I see some big problems with testing popularity this way because there is no way that I'd choose a song if it sucked. Maybe I missed the point, but isn't the idea to find out what's popular? Or are you trying to figure out how things gain popularity (without being listened to) or how the population will see if a song is any good based on previous user input?
No matter, I will hate a popular song just as much as a non-popular song if it sucks. I don't think they are testing this appropriately.
Without fail, my all-time favorite game is Dragon Warrior 4 for the NES. I may be young, but that game had such a great story! It was excellently pieced together and I felt involved.
Other great games were Final Fantasy 3, Lufia 2, and the Zelda on the SNES (whichever that one was).
Frameworks are fantastic beasts. I fear them yet I adore them at the same time. I do this with anything that I didn't write. Indeed, I moreso do this with anything that I do write!
To the point: I see a lot of people bashing the concept of frameworks and stating that you shouldn't use frameworks because it's just being lazy or that frameworks are a bad thing. I believe this negativity comes from inexperience and ignorance.
I agree, these are biting words, but consider the fact that the arguments used to support these ideas are based on incorrect assumptions and false information: thusly revealing that they know nothing about the framework(s) nor have they used them. (Either that, or they've used them incorrectly, producing a negative response! Try brushing your teeth with a hacksaw!)
Goals of various frameworks are many, with each framework focusing on something completely different. I'll consider the framework that I am currently in the process of developing as an example: this framework's goal is to provide a semi-rigid structure for web application development, with particular emphasis on separating executive logic, data logic, and interface logic. (For anyone that doesn't know right off, this is the MVC pattern.) I chose this pattern simply because it suited how I like to develop my programs and gives me the amount of flexibility I need to provide for easy ways to quickly develop and make changes, to work with teams, and to better see how my code is interacting with the flow of the program. What happens with something doesn't work? Well, I pinpoint what type of error is ocurring, then I can cut out two-thirds of the code (granted, very little code is required for the model to actually work).
I read a number of comments ago that PHP was designed without a rigid structure to provide for rapid development and flexibility. The commentor is absolutely correct, but it wasn't designed to disallow structure completely. In fact, with the blank canvas that PHP does provide, it certainly welcomes all attempts at structuring code. This is evident in its (newly-revamped) support for object oriented design as well as even basic support of functions.
Another argument that I heard levied against frameworks is that they sometimes don't support certain functionality. There are two responses for this: firstly, not every solution is perfect; secondly, some frameworks are poorly designed. Of course, the second point is just that and requires no further exploration. However, the first point must be clarified. Certainly, we all agree that there are no perfect solutions, but doesn't this seem a bit like a copout? I don't believe so: I believe that limitations from using a well-designed framework stem from a lack of understanding its design or from not having enough creative foresight to know how to use it effectively. At this point, I seriously have to ask you if this framework suites what you're trying to do.
Honestly, not every website will benefit form a framework. You have to realize this. Don't use the framework for more or less than it's intended for.
One last address: for those that think that using a framework inherently means added complexity, sometimes you're right. However, you must realize that some more complexly designed websites with intricate functionality (to a safe degree) could benefit from using frameworks just as you can benefit from using standard functions for writing quick scripts.
In my opinion, I see it as the government misusing the 'fight against terrorism' to do whatever the hell it wants to. Seriously, if it weren't for this so-called war, how do you think they could get away with spying or investigating this normally (aside from apparent excessive secret NSA observations, et al). It's this war that enables them to overstep their boundries in the name of protecting us.
Hey, America! Rape me to save the community. Thanks.
It's quite obvious that the concept of the automatic code generation done in Ruby On Rails was either not completely grasped or completely missed by the author. The whole purpose of the code being generated was to give you a basic structure to take and change until it was what you needed it to be. This is precisely why it is called 'scaffolding', because it gives you the framework to get started with.
As far as the Ruby On Rails framework itself is concerned, it is extremely capable and flexible for handling a great deal of web application projects. Of course there will be specific functionality that Ruby On Rails will not handle very well — there never are perfect solutions.
I wouldn't consider the reviewers objections completely devoid of import, just misguided. You must always be careful about anything you didn't do yourself, but you must exert the same care and attention to the stuff that you do create yourself! Often we put far too much confidence in our own coding skills.
So, in the end, the concept of Ruby On Rails is simply to alleviate the mundane, rote programming that goes into the basics, particularly the structure and minimalistic database interaction, and make it surprisingly simple.
That notion is fine and all in an ideal world, but you must understand that we're nothing close to ideal. Though it would be great for all websites to be developed using standards, forcing browsers to conform, this just isn't the case. For example, look at IE -- need I say any more?
What mankind ought to do and what we actually do aren't necessarily the same.
Just try to think outside of the ideal and into reality. Even the most creative poet must think realistically when he needs to find a pencil and paper to write his creations down on.
I love how this scientific paper merely states the absolute obvious in that scientists merely publish their perceived findings and interpretations of the data. I don't see the value or the purpose of this new paper other than to inform everybody of the obvious. 50%? It could be more or it could be less, but as far as we can tell, most are right according to our current understanding, sometimes influenced by our bias of understanding of our the world works.
I agree with you on much of what you say. You are correct in that I've started talking philosophically — I introduced a foreign element into this discussion that shouldn't have been.
Indeed, science focuses on the world around, but religion is moreso about what created this world and less so about the world itself. For this reason it is hard to give answers concerning the world when it's focus is elsewhere. Why read a book on the hammer to find out about building a house?
Christianity in our hands has not always been correct either — I think back particularly at the Catholic Indulgences, for instance. Indeed, we misunderstand and are quite mistaken often. Our understanding grows and changes quite a bit as we study the Bible (and the creation, err, if you will).
