My ability to determine is the same as yours.
From my point of view, until the opposite is proven then neither argument can be invalidated right now. So we are allowed to choose our "prejudices" (both you and I -- even if they are the opposite, or the same), and still to be tolerant of the other. I think it's going to be a long time before something definitive is proven overall.:) Given that both sides have been supported time and time again, I'm not holding my breath to hear a definitive result anytime soon.
Hopefully Microsoft will single-handedly make a mockery of the patent system (more specifically software patents) which will force the system to be reviewed sooner, and maybe some positive changes can come to it. On the other hand it's going to be tough in the meantime for the small developer to be caught up in small web page navigation patents and such in court.
I like the Wikipedia a lot. I've had many good reads. However the 'fix' happens gradually by people "noticing them" (because I spelled out my example, it was fixed a lot sooner). That is my main concern. I would like to see the changes held back for moderation/review before being posted so that during the meantime (between false information and gradual fix), the people using the resource don't get bad information. This seems to be the crux of the technology for me -- the part that lends the Wikipedia to not being an authoritative resource. And what about the persistent person (or even worse -- advertiser) that keeps "un-fixing" the problem and re-inserting the adverse content -- maybe even through automated scipts of some means.
Sure, my IP# is under suspicion right about now on Wikipedia, but there are a lot of IPs to go around. If my whole IP block gets blocked then I cannot edit anymore, however also many other innocent individuals are blocked from the service too.
What if an advertiser put an HTML link around his banners (or around his button [Click here to get XXX] ) that actually formulated a query string that wrote an advertising blurb into a Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia change would come from the unsuspecting user's IP# instead of the advertiser's IP range. (I haven't tried it, but between a querystring and data in a post operation, it may work). This would be almost impossible to stop by blocking IPs, because gradually most IP blocks would be banned and the Wikipedia would not be accessible anymore (for the most part).
I'm surprised I haven't heard about mal-ware that posts advertisements to Wikipedia pages yet, from the user's computer. Maybe it exists. Maybe it's coming.
One point I have thought about in the past, but forgot to bring up in my last post...
I don't see why any of the Internet advertisers haven't jumped on this "band-wageon" yet by inserting their own textual advertisements amongst the materials. This would be a great way to make quick/easy advertising dollars. Sure, the advertisements would eventually be erased, but as long as they are seen by some people, they server their purpose.... and they can always be re-inserted I just cannot see how this Wikipedia thing is secure. I cannot see how the "trust" option works in this scenario. You cannot even trust me (a Slashdot poster commenting on this story), to not insert random content into the Wikipedia for fun.
If there's something I don't understand about the safety of the Wikipedia technology then somebody please tell me. Maybe I'm getting all worked up over nothing. Thanks.
Wikipedia has always scared me because of the trust level I cannot put into a resource that can be widely edited (even just for kicks). For example, just now (at 10:13 EST) I entered a non-authoritative entry into the Wikipedia under the topic of
Authority
It's just a note at the bottom that says
"[Note: This comment in brackets is an unauthoritative comment that was added by an individual]"
Now my foolish edit is available to the whole world -- I didn't have to log in or anything. So gradually it gets fixed. Fortuneately I did not say anything that is untrue. However what about the poor student who wanders into the topic before it gets fixed -- at one point in time. I could never use this as a definitive resource until more protection is put in place to help guarantee the accuracy of the information. How do to that? I don't know.. but I'm sure the suggestions are coming in all the discussions here.
I agree. I also believe Sender ID will never be officially adopted into the Internet standards because of its licensing and belonging to one company, however practically speaking wide-spread adoption of the technology is as good as a standard... and Microsoft knows this... and Microsoft stands in a good place to be able to do it. In fact Microsoft has become the defacto (although un-official) standard for a lot of things.
It's important that *nix-based platforms and OSS community continue to stick with open standards. Apache and Debian (and others who have already followed or will soon) are doing the right thing.
In the future will the Internet and standards end up being fully commercialized like almost everything else in the North American society (I can't speak for other countries)? Seeing all the patent acquisitions on software and many of the more foolish copyright infringement cases of late, it's really hard to tell. It's definitely an uphill battle, but there are a lot of good people to fight it. Let's hope support doesn't drop as the next generation takes over.
