I agree. I switched away from GoDaddy a few years ago, back when they started working with Microsoft to artificially inflate IIS's market share. I moved all of my domains to 1 if I still had any domains on GoDaddy, I would be in the process of switching away right now.
I'd like to know in what year you managed to complete four years of college for 15 to 20 thousand dollars.
I got my CIS BS degree from Southwest Missouri State University (now Missouri State University) in 1999, and my total loan debt was $18K. While the total cost of my university education was probably close to $40K, there were a few ways I drastically reduced my debt:
1) I lived with my parents, and commuted to school. This is the #1 way I reduced my expenses. No rent, and no food and utility bills.
2) I got a Pell grant every semester. This provided me with the cash I needed for my personal expenses (phone, daily lunch on campus, and car maintenance).
3) Took loans for tuition, student fees, and books ONLY.
Four and a half years to finish my degree, and $18K of debt. It seems like a long time ago that I paid off my loans, but I think I paid on them for seven years on a ten year term, after deferring payments (due to unemployment) for the first year after graduation.
H&M's spokesman said that there were no real people used, and that the models are, indeed, total 3D computer models. The claim is that these are not real women touched up with Photoshop. These are 100% computer generated images.
I have a hard time believing it's true, but it's damned impressive if it is. Best CGI ever.
Slashdot has had many stories of well-meaning hackers trying to save companies from themselves, only to wind up being the target of federal and/or state prosecutors rather than being considered a good Samaritan.
Here's my advice:
1) Stop violating federal and state laws. You've just confessed to the world that you are committing federal and state felonies. Stop being a criminal.
2) Walk away while you still can, and maybe you'll still have a life to live free of federal and/or state prosecution.
And with recent Oracle v. Google rulings that APIs and headers are copyright and cannot be used without a license....
You're jumping the gun, as there hasn't been any such ruling; and there probably will never be. Headers have always been considered a functional necessity, and not copyrightable per-se.
While I think the article is just a slashvertisement for Apple, I have to disagree about the usefulness of voice recognition. Food Mill (my Android shopping app) is significantly faster to use with voice input than with manual input. The only reason I don't use voice input more often is that it isn't always available. Sometimes the voice recognizer works, but it frequently will error out with an inability to connect. Since I don't have time to switch back and forth between voice and manual input, I just use Swype to enter new data.
If voice input were reliably available, I would use it way more than I do now.
I tried putting a client on CentOS 5, and it was a disaster. EVERY Qt or KDE program randomly crashed on startup (sometimes it would run, sometimes it would crash), but there was no rhyme or reason to it. After limping along this way for a few months, they insisted that I do something. I removed CentOS, and replaced it with Kubuntu. Not a single problem since.
CentOS had demonstrated very poor quality controls, so I decided to stop using it. For customers with 3rd-party software that must run on only officially approved distributions (which boils down to Redhat) such as Oracle or ESRI, I use RHEL. For everyone else, I use Kubuntu. CentOS will likely never see another installation on any server I manage.
The judge prevented Google from redacting the "smoking gun" email where the founder of Android (which Google bought) is quoted saying, that, yes, in fact, Android does infringe on Java....
It says nothing of the sort. It says that all the alternatives to Java that they considered sucked, and it would be better to license Java than to consider the alternatives.
That statement says absolutely nothing about the quality of what constitutes a Java license, and can be interpreted in a number of ways. Since at least one of those possible interpretations is damaging to Google (while most are benign), it made sense to try eliminating it from evidence. It makes sense to eliminate as much as possible of your opponent's evidence before going to court. However, it should be easy to neuter its usefulness to Oracle by focusing on the benign interpretations of that letter.
I expect this to have almost no impact, if Google's attorneys are not asleep at the wheel.
Linux already has two major alternatives to VirtualBox built in (KVM and Xen).
And both of those "alternatives" are stinking, rotting donkey turds from and end-user perspective. VirtualBox is VERY easy to get up and running, while both KVM and Xen are terribly complex (with the latter being almost pointless). From any sane perspective, VirtualBox is the only viable Open Source virtualization software for Linux.