And briefly, an observation I've made — Christian devotion and faith requires a bit of a scientific approach sometimes in that we, Christians that is, observe the life of Christ as it is recorded in the Bible and deduce our theories and beliefs which we live by until we find evidence (by further study) to the contrary where we (hopefully faithfully) alter our beliefs. I hope that you see the analogy (or rather, comparison).
You are correct in the temporal sense that science has taken us further than religion, but temporal earthly progress is not always everyone's goal and definition of 'far'. This is really a moot point to argue and really goes purely into belief on each of our parts — funny, much of what we both say is this way!
I rather hope you don't think that I throw out science for religion. On the contrary, I like science quite a bit and I desire temporal progress as well. I think, however, that science is merely a tool to further my belief and to enable our society to do different things rather than a way to define life and death and existence, et al. To me, science exists because there is a God who created and designed. Again, this really relies on what I believe and I don't anticipate you to see the same way — we simply must disagree.
Ad nauseum would be the understatement for how much it's been discussed, and I'm sure we're not influencing each other in either way. I hope that maybe you see faith not as mindlessness, but I of all people am least likely to convince you of that — it's generally the best minds that keep silent in public discourse, isn't it?
I would like to say that I agree with you that religion does fall apart if you are using it for scientific purposes. However, it performs its function very well otherwise. Try to make a hammer dig a grave and you won't get far. Religion does precisely what it's for.
I must emphasize the difference of religion and faith in God. Religion is a set of beliefs but faith in God is much more. Christianity is specificly related to a savior and to grace and to love of a supreme God. When I speak of religion personally, know that I mean Christianity and not religion in general (as can confuse what I say at times).
And lastly, you are correct about scepticism and nonbalance of it — that it is a little unnerving. I do hope you don't think that I am hypersceptical about one and not the other. However, I do place my priorities differently. I apologize if I've given you the impression that I think science is bunk and that Faith will explain everything — that is most certainly not the truth for me or at all. I occasionally take on the other perspective for the arguments sake and not because its what I solely believe — this can be confusing and possibly deceiving: I don't intend for that to happen.
Thank you for this good discourse. You've given me much to think about and another good opportunity to do it.
I pray that God will bless you, regardless of your belief in Him.
I'd like to point out that Jihad is a widely misused, or at least misunderstood, term and that it probably shouldn't be here. Jihad is defensive in nature, much unlike what these terrorist networks work for. Jihad is for when the Islamic religion has been attacked by force and it is necessary to attack in defense. Anything else can not be called rightly 'Jihad.' It would be like me cracking software with some illegal crack software and calling it 'registering' or 'purchasing' software — yes, that crazy.
Just thought I'd share that little bit of the truth.
Yes, indeed, it is belief without evidence. And now look at science, it is imperfect because we cannot dare to exhaust all of the possibilities for which to test and to observe. I can observe the earth in its minute peculiarity and particularity and see a design (I know design when I see it because I make my own design). (Don't take that as an argument, that's merely personal belief which adds to my faith - it's not good enough to argue with, I grant that). So, in the end, it requires faith that what you have observed is in fact the actual results and not contrived, imagined, erroneous, or premature results. It requires faith to believe that what you have observed is precisely (or even moderately) similar to the truth of the matter.
And for the record, my faith is strengthened a good deal by what I observe in creation, in humanity, etc.
I don't know many cute girls and babies that can have rational discourse together, mainly icecream smothered goo-goos and ga-gas, from both sides.
On the other hand, your logic is entirely strange — "nobody believes in evolution because of evolution", therefore "there's no intelligent designer involved in this process." I must apologize to myself, you mankind, and even to you, for that faulty logic. You're basing a conclusion on opinion which is far from any resemblence of a proper cornerstone of logical discourse, let alone rational discourse.
I must say that this whole thing about intelligent design being bunk or not is really rather unsolveable. There are some that believe that evolution is false and that it requires faith from someone else to believe it and therefore shouldn't be taught, and those same people may believe that since we have such an organized and orderly creation (biologically, chemically, atomically, etc) that there must be some designer behind the design. On the other spectrum, we pretty much have the opposites. It's all unsolveable depending on how you work it out 'logically', slanting information your way. I don't know many people who include opposing (and substantial) evidence with their argument. At the end, it takes faith either way to believe one way — faith that evolution is true — yes, true — and faith that an intelligent design requires an intelligent being.
To this effect, it would be rather harmonious to teach both of these beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with harmony. Sure, some will argue that evolution is bunk, and some will argue that creation is bunk. Bugger them!
In my opinion, I want my children to be taught about both theories — not everything my children will learn will be factual. In fact, quite a bit of it will be subjective, circumstancial, and theoretical. What we know about this earth is changing so rapidly all of the time so that not everything can be claimed as perfect or complete or even slightly near done.
One rant, however, is that the article claims that 'intelligent design' and 'creationism' are in vogue (or en vogue to the classical) to the conservative Christians. This is wholly and inordinately wrong — many non-conservative (liberal, per se) Christians believe in creationism just the same as many non-Christian religious people. I cannot understand how the 'editors' of Slashdot will let propaganda pass like this.
Ah, but here's the flaw: you through away the computer every time you get infected, but if it takes all of twelve minutes for a Windows computer to get reinfected again, then you will simply throw out a computer every twelve minutes. As to my calculations, that's 43,680 computers a year at $400 a pop totalling $17,472,000. A bit excessive, huh?
I believe the logic is inherrently flawed - a one-time purchase of some preventative/protection software for 1/4th the cost of a machine will prevent infection (at least partially) and will keep from having to buy some 40,000 computers a year (if we followed the lame logic of the article).
My comment sounds ridiculous, right? Yeah, so does the logic in the article.
