You demonstrate the point. That you, as a BYU alumnus, would respond to defend Ralph Yarro was perfect, while ultimately ignoring the moral dimension of his actions, which are clearly on the record. I do not think getting close enough to feel the mesmerizing effect he apparently radiates for the likes of you would make a difference to me. I see plenty of people like him.
At BYU, obviously, any mention of sex or anything aligned against the prejudices of the hierarchy (anti-war? anti proposition 8?) is immorality in the extreme while extreme fraud and dishonesty of the worst sort that Ralph or any other of the Gods of the community is guilty of don't even register as being fundamentally evil in character. BYU and Mormondom are by no means the only place this is true, but they come up frequently enough. Your complete lack of morality is obvious to most everyone else. You all love a good fraud, as long as those involved pay monies to the church. How dare anyone bring this up when you are promoting your God-given right to force censorship on others. How noble that you gave Ralph a hard time over his actions with respect to Linux, the Nordas, etc. You sure showed him!
The top person behind CP80 is Ralph Yarro, of Canopy / SCO / etc. fame, who tried to defraud the Nordas, IBM, Novell, the creators of Linux, etc. He has no ethics whatsoever, but in his book, banning content that he deems not fit for you is completely appropriate.
These people are technically ignorant, and want to gain by enforcing their new laws what no voluntary-based action of good intent would win them. Ignorant lawsuits, and ignorant laws, not created with a modicum of thought or sympathy for anyone besides the profit in becoming the gateway to control the internet and tax and regulate everything according to their "morals". Never mind that he could just as easily set up some port besides 80 with a technology that enabled whatever degree of filtering he wanted and people who agreed with him could move to that port and technology, but he is a dictator and a fraud at heart.
There are plenty of people in Utah and especially at Brighan Young University (where real dissent is not tolerated) who will blindly follow and greatly praise such a person, both for putting a lid on internet-style free thought, and also in the same breath for trying to eliminate Linux, that hotbed of hackerdom, people who don't know that Windows is what is good for them. As much as they claim to respect your freedom on other ports, don't believe them.
HTML forms is not DOM, Javascript, or the bulk of web applications, nor am I aware of significant support of XForms from any browser vendor. Deficiencies in DOM would have nothing to do with XForms. Interesting, though, how HTML5, too, was mostly forced to occur outside of W3C and the participants were, to the extent I know of, browser people. Is a pattern emerging?
You were 100% right on the deficiencies of the DOM. Sorry I can't spell it out for you. Since W3C participants sign a non-disclosure, speculate for yourself why, and as a clue you have the advantage of seeing exactly what Microsoft is doing to Javascript through ECMA and seeing how they would just like those troublesome browsers to go away due to their neglect.
Were all the bright browser vendors previously at the W3C working on DOM and related standards just too stupid to see that DOM had deficiencies with respect to good web applications? Did they all just lose interest? If you think that, you haven't looked very hard.
Talk to someone who knows the inside story and can tell you (because you work for the same company and can discuss what happens at W3C) what happened to the DOM committee and vigorous efforts to add modules, cleanup, or take other actions to solve precisely those deficiencies at W3C.
Hint. For the sake of argument, assume Microsoft owns W3C control to some extend the same way they own ECMA (now obviously after.net, OOXML, and Javascript subversive actions).
Netscape went with ECMA early on and got good results standardizing Javascript. Since that time ECMA whole-sale sold out to Microsoft. Ask any normal party that has been involved and I think you will get the same answer. They are to be blamed for not only this Javascript failure, but for the whole OOXML fiasco. Microsoft went there with a single goal in mind: to block Javascript to allow their own.net-related standards to become relevant, which they get rubber-stamped through ECMA.
To a lesser degree, W3C has also sold out to Microsoft in their efforts to sell SOAP, deemphasize all the web standards Microsoft does not want to be important so, for example, they don't have to waste effort competing in the browser wars when they think they should just forever be declared the winner without having to do anything that benefits the web in general.