I tried getting my company running on KVM, but gave up after days of frustration.
Xen is a non-starter since it requires the OS to be specifically modified.
It took me all of half an hour to do all the research I needed to get VirtualBox installed and running. My company, and my company's clients, are using VirtualBox.
So yes, VirtualBox is far more important than any other virtualization system for Linux. Maybe if the KVM developers made it user-friendly, it would obsolete VirtualBox. But KVM isn't anywhere even remotely close.
We already have privacy protection for mobile devices: the U.S. Constitution.
The legislature has done only half its job in this case. The final step in the correct procedure is to impeach the judges that are ignoring the 4th Amendment. That's what impeachment is for. These judges swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they are clearly and unambiguously violating that pledge.
I can't hardly blame someone with a potentially world altering invention wanting to keep it under wraps for as long as possible.
then...
Yeah, it's against the open source ethos, but it's also how reality works for 99% of the people out there; you don't give your work away for free.
then...
Quite frankly, this would be the exact kind of invention that the patent system works for....
You are trying to argue both sides of the fence here. If you had a potentially world-altering invention, you would be racing to the patent office at each stage of the invention to prevent competition. That is how is works for 99% of the people out there. Otherwise, you would eventually be giving your work away for free.
So where are the patents? If there are no patents, and this thing (through some miracle) is legitimate, then it is now ripe for someone else to swoop in and patent it (first to file wins; former publication, which this would qualify as, is mostly irrelevant nowadays). That would make this guy the dumbest inventor on Earth.
So yes, this is 99.9999999999% certain to be a scam.
This is classic Government-Think: destroying the village in order to save it.
It's disgusting.
Protecting our children from predators is in everyone's best interest, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the Constitution; but when we need to protect our children from their protectors, we have gone too far.
OMG! The USPTO actually denied something? Maybe Apple should have tried patenting multi-touch "with a computer," seeing as that phrase is the secret pass code for getting a patent on otherwise unpatentable trivialities.
You're better off using a legitimate server (Verizon, Gmail, your hosting provider, whatever) to send those messages.
My mail server is a legitimate server. What the hell makes Verizon, Gmail, or my hosting provider any more legitimate than me? Because they're big companies? Whoopdeefuckingdoo. My company is incorporated, and legally operating in my state. That makes my mail server as legitimate as anyone else's.
Even if I didn't run my mail off of my own Internet connection, requiring email to be gatewayed through a chosen few high priests is a bad, bad, bad idea from any perspective. Any significant collection of power will ALWAYS result in an equally significant abuse of that power. History does not have a single example to the contrary.
Why on earth don't they invest the same time and money they did coming up with the goddamn things in the first place to develop a better technology to make the damn things scale better?
Because you keep giving them your money with the technology they already have. What incentive are you giving them to improve?
You cannot do this with object oriented programming
This is done all the time with object oriented programming. Perhaps what you meant to say is that you can't do this with object oriented languages that hide pointer arithmetic. That would be true. It would also be true that you can't do it with procedural languages that hide pointer arithmetic.
Why can't open source be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory? All of those adjectives apply to any open source license better than they apply to any proprietary license.
Yes, but that is not what FRAND means. That term is like The People's Republic of China -- an inversion of meaning. Here is what it actually means:
Fair -- you pay us as much as we want. That's fair, right? Reasonable -- isn't it reasonable to pay us whatever we want? And -- there's more coming, so bend over. Non-Discriminatory -- we're going to make everyone else pay through the nose, so what makes you so special?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I switched away from GoDaddy a few years ago, back when they started working with Microsoft to artificially inflate IIS's market share. I moved all of my domains to 1 if I still had any domains on GoDaddy, I would be in the process of switching away right now.
This just proves that I made the right choice.
Before GTK, the license restrictions around mosaic were incredible.
Did you mean Motif, rather than Mosaic?
Mark Zuckerberg is creepy. But then, so is Mark Zuckerberg.
I'd like to know in what year you managed to complete four years of college for 15 to 20 thousand dollars.