--------- AND NOW, the worst editing ever... SLASHDOT.ORG! Where editors don't even bother to read their postings first! Also, they don't know how to write!
Ah, but here's the flaw: you through away the computer every time you get infected, but if it takes all of twelve minutes for a Windows computer to get reinfected again, then you will simply throw out a computer every twelve minutes. As to my calculations, that's 43,680 computers a year at $400 a pop totalling $17,472,000. A bit excessive, huh?
I believe the logic is inherrently flawed - a one-time purchase of some preventative/protection software for 1/4th the cost of a machine will prevent infection (at least partially) and will keep from having to buy some 40,000 computers a year (if we followed the lame logic of the article).
My comment sounds ridiculous, right? Yeah, so does the logic in the article.
---------
AND NOW, the worst editing ever... SLASHDOT.ORG! Where editors don't even bother to read their postings first! Also, they don't know how to write!
Nikon made the decision to encrypt the WHITE BALANCE information, not the entire RAW file. And as a side-effect, Adobe is afraid that supporting a reverse-engineered method for decrypting this would violate the DMCA. The wording and subsequent meaning of this article does not accurately portray the reality of the situation.
Two entirely different things. There is no threat of danger if you do not sign their agreement. You SIMPLY CANNOT USE THEIR SERVICES. I am not a lawyer, but I am very keen on keeping my intellectual property protected. I am a photographer and my images are what make me money. If my clients don't agree to my contract stating that they can only use my photos under my terms then they forfeit any right to use my photos. Just because they write on the agreement that they did not read it and were forced to sign it means nothing to me or the court of law. They signed it (which shows their agreement, despite additional statements to the contrary) and must therefore be held accountable to the agreement (which, indeed, it is without a doubt).
Again, just because you write on it that you had to sign it against your wishes does not mean that, if brought before a judge, the man or woman who gave you the CDW contract would be at fault. It is the prerogative of the owner or those in charge to deny service based on their requirements. This happened to include a CDW. They are under no obligation to provide services if you do not agree to their requirements.
Furthermore, and again, just because you wrote that you had to sign it against your will does NOT make it null and void. It has to be a mutual agreement for there to be change to the written agreement for anything you write (sans signature and required fields, of course).
What kind of logic are you employing to convince yourself that you can say that you are not bound by agreement just because you wrote on the agreement that you were forced to sign it to have the services rendered? You are missing some obvious steps of process given that it's actually available!
The ability to decline is simply exercised by NOT signing and NOT using their service. It's a conditional clause: given that I agree to the conditions of the services, I am able to use their services. The conditions of the services include having a CDW and signing their form. If you are using their services, then you've agreed to their terms.
Again, writing that you were forced to sign is a moot point. There is nothing substantial about this and it bears no relevancy in a court of law.
First of all, yes, they are not agreeing. However, they are doing more than aknowledging. They are putting you UNDER an agreement with them (maybe they are agreeing; symantics, you know). Their active role is putting together the agreement and upholding it. Obviously, if you don't agree (and legally show this by NOT signing), then you do not warrant the services.
I'm glad you read practically everything... But if I read this sentence correctly, though the punctuation raises a bit of ambiguity, I see that you do NOT read EULAs and whatever "no change" agreements are. Despite taking the effort to note that you did not read it does not change the fact that you have the responsibility of living by its contents. By signing the document, you agree that you will be held accountable by any rules therein. It's as simle as that. By writing that you had not read it only wastes ink!
Also, if you make changes in non-negotiable contracts, they are null and void unless the person(s) in authority sign the changes next to your signature AT EACH ALTERATION locationor if it is rewritten, reprinted, signed by both parties, and the alterations noted. Otherwise, you claiming that these changes were made and not rejected does not hold that organization accountable because they did not specifically agree to something other than what they originally put on paper.
And please, study a little bit of punctuation.
Mt
What I'd like to see is more funding for better computer science and technology programs and even scholarships for students! Especially scholarships! You could send a lot of kids to school and help improve a lot of programs to be more linux centric and raise a generation of linux savvy grads with that kind of money.
Well, if you look at the definition you just gave, you can see that the scientific quality of the theory of evolution is a bit lacking in that it has not been repeatedly tested because it was a one-time incident. Many questions are left unanswered by this theory, many important questions. Creationism also leaves some questions left unanswered for those who do not have faith that there is a designer and creator (well, in fact, creationism is simply rediculous to those without faith).
The point is, the creationists don't want ONLY evolutionism taught in textbooks and would like for students to be emphatically informed that the theory for the beginning of the earth solely being taught in the textbook is NOT fact. Then those that believe in evolution DO. Creationists were being satisfied with not putting creationism into textbooks or taking out evolutionism and all theories for the beginnings of the earth with this simple solution called a disclaimer on a sticker.
So, it's the creationists that are being radical in wanting to be fairly represented, whereas the evolutionsists are being radical and not letting any other view be expressly taught to the students. These evolutionists are smart. It's like a racist calling "RACISM!" It's hypocritical.
Really, both theories take a bit of faith and belief because the essence of science is the observation (sometimes over time) by men. Unfortunately, men weren't around to record and observe the beginnings of this earth so we cannot know for sure scientifically.
With that in mind, calling these stickers "unconstitutional" is completely rediculous. It is simply the only way this evolutionist judge (or something to that effect) could justify the removal of these stickers. The idea that it is anti-evolutionist and pro-creationist is absurd. It is simply correcting a typo of sorts, correcting from "fact" to "theory."
Evolutionists that are happy with this, think about this: would you be happier if creationism had the same coverage in the books? Creationists: maybe you should pursue putting creationism into these science textbooks to an equal or satisfactory extent.
I think a little cooperation on both sides would do very well. Unfortunately, I think the ACLU on the one side and whatever other organization or group on the other will only be happy when they get their way completely. An utter shame.
