I think rewrites are good, as long as they're done correctly. When fixes or compatibility issues are added to the initial version, they should be well commented and documented so that they are accounted for in any rewrite, and tested if the logic of the program has been rearranged (perhaps to better fix bugs in the first place). Ideally a rewrite makes it easier for bugs to be fixed. At the same time a program shouldn't need to be totally rewritten more than a couple times. After one time the code should have enough modularity so that pieces can be rewritten with small impact at a time.
Various P2P software? What about all the other daemons? Sendmail, BIND, OpenSSH (and of course Linux and the base GNU stuff though that's a little unfair). There are a lot other probably often overlooked types of programs too, but no less important. Apache is probably one of the most successful, but I don't think it's primary competition comes from P2P software.
Version 2 is a vastly different program. The framework is different and the modules are different. If people don't need any of the features from 2 and 1.3 continues to be stable and secure, then it wouldn't make sense for most people to upgrade, or for some people to take the time at the moment to familiarize themselves with the new methods of doing things.
I think the problem with ADHD which somewhat invalidates is that it's far too broad. 10 different people with ADHD could have 10 different causes, 10 different collections of symptoms, and 10 different ideal solutions yet they're too often lumped together and treated the same way. That's why so many people in this discussion are able to say "I have ADD/ADHD and my situation is different from everyone else's". And that's why so many people that were treated for it wish they never had been.
There are several posts in this conversation saying that jamesh should just ask a doctor. Obviously their advice should be heeded (and the more diverse qualified opinions the better). Keep in mind that most doctors will not recommend the type of treatment that he's asking about, at the very least since it's their ass on the line. Also ADD is an interesting thing to ask a doctor about since their opinions are probably as diverse as the people in this discussion. I would recommend findind a doctor that's slow to prescribe.
I think he knew what he was asking for in this forum.
The "theories" are because if you look at descriptions of him given by people that knew and admired him (or felt otherwise), they fit symptoms of what would be classified. A personalized treatment program would be ideal, but the fact of the matter is that most people that are diagnosed with ADD are given far more a standardized treatment than a personalized program.
Keep in mind that this isn't just some guy preaching "fuck the system", this is a guy who went through all the stuff. I'm sure there are a lot of people that share your plight, but I'd say that the vast majority of people are misdiagnosed, that ADD is often used as an easy excuse to a more complex problem.
I definitely agree that the problem isn't the people, but the system. Different minds work different ways, and the education system is this country only caters to a specific type. It leans more towards linear and comprehensive rather than non-linear and analytical. Many of the most intelligent people I've met would have been categorized as ADD if the category were invented yet. My parent were told the I was probably retarded when I was a child but they didn't listen and I ended up excelling in school once I settled into it. It doesn't seem like ADD or ADHD have too much scientific ground to stand on as "disorders" either.
I find it interesting that at least at most places near me one can't use a credit card to pay at McDonald's (much to my annoyance), and yet now they're trying to allow one to pay with a watch?!
Digital photography is arguably the best solution for the average person or for average photo taking needs. Film however, as mentioned, has far higher quality (resolution higher than even the best digital cameras...although not readily visible to the naked eye) and will probably remain the choice of serious photographers when they need the best for many years to come. That being said, Kodak didn't exactly cater to this market, and as such the news should be treated for it's bearing on the masses, and not looked to for some all encompassing effect.
The MIT paper also assumes that the CAPS system stands alone from current methods, instead of working with them. The CAPS method, if implemented well, should only apply to a small minority of passengers.
It amazes me that Record companies try to copy protect CD's. Even if they came up with an uncrackable method, CD's are still sound, and sound can still be recorded. As long as it's coming out of speakers it can be rerouted into a recording device and copied or treated however the person recording wants to treat it. Record companies are just burning money in the R&D of these things, and it's just amusing that there are other ways they're losing money too.
It seems that the people that outcry the most invalidate their pleas by going to extremes. The whole worrying so intensively about distribution of personal information isn't expressed well at all. It's not like that concept is new at all, the prospect of your information getting used for marketing as discussed on the website is hardly a new idea and there are already an abundance of channels through which the information is propgated. The information provided to establish your color code doesn't appear to be anything that's not available in public records anyway. Your probably have more reason to bitch about your credit report being available to so many people. I think if you want to complain, don't envelope the whole plan in some tyrannical shell. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep track of things like criminal records instead of just leaving it up to conclusions drawn on appearances. If the information is exploited or information which is unfairly obtained or which is personal and doesn't have a bearing on the safety of others comes into the scenario...then attack that (and not stuff next to it). Civil rights are sacred, but it invalidates complaints about infringements against them when attacks are made against things which are legitimate.
I have the same problem and so does one of my friends. Has anyone come up with a good jury rigged method for restoring (or at least emulating) tension to the hinges? (Don't say duct tape).
