Even more interesting is that the search for 'weird' and 'smartech' eventually leads to this interesting blog post which lists "Strange Domains Registered by the RNC"
africanamericansforbush.com
arabamericansforbush.com
asianamericansforbush.com
catholicsforbush.com
conservationistsforbush.com
democratsforbush.com
farmersandranchersforbush.com
jewishbushteam.com
laborforbush.com
militaryfamiliesforbush.com
nativeamericansforbush.com
sportsmanforbush.com
wstandsforwomen.com (I liked this one:)
"After you've got your minority support locked away, you can then begin the attack ads:" (from the blog post)
democratflipflops.com
democratscaretactics.com
demsagenda.com
imaliberal.com
liberalswantyourmoney.com
stophillarynow.com
"...and, of course, to anticipate attacks by grabbing(and squatting on) those domains first:" (from the blog post)
Good point. Let me clarify that: 'expected norm' or some such. Though I might argue with your definition of normal. Statistically, murder is normal. For the people involved, hopefully not. And it is definitely not the norm for the person who was killed.
If there's no problem, then there's nothing to report. It doesn't affect anybody. There are a million things that are *not* going wrong with society. How about the news only report everything that goes well, and let us deduce from the process of elimination what went wrong? Instead of the obituaries page, make a list of people who are still alive! If you don't see a relative's name on it, then, well...
I'm just taking the conservative stance that freedom of press has always worked, so we ought to maintain it. The press points out problems, we decide what are actually the pressing concerns, and fix them. Putin's plan is not only scary from an international perspective (the possibility of Russia becoming an enemy dictatorship again), but from the perspective that it's a backwards step for a good part of the civilized world. Certainly freedom of press is a scary thing for a corrupt government and it ought to be. It's almost a litmus test for how corrupt the gov't of a state is.
The press can be annoying, but it pretty much does its job when it's allowed to do so.
I can understand a little anti-Americanism these days, as in the GP's post, but few of those countries have been demonized by mass media. It was our friggin *government* that named the 'axis of evil.' The mass media's been doing its part to unveil the atrocities America has committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, so much so that most Americans are now against the wars in that area. The corporate media hasn't 'demonized' Sudan. It hasn't even reported on it!! You forgot to mention Fox News's stance on France, which has been more unfair than any alleged bias against the nations you mentioned.
Most "news" is heavily slanted to doom and gloom. Why? Probably because doom and gloom sells.
If an event is 'happy' then it is probably not news. News is a deviation from the norm, and the debate on what constitutes the norm is the frequent cause of bias. Its real purpose is to give people information they can use to adjust their own actions so as to maximize their livelihood (or however you want to say it). The Economist, for example, contains what is most appropriately termed news, because all of that information is reckoned to affect money markets and anyone with an interest in those markets. Most news that actually affects people gets drowned out either in gossip news, mostly inconsequential public tragedies (like earlier this week) and day-to-day crime.
The problem is the focus on the wrong kind of doom and gloom, not too much of it. If you want 'light' or inconsequential news, then what you're asking for is not news, but entertainment.
Iowa State University started with Scheme and moved into C++ a year later into the curriculum. I agree with you, but I think there are a lot of universities beginning with the theoretical aspects of programming and leaving the stuff you can learn on your own, to actually learn on your own. When I finally learned Java in a high-level compiler class, I was forced to do so in addition to writing a postscript interpreter and a compiler that turned a C-like language into java bytecode. What I finally discovered is that this was the most useful class in my college career, because most employers don't care about your ability to write algorithms, but your ability to write code in a project-sized format.
It's a pretty funny show, considering it's subject matter. I've probably seen all six episodes by now. I'm sure most/.ers have stumbled across it looking for Red Dwarf or Dr. Who.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.. human rights are not the same as constitutional rights. They're not asking for the right to vote, just for the right not to have skin-care products injected into their eyeballs to see how much pain it will create. Electric shock experiments, being flayed alive.. that sort of thing. Right now, most animals have no or few protections within laboratories. They want chimps to have the same rights in these cases as humans. Then they'll move to dogs, then something else. I'm all for it, but you can see that it's just an attempt to extend animal rights, not a specific agenda to promote the biological status of chimps in particular. I'm just not ready to have my hamburgers and chicken wings taken away from me just yet.
You 'own' a chimp just like you 'own' your children. Ownership doesn't mean slavery (unless you had my parents), it just means you're responsible for their behavior.
I don't think they're talking about Constitutional Rights, in this case, but Human Rights. I.e. we don't experiment on/torture them in any way that a human wouldn't find acceptable.
