This states that those called pro-choice in the media would be considered negative by being called pro-abortion. Therefore, you call call pro-abortion a "negative" thing, promoting an anti-abortion view.
I'm sorry, I really don't follow what you're saying at all. Perhaps you could type it more slowly so I could understand it?:)
I myself am pro-choice and anti-abortion.
Sorry, you can't be on both sides of the fence. You're either against it or for it. Let me put it this way: let's say you were alive back in the 1800's, and we were discussing the issue of slavery. Would it be reasonable for you to say, "I'm anti-slavery but pro-plantation owner's rights?" I don't think so.
I'd like to see it never happen, but I'm not the one carrying the baby to term.
And what in tarntation does that have to do with anything? If something is wrong, you can (and should!) stand up and shout that fact regardless if you're involved directly or not. If you saw a woman being beaten, would you say to yourself, "well, I can't get involved because I'm not a family member?"
And I do have a problem with anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty people calling themselves "pro-life". Not that you have displayed any evidence of this hypocracy (or any hypocracy, for that manner), just saying.
Actually, I used to be one of those "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" people. But the more I considered it, the more I realized the fallacy of that logic. (Saw a report on MSNBC about it soon after - it mentioned the "growing" (their term) number of folks coming to the same conclusion. The article should be easy enough to find if you're interested). I've come full circle on the death penalty issue: killing is killing, and killing is wrong. Womb, jail, or in Kavorian's van, human life means nothing unless we're willing to stand up and defend it at every stage. The only reason I'm mentioning this because I hope someone who thinks as I used to might be swayed by it.
You're confused about the difference between promoting something and working to keep it legal.
No, i'm not confused: they are one and the same. If you're not against it, you're for it, legal or not.
You would be justified in calling someone who promoted abortion as pro-abortion.
this is really the heart of the matter. i would be justified, as would you or anyone else. but it's the media who dictates the use of these terms, and by extension, the thoughts that accompany them. the media sets the agenda (in choosing what stories to run, when, and how often), and it's the media that controls the debate by choosing what language to use.
Just as you would incorrect to call someone who worked to defend a womans right to control her own body anything but pro-choice.
i'm sorry, i don't follow you. if someone promotes abortion, and i call them "pro-abortion", how is that incorrect? you see, i'm confused because these people do not in fact "work to protect a womans right", instead, they work at making abortions happen. big difference.
Sadly the bulk of people who call themselves pro-life are shown by their actions to really be anti-choice.
so, if i think that it's murder to kill a baby while it's in the womb, i'm automatically "anti-choice". man, orwell could have taken lessons from you.:)
Hence there is little violence in European countries.
Bleep!
You're wrong: Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime. Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures.
You see, when you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, by definition, the only guns left are in the hands of the criminals (and the government, but they're the same really). Additionally, criminals are less deterred from committing violent crimes because they know with certainty that their victims are unarmed.
A better example of "European Enlightenment" would be Switzerland: nearly 100% of the population owns firearms and the rate of violent crime is almost zero.
groups that are opposed to abortion are called "anti-abortion", and yet groups that promote the act are called "pro-choice". shouldn't the name-calling be consistent? in other words, it should be "anti-abortion" vs. "pro-abortion" or "pro-life" vs. "anti-life"? oh, wait a minute, doing so would cast those favored by the media in a negative light. can't have that!
i know i'll sound like a conspiracy nut, and i know i'm at risk for losing karma (can't get blood out of a stone, tho), but this obvious bias by/. and all major media really pisses me off. yeah, yeah, i know slashdot is only parroting the news stories of others, but if the editors would take a minute and think for themselves instead of blindly following the party line like the sheep they claim to despise, the world might be an ever-so-slightly better place.
and please, before flaming me for having a different view than yours, read the fucking post and tell me where i have promoted one view or another.
