It absolutly, 100% does not replace keywords with links. Do us all a favor and visit the spybot homepage. Or perhaps you mean Autolink from the google toolbar? Which you have have installed, and to click?
Perhaps I did mean autolink. I mean, I did specifically say so in my post, after all.
I do, at least where music and literature are concerned. I find the idea that a few large corporations "own" all the music I grew up listening to and uses that "ownership" to prevent the vast majority of humanity from being allowed to listen to more than a fraction of it to be downright criminal. That being the case, I won't give them one thin dime of my money, and I'll go out of my way to make a free copy for anyone who wants it so I can further deprive them of operating revenue.
As far as I'm concerned Universal, Sony/BMG, Warner and EMI are the enemy and I'm happy to do my part in destroying them utterly.
It's not piracy either. Piracy is an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state.
It's called copyright infringement. Calling it theft, piracy, etc is a manipulative attempt to confound discussion by depicting copyright as a piece of owned property which can be stolen when in actuality it is nothing more than a government run incentive program to fund the arts.
Not too many people will stand up and say that they think stealing someones car is appropriate behavior. Not too many people would say it's appropriate to steal a CD from a music shop. But if you ask them "Do you think it's appropriate behavior for people to borrow their friends CD and make themselves a copy", you find a very different response. Case in point, the article.
For all those people out there who constantly parrot "Whatever, it's stealing" whenever the subject comes up, do stop. It makes you look stupid, it's rather offensive to regurgitate such transparently manipulative crap in a forum that's presumably frequented by more intelligent people, and it rather quickly kills any discussion of the real issue: Should copyright be granted at all, why, and what limitations on its scope will result in the greatest benefit TO SOCIETY.
You use: ProductID int, ProductName int, ProductDescription int
When you want to fetch stuff back out, you do a join like this:
SELECT lpn.LocalizedValue AS ProductName,
lpd.LocalizedValue AS ProductDescription FROM Products p INNER JOIN LocalizedValues lpn ON p.ProductName = lpn.FieldID AND lpn.LocaleID = [Users Locale ID] INNER JOIN LocalizedValues lpd ON p.ProductDescription = lpd.FieldID AND lpn.LocaleID = [Users Locale ID] WHERE p.ProductID = [ProductID you want]
Using this technique, you can multilingualize everything in an open ended fashion. You can also use snippits for your user interface.
Then make a function that takes a SnippitID and a LocaleID and returns a string, and replace every single piece of localizable text in your static pages with snippits.
Once you've set all this up, you want to have a default locale so that if there isn't a translated version available for the users locale, it will look for a value in the default locale and show that instead, and if that isn't available (ie data entered in french, default locale english, user locale german) then it shows whatever it has (french).
Finally, overload your snippit function so that a translator can enter "translation mode" and, while in translation mode, instead of just showing the text it wraps it in an anchor tag that, when clicked, fires a popup in which the translator can enter the correct value in the locale they are logged in as and have it update the database and reload the page being edited. You could also use AJAX if you don't like popups.
End result: a highly flexible and extensible localization engine for a web app. I've used this same setup for several of my clients in the past with great success. Enjoy.
I wouldn't use gmail anyways, and I won't send emails to a gmail account.
No, no privacy concerns. That's all FUD.
I mean, they scan all your personal email to build and keep a profile on you, but that's not a privacy concern.
And they keep duplicate copies of all your email forever, even if you try to delete it from the server, but that's not a privacy concern.
And they make it all searchable by any government agency that might want a peek, but that's no concern.
And then, aside from privacy concerns, there's the fact that they will be manipulating you with targeted advertising every single time you use their service to communicate. I don't know about you, but I stopped watching TV because I hate advertising, and stopped listening to the radio because I hate advertising, and don't visit websites whose advertisements I can't block. Why would I want to sign up for gmail? It's like having a telephone where every time you get a call, a telemarketer who's been tracking your conversations whispers in your ear telling you what you should buy. Would you buy a phone like that?
Me neither. Hotmail might be bad. But GMail is WORSE.
This might mean the end of a lot of free content, but it won't mean the end of peoples desire to publish. And computers are cheap. And getting cheaper. And bandwidth is cheap. And getting cheaper. So anyone can publish, and peer to peer is getting better. And ISPs like to make money.
If all the advertising in the world dried up tomorrow, there would be an instant and huge opportunity for ISPs that provided good, seamless and easy P2P publishing, because whichever ISP provided it would be the one providing the free content.