Unless they're suspected of terrorism of course. Then anything goes.
So, I have an honest query for someone who seems knowledgeable about this... does this mean *all* use of AJAX is susceptible to this form of attack or just certain uses.. and in the case of the latter, then what is safe and what is not?
It's 'news' to wikipedia supporters (i.e. much of slashdot's readers) if an event like this ends up in the Chicago Sun-Times. Sure it's not as important as a new game boy controller or something (sarcasm) but as we tally the number of times events like this happen (Siegenthaler, et al), we can see how a 'free policy' on the internet affects the real world, and how the public and politicians may react.
Also, notice how the newspaper said "Sinbad has said he has not yet received an apology from Wikipedia." Sinbad was cool with it. He didn't say he expected an apology, yet the newspaper had to imply, in a roundabout way, that Wikipedia might be expected to give an apology. If a reporter asked George Bush if he was a hermaphrodite and Bush said 'no', they could end their story on Korean diplomacy with "And George Bush has claimed that he is not a hermaphrodite," and it would imply a possibility that George Bush was a hermaphrodite. My point is, an apology from Wikipedia was not in question, but some reporter asked, and suddenly it becomes a question. I'm not being paranoid or anything, but I know lazy (or possibly biased) journalism when I see it, and I'm a little sensitive about criticism toward Wikipedia.
Yes. The MySQL book (O'Reilly, I believe) specifically says to say the letters My ESS-KEW-ELL. I just just talking to a veteran programmer (who wrote database code in the 80's) who called it Sequel. In college computer science courses, it was also called Sequel. I think that depending who your talking to, you can change the pronunciation.
Here's how I understand it: BeanShell was created as a 'command-line Java' useful in debugging purposes but pointless for actual development. Probably the same case is true for whatever Dynamic Java is. JPython is great, but you can't call JPython from Java, only the other way around. You'd naturally prefer to be able to call the scripting language from Java, because Java is a great language for defining the structure of a program and tedious for most coding.
I believe, but am not certain, that Groovy solves these problems. That is, you can call it from Java. I should hope that it also allows first-class functions and other niceties found in dynamic languages.
Hmm.. good information. Now it comes down to: is information published onto the internet, by default, public-domain or copyrighted? Also, is it published for a 'bot' audience? The copyright notice on the bottom of most pages is only, for practical purposes, human readable. You would be tempted to say that if a bot 'sees' it and infringes it, then the bot's owner is responsible, but then again, search engines are a huge part of what makes the web useful. There really ought to be a simple set of standard laws and protocols for managing content dissemination; that is, something as fundamental as Html. It would solve a lot of problems before they start instead of waiting for organizations (like the RIAA, for example) to overstep their boundaries.
First, Google cache has a legitimate purpose.. when it finds a matching page and the page has dynamic content, the text you searched for may not be there when you click on the link, so you have to check the cache to see what the match was referencing... this happens a lot on blogs and html versions of newsgroups or mailing lists. If you can't find the original text you're going to go somewhere else, so this is beneficial to all.
Now, in order for content to be cached by Google, it has to be accessible to the webcrawler. This means it was available for free at some point, or the developers allowed special access for the webcrawler to index it (e.g. Salon.com). Either way, any half-way coherent developer knows that when the content is made pay-per-view, the cache is going to contain the content for some time. If they're still allowing it to be searched by bots and not giving access to humans, then screw them; They're going to extra effort to assist search engine code to infringe their copyrights.
There's no legislation in place, as far as I know, as to when caches must be cleared after access privileges change. Who's fault is this? Google's?
True, there is copyright infringment going on, but it's usually for the benefit of the public and the copyright holder, as per my first paragraph. A lawsuit would only open the door for more lawsuits and be at a general disadvantage for users of the internet. Instead of allowing the lawsuit, they could impose stricter guidelines on how webpages communicate with search engines. Meta-tags could state explicitly when searching must stop on the page in question and hence when caches must be cleared, or if publicly viewable caches are allowed at all.
The threat of violence is certainly a factor, but American society has been PC-ized (for better or worse) to the point where it can only make fun of itself. No minority group (except, mysteriously, midgets and, of course, homosexuals) need worry about turning on the television and facing criticism for their differences. We publicly make fun of Christians because the U.S. status quo is overwhelmingly Christian. Christian attitudes as derived from the traditional interpretation of the gospels (love thy neighbor, etc as opposed to the new warfaring Jesus) prevail especially among the Left, which comprises most of the U.S. minority sects, including athiests. Comedy Central probably felt more of an obligation toward this unstated PC 'social contract' than a genuine fear of being beheaded.