Unless.NET is an openly specified standard, it may as well be Windows to me.
but that's the whole point of MS implementing.NET on linux: they must implement the platform on at least two systems before it can be approved as a standard by the ECMA.
if you really want to see an example of vendor lock in, check here.
as is stated elsewhere in this discussion,.NET != SOAP, SOAP is only the RPC for.NET objects and services. so, MS can keep.NET as closed as they want, and still interoperate with other platforms.
i've got an upcoming project that we'd like to deploy as a set of web services. unfortunatly, if we choose XML-RPC in leiu of SOAP, we would be missing out on the future interoperability that SOAP promises. and to make matters worse, the only real choices for implementing web services via SOAP at the moment are (a) rolling our own, (b) MSSOAP or (c) Apache SOAP. both (b) and (c) would lock us into a single vendor (sunjava on the Apache side). a python library for SOAP clients and servers would fit our bill perfectly, but alas, it's just not there yet.
This is version 0.8 of soaplib.py. This is an experimental version,
and it has not been fully tested for interoperability. It appears to
work with Userland's implementations, and we're planning to test it
against IBM's Java implementation shortly. It is not likely to work
with Microsoft's current SOAP toolkit.
At this time, all public servers I've located require either HTTP/1.1 or Unicode support. This means that the current version of soaplib.py doesn't work properly with these servers.
The sample call in the soaplib.py file shows how to make a valid RPC call to a method in a given namespace. If you run that code, it'll generate a valid request, but it fails to properly parse the reply from that specific server.
not to knock the PythonWare folks -- i'm waiting with great anticipation for the next release -- but the tech isn't there yet for python.:(
because alaska has the highest per capita broadband pentration in the world. this company owns 75% of the alaskan cable market and has cable modem access on almost all of that. the same company has a network for hooking up schools to the internet -- even in the most remote villages.
industry here is not suffering, either. my friends in the construction business are hopping as always, and with GW in the white house, we all expect ANWAR to get opened up Real Soon Now.
I bought this book a few months ago, and I'm sad to say that I wouldn't buy it again. I couldn't get by the bad grammar, the contrived examples, and the shallow coverage of XSL.
The author spends far too much time bashing MS on the one hand and then grudgingly acknowledging that IE has the best XML parser available. I'm no MS fanboy, but the hypocrisy made me sick.
A lot of the content of this book is just repeated drivel. Things like "Here, I'm including an element for item price" [insert simple XML example] "And here, I'm adding the item part number" [insert simple XML example plus one line]
Bah, sorry to go off on a rant, but save your money and learn this stuff online, or find another book.
this is the bridge pattern applied at the language level. the pattern, as defined by the gang of four:
Decouple an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary independently.
from the Eidola front page:
In short, Eidola is a programming language which separates a program's structure from how that structure is presented.
i know i might be stating the obvious to a lot of OOP-savy/.ers, but i had trouble grasping the bridge pattern when i first read it, and wanted to point out this great example.
if you do OOP for a living -- hell, if you're a programmer of any stripe -- i encourage you to read the book.
it's a rather discomforting thought: those that claim to be interested in knowledge only for the sake of knowledge will also make the determination of when and how that knowledge should be used. isn't that the best left to society (via religion, government, culture, etc.)?
to put it another way: would science have been the best guide for our use of atomic weapons? i seem to recall the common view of scientists at the time was that atomic weapons were a Bad Thing and should not be used (forgive me for generalizing...). and yet, the US government choose to use the weapons, thereby saving more lives in the long run.
granted, i respect the input of scientists and the data that they generate, but certainly not the opinions that accompany it.
Seriously, though - it's very hard to rewrite a program from the ground up; somehow, it's never as good. I'd clean up the code, but not rewrite.
This statement is wrong, just plain wrong. The axiom in computer science is "Don't fix bad code, rewrite it. Yes, I realize that's the CS take on things, and that it doesn't always jive with business needs. But I digress.
Second systems are typically easier to write because the hard part is already done: transforming the mental model of the system into real, working code. Plus, you get the benefit of lifting out portions of the old code that are worth saving. Also, second systems are easier to write because the entire idea has been realized via code once, and that means that you should see patterns and behavior that were not obvious when the initial coding began.