Should Javascript be the defacto standard on the web? Only in so far as it is useful. Like anything else on the web, if it ceases being useful, people will build a new path and do something else (whatwg, anyone?). But it is silly to call it useful or not useful based upon Microsoft/ECMA blocking the way. It sounds to me like there is some good work going on inspite of the monopolist blocade. I would hate to never see it come to light because of the many formal committees that sold out to Microsoft.
I love competition and would love to see something an order of magnitude better take over and rule the day, but that should be based upon technical merit and competing against the current success, ubiquity, and any irreparable flaws of Javascript.
I have every confidence that as ECMA continues to be paid to make good things irrelevant and bad things relevant, other standards organizations, which may start out being ad-hoc, will rise up to fill the void, and Microsoft will continue being irrelevant to those they do not own until they can really come up with something generally useful as a standard.
Sell out. Patenting the ideas is going to cost you time and money, whereas if they are truly worth the attention of the 'evil corporations' you stand to make a substantial gains from making them available to a company with the required resources to put them to use.
OK so far...
Around here a higher than average subset adhere to strange personal religions that financial benefit from your own ingenuity is somehow immoral, and that the world is better off if real companies can't use these ideas and make them a practical reality (but that's ok, some guy sitting in his parents basement will knock off a buggy implementation in 10 years time, for freeeeeee man). You decide which of these outcomes you would rather see.
Now the idiocy is starting to show. Most people on slashdot make their living by making their ideas available to others for money and being happy that they can.
The moral question, which either you choose to distort or has just eluded you is whether it is moral to use the patent system in the way it exists today. This is similar to other moral questions such as whether it is moral to dump radioactive waste into a river, sell your children into slavery, profit from fraud, etc.
Whether you work with a corporation to patent something or try to do it yourself, you will likely get screwed out of any real profit, and be a tool in the hands of others for proliferating monopoly and stopping others from using their own brain and ideas even in ways which were not at all benefiting from your work. That is how patents work, and that is why many try to derive their incomes without being part of the corrupt patent system, selling their ideas and inventive capacity without insisting on government subsidy/monopoly grants to profit from them.
MIDI files can be found for just about every equally-tempered piece of music you can think of, and it would be very interesting to see what they "look" like.
Sadly, only for those in 12ET supported well by Midi. It would be nice to see how this math facilitate more-intelligent translation into alternative ET scales. I always wanted to try 53 ET, myself.
I know a number of businesses and private people who use Open Office every day exchanging documents with others without a hitch, whereas I have never heard of anyone who gave it up because it was huge, buggy, or had difficulty using other formats.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but Open Office is a very beautiful thing for everyone I know personally who has ever tried it.
This is just another way of Microsoft getting everything they want with no real influence by others, which is pretty much what has happened for some time now at W3C with many important standards. Look to W3C to relax their requirements further. No one with any sense wants the de-facto MS document standard to become a recommendation. We already have that. It will be telling to see what kind of patent declarations come out of it.
This kind of behaviour is reprehensible. If you wanted to let EBay know they have a security problem, tell them, anonomously if you must, but posting other peoples indentifying information is like shooting an automatic weapon into a crowd of innocent people. I think along with fines, restrictions and imprisonment, spanking should be added to the list of punishments for this type of behavior.
It is EBay's behavior that is reprehensible. We have no evidence whether or not the person tried to tell EBay, but, based on my experience, EBay would do nothing whatsoever about it, other than perhaps try to harass the person who tried to report it. So how else should someone let people know how reprehensible EBay's so-called security is, not to mention their many other policies allowing customers to be abused by merchants?
Fortunately for EBay, there are a great many fools left who continue to use their service
Obviously stripping copyright is wrong and stripping out license terms is wrong in this case, if it was not allowed for, but often multiple licenses instruct you to strip out the inapplicable licenses to avoid just this sort of confusion.
That was the point. How can you expect ethical behavior from employees when the super-citizen corporations are designed to do whatever evil is profitable, and the most successful (profitable) examples are those with the worst behaviors.
There is no question that Microsoft does not have any respectable ethics as a corporation (employees are expected to do whatever is perceived to be profitable for them in money and power, especially in the short term), and their behaviour could be seen as exhibiting a greater influence by leadership than SCO's on the broader industry.