Of course/. readers want to see a mission to Mars. But/. readers often live a bit too much in the future. Considering the background of the people here it's easy to look at the scientific aspect of it and ignore all of the other aspects that go into providing the resources for such a consuming plan. Periods of exentsive exploration (such as the Apollo program), normally come when the economy is strong enough to support it (except for periods of necessity), which is why it's cyclical. Otherwise it will consume resources which would be best be placed elsewhere and will cripple the economy and ultimately the inital sources of the resources which are funding the project (and the final return may or many not be worth it). Trying to say that it would create jobs or anything is BS. Now is not the time for projects like this.
It's a good thing Bush is finally looking for economic solutions that can help the common American and not just old drinking buddy (or worse) government contractors.
I actually came across a possibly similar situation where someone was using MSN without knowing their password. It appeared as though the connection to the Internet was established without authentication, and then you were supposed to login to the MSN network, but if you didn't you could minimize that window and continue to use the Internet.
I don't know how much the dial-up competition keeps away broadband. Dial-up will, at least in the forseeable future, remain significantly less expensive than broadband, because it doesn't require hardware. At the same time the cost of a second phone line and Internet will generally probably be about the same as a brodband connection. I'd think the main factor keeping broadband out of areas is just the immediate lack of the required technology in that area probably coupled with either a risk of profitablity, or just the inability to currently deploy the needed hardware. I've had to work in several areas with large commercial sectors where broadband would be immediately seized upon (and made profitable for the provider), but it's not, or wasn't available yet. I'd think one of the other big reasons would be that, in general, broadband is provided by companies which don't focus on it. It's provided by cable companies or telcos whose main business focal point is the primary service they provide.
Dropping the www conevention is a horribly shortsighted idea. DNS isn't made for just the World Wide Web, it's made for the Internet and all the services provided by it (not that it does anything aside from mapping). If you start assuming things about a domain's set-up then you'll limit the flexibilty of DNS or, at best make things needlessly complicated. If you want the default host for the domain to be the webserver then you can just set it to the 2nd level hostname, but as far as a widespread convention, this should be left up to the browser and not DNS.
The TLD domain name issue should also be left to the browser too, but that's already been discussed.
IE has progressed very little since 5. At that time Netscape hadn't progressed much since 4 (and people had a lot of headaches getting standards to work on Netscape), until it was rewritten and stabilized and Mozilla broke off. None of the browsers yet handle the standards perfectly, even some of the older standards. Looking at the lifetimes of the browsers though, I'd say the next version of IE will determine whether it can be condemned (for standards), which there's a decent chance of since MS isn't much for standards that they don't fabricate.
Slashdot Mirror
I think rewrites are good, as long as they're done correctly. When fixes or compatibility issues are added to the initial version, they should be well commented and documented so that they are accounted for in any rewrite, and tested if the logic of the program has been rearranged (perhaps to better fix bugs in the first place). Ideally a rewrite makes it easier for bugs to be fixed. At the same time a program shouldn't need to be totally rewritten more than a couple times. After one time the code should have enough modularity so that pieces can be rewritten with small impact at a time.
Various P2P software? What about all the other daemons? Sendmail, BIND, OpenSSH (and of course Linux and the base GNU stuff though that's a little unfair). There are a lot other probably often overlooked types of programs too, but no less important. Apache is probably one of the most successful, but I don't think it's primary competition comes from P2P software.
Unless I'm missing something, doing what you're talking about shouldn't take more than a couple lines to set-up and a couple lines per domain.
Version 2 is a vastly different program. The framework is different and the modules are different. If people don't need any of the features from 2 and 1.3 continues to be stable and secure, then it wouldn't make sense for most people to upgrade, or for some people to take the time at the moment to familiarize themselves with the new methods of doing things.
You can't moderate and post to the same discussion.
I think the problem with ADHD which somewhat invalidates is that it's far too broad. 10 different people with ADHD could have 10 different causes, 10 different collections of symptoms, and 10 different ideal solutions yet they're too often lumped together and treated the same way. That's why so many people in this discussion are able to say "I have ADD/ADHD and my situation is different from everyone else's". And that's why so many people that were treated for it wish they never had been.
There are several posts in this conversation saying that jamesh should just ask a doctor. Obviously their advice should be heeded (and the more diverse qualified opinions the better). Keep in mind that most doctors will not recommend the type of treatment that he's asking about, at the very least since it's their ass on the line. Also ADD is an interesting thing to ask a doctor about since their opinions are probably as diverse as the people in this discussion. I would recommend findind a doctor that's slow to prescribe.
I think he knew what he was asking for in this forum.
Bob Dylan didn't take the drugs when he was a child though.
The "theories" are because if you look at descriptions of him given by people that knew and admired him (or felt otherwise), they fit symptoms of what would be classified. A personalized treatment program would be ideal, but the fact of the matter is that most people that are diagnosed with ADD are given far more a standardized treatment than a personalized program.
Keep in mind that this isn't just some guy preaching "fuck the system", this is a guy who went through all the stuff. I'm sure there are a lot of people that share your plight, but I'd say that the vast majority of people are misdiagnosed, that ADD is often used as an easy excuse to a more complex problem.