I'm definitely all for non-crippled media, but you understand, they did that because the information is in danger of being put out over the web for free without the artists permission.
What makes an evil empire evil? Is it the impression that it's trying to keep us from stealing or allowing us to try that, or to make the most money it can? I see NOTHING wrong with them trying to protect their property to the fullest, especially if their rights to their property are being violated! Yes, they are also trying to make as much money as possible. you would too if you had some great product that would sell like crazy and could make you millions!
I know some artists that do like P2P, and have given their permission to the world to download their music... But I do know many more who would rather people listen to a clip and buy their CD. These guys are working hard and selling them themselves and need to earn the money back...
Listen, you can't tell me that most P2P users download one song, and if they like it, they buy the CD, and if not, they delete the music because they didn't pay for it. On the contrary, many people download WHOLE CDs and never pay for them. Either that or they just make copies of the CDs... If you like the band that much, buy the stinking CD!
I'm not stupid, I used to do the same thinsg and justified it the same way. Now I really do care whether it is illegal or not.
And by the way, the RIAA has good reasons to "Say so," if it protects the industries rights (they do represent the industry). Yeah, I'd say P2P were evil if it allows for blatantly illegal use! And following blindly is stupid. I never said to do that, and I sure hope you don't. I know the laws, and I can't say that they are all that great, but they are just trying to protect their good music from being stolen any more (a lot of the "crappy" stuff they are doing now is in retaliation to stealing online).
But, back to the laws... Noone ever said you had to agree to the laws... You just need to follow them until they are changed. If you don't, you put yourself at risk just for doing something so simple and stupid as downloading music that you don't own the rights to, without permission. Sometimes laws aren't perfect, but had good intentions (for whomever). Honestly, are they raping us trying to protect their goods? No, not really. Would it be so much to ask to just go to a CD shop and listen to the samples, or go to the bands website? Or listen to a friends CD (without burning it)? And THEN buy the CD? Heck, go to iTunes, etc... There are lots of samples there! Find places like MP3.com (RIP) that had tons of GREAT FREE music if you really so desire. The main pull of P2P is downloading stuff for free that would normally cost you money.
Now tell me, what's so HARD and WRONG with following the laws? You don't go killing anyone (I hope)... Speeding you might, but you shouldn't. Screw "grace period." Why is this whole generation about breaking the rules? You cry you have rights, but you screw the government that tries to uphold your rights so often, and protect others as well. Not everything is always even and clear.
OK, I admit I have different views than the majority (I'd say 99%) of Slashdot holds... But hear me out.
Someone owns the copyright to that music, whether it be the artist, the record label... Whomever. Point is, someone owns that. It's theirs. Not yours. They've agreed, for a fee, to let you have a copy of it on a CD or what-have-you. They've agreed for you, realy, to listen to that music casually (in a non-commercial way). But you must PAY for that right. If you haven't paid for that right, then you do not have that right, nor the permission of the owner, to listen to that music (in CD or digital format, etc).
If you do it anyways, without permission, you are breaking that nationally accepted and enforced LAW. I mean, you'd have a cow if your software was for sale, and some found it free online and tried it out, and then bought it, but some just used the illegal version without your permission. You want ALL of what you earned, not just part.
Sure, downloading has helped sales out in some ways... That's why many many many artists have 30 second clips for preview to get you interested (or in case of software, a 30 day trial, etc). I mean, you have permission to use that, and if you are satisfied with that, then get the rest of it.
THE POINT IS, it really IS illegal. You don't have permission to "borrow" it to see if you like it... That's like stealinga CD to see if you like it enough to pay for it.
Think about it... How would you like it to happen to you!?
It's more than just what you THINK should be right... You have laws set for a reason. Not everyone is honest enough to listen to it and then buy it. Be happy with the 30 second demo's and then buy the CDs.
Geez, ya'll are all so intelligent... Fight for something worth fighting for.
OK, I admit I have different views than the majority (I'd say 99%) of Slashdot holds... But hear me out.
Someone owns the copyright to that music, whether it be the artist, the record label... Whomever. Point is, someone owns that. It's theirs. Not yours. They've agreed, for a fee, to let you have a copy of it on a CD or what-have-you. They've agreed for you, realy, to listen to that music casually (in a non-commercial way). But you must PAY for that right. If you haven't paid for that right, then you do not have that right, nor the permission of the owner, to listen to that music (in CD or digital format, etc).
If you do it anyways, without permission, you are breaking that nationally accepted and enforced LAW. I mean, you'd have a cow if your software was for sale, and some found it free online and tried it out, and then bought it, but some just used the illegal version without your permission. You want ALL of what you earned, not just part.
Sure, downloading has helped sales out in some ways... That's why many many many artists have 30 second clips for preview to get you interested (or in case of software, a 30 day trial, etc). I mean, you have permission to use that, and if you are satisfied with that, then get the rest of it.
THE POINT IS, it really IS illegal. You don't have permission to "borrow" it to see if you like it... That's like stealinga CD to see if you like it enough to pay for it.
Think about it... How would you like it to happen to you!?
It's more than just what you THINK should be right... You have laws set for a reason. Not everyone is honest enough to listen to it and then buy it. Be happy with the 30 second demo's and then buy the CDs.
Geez, ya'll are all so intelligent... Fight for something worth fighting for.
Matt
Slashdot Mirror
I see some big problems with testing popularity this way because there is no way that I'd choose a song if it sucked. Maybe I missed the point, but isn't the idea to find out what's popular? Or are you trying to figure out how things gain popularity (without being listened to) or how the population will see if a song is any good based on previous user input?
No matter, I will hate a popular song just as much as a non-popular song if it sucks. I don't think they are testing this appropriately.