The deaf have a supernatural visual sense. They can see a bullet coming their way at a thousand feet. I'm more worried about people who hear voices. I should think that would be very distracting. Now, what I don't get is what is so distracting for pedestrians to use iPods while crossing the street, yet motorists going 60+ mph can have music blaring at any volume in their cars. Cell phones I can understand. *I've* walked into a busy intersection while talking on a cellphone, but I'm smart enough not to drive with one. But still, let's be practical. In a city, you encounter a stop-walking light every 2 minutes. You can't expect people to hang up or hit pause every 2 minutes.
If you're walking across the street playing a gameboy or watching tv, then you're just dumb.
his could be related to the fact that most music on the market today is not worth the plastic it's pressed on?...see a trend here?
Yes, the trend is you have shitty taste in music. Try reading Pitchforkmedia, Cokemachineglow or MetaCritic and purchasing some of their recommendations. You may strike out a couple times but once you find out what kind of stuff you like, you'll be able to cross-reference it on Amazon and Allmusic and discover more stuff. You'll be amazed at how much incredible stuff is out there.
I know a lot of people who find music with Last.fm. A lot of people I know listen to KEXP (from our good friend Paul Allen's Experience Music Project in Seattle, but nonetheless strongly independant) streams, which is a good deal more eclectic than most radio. By comparison I know few people who listen to the radio (for music) when it's not playing in a collective setting, like at their workplace. Personally, music reviews, cross-referenced on Amazon and allmusic.com, have helped me immensely and accounts for about %99 of my purchases.
All but two stores in the popular Tower Records chain just went out of business. They still have online sales, but I'm sure there's a lot of retail employees that lost their jobs.
Obviously, their mistake is in not raising prices to cover their losses. Maybe if they raised their prices high enough all the illegal downloaders would realize what a mistake they've made and start buying their music.
The definition of 'thief' is so flimsy in this kid's case, it probably doesn't matter whether he's innocent or not. It's easy enough to teach an 11-yo kid not to take things out of retail stores without paying, but to convince an 11-yo (whose mother can barely turn on a computer) that certain bits and bytes are covered under intellectual property laws is far more difficult, especially when a lot of clear-headed adults can't even be convinced. I say he's got a pretty good case. Leave the 11-year-olds alone. How are they going to come up with $16 for a CD anyway?
All true, but I guess my point is that when the cost of sampling an album is less, then myself and probably most people will stop looking for ways to circumvent the laws. Personally, in this case it would seem kind of pathetic to circumvent the laws when you can obey it for $2 a listen or $8 an album.
Slashdot Mirror
...therefore, the only plausible alternative is that God (i.e. the Christian God) created Adam and Eve and blah blah blah... yes, very rational.
Search for wierd:
Did you mean: weird
Even more interesting is that the search for 'weird' and 'smartech' eventually leads to this interesting blog post which lists "Strange Domains Registered by the RNC"
"After you've got your minority support locked away, you can then begin the attack ads:" (from the blog post)
"...and, of course, to anticipate attacks by grabbing(and squatting on) those domains first:" (from the blog post)
Good point. Let me clarify that: 'expected norm' or some such. Though I might argue with your definition of normal. Statistically, murder is normal. For the people involved, hopefully not. And it is definitely not the norm for the person who was killed.
If there's no problem, then there's nothing to report. It doesn't affect anybody. There are a million things that are *not* going wrong with society. How about the news only report everything that goes well, and let us deduce from the process of elimination what went wrong? Instead of the obituaries page, make a list of people who are still alive! If you don't see a relative's name on it, then, well...
I'm just taking the conservative stance that freedom of press has always worked, so we ought to maintain it. The press points out problems, we decide what are actually the pressing concerns, and fix them. Putin's plan is not only scary from an international perspective (the possibility of Russia becoming an enemy dictatorship again), but from the perspective that it's a backwards step for a good part of the civilized world. Certainly freedom of press is a scary thing for a corrupt government and it ought to be. It's almost a litmus test for how corrupt the gov't of a state is.
The press can be annoying, but it pretty much does its job when it's allowed to do so.
The Russians!
I can understand a little anti-Americanism these days, as in the GP's post, but few of those countries have been demonized by mass media. It was our friggin *government* that named the 'axis of evil.' The mass media's been doing its part to unveil the atrocities America has committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, so much so that most Americans are now against the wars in that area. The corporate media hasn't 'demonized' Sudan. It hasn't even reported on it!! You forgot to mention Fox News's stance on France, which has been more unfair than any alleged bias against the nations you mentioned.