It's not hard to imagine a scenario where this happens. It might spell the end of a lot of the crappy "me too" technical review sites and others of their ilk who are churing out mediocre content purely for the money, but a good reputation is still a valuable thing, and being published and respected worldwide is still a valuable personal asset.
I imagine that there'd be another greed-based crisis later when the ISPs try to leverage access to the content it's users create as a means of getting more users by cutting off access to other ISPs unless they pay, until we end up with a global monopoly in the ISP market or we collectively call for the governments to step in and roll ISP services into their basic tax-funded infrastructure.
Regardless, the people are collectively happy to publish for free, they want to read what other people have written, they don't want to be manipulated by scumbag advertisers when they do it, and they are already paying money every month for access to the internet. That is a market waiting to be tapped.
So fuck off and die, doubleclick. We don't need you.
Plants like cues from gravity as well, although they don't usually require them and are easier to adapt.
There are NO plants that will grow without gravity. Not one. Technologists are working on creating strains that can survive and grow, but have not yet met with success.
You can disagree all you want. Fill your boots. That's your right. You can say it's a stupid law, you can say it's a bad law, whatever. Won't here a peep from me.
That's not what you did though. What you did was attack the government for listening to their constituents. And you said that the government was wrong in choosing to listen to their constituents to the detriment of external corporations. That's not Democracy.
When you make a statement like that, you're not just expressing the opinion that it's a bad law, you're saying that the government should ignore the wishes of the people and instead act on the wishes of the corporations. The politically correct term for that is Corporatism. It's also referred to as Fascism.
The hard part of living in and maintaining a Democracy is when the people vote for something you think is wrong or stupid and you have to support the government doing it anyway.
So, since I believe in Democracy, and see very little of it going on in your country these days, I will stand up and tell you in no uncertain terms that you're a shithead and why, in the hopes that it will help others to recognize your disgusting attitude for what it is when they see it in others.
You have every right to disagree with the majority population of Utah. However, you have no right to attack a democratic government for listening their wishes. Have I made that clear enough for you?
I stand corrected. IntelliTXT is run by Vibrant Media. Google uses Adwords, which creates a contextually determined HTML based advertisement that runs down the side of the page and Autolink, which replaces keywords in the site with links in the same sort of fashion as IntelliTXT.
This is really funny, in a shake your head in disgust kind of way.
The reason that people turn to something like RSS is because it lets them get to the meat faster without the extraneous crap. Searching through google results exposes you to it, searching through your various favorite sites in your bookmarks exposes you to it, etc. RSS does not, and therefore people gravitate towards it.
Advertising IS extraneous crap. If you put it in RSS feeds, people will no longer have the motivation to use it. You'll be breaking the tool.
It's such a joke. A new information-location technology comes out that is more effective at filtering out crap, the public jumps onboard because they don't want to see the crap, the IT guys jump onboard because that's where the people are and try to make a profit by forcing the public to waste their time looking at someones crap, and the people leave for greener pastures.
Thing is, people came to recognize that it's not the technology that was important, but the providers of the technology... they're the ones you trust (or don't trust) not to betray you, break the tool, and waste your time.
Google didn't rise to prominance because they have wonderful technology... lots of companies have wonderful technology. They rose to prominance because people came to trust them to filter the crap and give them what they're looking for better than their contemporaries.
Now, google is a big publicly traded company. They shove some crap in your face when you do a search, carefully weighing just how much crap they can get away with. They corrupt and poison the very infrastructure of the web itself with their "replace key words in content with div-pops and links to advertising in a way that obfuscates the fact that is advertising until you have already been exposed to it" technology. I can't speak for others, but while flash ads and banners merely annoy me, this particular technique actually makes me angry as hell.
While there is a large amount of inertia to overcome, this sort of shit will eventually spell the end of their relevance, because people will eventually come to realize that it doesn't really matter what the technology of the moment is, they will come to know that google is going to pervert it and waste their time in the name of profit.
This happened to sites like yahoo and msn and that provided the opportunity for google to rise to prominance. Now it's happening to google and providing an opportunity for another to rise to prominance.
Not a moment too soon if you ask me. If I never see another IntelliText link slip through my adblocker, it will be too soon.
He's not writing it there to help you. He's writing it there to get it off his chest so he can focus.
The solution is a 5 minute Quake session or a punching bag or something like that.... although personally, I like the "go out for a cigarette and bitch to someone who has no clue what you're talking about" approach.
Mike has been playing by Bills rules for a long time. If he's making a public statement like this, it is because Bill told him it was OK.
It's an obvious step for a convicted monopolist, use your influence to bring another player into the market that won't compete on price and destroy your bottom line.