M.T.
Without fail, my all-time favorite game is Dragon Warrior 4 for the NES. I may be young, but that game had such a great story! It was excellently pieced together and I felt involved.
Other great games were Final Fantasy 3, Lufia 2, and the Zelda on the SNES (whichever that one was).
Cheers,
M.T.
Frameworks are fantastic beasts. I fear them yet I adore them at the same time. I do this with anything that I didn't write. Indeed, I moreso do this with anything that I do write!
To the point: I see a lot of people bashing the concept of frameworks and stating that you shouldn't use frameworks because it's just being lazy or that frameworks are a bad thing. I believe this negativity comes from inexperience and ignorance.
I agree, these are biting words, but consider the fact that the arguments used to support these ideas are based on incorrect assumptions and false information: thusly revealing that they know nothing about the framework(s) nor have they used them. (Either that, or they've used them incorrectly, producing a negative response! Try brushing your teeth with a hacksaw!)
Goals of various frameworks are many, with each framework focusing on something completely different. I'll consider the framework that I am currently in the process of developing as an example: this framework's goal is to provide a semi-rigid structure for web application development, with particular emphasis on separating executive logic, data logic, and interface logic. (For anyone that doesn't know right off, this is the MVC pattern.) I chose this pattern simply because it suited how I like to develop my programs and gives me the amount of flexibility I need to provide for easy ways to quickly develop and make changes, to work with teams, and to better see how my code is interacting with the flow of the program. What happens with something doesn't work? Well, I pinpoint what type of error is ocurring, then I can cut out two-thirds of the code (granted, very little code is required for the model to actually work).
I read a number of comments ago that PHP was designed without a rigid structure to provide for rapid development and flexibility. The commentor is absolutely correct, but it wasn't designed to disallow structure completely. In fact, with the blank canvas that PHP does provide, it certainly welcomes all attempts at structuring code. This is evident in its (newly-revamped) support for object oriented design as well as even basic support of functions.
Another argument that I heard levied against frameworks is that they sometimes don't support certain functionality. There are two responses for this: firstly, not every solution is perfect; secondly, some frameworks are poorly designed. Of course, the second point is just that and requires no further exploration. However, the first point must be clarified. Certainly, we all agree that there are no perfect solutions, but doesn't this seem a bit like a copout? I don't believe so: I believe that limitations from using a well-designed framework stem from a lack of understanding its design or from not having enough creative foresight to know how to use it effectively. At this point, I seriously have to ask you if this framework suites what you're trying to do.
Honestly, not every website will benefit form a framework. You have to realize this. Don't use the framework for more or less than it's intended for.
One last address: for those that think that using a framework inherently means added complexity, sometimes you're right. However, you must realize that some more complexly designed websites with intricate functionality (to a safe degree) could benefit from using frameworks just as you can benefit from using standard functions for writing quick scripts.
M.T.
In my opinion, I see it as the government misusing the 'fight against terrorism' to do whatever the hell it wants to. Seriously, if it weren't for this so-called war, how do you think they could get away with spying or investigating this normally (aside from apparent excessive secret NSA observations, et al). It's this war that enables them to overstep their boundries in the name of protecting us.
Hey, America! Rape me to save the community. Thanks.
M.T.
It's quite obvious that the concept of the automatic code generation done in Ruby On Rails was either not completely grasped or completely missed by the author. The whole purpose of the code being generated was to give you a basic structure to take and change until it was what you needed it to be. This is precisely why it is called 'scaffolding', because it gives you the framework to get started with.
As far as the Ruby On Rails framework itself is concerned, it is extremely capable and flexible for handling a great deal of web application projects. Of course there will be specific functionality that Ruby On Rails will not handle very well — there never are perfect solutions.
I wouldn't consider the reviewers objections completely devoid of import, just misguided. You must always be careful about anything you didn't do yourself, but you must exert the same care and attention to the stuff that you do create yourself! Often we put far too much confidence in our own coding skills.
So, in the end, the concept of Ruby On Rails is simply to alleviate the mundane, rote programming that goes into the basics, particularly the structure and minimalistic database interaction, and make it surprisingly simple.
M.T.
That notion is fine and all in an ideal world, but you must understand that we're nothing close to ideal. Though it would be great for all websites to be developed using standards, forcing browsers to conform, this just isn't the case. For example, look at IE -- need I say any more?
What mankind ought to do and what we actually do aren't necessarily the same.
Just try to think outside of the ideal and into reality. Even the most creative poet must think realistically when he needs to find a pencil and paper to write his creations down on.
M.T.
I love how this scientific paper merely states the absolute obvious in that scientists merely publish their perceived findings and interpretations of the data. I don't see the value or the purpose of this new paper other than to inform everybody of the obvious. 50%? It could be more or it could be less, but as far as we can tell, most are right according to our current understanding, sometimes influenced by our bias of understanding of our the world works.
Who knew!?
Uhhhh, everyone.
M.T.
Ok, is it just me or does Apple and Microsoft have anything to do with Google peaking as a company? That does not logically follow at all.
M.T.
I agree with you on much of what you say. You are correct in that I've started talking philosophically — I introduced a foreign element into this discussion that shouldn't have been.
Indeed, science focuses on the world around, but religion is moreso about what created this world and less so about the world itself. For this reason it is hard to give answers concerning the world when it's focus is elsewhere. Why read a book on the hammer to find out about building a house?
Christianity in our hands has not always been correct either — I think back particularly at the Catholic Indulgences, for instance. Indeed, we misunderstand and are quite mistaken often. Our understanding grows and changes quite a bit as we study the Bible (and the creation, err, if you will).