I definitely agree that the problem isn't the people, but the system. Different minds work different ways, and the education system is this country only caters to a specific type. It leans more towards linear and comprehensive rather than non-linear and analytical. Many of the most intelligent people I've met would have been categorized as ADD if the category were invented yet. My parent were told the I was probably retarded when I was a child but they didn't listen and I ended up excelling in school once I settled into it. It doesn't seem like ADD or ADHD have too much scientific ground to stand on as "disorders" either.
I find it interesting that at least at most places near me one can't use a credit card to pay at McDonald's (much to my annoyance), and yet now they're trying to allow one to pay with a watch?!
Digital photography is arguably the best solution for the average person or for average photo taking needs. Film however, as mentioned, has far higher quality (resolution higher than even the best digital cameras...although not readily visible to the naked eye) and will probably remain the choice of serious photographers when they need the best for many years to come. That being said, Kodak didn't exactly cater to this market, and as such the news should be treated for it's bearing on the masses, and not looked to for some all encompassing effect.
And should therefore be able to underly older techniques without bringing security procedures to a crawl.
The MIT paper also assumes that the CAPS system stands alone from current methods, instead of working with them. The CAPS method, if implemented well, should only apply to a small minority of passengers.
It amazes me that Record companies try to copy protect CD's. Even if they came up with an uncrackable method, CD's are still sound, and sound can still be recorded. As long as it's coming out of speakers it can be rerouted into a recording device and copied or treated however the person recording wants to treat it. Record companies are just burning money in the R&D of these things, and it's just amusing that there are other ways they're losing money too.
It seems that the people that outcry the most invalidate their pleas by going to extremes. The whole worrying so intensively about distribution of personal information isn't expressed well at all. It's not like that concept is new at all, the prospect of your information getting used for marketing as discussed on the website is hardly a new idea and there are already an abundance of channels through which the information is propgated. The information provided to establish your color code doesn't appear to be anything that's not available in public records anyway. Your probably have more reason to bitch about your credit report being available to so many people. I think if you want to complain, don't envelope the whole plan in some tyrannical shell. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep track of things like criminal records instead of just leaving it up to conclusions drawn on appearances. If the information is exploited or information which is unfairly obtained or which is personal and doesn't have a bearing on the safety of others comes into the scenario...then attack that (and not stuff next to it). Civil rights are sacred, but it invalidates complaints about infringements against them when attacks are made against things which are legitimate.
I have the same problem and so does one of my friends. Has anyone come up with a good jury rigged method for restoring (or at least emulating) tension to the hinges? (Don't say duct tape).
Of course /. readers want to see a mission to Mars. But /. readers often live a bit too much in the future. Considering the background of the people here it's easy to look at the scientific aspect of it and ignore all of the other aspects that go into providing the resources for such a consuming plan. Periods of exentsive exploration (such as the Apollo program), normally come when the economy is strong enough to support it (except for periods of necessity), which is why it's cyclical. Otherwise it will consume resources which would be best be placed elsewhere and will cripple the economy and ultimately the inital sources of the resources which are funding the project (and the final return may or many not be worth it). Trying to say that it would create jobs or anything is BS. Now is not the time for projects like this.
It's a good thing Bush is finally looking for economic solutions that can help the common American and not just old drinking buddy (or worse) government contractors.
I actually came across a possibly similar situation where someone was using MSN without knowing their password. It appeared as though the connection to the Internet was established without authentication, and then you were supposed to login to the MSN network, but if you didn't you could minimize that window and continue to use the Internet.
I don't know how much the dial-up competition keeps away broadband. Dial-up will, at least in the forseeable future, remain significantly less expensive than broadband, because it doesn't require hardware. At the same time the cost of a second phone line and Internet will generally probably be about the same as a brodband connection. I'd think the main factor keeping broadband out of areas is just the immediate lack of the required technology in that area probably coupled with either a risk of profitablity, or just the inability to currently deploy the needed hardware. I've had to work in several areas with large commercial sectors where broadband would be immediately seized upon (and made profitable for the provider), but it's not, or wasn't available yet. I'd think one of the other big reasons would be that, in general, broadband is provided by companies which don't focus on it. It's provided by cable companies or telcos whose main business focal point is the primary service they provide.
Dropping the www conevention is a horribly shortsighted idea. DNS isn't made for just the World Wide Web, it's made for the Internet and all the services provided by it (not that it does anything aside from mapping). If you start assuming things about a domain's set-up then you'll limit the flexibilty of DNS or, at best make things needlessly complicated. If you want the default host for the domain to be the webserver then you can just set it to the 2nd level hostname, but as far as a widespread convention, this should be left up to the browser and not DNS. The TLD domain name issue should also be left to the browser too, but that's already been discussed.
Wasn't this same article (at least in principle) posted a couple years ago when the theory was first developed?
IE has progressed very little since 5. At that time Netscape hadn't progressed much since 4 (and people had a lot of headaches getting standards to work on Netscape), until it was rewritten and stabilized and Mozilla broke off. None of the browsers yet handle the standards perfectly, even some of the older standards. Looking at the lifetimes of the browsers though, I'd say the next version of IE will determine whether it can be condemned (for standards), which there's a decent chance of since MS isn't much for standards that they don't fabricate.