There are a variety of digital timestamps available. Ideally you should use multiples from different sources, so it doesn't matter if some become discredited. In this article, a company compares itself to the service provided by the US Postal Service.
The mentioned services would have to be provided on a retail basis rather than commercial, as these seem to be described, but I have no reason to believe they are not.
If you choose a sufficiently-strong message digest, they do not have to sign the whole digital archive containing your data whose existence you want to prove, but only the message digest.
Disclaimer: just because this service is credible to those understanding the theory, doesn't mean it will automatically be credible to a court, but I think a court established to hear technical issues could hear a good witness testify to the unforgeability and probably be convinced that it constituted proof. Although you might want to also do the more-traditional thing with the stamp that judges are used to seeing, too.
In a nutshell, you seem to believe that I shouldn't have a right to use any idea, however original, if I am not going to charge a lot of money for it, and others who are going to charge a lot for it by monopolizing it should be able to prevent me from using it. This is evil, as are Apple and Google. This is against basic human rights, as I see them.
IBM says that Orrin Hatch destroyed the evidence as part of his widely-known campaign to destroy the computers of copyright infringers after he was notified by his son that IBM computers contained Unix code in violation of SCO's copyrights.
In America it is becoming Rumsfeld Youth, complete with the natural lead-in to the military.
Many such efforts at W3C, Microsoft's weapon.
on
Problems at the W3C
·
· Score: 1
Even if Microsoft greatly warps the standard to their own so-called liking, do not expect them to live by them. Their own distortions of the standard become the very things they ridicule in public and use as reasons to reject/violate standards.
More of these desired standards to not occur precisely because to Microsoft it is a weapon, and we wind up working on silly things to displace more-legitimate web standard undertakings. What will SOAP ever do for anyone?
No exposed breasts, but all the violence you want. Why is "kill" or "murderer" or "liar" not a swear word and killing and lying not more shocking to the American mainstream. It carries over into their public life as well, supporting wars of agression killing hundreds of thousands, and continuing them on past the point of obvious failure so that the soldiers who fought didn't do it for nothing, but being shocked at other indescressions that involve far less moral evil.
I am an American, but mainstream morality of the Christian Wrong rings very hollow. I support the right to edit, but it stems from Religious (not moral) positions that often do not resemble any reasonable sense of morality. Hearing the 'F' word or 'bitch' does nothing to diminish the morality of myself or my children, any more than my wife showing her face without a Burqa does. But in either case, people who try to use religions to define morality will object strongly, so it should be their right to adapt content to suit their religions.
Either that, or America is an enormously immoral nation for allowing women to show their faces in movies. I believe even early Christianity had similar (not identical) rules of moral behavior for women covering themselves and so on, and their list of swear words was probably of a completely different nature, as it also varies from language to language and also permits alternative ways of saying the same thing, which just don't have the "offensive" tag. It is dictated by the traditions of particular religions and groups, having little to do with morality. As America increases in diversity, do you want to restrict the cultural definition of "morality" to be the subset of what is allowed by all participating groups, each of which can make a good case for their choices? You go do it yourself, but don't expect me to believe it has any significant correlation with morality.
It is cute to see you referring to "The 'F' word" as though it is unspeakable, but using the word "screwed" which has a nearly-identical slang meaning and usage, where "screw" means "fuck" and "screwed" means exactly "fucked", but it doesn't have quite the same derogatory tag.
In Europe, for example, exposed breasts and related swear words, etc. may be acceptable in prime time, but the violence makes many action films that would slide past "Clean Flicks" completely unacceptable and not even obtainable at the video store without heavy editing.
It is your tradition speaking, not any real defensible sense of morality.
We will continue to get very bad content. As I said before, this goes way beyond validated HTML, anyway, because most of the bad behaviors are not implemented in the parser and would not be detected by a parser, but only by a full-fledged browser paying attention to such things. If it were, webmasters would only need a validator and no browser to see that their content worked.