If an event is 'happy' then it is probably not news. News is a deviation from the norm, and the debate on what constitutes the norm is the frequent cause of bias. Its real purpose is to give people information they can use to adjust their own actions so as to maximize their livelihood (or however you want to say it). The Economist, for example, contains what is most appropriately termed news, because all of that information is reckoned to affect money markets and anyone with an interest in those markets. Most news that actually affects people gets drowned out either in gossip news, mostly inconsequential public tragedies (like earlier this week) and day-to-day crime.
The problem is the focus on the wrong kind of doom and gloom, not too much of it. If you want 'light' or inconsequential news, then what you're asking for is not news, but entertainment.
Iowa State University started with Scheme and moved into C++ a year later into the curriculum. I agree with you, but I think there are a lot of universities beginning with the theoretical aspects of programming and leaving the stuff you can learn on your own, to actually learn on your own. When I finally learned Java in a high-level compiler class, I was forced to do so in addition to writing a postscript interpreter and a compiler that turned a C-like language into java bytecode. What I finally discovered is that this was the most useful class in my college career, because most employers don't care about your ability to write algorithms, but your ability to write code in a project-sized format.
It's a pretty funny show, considering it's subject matter. I've probably seen all six episodes by now. I'm sure most /.ers have stumbled across it looking for Red Dwarf or Dr. Who.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.. human rights are not the same as constitutional rights. They're not asking for the right to vote, just for the right not to have skin-care products injected into their eyeballs to see how much pain it will create. Electric shock experiments, being flayed alive.. that sort of thing. Right now, most animals have no or few protections within laboratories. They want chimps to have the same rights in these cases as humans. Then they'll move to dogs, then something else. I'm all for it, but you can see that it's just an attempt to extend animal rights, not a specific agenda to promote the biological status of chimps in particular. I'm just not ready to have my hamburgers and chicken wings taken away from me just yet.
You 'own' a chimp just like you 'own' your children. Ownership doesn't mean slavery (unless you had my parents), it just means you're responsible for their behavior.
I don't think they're talking about Constitutional Rights, in this case, but Human Rights. I.e. we don't experiment on/torture them in any way that a human wouldn't find acceptable.
Unless they're suspected of terrorism of course. Then anything goes.
So, I have an honest query for someone who seems knowledgeable about this... does this mean *all* use of AJAX is susceptible to this form of attack or just certain uses.. and in the case of the latter, then what is safe and what is not?
Don't forget Dewey Defeats Truman!. (Is it okay to reference wikipedia in this discussion? :)
It's 'news' to wikipedia supporters (i.e. much of slashdot's readers) if an event like this ends up in the Chicago Sun-Times. Sure it's not as important as a new game boy controller or something (sarcasm) but as we tally the number of times events like this happen (Siegenthaler, et al), we can see how a 'free policy' on the internet affects the real world, and how the public and politicians may react.
Also, notice how the newspaper said "Sinbad has said he has not yet received an apology from Wikipedia." Sinbad was cool with it. He didn't say he expected an apology, yet the newspaper had to imply, in a roundabout way, that Wikipedia might be expected to give an apology. If a reporter asked George Bush if he was a hermaphrodite and Bush said 'no', they could end their story on Korean diplomacy with "And George Bush has claimed that he is not a hermaphrodite," and it would imply a possibility that George Bush was a hermaphrodite. My point is, an apology from Wikipedia was not in question, but some reporter asked, and suddenly it becomes a question. I'm not being paranoid or anything, but I know lazy (or possibly biased) journalism when I see it, and I'm a little sensitive about criticism toward Wikipedia.
Yes. The MySQL book (O'Reilly, I believe) specifically says to say the letters My ESS-KEW-ELL. I just just talking to a veteran programmer (who wrote database code in the 80's) who called it Sequel. In college computer science courses, it was also called Sequel. I think that depending who your talking to, you can change the pronunciation.
Here's how I understand it: BeanShell was created as a 'command-line Java' useful in debugging purposes but pointless for actual development. Probably the same case is true for whatever Dynamic Java is. JPython is great, but you can't call JPython from Java, only the other way around. You'd naturally prefer to be able to call the scripting language from Java, because Java is a great language for defining the structure of a program and tedious for most coding.