And briefly, an observation I've made — Christian devotion and faith requires a bit of a scientific approach sometimes in that we, Christians that is, observe the life of Christ as it is recorded in the Bible and deduce our theories and beliefs which we live by until we find evidence (by further study) to the contrary where we (hopefully faithfully) alter our beliefs. I hope that you see the analogy (or rather, comparison).
You are correct in the temporal sense that science has taken us further than religion, but temporal earthly progress is not always everyone's goal and definition of 'far'. This is really a moot point to argue and really goes purely into belief on each of our parts — funny, much of what we both say is this way!
I rather hope you don't think that I throw out science for religion. On the contrary, I like science quite a bit and I desire temporal progress as well. I think, however, that science is merely a tool to further my belief and to enable our society to do different things rather than a way to define life and death and existence, et al. To me, science exists because there is a God who created and designed. Again, this really relies on what I believe and I don't anticipate you to see the same way — we simply must disagree.
Ad nauseum would be the understatement for how much it's been discussed, and I'm sure we're not influencing each other in either way. I hope that maybe you see faith not as mindlessness, but I of all people am least likely to convince you of that — it's generally the best minds that keep silent in public discourse, isn't it?
I would like to say that I agree with you that religion does fall apart if you are using it for scientific purposes. However, it performs its function very well otherwise. Try to make a hammer dig a grave and you won't get far. Religion does precisely what it's for.
I must emphasize the difference of religion and faith in God. Religion is a set of beliefs but faith in God is much more. Christianity is specificly related to a savior and to grace and to love of a supreme God. When I speak of religion personally, know that I mean Christianity and not religion in general (as can confuse what I say at times).
And lastly, you are correct about scepticism and nonbalance of it — that it is a little unnerving. I do hope you don't think that I am hypersceptical about one and not the other. However, I do place my priorities differently. I apologize if I've given you the impression that I think science is bunk and that Faith will explain everything — that is most certainly not the truth for me or at all. I occasionally take on the other perspective for the arguments sake and not because its what I solely believe — this can be confusing and possibly deceiving: I don't intend for that to happen.
Thank you for this good discourse. You've given me much to think about and another good opportunity to do it.
I pray that God will bless you, regardless of your belief in Him.
M.T.
I'd like to point out that Jihad is a widely misused, or at least misunderstood, term and that it probably shouldn't be here. Jihad is defensive in nature, much unlike what these terrorist networks work for. Jihad is for when the Islamic religion has been attacked by force and it is necessary to attack in defense. Anything else can not be called rightly 'Jihad.' It would be like me cracking software with some illegal crack software and calling it 'registering' or 'purchasing' software — yes, that crazy.
Just thought I'd share that little bit of the truth.
M.T.
Yes, indeed, it is belief without evidence. And now look at science, it is imperfect because we cannot dare to exhaust all of the possibilities for which to test and to observe. I can observe the earth in its minute peculiarity and particularity and see a design (I know design when I see it because I make my own design). (Don't take that as an argument, that's merely personal belief which adds to my faith - it's not good enough to argue with, I grant that). So, in the end, it requires faith that what you have observed is in fact the actual results and not contrived, imagined, erroneous, or premature results. It requires faith to believe that what you have observed is precisely (or even moderately) similar to the truth of the matter.
And for the record, my faith is strengthened a good deal by what I observe in creation, in humanity, etc.
M.T.
I don't know many cute girls and babies that can have rational discourse together, mainly icecream smothered goo-goos and ga-gas, from both sides.
On the other hand, your logic is entirely strange — "nobody believes in evolution because of evolution", therefore "there's no intelligent designer involved in this process." I must apologize to myself, you mankind, and even to you, for that faulty logic. You're basing a conclusion on opinion which is far from any resemblence of a proper cornerstone of logical discourse, let alone rational discourse.
I must say that this whole thing about intelligent design being bunk or not is really rather unsolveable. There are some that believe that evolution is false and that it requires faith from someone else to believe it and therefore shouldn't be taught, and those same people may believe that since we have such an organized and orderly creation (biologically, chemically, atomically, etc) that there must be some designer behind the design. On the other spectrum, we pretty much have the opposites. It's all unsolveable depending on how you work it out 'logically', slanting information your way. I don't know many people who include opposing (and substantial) evidence with their argument. At the end, it takes faith either way to believe one way — faith that evolution is true — yes, true — and faith that an intelligent design requires an intelligent being.
To this effect, it would be rather harmonious to teach both of these beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with harmony. Sure, some will argue that evolution is bunk, and some will argue that creation is bunk. Bugger them!
In my opinion, I want my children to be taught about both theories — not everything my children will learn will be factual. In fact, quite a bit of it will be subjective, circumstancial, and theoretical. What we know about this earth is changing so rapidly all of the time so that not everything can be claimed as perfect or complete or even slightly near done.
One rant, however, is that the article claims that 'intelligent design' and 'creationism' are in vogue (or en vogue to the classical) to the conservative Christians. This is wholly and inordinately wrong — many non-conservative (liberal, per se) Christians believe in creationism just the same as many non-Christian religious people. I cannot understand how the 'editors' of Slashdot will let propaganda pass like this.
M.T.
Ah, but here's the flaw: you through away the computer every time you get infected, but if it takes all of twelve minutes for a Windows computer to get reinfected again, then you will simply throw out a computer every twelve minutes. As to my calculations, that's 43,680 computers a year at $400 a pop totalling $17,472,000. A bit excessive, huh?
I believe the logic is inherrently flawed - a one-time purchase of some preventative/protection software for 1/4th the cost of a machine will prevent infection (at least partially) and will keep from having to buy some 40,000 computers a year (if we followed the lame logic of the article).
My comment sounds ridiculous, right? Yeah, so does the logic in the article.
---------
AND NOW, the worst editing ever... SLASHDOT.ORG! Where editors don't even bother to read their postings first! Also, they don't know how to write!