Slashdot Mirror
You demonstrate the point. That you, as a BYU alumnus, would respond to defend Ralph Yarro was perfect, while ultimately ignoring the moral dimension of his actions, which are clearly on the record. I do not think getting close enough to feel the mesmerizing effect he apparently radiates for the likes of you would make a difference to me. I see plenty of people like him.
At BYU, obviously, any mention of sex or anything aligned against the prejudices of the hierarchy (anti-war? anti proposition 8?) is immorality in the extreme while extreme fraud and dishonesty of the worst sort that Ralph or any other of the Gods of the community is guilty of don't even register as being fundamentally evil in character. BYU and Mormondom are by no means the only place this is true, but they come up frequently enough. Your complete lack of morality is obvious to most everyone else. You all love a good fraud, as long as those involved pay monies to the church. How dare anyone bring this up when you are promoting your God-given right to force censorship on others. How noble that you gave Ralph a hard time over his actions with respect to Linux, the Nordas, etc. You sure showed him!
The top person behind CP80 is Ralph Yarro, of Canopy / SCO / etc. fame, who tried to defraud the Nordas, IBM, Novell, the creators of Linux, etc. He has no ethics whatsoever, but in his book, banning content that he deems not fit for you is completely appropriate.
These people are technically ignorant, and want to gain by enforcing their new laws what no voluntary-based action of good intent would win them. Ignorant lawsuits, and ignorant laws, not created with a modicum of thought or sympathy for anyone besides the profit in becoming the gateway to control the internet and tax and regulate everything according to their "morals". Never mind that he could just as easily set up some port besides 80 with a technology that enabled whatever degree of filtering he wanted and people who agreed with him could move to that port and technology, but he is a dictator and a fraud at heart.
There are plenty of people in Utah and especially at Brighan Young University (where real dissent is not tolerated) who will blindly follow and greatly praise such a person, both for putting a lid on internet-style free thought, and also in the same breath for trying to eliminate Linux, that hotbed of hackerdom, people who don't know that Windows is what is good for them. As much as they claim to respect your freedom on other ports, don't believe them.
If that is the best you can do, I apologize for wasting your time.
HTML forms is not DOM, Javascript, or the bulk of web applications, nor am I aware of significant support of XForms from any browser vendor. Deficiencies in DOM would have nothing to do with XForms. Interesting, though, how HTML5, too, was mostly forced to occur outside of W3C and the participants were, to the extent I know of, browser people. Is a pattern emerging?
You were 100% right on the deficiencies of the DOM. Sorry I can't spell it out for you. Since W3C participants sign a non-disclosure, speculate for yourself why, and as a clue you have the advantage of seeing exactly what Microsoft is doing to Javascript through ECMA and seeing how they would just like those troublesome browsers to go away due to their neglect.
Were all the bright browser vendors previously at the W3C working on DOM and related standards just too stupid to see that DOM had deficiencies with respect to good web applications? Did they all just lose interest? If you think that, you haven't looked very hard.
Talk to someone who knows the inside story and can tell you (because you work for the same company and can discuss what happens at W3C) what happened to the DOM committee and vigorous efforts to add modules, cleanup, or take other actions to solve precisely those deficiencies at W3C.
Hint. For the sake of argument, assume Microsoft owns W3C control to some extend the same way they own ECMA (now obviously after .net, OOXML, and Javascript subversive actions).
Netscape went with ECMA early on and got good results standardizing Javascript. Since that time ECMA whole-sale sold out to Microsoft. Ask any normal party that has been involved and I think you will get the same answer. They are to be blamed for not only this Javascript failure, but for the whole OOXML fiasco. Microsoft went there with a single goal in mind: to block Javascript to allow their own .net-related standards to become relevant, which they get rubber-stamped through ECMA.
To a lesser degree, W3C has also sold out to Microsoft in their efforts to sell SOAP, deemphasize all the web standards Microsoft does not want to be important so, for example, they don't have to waste effort competing in the browser wars when they think they should just forever be declared the winner without having to do anything that benefits the web in general.