I believe, but am not certain, that Groovy solves these problems. That is, you can call it from Java. I should hope that it also allows first-class functions and other niceties found in dynamic languages.
Hmm.. good information. Now it comes down to: is information published onto the internet, by default, public-domain or copyrighted? Also, is it published for a 'bot' audience? The copyright notice on the bottom of most pages is only, for practical purposes, human readable. You would be tempted to say that if a bot 'sees' it and infringes it, then the bot's owner is responsible, but then again, search engines are a huge part of what makes the web useful. There really ought to be a simple set of standard laws and protocols for managing content dissemination; that is, something as fundamental as Html. It would solve a lot of problems before they start instead of waiting for organizations (like the RIAA, for example) to overstep their boundaries.
First, Google cache has a legitimate purpose.. when it finds a matching page and the page has dynamic content, the text you searched for may not be there when you click on the link, so you have to check the cache to see what the match was referencing... this happens a lot on blogs and html versions of newsgroups or mailing lists. If you can't find the original text you're going to go somewhere else, so this is beneficial to all.
Now, in order for content to be cached by Google, it has to be accessible to the webcrawler. This means it was available for free at some point, or the developers allowed special access for the webcrawler to index it (e.g. Salon.com). Either way, any half-way coherent developer knows that when the content is made pay-per-view, the cache is going to contain the content for some time. If they're still allowing it to be searched by bots and not giving access to humans, then screw them; They're going to extra effort to assist search engine code to infringe their copyrights.
There's no legislation in place, as far as I know, as to when caches must be cleared after access privileges change. Who's fault is this? Google's?
True, there is copyright infringment going on, but it's usually for the benefit of the public and the copyright holder, as per my first paragraph. A lawsuit would only open the door for more lawsuits and be at a general disadvantage for users of the internet. Instead of allowing the lawsuit, they could impose stricter guidelines on how webpages communicate with search engines. Meta-tags could state explicitly when searching must stop on the page in question and hence when caches must be cleared, or if publicly viewable caches are allowed at all.
Maybe Belgium should sue the w3c?
The threat of violence is certainly a factor, but American society has been PC-ized (for better or worse) to the point where it can only make fun of itself. No minority group (except, mysteriously, midgets and, of course, homosexuals) need worry about turning on the television and facing criticism for their differences. We publicly make fun of Christians because the U.S. status quo is overwhelmingly Christian. Christian attitudes as derived from the traditional interpretation of the gospels (love thy neighbor, etc as opposed to the new warfaring Jesus) prevail especially among the Left, which comprises most of the U.S. minority sects, including athiests. Comedy Central probably felt more of an obligation toward this unstated PC 'social contract' than a genuine fear of being beheaded.
If you're walking across the street playing a gameboy or watching tv, then you're just dumb.
Yes, the trend is you have shitty taste in music. Try reading Pitchforkmedia, Cokemachineglow or MetaCritic and purchasing some of their recommendations. You may strike out a couple times but once you find out what kind of stuff you like, you'll be able to cross-reference it on Amazon and Allmusic and discover more stuff. You'll be amazed at how much incredible stuff is out there.
I know a lot of people who find music with Last.fm. A lot of people I know listen to KEXP (from our good friend Paul Allen's Experience Music Project in Seattle, but nonetheless strongly independant) streams, which is a good deal more eclectic than most radio. By comparison I know few people who listen to the radio (for music) when it's not playing in a collective setting, like at their workplace. Personally, music reviews, cross-referenced on Amazon and allmusic.com, have helped me immensely and accounts for about %99 of my purchases.
All but two stores in the popular Tower Records chain just went out of business. They still have online sales, but I'm sure there's a lot of retail employees that lost their jobs.
Obviously, their mistake is in not raising prices to cover their losses. Maybe if they raised their prices high enough all the illegal downloaders would realize what a mistake they've made and start buying their music.
The definition of 'thief' is so flimsy in this kid's case, it probably doesn't matter whether he's innocent or not. It's easy enough to teach an 11-yo kid not to take things out of retail stores without paying, but to convince an 11-yo (whose mother can barely turn on a computer) that certain bits and bytes are covered under intellectual property laws is far more difficult, especially when a lot of clear-headed adults can't even be convinced. I say he's got a pretty good case. Leave the 11-year-olds alone. How are they going to come up with $16 for a CD anyway?
All true, but I guess my point is that when the cost of sampling an album is less, then myself and probably most people will stop looking for ways to circumvent the laws. Personally, in this case it would seem kind of pathetic to circumvent the laws when you can obey it for $2 a listen or $8 an album.