Ah, but here's the flaw: you through away the computer every time you get infected, but if it takes all of twelve minutes for a Windows computer to get reinfected again, then you will simply throw out a computer every twelve minutes. As to my calculations, that's 43,680 computers a year at $400 a pop totalling $17,472,000. A bit excessive, huh? I believe the logic is inherrently flawed - a one-time purchase of some preventative/protection software for 1/4th the cost of a machine will prevent infection (at least partially) and will keep from having to buy some 40,000 computers a year (if we followed the lame logic of the article). My comment sounds ridiculous, right? Yeah, so does the logic in the article. --------- AND NOW, the worst editing ever... SLASHDOT.ORG! Where editors don't even bother to read their postings first! Also, they don't know how to write!
Nikon made the decision to encrypt the WHITE BALANCE information, not the entire RAW file. And as a side-effect, Adobe is afraid that supporting a reverse-engineered method for decrypting this would violate the DMCA. The wording and subsequent meaning of this article does not accurately portray the reality of the situation.
n cryptnef.asp
Article for reference: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05041901nikon_e
Two entirely different things. There is no threat of danger if you do not sign their agreement. You SIMPLY CANNOT USE THEIR SERVICES. I am not a lawyer, but I am very keen on keeping my intellectual property protected. I am a photographer and my images are what make me money. If my clients don't agree to my contract stating that they can only use my photos under my terms then they forfeit any right to use my photos. Just because they write on the agreement that they did not read it and were forced to sign it means nothing to me or the court of law. They signed it (which shows their agreement, despite additional statements to the contrary) and must therefore be held accountable to the agreement (which, indeed, it is without a doubt).
"at least not a good one." Hah.
Matt
Again, just because you write on it that you had to sign it against your wishes does not mean that, if brought before a judge, the man or woman who gave you the CDW contract would be at fault. It is the prerogative of the owner or those in charge to deny service based on their requirements. This happened to include a CDW. They are under no obligation to provide services if you do not agree to their requirements.
Furthermore, and again, just because you wrote that you had to sign it against your will does NOT make it null and void. It has to be a mutual agreement for there to be change to the written agreement for anything you write (sans signature and required fields, of course).
What kind of logic are you employing to convince yourself that you can say that you are not bound by agreement just because you wrote on the agreement that you were forced to sign it to have the services rendered? You are missing some obvious steps of process given that it's actually available!
The ability to decline is simply exercised by NOT signing and NOT using their service. It's a conditional clause: given that I agree to the conditions of the services, I am able to use their services. The conditions of the services include having a CDW and signing their form. If you are using their services, then you've agreed to their terms.
Again, writing that you were forced to sign is a moot point. There is nothing substantial about this and it bears no relevancy in a court of law.
Mt
First of all, yes, they are not agreeing. However, they are doing more than aknowledging. They are putting you UNDER an agreement with them (maybe they are agreeing; symantics, you know). Their active role is putting together the agreement and upholding it. Obviously, if you don't agree (and legally show this by NOT signing), then you do not warrant the services. I'm glad you read practically everything... But if I read this sentence correctly, though the punctuation raises a bit of ambiguity, I see that you do NOT read EULAs and whatever "no change" agreements are. Despite taking the effort to note that you did not read it does not change the fact that you have the responsibility of living by its contents. By signing the document, you agree that you will be held accountable by any rules therein. It's as simle as that. By writing that you had not read it only wastes ink! Also, if you make changes in non-negotiable contracts, they are null and void unless the person(s) in authority sign the changes next to your signature AT EACH ALTERATION locationor if it is rewritten, reprinted, signed by both parties, and the alterations noted. Otherwise, you claiming that these changes were made and not rejected does not hold that organization accountable because they did not specifically agree to something other than what they originally put on paper. And please, study a little bit of punctuation. Mt
What I'd like to see is more funding for better computer science and technology programs and even scholarships for students! Especially scholarships! You could send a lot of kids to school and help improve a lot of programs to be more linux centric and raise a generation of linux savvy grads with that kind of money.
Well, if you look at the definition you just gave, you can see that the scientific quality of the theory of evolution is a bit lacking in that it has not been repeatedly tested because it was a one-time incident. Many questions are left unanswered by this theory, many important questions. Creationism also leaves some questions left unanswered for those who do not have faith that there is a designer and creator (well, in fact, creationism is simply rediculous to those without faith).
The point is, the creationists don't want ONLY evolutionism taught in textbooks and would like for students to be emphatically informed that the theory for the beginning of the earth solely being taught in the textbook is NOT fact. Then those that believe in evolution DO. Creationists were being satisfied with not putting creationism into textbooks or taking out evolutionism and all theories for the beginnings of the earth with this simple solution called a disclaimer on a sticker.
So, it's the creationists that are being radical in wanting to be fairly represented, whereas the evolutionsists are being radical and not letting any other view be expressly taught to the students. These evolutionists are smart. It's like a racist calling "RACISM!" It's hypocritical.
Really, both theories take a bit of faith and belief because the essence of science is the observation (sometimes over time) by men. Unfortunately, men weren't around to record and observe the beginnings of this earth so we cannot know for sure scientifically.
With that in mind, calling these stickers "unconstitutional" is completely rediculous. It is simply the only way this evolutionist judge (or something to that effect) could justify the removal of these stickers. The idea that it is anti-evolutionist and pro-creationist is absurd. It is simply correcting a typo of sorts, correcting from "fact" to "theory."
Evolutionists that are happy with this, think about this: would you be happier if creationism had the same coverage in the books? Creationists: maybe you should pursue putting creationism into these science textbooks to an equal or satisfactory extent.