Men and women are two different species. I believe it does the kid best to have a balance -- one of each type of parent. I believe it is a richer and more rounded (because of variety) environment. I'm not saying the kid won't turn out alright in a single parent or two-parent-same-gender scenario. I believe same-gender parents are not the same to a family scenario because even though one may appear like the opposite sex, but in reality can never acheive it (yes, not even with a physical gender change operation). I realize this can open up a can of worms about all sorts of studies and theories. From there the argument can be fought either way. However from what I have learned I will stay on the side of believing men and women are different. My second choice -- for the sake of the child -- would be a single parent scenario where the "ex-parent" is the opposite sex. That way the child can still share in both worlds. My thrid choice would be same-gender parents for the child.
Realize this argument is not about whether any of the types of parents can provide a loving home, nor is it a measure of capability in any way -- well, except for breast-feeding and child birth in a two-man scenario, or natural fertilization in a two-women scenario -- but those are know limitations to same-gender parents. (back on topic) It's just an argument about well-roundedness of a child having experience based on two different species rather than one.
Unfortuneately these types of arguments (the one I just gave) are too quickly attacked as prejudiced against people instead of looking at what they are trying to say -- what may be best for the child. Because somebody believes a child is best in a traditional family scenario, does not mean other people are being bashed. Unfortuneately we have a generation of kids who have been schooled to perceive prejudice (even if it doesn't exist) and attack it, rather than learning how to argue logically about a topic. Quick emotional attacks are very frustrating because the purveyor has to rise above those to acheive a conversation that makes sense.
The FS Article says: "Featuring various new concepts WinFS new data model is capable of storing non-file-data information, which is one of its most remarkable premises. "
Isn't all information potential file data? Is Microsoft really doing something different than has been done before?
The article also states "WinFS uses a direct acyclic graph of items (DAG)."
The math goes back to the 1970's, as referenced by MathWorld
Old math can be used in new ways. Is his a new way when it's used in the FS that Microsoft is attempting?
The articles also says: " the WinFS data model provides the following concepts to describe data structures and organizations:
* Types and subtypes.
* Properties and fields.
* Relationships.
* Constraints.
* Extensibility.
"
Does the new Reiser4 file system support any of these concepts? -- Is WinFS really as new and exciting as the marketing and media says it is?
Your post reminded me of the Screen It! site, for the discerning movie goer.
It lists anything which could be considered bad in a movie.
I find it highly useful.
Re:should be a firefox plugin
on
Anti-Phishing Tools
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I should have added "free" extension, not restricted by licensing and/or money in general.
Someone should create a phishing-detection extension for Mozilla. Does anybody have any ideas about how that would work efficiently/effectively? Same as EBay technology?
Instead of ads that try to target you all the time, instead the ads should be coralled into a place where they stay until you want to look at them. For example, if I wanted to buy a new fridge then I could go to the ads and look through as many as I want, but the rest of the time they stay suppressed (an ad aggregator of sorts that's not in your face all the time). Ads are useful under certain circumstances. It's my opinion that the current ad process in the browwer doesn't work anymore because people are too accustomed to it. Of course it doesn't work for me (and many of you at all) because of Firefox/Adblock, etc.
It might be a good product to help create a live story-board, but it will never take over animation because animation is all about style. The real world will probably never translate into any current animation style... it's so subjective.
However I suppose the interview is not necessarily the primary section of the magazine -- Hmmm, (moving along rapidly) let's see what else they have in this issue that *may* be of interest...
Do children really need their own specialized computer?
A mickey mouse doll is less expensive. Most of the time a family shares a computer, or has a LAN. There's not a huge need on a LAN for a workstation to be "kid-friendly" because that can be administered from the server. It probably costs a lot more (less value) than a regular PC.
It's supposed to be Open Source. How can these types of restrictions be valid or mandatory in context of OSS? It doesn't make a lot of sense unless it's for political reasons, but then it doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense either.
Will the power of Linux apps put Solaris back into the running?
The power of more apps on the platform can certainly not hurt Sun. However why not run Linux apps on Linux instead. I've read Solaris is very stable and has some enterprise features that Linux may not support (maybe that's on the hardware side). However isn't Linux as stable as Solaris? If Solaris will become OSS, how about merging the best of the two. Does this help the potential copyright/patent problems that Linux may face -- e.g. the city of Munich researching possible infringements which is slowing down adoption of Linux?