I got my CIS BS degree from Southwest Missouri State University (now Missouri State University) in 1999, and my total loan debt was $18K. While the total cost of my university education was probably close to $40K, there were a few ways I drastically reduced my debt:
1) I lived with my parents, and commuted to school. This is the #1 way I reduced my expenses. No rent, and no food and utility bills.
2) I got a Pell grant every semester. This provided me with the cash I needed for my personal expenses (phone, daily lunch on campus, and car maintenance).
3) Took loans for tuition, student fees, and books ONLY.
Four and a half years to finish my degree, and $18K of debt. It seems like a long time ago that I paid off my loans, but I think I paid on them for seven years on a ten year term, after deferring payments (due to unemployment) for the first year after graduation.
It's an internal app so just have the app log everything that the user does in that app.
This has been the single most effective thing I've done to make it possible to reproduce bugs within my apps.
Then...the dev team can pull the logs from that machine....
I log everything to a PostgreSQL database, but the idea is the same.
H&M's spokesman said that there were no real people used, and that the models are, indeed, total 3D computer models. The claim is that these are not real women touched up with Photoshop. These are 100% computer generated images.
I have a hard time believing it's true, but it's damned impressive if it is. Best CGI ever.
Slashdot has had many stories of well-meaning hackers trying to save companies from themselves, only to wind up being the target of federal and/or state prosecutors rather than being considered a good Samaritan.
Here's my advice:
1) Stop violating federal and state laws. You've just confessed to the world that you are committing federal and state felonies. Stop being a criminal.
2) Walk away while you still can, and maybe you'll still have a life to live free of federal and/or state prosecution.
And with recent Oracle v. Google rulings that APIs and headers are copyright and cannot be used without a license....
You're jumping the gun, as there hasn't been any such ruling; and there probably will never be. Headers have always been considered a functional necessity, and not copyrightable per-se.
While I think the article is just a slashvertisement for Apple, I have to disagree about the usefulness of voice recognition. Food Mill (my Android shopping app) is significantly faster to use with voice input than with manual input. The only reason I don't use voice input more often is that it isn't always available. Sometimes the voice recognizer works, but it frequently will error out with an inability to connect. Since I don't have time to switch back and forth between voice and manual input, I just use Swype to enter new data.
If voice input were reliably available, I would use it way more than I do now.
I tried putting a client on CentOS 5, and it was a disaster. EVERY Qt or KDE program randomly crashed on startup (sometimes it would run, sometimes it would crash), but there was no rhyme or reason to it. After limping along this way for a few months, they insisted that I do something. I removed CentOS, and replaced it with Kubuntu. Not a single problem since.
CentOS had demonstrated very poor quality controls, so I decided to stop using it. For customers with 3rd-party software that must run on only officially approved distributions (which boils down to Redhat) such as Oracle or ESRI, I use RHEL. For everyone else, I use Kubuntu. CentOS will likely never see another installation on any server I manage.
The judge prevented Google from redacting the "smoking gun" email where the founder of Android (which Google bought) is quoted saying, that, yes, in fact, Android does infringe on Java....
It says nothing of the sort. It says that all the alternatives to Java that they considered sucked, and it would be better to license Java than to consider the alternatives.
That statement says absolutely nothing about the quality of what constitutes a Java license, and can be interpreted in a number of ways. Since at least one of those possible interpretations is damaging to Google (while most are benign), it made sense to try eliminating it from evidence. It makes sense to eliminate as much as possible of your opponent's evidence before going to court. However, it should be easy to neuter its usefulness to Oracle by focusing on the benign interpretations of that letter.
I expect this to have almost no impact, if Google's attorneys are not asleep at the wheel.
I guess I won't sell my Hummer just yet.
And in just 65 million years, you'll be able to put gas in it.
But to point out that being innovative is hard.
There is a difference between innovative risk and monumental stupidity.
Linux already has two major alternatives to VirtualBox built in (KVM and Xen).
And both of those "alternatives" are stinking, rotting donkey turds from and end-user perspective. VirtualBox is VERY easy to get up and running, while both KVM and Xen are terribly complex (with the latter being almost pointless). From any sane perspective, VirtualBox is the only viable Open Source virtualization software for Linux.