Anyone with half a brain can see that having expensive OSX fill the *nix niche in the marketplace that Linux is shooting for would be a tremendous win for Microsoft, and say whatever you like about Bill, but he ain't stupid.
And at the end of the day, it's good for Dell too. If they get everyone who might have gone for Linux interested in OSX instead, they can leverage their volume to get better deals on OSX licenses than their competitors and either undercut them or pocket some extra profit. If they're selling the boxes with Linux, there is no room for markup and no capacity to leverage their size to get better pricing than their competition.
Conspiracy theory? Maybe, but it seems as obvious as a slap in the face from where I sit...
Opening specs is a buisness decision. I personally think its a good idea, but if they dont want a certian percentage of the market, it is up to them.
It doesn't have to be up to them... there's all sorts of other documentation businesses have to provide with various products, compelling hardware companies to release docs for their hardware would be one more instance among many.
The problems with traditional media in todays day and age are numerous.
Traditional media is full of propaganda, not only because the government occasionally directly demands it, but because if journalists print the truth they often get sued, fired or both. Or they lose their sources because they're deemed too dangerous to talk too and thus their career is over, soon to be replaced by another journalist who's willing to "play ball".
Traditional media also censors huge amounts of newsworthy stories because they are vulnerable to ridiculous lawsuits from companies damaged by the truth. There was a very high-profile example of this in recent history when reporters with high journalistic standards tried to do an expose on Monsanto.
There are also lots of instances of traditional media being skewed by the owners of the companies to further their own personal and political agendas. For example, CanWest, one of the two major media conglomorates in Canada has centralized editorials which are intentionally biased towards their ideology and published nation wide, and they have repeatedly fired reporters and editors who fail to fall into line. Although I am not as well informed about them, Fox News is another that I understand does this.
Traditional media used to consist of a multitiude of small media outlets that reported the truth as best they were able, and if they did not, it was easy to determine that this was the case because there were a multitude of sources for news that you could compare them against. But in modern times, the media is controlled by only a few large organizations and that safeguard is largely removed.
Blogs are shit as news sources go. They're not generally created by competent writers or subjected to editorial review, and they have absolutely no credibility when it comes to presenting an unbiased viewpoint. Their strength, however, lies in the fact that they are not centrally controlled, so by weeding through them with a critical eye you can move towards the truth.
In my opinion, traditional media still has a place in our world, but not in the form that it has evolved into. Large, centrally consolidated media conglomorates need to fall, or they need to operate in a fashion where they serve the function of making the news and editorials created by a vast multitude of smaller media outlets easier for the public to weed through more effectively. If there is another way for a huge media outlet to operate and be trustworthy, I don't see it.
As it stands now, they aren't a source of news and truth, they're a source of propaganda, and people are becoming more and more aware of that fact and thus turning their attention elsewhere. Like to blogs. Until and unless the media outlets cease to be a source of propaganda and earn the publics trust, people will turn to alternates like blogs in ever increasing numbers because for all their flaws, they're all we've got.
The disturbing thing is that you seem to feel that paying attention to the wishes of the people who elected you is superficial pandering, when the government and the laws should exist only for the people and by their collective sufferance.
They elected someone. That person is making the laws that the people who live there wish to see made. That is exactly as it should be. It is not up to you or anyone else to dictate to them what has benefit and what does not.
The proposed law is entirely unnecessary and simply burdens legitimate commercial establishments with addition layers of bureacracy and government regulation. The only "benefit" of this legislation is appeasing Utah's right-wing constituency
Now, I like porn as much as the next guy, but this is a very disturbing statement.
What did you think that elected officials were supposed to do? Appease national and international commercial establishments? The only proper purpose of legislation is to appease the will of the constituents. It's their state and their laws, and if you don't live there, it's none of your damned business. I wouldn't want to live there personally, but they've got the right to govern themselves as they see fit with absolutely ZERO consideration of how that affects outside interests.
It's this thing called democracy, and there's little enough of it going on in the US as it is without ppl like you painting it to be a bad thing just because it doesn't hold in keeping with how YOU think things should be run.
Software engineering is very different from computer science. Software engineers don't do engineering, while computer scientists don't do science. Very different animals indeed.
Finally I turned around "do you know how to build a cryptosystem or multiply large numbers quickly?" The guy said no and I said "figures."
I was pissed about how superior they felt they were. These are the types that spend little time in society and don't understand that just because you can't do their specialized problem like they can doesn't make you inferior.