Munich (and everybody else who uses Linusx) should approach the patent holders to find out what their intentions are. I realize that doesn't necessarily help mcuh because they can change their minds later on. However if you started getting the ball rolling by getting some patent holders to commit their patents into the public domain, then the whole thing might build up some steam and more may join in. Many businesses and people benefit from Linux and I know that a lot of people are capable of seeing the other side of the story. Many might be willing to support the cause.
There are plenty of copyright infringements in proprietary code... you just can't see them if you don't have the source.
Patents are another story. Given right now the patent system seems to suck (even though it's supposed to serve a valid purpose) -- is patent infringement truly patent infringement in many cases? I would argue a lot of the patent cases will be thrown out because of prior art, no merit, etc. I'm not advocating patent infringement, but just saying that a lot of the existing problems are most likely not really problems at all. Only some will be huge problems.
Slashdot Mirror
My ability to determine is the same as yours. From my point of view, until the opposite is proven then neither argument can be invalidated right now. So we are allowed to choose our "prejudices" (both you and I -- even if they are the opposite, or the same), and still to be tolerant of the other. I think it's going to be a long time before something definitive is proven overall. :) Given that both sides have been supported time and time again, I'm not holding my breath to hear a definitive result anytime soon.
ya, just try to service that hardware ... that should be a lot of fun.
SO IT WAS A PREMONITION!!!!
Hopefully Microsoft will single-handedly make a mockery of the patent system (more specifically software patents) which will force the system to be reviewed sooner, and maybe some positive changes can come to it. On the other hand it's going to be tough in the meantime for the small developer to be caught up in small web page navigation patents and such in court.
Sure, my IP# is under suspicion right about now on Wikipedia, but there are a lot of IPs to go around. If my whole IP block gets blocked then I cannot edit anymore, however also many other innocent individuals are blocked from the service too.
What if an advertiser put an HTML link around his banners (or around his button [Click here to get XXX] ) that actually formulated a query string that wrote an advertising blurb into a Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia change would come from the unsuspecting user's IP# instead of the advertiser's IP range. (I haven't tried it, but between a querystring and data in a post operation, it may work). This would be almost impossible to stop by blocking IPs, because gradually most IP blocks would be banned and the Wikipedia would not be accessible anymore (for the most part).
I'm surprised I haven't heard about mal-ware that posts advertisements to Wikipedia pages yet, from the user's computer. Maybe it exists. Maybe it's coming.
I don't see why any of the Internet advertisers haven't jumped on this "band-wageon" yet by inserting their own textual advertisements amongst the materials. This would be a great way to make quick/easy advertising dollars.
Sure, the advertisements would eventually be erased, but as long as they are seen by some people, they server their purpose.... and they can always be re-inserted
I just cannot see how this Wikipedia thing is secure. I cannot see how the "trust" option works in this scenario. You cannot even trust me (a Slashdot poster commenting on this story), to not insert random content into the Wikipedia for fun.
If there's something I don't understand about the safety of the Wikipedia technology then somebody please tell me. Maybe I'm getting all worked up over nothing. Thanks.
For example, just now (at 10:13 EST) I entered a non-authoritative entry into the Wikipedia under the topic of Authority It's just a note at the bottom that says
"[Note: This comment in brackets is an unauthoritative comment that was added by an individual]"
Now my foolish edit is available to the whole world -- I didn't have to log in or anything. So gradually it gets fixed. Fortuneately I did not say anything that is untrue. However what about the poor student who wanders into the topic before it gets fixed -- at one point in time. I could never use this as a definitive resource until more protection is put in place to help guarantee the accuracy of the information. How do to that? I don't know .. but I'm sure the suggestions are coming in all the discussions here.
It's important that *nix-based platforms and OSS community continue to stick with open standards. Apache and Debian (and others who have already followed or will soon) are doing the right thing.
In the future will the Internet and standards end up being fully commercialized like almost everything else in the North American society (I can't speak for other countries)? Seeing all the patent acquisitions on software and many of the more foolish copyright infringement cases of late, it's really hard to tell. It's definitely an uphill battle, but there are a lot of good people to fight it. Let's hope support doesn't drop as the next generation takes over.
Realize this argument is not about whether any of the types of parents can provide a loving home, nor is it a measure of capability in any way -- well, except for breast-feeding and child birth in a two-man scenario, or natural fertilization in a two-women scenario -- but those are know limitations to same-gender parents. (back on topic) It's just an argument about well-roundedness of a child having experience based on two different species rather than one.