Should Javascript be the defacto standard on the web? Only in so far as it is useful. Like anything else on the web, if it ceases being useful, people will build a new path and do something else (whatwg, anyone?). But it is silly to call it useful or not useful based upon Microsoft/ECMA blocking the way. It sounds to me like there is some good work going on inspite of the monopolist blocade. I would hate to never see it come to light because of the many formal committees that sold out to Microsoft.
I love competition and would love to see something an order of magnitude better take over and rule the day, but that should be based upon technical merit and competing against the current success, ubiquity, and any irreparable flaws of Javascript.
I have every confidence that as ECMA continues to be paid to make good things irrelevant and bad things relevant, other standards organizations, which may start out being ad-hoc, will rise up to fill the void, and Microsoft will continue being irrelevant to those they do not own until they can really come up with something generally useful as a standard.
Sell out. Patenting the ideas is going to cost you time and money, whereas if they are truly worth the attention of the 'evil corporations' you stand to make a substantial gains from making them available to a company with the required resources to put them to use.
OK so far...
Around here a higher than average subset adhere to strange personal religions that financial benefit from your own ingenuity is somehow immoral, and that the world is better off if real companies can't use these ideas and make them a practical reality (but that's ok, some guy sitting in his parents basement will knock off a buggy implementation in 10 years time, for freeeeeee man). You decide which of these outcomes you would rather see.
Now the idiocy is starting to show. Most people on slashdot make their living by making their ideas available to others for money and being happy that they can.
The moral question, which either you choose to distort or has just eluded you is whether it is moral to use the patent system in the way it exists today. This is similar to other moral questions such as whether it is moral to dump radioactive waste into a river, sell your children into slavery, profit from fraud, etc.
Whether you work with a corporation to patent something or try to do it yourself, you will likely get screwed out of any real profit, and be a tool in the hands of others for proliferating monopoly and stopping others from using their own brain and ideas even in ways which were not at all benefiting from your work. That is how patents work, and that is why many try to derive their incomes without being part of the corrupt patent system, selling their ideas and inventive capacity without insisting on government subsidy/monopoly grants to profit from them.
MIDI files can be found for just about every equally-tempered piece of music you can think of, and it would be very interesting to see what they "look" like.
Sadly, only for those in 12ET supported well by Midi. It would be nice to see how this math facilitate more-intelligent translation into alternative ET scales. I always wanted to try 53 ET, myself.
How about objectivity?
I know a number of businesses and private people who use Open Office every day exchanging documents with others without a hitch, whereas I have never heard of anyone who gave it up because it was huge, buggy, or had difficulty using other formats.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but Open Office is a very beautiful thing for everyone I know personally who has ever tried it.
This is just another way of Microsoft getting everything they want with no real influence by others, which is pretty much what has happened for some time now at W3C with many important standards. Look to W3C to relax their requirements further. No one with any sense wants the de-facto MS document standard to become a recommendation. We already have that. It will be telling to see what kind of patent declarations come out of it.
This kind of behaviour is reprehensible. If you wanted to let EBay know they have a security problem, tell them, anonomously if you must, but posting other peoples indentifying information is like shooting an automatic weapon into a crowd of innocent people. I think along with fines, restrictions and imprisonment, spanking should be added to the list of punishments for this type of behavior.
It is EBay's behavior that is reprehensible. We have no evidence whether or not the person tried to tell EBay, but, based on my experience, EBay would do nothing whatsoever about it, other than perhaps try to harass the person who tried to report it. So how else should someone let people know how reprehensible EBay's so-called security is, not to mention their many other policies allowing customers to be abused by merchants?
Fortunately for EBay, there are a great many fools left who continue to use their service
Obviously stripping copyright is wrong and stripping out license terms is wrong in this case, if it was not allowed for, but often multiple licenses instruct you to strip out the inapplicable licenses to avoid just this sort of confusion.
That was the point. How can you expect ethical behavior from employees when the super-citizen corporations are designed to do whatever evil is profitable, and the most successful (profitable) examples are those with the worst behaviors.
Just what I have been waiting for. I want my still-suit now.
There is no question that Microsoft does not have any respectable ethics as a corporation (employees are expected to do whatever is perceived to be profitable for them in money and power, especially in the short term), and their behaviour could be seen as exhibiting a greater influence by leadership than SCO's on the broader industry.
