CSS and convincing them that there is a reasons for doing so, is hard enough already.
Stuff like this will surely make it even harder. Not saying Gmail ain't funky though.
Hold your horses there cowboy! You are a 6-digit slashdot-uid like the rest of us. Here's hoping a a sub-5-digit ID user will bash. If nothing else, for that link to nowwhere in your profile :)
ASP.Net are an initiative of what? An awkward merging of two technologies so that ASP developers won't be frightened away?
Say again? I've done all sorts of programming from Motorola assembly to php and java, both professionaly and purely on a hobby-basis, so I consider my sellf a more than competent and experienced enough developer. I've also worked quite a bit with ASP.NET.
Sure ASP.NET may not be the right tool for every job, but then again what is? Making web-applications with ASP.NET feels like breeze compared to doing the same stuff in say php. The fact that it's event-based with a solid foundation making that the underlying protocols and technology transparent to developer, actually means that you can immidiately focus on the application logic, and doesn't have to worry about every god damn thing involving web-communication.
Sure, I know how that works, I know the low-level protocols, I can implement it if I have to, but the fact that I don't need to feels damn good. The .NET Framework supplies tons of goodies for those who know how to take advantage of it.
For instance, directly coupled database to webpage data-linking, including the ability to manipulate date with next to no programming. Please tell me how this can be done in less than 10 lines of code in php. As a developer, I'm really happy that I don't have to rewrite the same DB-logic, reference the same db-field names, link them to similary named html-controls, and vice-verce for updates. It makes my life simpler. What's wrong with that?
Dismissing ASP.NET as something that only unskilled developers would use is ignorant at best.
The RIAA/MPAA spokespeople for the US government responded
The fact that someone can write this of as a joke makes it sad. (But yeah, I'm chuckling as well.)
It's when I read posts like yours, I regret the fact that I say no to mod-points.
Doesn't happen to often, though.
Care to come up with a few examples? Any examples being codified into law would also be nice. If you on top of that manage to find any which actually makes sense, that'd be an added bonus.
But I guess that's just me demanding a whole lot to much.
the only thing you've purchased is the plastic and a license to use the content contained therein
Please show me this magic, etherreal, nowhere to be seen-licence you trolls keep yabbering about.
If you can't, please STFU already.
Record company owns the music. You pay for a privilege to use that music in some specific ways that you and the music company agree upon. If you don't like the agreement, you don't have to pay.
Bullshit. They own the copyright of the music, sure. That means I'm not entitled to make copies for illegitemate purposes, hand copies out or sell copies to others. That's it.
What's more, I didn't agree to anything. I paid money for a product. No rights waved, no agreements made.
In fact I'm having a hard time finding this contract or agreement people are talking about these days... Noone seemed to be talking about any kind of agreements before the RIAA started spreading this exact FUD. Funny thing, ey? Yet back then we all knew about copyright, no fictious "agreements" required. (100% obidience to copyright law ofcourse being a different matter.)
But you're right, I don't have to pay, and I don't. In fact I stopped buying music when the RIAA started acting like fascists. Up until then my music-buying habbits were on the rise like little else.
But as it's my perfectly legitemate right to listen to the music I've paid for in any damn way I please, I guess it's the RIAA 's legitemate right to screw over their own business. I have no troubles what so ever with that one.
If you're the average user... You'll chose the "prettiest" one.
And I'm not even trying to be funny here.