I think a little cooperation on both sides would do very well. Unfortunately, I think the ACLU on the one side and whatever other organization or group on the other will only be happy when they get their way completely. An utter shame.
Matt
I for one don't really appreciate Microsoft insulting my hometown like that. Atlanta is a great city! Don't trash it, Microsoft!
(Sorry, had to... Not a big fan of MS... BIG fan of my city!)
I'm definitely all for non-crippled media, but you understand, they did that because the information is in danger of being put out over the web for free without the artists permission.
What makes an evil empire evil? Is it the impression that it's trying to keep us from stealing or allowing us to try that, or to make the most money it can? I see NOTHING wrong with them trying to protect their property to the fullest, especially if their rights to their property are being violated! Yes, they are also trying to make as much money as possible. you would too if you had some great product that would sell like crazy and could make you millions!
I know some artists that do like P2P, and have given their permission to the world to download their music... But I do know many more who would rather people listen to a clip and buy their CD. These guys are working hard and selling them themselves and need to earn the money back...
Listen, you can't tell me that most P2P users download one song, and if they like it, they buy the CD, and if not, they delete the music because they didn't pay for it. On the contrary, many people download WHOLE CDs and never pay for them. Either that or they just make copies of the CDs... If you like the band that much, buy the stinking CD!
I'm not stupid, I used to do the same thinsg and justified it the same way. Now I really do care whether it is illegal or not.
And by the way, the RIAA has good reasons to "Say so," if it protects the industries rights (they do represent the industry). Yeah, I'd say P2P were evil if it allows for blatantly illegal use! And following blindly is stupid. I never said to do that, and I sure hope you don't. I know the laws, and I can't say that they are all that great, but they are just trying to protect their good music from being stolen any more (a lot of the "crappy" stuff they are doing now is in retaliation to stealing online).
But, back to the laws... Noone ever said you had to agree to the laws... You just need to follow them until they are changed. If you don't, you put yourself at risk just for doing something so simple and stupid as downloading music that you don't own the rights to, without permission. Sometimes laws aren't perfect, but had good intentions (for whomever). Honestly, are they raping us trying to protect their goods? No, not really. Would it be so much to ask to just go to a CD shop and listen to the samples, or go to the bands website? Or listen to a friends CD (without burning it)? And THEN buy the CD? Heck, go to iTunes, etc... There are lots of samples there! Find places like MP3.com (RIP) that had tons of GREAT FREE music if you really so desire. The main pull of P2P is downloading stuff for free that would normally cost you money.
Now tell me, what's so HARD and WRONG with following the laws? You don't go killing anyone (I hope)... Speeding you might, but you shouldn't. Screw "grace period." Why is this whole generation about breaking the rules? You cry you have rights, but you screw the government that tries to uphold your rights so often, and protect others as well. Not everything is always even and clear.
Sincerely,
Matt
OK, I admit I have different views than the majority (I'd say 99%) of Slashdot holds... But hear me out.
Someone owns the copyright to that music, whether it be the artist, the record label... Whomever. Point is, someone owns that. It's theirs. Not yours. They've agreed, for a fee, to let you have a copy of it on a CD or what-have-you. They've agreed for you, realy, to listen to that music casually (in a non-commercial way). But you must PAY for that right. If you haven't paid for that right, then you do not have that right, nor the permission of the owner, to listen to that music (in CD or digital format, etc).
If you do it anyways, without permission, you are breaking that nationally accepted and enforced LAW. I mean, you'd have a cow if your software was for sale, and some found it free online and tried it out, and then bought it, but some just used the illegal version without your permission. You want ALL of what you earned, not just part.
Sure, downloading has helped sales out in some ways... That's why many many many artists have 30 second clips for preview to get you interested (or in case of software, a 30 day trial, etc). I mean, you have permission to use that, and if you are satisfied with that, then get the rest of it.
THE POINT IS, it really IS illegal. You don't have permission to "borrow" it to see if you like it... That's like stealinga CD to see if you like it enough to pay for it.
Think about it... How would you like it to happen to you!?
It's more than just what you THINK should be right... You have laws set for a reason. Not everyone is honest enough to listen to it and then buy it. Be happy with the 30 second demo's and then buy the CDs.
Geez, ya'll are all so intelligent... Fight for something worth fighting for.
Matt
OK, I admit I have different views than the majority (I'd say 99%) of Slashdot holds... But hear me out. Someone owns the copyright to that music, whether it be the artist, the record label... Whomever. Point is, someone owns that. It's theirs. Not yours. They've agreed, for a fee, to let you have a copy of it on a CD or what-have-you. They've agreed for you, realy, to listen to that music casually (in a non-commercial way). But you must PAY for that right. If you haven't paid for that right, then you do not have that right, nor the permission of the owner, to listen to that music (in CD or digital format, etc). If you do it anyways, without permission, you are breaking that nationally accepted and enforced LAW. I mean, you'd have a cow if your software was for sale, and some found it free online and tried it out, and then bought it, but some just used the illegal version without your permission. You want ALL of what you earned, not just part. Sure, downloading has helped sales out in some ways... That's why many many many artists have 30 second clips for preview to get you interested (or in case of software, a 30 day trial, etc). I mean, you have permission to use that, and if you are satisfied with that, then get the rest of it. THE POINT IS, it really IS illegal. You don't have permission to "borrow" it to see if you like it... That's like stealinga CD to see if you like it enough to pay for it. Think about it... How would you like it to happen to you!? It's more than just what you THINK should be right... You have laws set for a reason. Not everyone is honest enough to listen to it and then buy it. Be happy with the 30 second demo's and then buy the CDs. Geez, ya'll are all so intelligent... Fight for something worth fighting for. Matt
Wow, last post :-)
John 3:3 - [Jesus Christ] must increase; I must decrease.