And that story doesn't even say that "deep" linking is illegal in Denmark. All that happened in that court was that Newsbooster was prohibited from gathering and providing news using them. The ruling didn't state anything else about the use of "deep" linking, ie. it doesn't consider anything about whether it should be prohibited to make a "deep" link to some story on, say, a blog or discussion forum. The ruling regards a specific entity (Newsbooster) and its specific practice (automatically gathering news on Danish newspapers' www sites, and linking to stories)
Besides, what in hell is a "deep" link? It's so fucking pathetic to see politicians trying to legislate a technology they seem to refuse to even try to understand.
Freedom of speech is a human right, which means that international society has decided that it is a right which must extend to all members of the human species. This makes it the duty of nations to implement such a right.
There is absolutely no reason why free speech is a required right, it may be desireable but it is never required and society can function extremely well without it (look at pretty much anywhere outside of the USA).
Eh? There are lots of places outside the USA which implements free speech rights. Here in Europe, you can even speak freely about encryption technology and document flaws in computer security systems.;)
Because a bunch of religious nutcases in Italy decides to censor "blasphemy", the rest of the non-US world isn't necessarily becoming keen on censorship.
Billshit.
Analysis of the problem to be solved as well as designing the system to solve it are as important as writing the system's code. If you think systems like the X Window System, the Linux kernel, Mozilla or any other successful large system was created without paying attention to analysis and design, you are mistaken. A good design is as instrumental to a good program as good coding practice is -- unless you're just writing throw-away code for personal use, it really pays off to think through what you're going to create, and how you're going to go about it. This is where conceptual models can be very useful, especially if you remember that conceptual models do not HAVE to be flowcharts and rich pictures, but a vision of the basic concept you are going to implement in your program. Are you going to write your program as a traditional main program/subroutine architecture, an event-driven architecture, an object-oriented one, a pipes and filters network, or perhaps a repository style? Without knowing which architecture you're trying to implement, you are most likely to produce poor, inefficient and hard to maintain code -- if you can even get properly started.
What constitutes a good program? Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike, in their book "The Practice of Programming", state that the three principles of simplicity, clarity and generality are fundamental to creating good programs. I agree with them, because a program which satisfies these three criteria is easy to reuse code from, easy to adapt to other circumstances, usually easy to optimize, easy to maintain, and easy to understand. If you are a coder, you certainly know the value of these properties. However, a poorly selected design style (architecture) or a flawed analysis of the problem will be just as great barriers towards achieving the goal of a good program as bad programming practice can be. Coding is just the implementation of the problem solution, design is figuring out HOW this implementation should work.
Good coders may think in code, and good system designers may think in terms of models. The best coders, however, also happen to be good system designers, and the best system designers also happen to be good coders.
For example, Kant's categorical imperative: the software industry could not exist if everyone pirated
The software that is sold to end-users in stores is actually a pretty small part of the software industry as a whole, with the majority of programmers being employed to write systems for various companies and organizations, specifically to solve some problem or to effectivize something. These programs aren't sold on store shelves, and most of the time, the companies they are written for couldn't care less about things like software license and the like.
Piracy may threaten the "shrink-wrap" software industry, but I'll bet the software industry as a whole will do just fine.
As a footnote, I don't have any pirated software installed on my computer, since I prefer to use free or open-source software.
Some chipsets (for example, i840, i850 and i860 for RDRAM, nVidia nForce for DDR SDRAM) use dual-channel RAM to boost effective memory bandwidth, effectively turning the RAM to a two-device stripe.
Perhaps a program author can't be sued if he places his program in the public domain.
Remember, he/she wouldn't even have a copyright on it, if it's PD software.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, what in hell is a "deep" link? It's so fucking pathetic to see politicians trying to legislate a technology they seem to refuse to even try to understand.
There is absolutely no reason why free speech is a required right, it may be desireable but it is never required and society can function extremely well without it (look at pretty much anywhere outside of the USA).
Eh? There are lots of places outside the USA which implements free speech rights. Here in Europe, you can even speak freely about encryption technology and document flaws in computer security systems. ;)
Because a bunch of religious nutcases in Italy decides to censor "blasphemy", the rest of the non-US world isn't necessarily becoming keen on censorship.
However, the survey was made with the "top 100 mature" projects on SF, meaning that the lots of dead projects weren't considered at all.
Billshit. Analysis of the problem to be solved as well as designing the system to solve it are as important as writing the system's code. If you think systems like the X Window System, the Linux kernel, Mozilla or any other successful large system was created without paying attention to analysis and design, you are mistaken. A good design is as instrumental to a good program as good coding practice is -- unless you're just writing throw-away code for personal use, it really pays off to think through what you're going to create, and how you're going to go about it. This is where conceptual models can be very useful, especially if you remember that conceptual models do not HAVE to be flowcharts and rich pictures, but a vision of the basic concept you are going to implement in your program. Are you going to write your program as a traditional main program/subroutine architecture, an event-driven architecture, an object-oriented one, a pipes and filters network, or perhaps a repository style? Without knowing which architecture you're trying to implement, you are most likely to produce poor, inefficient and hard to maintain code -- if you can even get properly started. What constitutes a good program? Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike, in their book "The Practice of Programming", state that the three principles of simplicity, clarity and generality are fundamental to creating good programs. I agree with them, because a program which satisfies these three criteria is easy to reuse code from, easy to adapt to other circumstances, usually easy to optimize, easy to maintain, and easy to understand. If you are a coder, you certainly know the value of these properties. However, a poorly selected design style (architecture) or a flawed analysis of the problem will be just as great barriers towards achieving the goal of a good program as bad programming practice can be. Coding is just the implementation of the problem solution, design is figuring out HOW this implementation should work. Good coders may think in code, and good system designers may think in terms of models. The best coders, however, also happen to be good system designers, and the best system designers also happen to be good coders.
For example, Kant's categorical imperative: the software industry could not exist if everyone pirated The software that is sold to end-users in stores is actually a pretty small part of the software industry as a whole, with the majority of programmers being employed to write systems for various companies and organizations, specifically to solve some problem or to effectivize something. These programs aren't sold on store shelves, and most of the time, the companies they are written for couldn't care less about things like software license and the like. Piracy may threaten the "shrink-wrap" software industry, but I'll bet the software industry as a whole will do just fine. As a footnote, I don't have any pirated software installed on my computer, since I prefer to use free or open-source software.
Some chipsets (for example, i840, i850 and i860 for RDRAM, nVidia nForce for DDR SDRAM) use dual-channel RAM to boost effective memory bandwidth, effectively turning the RAM to a two-device stripe.
Perhaps a program author can't be sued if he places his program in the public domain. Remember, he/she wouldn't even have a copyright on it, if it's PD software.