OTOH (because I like to argue, even with myself;) developers should always be weary of what Brooks calls the "Second System Effect", whereby needless features and are added. More info on that here.
because languages are becoming irrelevant. or more specifically, differences between languages are becoming irrelevant. remember 10 years ago when the only way to write a fast app was to code in C? these days, you can get almost the same performance from any number of languages. what happens when all user-land code is relegated to the same run-time sandbox? does the language matter at all?
on the one hand, a language independent compiler or byte-code is a good thing because it provides an additional layer of abstraction, but in the specific case of Java, Sun has made a very determined effort to associate Java the language with Java the byte-code. (or if you're a half-empty kinda person, Sun has not made the effort to distinguish between the two). if the language becomes less important, so does the byte-code. enter.NET, a platform with true language independence, and Sun/Java suddenly looks much less attractive.
i don't mean to spew off MS FUD, but what they've done with.NET and it's language independence is remarkable. i can (and have) written a class in Python, inherited from that class in VB, and debugged the two together as a Perl app. seems to me that with.NET, i'm getting my cake and eating it, too.
Oh that stupid cliche, Information wants to be free.
The real quote is from Stewart Brand. The actual quote is:
Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute,
copy, and recombine -- too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because
it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient.
Stewart Brand, The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at M.I.T. (New York:
Viking Penguin Inc., 1987).
the implications of this is up to the reader of course, but please do try to keep things in context.:)
if they can scan your pupils, chances are they can tell if you're drunk/stoned/under the influence.
IANAPE (i am not a pupil expert), but i think our buddies in law enforcement and our kind neighbors in the insurance companies would be interested if that level of detail were practical.
Slashdot Mirror
This states that those called pro-choice in the media would be considered negative by being called pro-abortion. Therefore, you call call pro-abortion a "negative" thing, promoting an anti-abortion view.
:)
I'm sorry, I really don't follow what you're saying at all. Perhaps you could type it more slowly so I could understand it?
I myself am pro-choice and anti-abortion.
Sorry, you can't be on both sides of the fence. You're either against it or for it. Let me put it this way: let's say you were alive back in the 1800's, and we were discussing the issue of slavery. Would it be reasonable for you to say, "I'm anti-slavery but pro-plantation owner's rights?" I don't think so.
I'd like to see it never happen, but I'm not the one carrying the baby to term.
And what in tarntation does that have to do with anything? If something is wrong, you can (and should!) stand up and shout that fact regardless if you're involved directly or not. If you saw a woman being beaten, would you say to yourself, "well, I can't get involved because I'm not a family member?"
And I do have a problem with anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty people calling themselves "pro-life". Not that you have displayed any evidence of this hypocracy (or any hypocracy, for that manner), just saying.
Actually, I used to be one of those "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" people. But the more I considered it, the more I realized the fallacy of that logic. (Saw a report on MSNBC about it soon after - it mentioned the "growing" (their term) number of folks coming to the same conclusion. The article should be easy enough to find if you're interested). I've come full circle on the death penalty issue: killing is killing, and killing is wrong. Womb, jail, or in Kavorian's van, human life means nothing unless we're willing to stand up and defend it at every stage. The only reason I'm mentioning this because I hope someone who thinks as I used to might be swayed by it.
You're confused about the difference between promoting something and working to keep it legal.
:)
No, i'm not confused: they are one and the same. If you're not against it, you're for it, legal or not.
You would be justified in calling someone who promoted abortion as pro-abortion.
this is really the heart of the matter. i would be justified, as would you or anyone else. but it's the media who dictates the use of these terms, and by extension, the thoughts that accompany them. the media sets the agenda (in choosing what stories to run, when, and how often), and it's the media that controls the debate by choosing what language to use.
Just as you would incorrect to call someone who worked to defend a womans right to control her own body anything but pro-choice.
i'm sorry, i don't follow you. if someone promotes abortion, and i call them "pro-abortion", how is that incorrect? you see, i'm confused because these people do not in fact "work to protect a womans right", instead, they work at making abortions happen. big difference.
Sadly the bulk of people who call themselves pro-life are shown by their actions to really be anti-choice.
so, if i think that it's murder to kill a baby while it's in the womb, i'm automatically "anti-choice". man, orwell could have taken lessons from you.
Hence there is little violence in European countries.
Bleep!
You're wrong: Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime. Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures.
You see, when you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, by definition, the only guns left are in the hands of the criminals (and the government, but they're the same really). Additionally, criminals are less deterred from committing violent crimes because they know with certainty that their victims are unarmed.