Unfortuneately these types of arguments (the one I just gave) are too quickly attacked as prejudiced against people instead of looking at what they are trying to say -- what may be best for the child. Because somebody believes a child is best in a traditional family scenario, does not mean other people are being bashed. Unfortuneately we have a generation of kids who have been schooled to perceive prejudice (even if it doesn't exist) and attack it, rather than learning how to argue logically about a topic. Quick emotional attacks are very frustrating because the purveyor has to rise above those to acheive a conversation that makes sense.
Isn't all information potential file data? Is Microsoft really doing something different than has been done before?
The article also states "WinFS uses a direct acyclic graph of items (DAG)."
The math goes back to the 1970's, as referenced by MathWorld Old math can be used in new ways. Is his a new way when it's used in the FS that Microsoft is attempting?
The articles also says: " the WinFS data model provides the following concepts to describe data structures and organizations: * Types and subtypes. * Properties and fields. * Relationships. * Constraints. * Extensibility. "
Does the new Reiser4 file system support any of these concepts? -- Is WinFS really as new and exciting as the marketing and media says it is?
Thanks.
Somehow this seems to be taking the fun out of the game play for me.
Your post reminded me of the Screen It! site, for the discerning movie goer.
It lists anything which could be considered bad in a movie.
I find it highly useful.
I should have added "free" extension, not restricted by licensing and/or money in general.
Someone should create a phishing-detection extension for Mozilla. Does anybody have any ideas about how that would work efficiently/effectively? Same as EBay technology?
Instead of ads that try to target you all the time, instead the ads should be coralled into a place where they stay until you want to look at them. For example, if I wanted to buy a new fridge then I could go to the ads and look through as many as I want, but the rest of the time they stay suppressed (an ad aggregator of sorts that's not in your face all the time). Ads are useful under certain circumstances. It's my opinion that the current ad process in the browwer doesn't work anymore because people are too accustomed to it. Of course it doesn't work for me (and many of you at all) because of Firefox/Adblock, etc.
Linux for free, or a crippled MS OS for $xx.xx? I don't think Microsoft is competing well on the price point.
People in their right minds (arguable) drive their bicycles on the streets with trucks and SUVs. Something to consider.
It might be a good product to help create a live story-board, but it will never take over animation because animation is all about style. The real world will probably never translate into any current animation style ... it's so subjective.
However I suppose the interview is not necessarily the primary section of the magazine -- Hmmm, (moving along rapidly) let's see what else they have in this issue that *may* be of interest ...
Then IBM should put its money where its mouth is and place those patents into the public domain.
A mickey mouse doll is less expensive. Most of the time a family shares a computer, or has a LAN. There's not a huge need on a LAN for a workstation to be "kid-friendly" because that can be administered from the server. It probably costs a lot more (less value) than a regular PC.
It's supposed to be Open Source. How can these types of restrictions be valid or mandatory in context of OSS? It doesn't make a lot of sense unless it's for political reasons, but then it doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense either.
The power of more apps on the platform can certainly not hurt Sun. However why not run Linux apps on Linux instead. I've read Solaris is very stable and has some enterprise features that Linux may not support (maybe that's on the hardware side). However isn't Linux as stable as Solaris? If Solaris will become OSS, how about merging the best of the two. Does this help the potential copyright/patent problems that Linux may face -- e.g. the city of Munich researching possible infringements which is slowing down adoption of Linux?
Munich (and everybody else who uses Linusx) should approach the patent holders to find out what their intentions are. I realize that doesn't necessarily help mcuh because they can change their minds later on. However if you started getting the ball rolling by getting some patent holders to commit their patents into the public domain, then the whole thing might build up some steam and more may join in. Many businesses and people benefit from Linux and I know that a lot of people are capable of seeing the other side of the story. Many might be willing to support the cause.
There are plenty of copyright infringements in proprietary code
Patents are another story. Given right now the patent system seems to suck (even though it's supposed to serve a valid purpose) -- is patent infringement truly patent infringement in many cases? I would argue a lot of the patent cases will be thrown out because of prior art, no merit, etc. I'm not advocating patent infringement, but just saying that a lot of the existing problems are most likely not really problems at all. Only some will be huge problems.