I tried getting my company running on KVM, but gave up after days of frustration.
Xen is a non-starter since it requires the OS to be specifically modified.
It took me all of half an hour to do all the research I needed to get VirtualBox installed and running. My company, and my company's clients, are using VirtualBox.
So yes, VirtualBox is far more important than any other virtualization system for Linux. Maybe if the KVM developers made it user-friendly, it would obsolete VirtualBox. But KVM isn't anywhere even remotely close.
We already have privacy protection for mobile devices: the U.S. Constitution.
The legislature has done only half its job in this case. The final step in the correct procedure is to impeach the judges that are ignoring the 4th Amendment. That's what impeachment is for. These judges swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they are clearly and unambiguously violating that pledge.
Those judges need to be kicked out of office.
I can't hardly blame someone with a potentially world altering invention wanting to keep it under wraps for as long as possible.
then...
Yeah, it's against the open source ethos, but it's also how reality works for 99% of the people out there; you don't give your work away for free.
then...
Quite frankly, this would be the exact kind of invention that the patent system works for....
You are trying to argue both sides of the fence here. If you had a potentially world-altering invention, you would be racing to the patent office at each stage of the invention to prevent competition. That is how is works for 99% of the people out there. Otherwise, you would eventually be giving your work away for free.
So where are the patents? If there are no patents, and this thing (through some miracle) is legitimate, then it is now ripe for someone else to swoop in and patent it (first to file wins; former publication, which this would qualify as, is mostly irrelevant nowadays). That would make this guy the dumbest inventor on Earth.
So yes, this is 99.9999999999% certain to be a scam.
This is classic Government-Think: destroying the village in order to save it.
It's disgusting.
Protecting our children from predators is in everyone's best interest, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the Constitution; but when we need to protect our children from their protectors, we have gone too far.
So, what do you think the penalty for singing Kumbaya ought to be?
Isn't singing it penalty enough?
OMG! The USPTO actually denied something? Maybe Apple should have tried patenting multi-touch "with a computer," seeing as that phrase is the secret pass code for getting a patent on otherwise unpatentable trivialities.
You're better off using a legitimate server (Verizon, Gmail, your hosting provider, whatever) to send those messages.
My mail server is a legitimate server. What the hell makes Verizon, Gmail, or my hosting provider any more legitimate than me? Because they're big companies? Whoopdeefuckingdoo. My company is incorporated, and legally operating in my state. That makes my mail server as legitimate as anyone else's.
Even if I didn't run my mail off of my own Internet connection, requiring email to be gatewayed through a chosen few high priests is a bad, bad, bad idea from any perspective. Any significant collection of power will ALWAYS result in an equally significant abuse of that power. History does not have a single example to the contrary.
Why on earth don't they invest the same time and money they did coming up with the goddamn things in the first place to develop a better technology to make the damn things scale better?
Because you keep giving them your money with the technology they already have. What incentive are you giving them to improve?
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but our Congress has passed almost no legislation of any kind since taking office 18 months ago.
You say that like it's a bad thing. The last thing we need is for this bunch of incompetents to pass actual legislation.
You cannot do this with object oriented programming
This is done all the time with object oriented programming. Perhaps what you meant to say is that you can't do this with object oriented languages that hide pointer arithmetic. That would be true. It would also be true that you can't do it with procedural languages that hide pointer arithmetic.
Why can't open source be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory? All of those adjectives apply to any open source license better than they apply to any proprietary license.
Yes, but that is not what FRAND means. That term is like The People's Republic of China -- an inversion of meaning. Here is what it actually means:
Fair -- you pay us as much as we want. That's fair, right?
Reasonable -- isn't it reasonable to pay us whatever we want?
And -- there's more coming, so bend over.
Non-Discriminatory -- we're going to make everyone else pay through the nose, so what makes you so special?
Is this the judge telling Oracle that the case is absurd? How often do judges tell litigation-happy plaintiffs to settle out of court?