There are a variety of digital timestamps available. Ideally you should use multiples from different sources, so it doesn't matter if some become discredited. In this article, a company compares itself to the service provided by the US Postal Service.
The mentioned services would have to be provided on a retail basis rather than commercial, as these seem to be described, but I have no reason to believe they are not.
If you choose a sufficiently-strong message digest, they do not have to sign the whole digital archive containing your data whose existence you want to prove, but only the message digest.
Disclaimer: just because this service is credible to those understanding the theory, doesn't mean it will automatically be credible to a court, but I think a court established to hear technical issues could hear a good witness testify to the unforgeability and probably be convinced that it constituted proof. Although you might want to also do the more-traditional thing with the stamp that judges are used to seeing, too.
In a nutshell, you seem to believe that I shouldn't have a right to use any idea, however original, if I am not going to charge a lot of money for it, and others who are going to charge a lot for it by monopolizing it should be able to prevent me from using it. This is evil, as are Apple and Google. This is against basic human rights, as I see them.
The name was SCOX. It was changed to SCOXE when they missed their paperwork, and then to SCOX again when they got back in good graces.
Search for scoxe to confirm.
IBM says that Orrin Hatch destroyed the evidence as part of his widely-known campaign to destroy the computers of copyright infringers after he was notified by his son that IBM computers contained Unix code in violation of SCO's copyrights.
In America it is becoming Rumsfeld Youth, complete with the natural lead-in to the military.
Even if Microsoft greatly warps the standard to their own so-called liking, do not expect them to live by them. Their own distortions of the standard become the very things they ridicule in public and use as reasons to reject/violate standards.
More of these desired standards to not occur precisely because to Microsoft it is a weapon, and we wind up working on silly things to displace more-legitimate web standard undertakings. What will SOAP ever do for anyone?
No exposed breasts, but all the violence you want. Why is "kill" or "murderer" or "liar" not a swear word and killing and lying not more shocking to the American mainstream. It carries over into their public life as well, supporting wars of agression killing hundreds of thousands, and continuing them on past the point of obvious failure so that the soldiers who fought didn't do it for nothing, but being shocked at other indescressions that involve far less moral evil.
I am an American, but mainstream morality of the Christian Wrong rings very hollow. I support the right to edit, but it stems from Religious (not moral) positions that often do not resemble any reasonable sense of morality. Hearing the 'F' word or 'bitch' does nothing to diminish the morality of myself or my children, any more than my wife showing her face without a Burqa does. But in either case, people who try to use religions to define morality will object strongly, so it should be their right to adapt content to suit their religions.
Either that, or America is an enormously immoral nation for allowing women to show their faces in movies. I believe even early Christianity had similar (not identical) rules of moral behavior for women covering themselves and so on, and their list of swear words was probably of a completely different nature, as it also varies from language to language and also permits alternative ways of saying the same thing, which just don't have the "offensive" tag. It is dictated by the traditions of particular religions and groups, having little to do with morality. As America increases in diversity, do you want to restrict the cultural definition of "morality" to be the subset of what is allowed by all participating groups, each of which can make a good case for their choices? You go do it yourself, but don't expect me to believe it has any significant correlation with morality.
It is cute to see you referring to "The 'F' word" as though it is unspeakable, but using the word "screwed" which has a nearly-identical slang meaning and usage, where "screw" means "fuck" and "screwed" means exactly "fucked", but it doesn't have quite the same derogatory tag.
In Europe, for example, exposed breasts and related swear words, etc. may be acceptable in prime time, but the violence makes many action films that would slide past "Clean Flicks" completely unacceptable and not even obtainable at the video store without heavy editing.
It is your tradition speaking, not any real defensible sense of morality.
We will continue to get very bad content. As I said before, this goes way beyond validated HTML, anyway, because most of the bad behaviors are not implemented in the parser and would not be detected by a parser, but only by a full-fledged browser paying attention to such things. If it were, webmasters would only need a validator and no browser to see that their content worked.
Doctypes do not even begin to address the issues.