A better example of "European Enlightenment" would be Switzerland: nearly 100% of the population owns firearms and the rate of violent crime is almost zero.
groups that are opposed to abortion are called "anti-abortion", and yet groups that promote the act are called "pro-choice". shouldn't the name-calling be consistent? in other words, it should be "anti-abortion" vs. "pro-abortion" or "pro-life" vs. "anti-life"? oh, wait a minute, doing so would cast those favored by the media in a negative light. can't have that!
/. and all major media really pisses me off. yeah, yeah, i know slashdot is only parroting the news stories of others, but if the editors would take a minute and think for themselves instead of blindly following the party line like the sheep they claim to despise, the world might be an ever-so-slightly better place.
i know i'll sound like a conspiracy nut, and i know i'm at risk for losing karma (can't get blood out of a stone, tho), but this obvious bias by
and please, before flaming me for having a different view than yours, read the fucking post and tell me where i have promoted one view or another.
flame on!
Unless .NET is an openly specified standard, it may as well be Windows to me.
.NET on linux: they must implement the platform on at least two systems before it can be approved as a standard by the ECMA.
but that's the whole point of MS implementing
if you really want to see an example of vendor lock in, check here.
as is stated elsewhere in this discussion, .NET != SOAP, SOAP is only the RPC for .NET objects and services. so, MS can keep .NET as closed as they want, and still interoperate with other platforms.
i've got an upcoming project that we'd like to deploy as a set of web services. unfortunatly, if we choose XML-RPC in leiu of SOAP, we would be missing out on the future interoperability that SOAP promises. and to make matters worse, the only real choices for implementing web services via SOAP at the moment are (a) rolling our own, (b) MSSOAP or (c) Apache SOAP. both (b) and (c) would lock us into a single vendor (sunjava on the Apache side). a python library for SOAP clients and servers would fit our bill perfectly, but alas, it's just not there yet.
from the PythonWare README file for soaplib.py:
:(
This is version 0.8 of soaplib.py. This is an experimental version,
and it has not been fully tested for interoperability. It appears to
work with Userland's implementations, and we're planning to test it
against IBM's Java implementation shortly. It is not likely to work
with Microsoft's current SOAP toolkit.
and more damning:
At this time, all public servers I've located require either HTTP/1.1 or Unicode support. This means that the current version of soaplib.py doesn't work properly with these servers.
The sample call in the soaplib.py file shows how to make a valid RPC call to a method in a given namespace. If you run that code, it'll generate a valid request, but it fails to properly parse the reply from that specific server.
not to knock the PythonWare folks -- i'm waiting with great anticipation for the next release -- but the tech isn't there yet for python.
there are SOAP clients and servers for every scripting language that runs on Linux
could you please point me to a Python SOAP server? or for that matter, a SOAP 1.1 compliant client for Python? i don't think there are such beasts.
Everyone wins.
Except the cute sea critters that get eaten by more sharks.
just to drive the point home:
the link text in the article says "Windows 2000 snapshot capability", but the screenshot is definitly Win9x, not Win2k.
because alaska has the highest per capita broadband pentration in the world. this company owns 75% of the alaskan cable market and has cable modem access on almost all of that. the same company has a network for hooking up schools to the internet -- even in the most remote villages.
industry here is not suffering, either. my friends in the construction business are hopping as always, and with GW in the white house, we all expect ANWAR to get opened up Real Soon Now.
and the only real agriculture we have is big cabbages and good weed.
i don't mean to go off here, but hey, most alaskans get tired of the misconceptions.
So companies should be free to steal from the public domain and sell it back to you? .
point missed: you cannot steal from the public domain.
I bought this book a few months ago, and I'm sad to say that I wouldn't buy it again. I couldn't get by the bad grammar, the contrived examples, and the shallow coverage of XSL.
The author spends far too much time bashing MS on the one hand and then grudgingly acknowledging that IE has the best XML parser available. I'm no MS fanboy, but the hypocrisy made me sick.
A lot of the content of this book is just repeated drivel. Things like "Here, I'm including an element for item price" [insert simple XML example] "And here, I'm adding the item part number" [insert simple XML example plus one line]
Bah, sorry to go off on a rant, but save your money and learn this stuff online, or find another book.
this is the bridge pattern applied at the language level. the pattern, as defined by the gang of four:
/.ers, but i had trouble grasping the bridge pattern when i first read it, and wanted to point out this great example.
Decouple an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary independently.
from the Eidola front page:
In short, Eidola is a programming language which separates a program's structure from how that structure is presented.
i know i might be stating the obvious to a lot of OOP-savy
if you do OOP for a living -- hell, if you're a programmer of any stripe -- i encourage you to read the book.
i can confirm that the usb floppy that came with my sony z505r is indeed bootable. that's how i started the install of FreeBSD.
it's it me or is there just something uh, hmmm, werd w/ their logo?
theories:
it's a rather discomforting thought: those that claim to be interested in knowledge only for the sake of knowledge will also make the determination of when and how that knowledge should be used. isn't that the best left to society (via religion, government, culture, etc.)?
to put it another way: would science have been the best guide for our use of atomic weapons? i seem to recall the common view of scientists at the time was that atomic weapons were a Bad Thing and should not be used (forgive me for generalizing...). and yet, the US government choose to use the weapons, thereby saving more lives in the long run.
granted, i respect the input of scientists and the data that they generate, but certainly not the opinions that accompany it.
my $0.02
Sorry, but I have to take issue with this:
;) developers should always be weary of what Brooks calls the "Second System Effect", whereby needless features and are added. More info on that here.
Seriously, though - it's very hard to rewrite a program from the ground up; somehow, it's never as good. I'd clean up the code, but not rewrite.
This statement is wrong, just plain wrong. The axiom in computer science is "Don't fix bad code, rewrite it. Yes, I realize that's the CS take on things, and that it doesn't always jive with business needs. But I digress.
Second systems are typically easier to write because the hard part is already done: transforming the mental model of the system into real, working code. Plus, you get the benefit of lifting out portions of the old code that are worth saving. Also, second systems are easier to write because the entire idea has been realized via code once, and that means that you should see patterns and behavior that were not obvious when the initial coding began.
OTOH (because I like to argue, even with myself
because languages are becoming irrelevant. or more specifically, differences between languages are becoming irrelevant. remember 10 years ago when the only way to write a fast app was to code in C? these days, you can get almost the same performance from any number of languages. what happens when all user-land code is relegated to the same run-time sandbox? does the language matter at all?
.NET, a platform with true language independence, and Sun/Java suddenly looks much less attractive.
.NET and it's language independence is remarkable. i can (and have) written a class in Python, inherited from that class in VB, and debugged the two together as a Perl app. seems to me that with .NET, i'm getting my cake and eating it, too.
on the one hand, a language independent compiler or byte-code is a good thing because it provides an additional layer of abstraction, but in the specific case of Java, Sun has made a very determined effort to associate Java the language with Java the byte-code. (or if you're a half-empty kinda person, Sun has not made the effort to distinguish between the two). if the language becomes less important, so does the byte-code. enter
i don't mean to spew off MS FUD, but what they've done with
He just forgot his tea.
You wrote:
:)
Oh that stupid cliche, Information wants to be free.
The real quote is from Stewart Brand. The actual quote is:
Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine -- too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient.
Stewart Brand, The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at M.I.T. (New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1987).
the implications of this is up to the reader of course, but please do try to keep things in context.
use this.
i think i speak for all of we at slashdot when i say that us really likes bad grammer. the worst the better, if you catch my drifts.
for examples, we talk about NIC cards and ATM machines. those are a good starts.
for another examples, we try to end sentances in prepositions of.
and yet another in examples, we spell w0rdz a11 fux0r3d.
and final, slashdot wouldn't be slashdot if the average poster didn't mispell a word or too.
Perl for .NET
.NET
.NET Framework Community Website
.NET Developer Center
.NET platform.
Python for
ASP.NET
and of course,
MSDN
FWIW, asp.net and gotdotnet.com are supposedly running the
if they can scan your pupils, chances are they can tell if you're drunk/stoned/under the influence.
IANAPE (i am not a pupil expert), but i think our buddies in law enforcement and our kind neighbors in the insurance companies would be interested if that level of detail were practical.