I'm gonna leave this one alone... it would be like beating a child...
a) You remember them because they have meaning. If something has meaning and you repeat it a few times, it sticks. Especially if it's funny, unusual and topical. b/c) You make your choices consistently in terms of wording and case, then you'll know how you did it because you do it the same every time.
Think what you want. I use it, it works. I suggest it to my friends, they use it and thank me because it works. You get tired of thinking about stuff and decide to employ a little scientific method and actually test it, you'll likely find out it works too. It's the same sort of technique those "memory master" guys who remember whole playing card decks in order use, and is generally recognized as an effective remembering technique.
But then, this is slashdot, where everything's an opinion and no ones opinion is as good as ones own. Argue with me and do what you always do, I give a shit?
Terrorists generally exist because they have been sorely abused by a government and they have a passionate hatred of that government. With so many people on the planet, hard to avoid such people coming to exist.
Terrorist sympathizers and supporters, however, generally exist because they have been completely disenfranchised and oppressed, and they feel there is no effective non-violent means of changing the situation. These people generally will cease to support violent action if they are given a non-violent means to improve their situation.
So yeah, you can't please everyone all the time, you can't avoid there being a few crazies out there. But if you try to put a stop to it with more systematic violent oppression, you end up with a large moderate population that is sympathetic to the terrorists and wants to help them. If the majority of the population renders no more aid than to merely turn a blind eye when they see something suspicious, any attempts to stop violent terrorism before it happens are pretty much doomed to failure.
If, on the other hand, the effort that would be dedicated to controlling the population by force is instead dedicated to empowering the population and providing them with effective non-violent means of dealing with their grievances, the large moderate population will be more effective in putting a stop to the terrorists than any police or military force could ever be. </opinion>
And if you think the large moderate majority of arab-muslims give a shit what you do in your own country, you're on glue. If they were left to live in peace without bombs and economic sanctions, they would probably be satisfied with looking down their noses at how you live while working on improving their own lot in life. As it stands, they don't really have the leisure to worry about dealing with their own internal affairs because they're too damned busy trying to deal with aggressive foreign powers first.
A better technique is to break down your development planning into stages, then give approximate "uninterrupted time" estimates for each stage, and an approximate completion date for the current stage.
Each time one of these "hi priority" tasks comes down the pipe, double your estimate on how long they will take, push your completion date for the current stage forward that much and notify everyone important of the fact when you take on the job, then use any extra time you bought to get ahead of the game on your main project.
This way, you get some extra breathing room on all your "high priority" tasks if you need it, you get some extra time to work on the main project that management isn't accounting for so you can come in on time if your estimate was aggressive and early/extra features if it wasn't, and you provide some extra motivation for management to restrict these extra projects to ones that really are high priority.
When you get further ahead of your floating schedule the more often interruptions come down the pipe and management is blaming the people who hand you the extra work for the schedule being pushed ahead instead of blaming you, you're doing it right:)
Slashdot Mirror
It absolutly, 100% does not replace keywords with links. Do us all a favor and visit the spybot homepage. Or perhaps you mean Autolink from the google toolbar? Which you have have installed, and to click?
Perhaps I did mean autolink. I mean, I did specifically say so in my post, after all.
I do, at least where music and literature are concerned. I find the idea that a few large corporations "own" all the music I grew up listening to and uses that "ownership" to prevent the vast majority of humanity from being allowed to listen to more than a fraction of it to be downright criminal. That being the case, I won't give them one thin dime of my money, and I'll go out of my way to make a free copy for anyone who wants it so I can further deprive them of operating revenue.
As far as I'm concerned Universal, Sony/BMG, Warner and EMI are the enemy and I'm happy to do my part in destroying them utterly.
It's not piracy either. Piracy is an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state.
It's called copyright infringement. Calling it theft, piracy, etc is a manipulative attempt to confound discussion by depicting copyright as a piece of owned property which can be stolen when in actuality it is nothing more than a government run incentive program to fund the arts.
Not too many people will stand up and say that they think stealing someones car is appropriate behavior. Not too many people would say it's appropriate to steal a CD from a music shop. But if you ask them "Do you think it's appropriate behavior for people to borrow their friends CD and make themselves a copy", you find a very different response. Case in point, the article.
For all those people out there who constantly parrot "Whatever, it's stealing" whenever the subject comes up, do stop. It makes you look stupid, it's rather offensive to regurgitate such transparently manipulative crap in a forum that's presumably frequented by more intelligent people, and it rather quickly kills any discussion of the real issue: Should copyright be granted at all, why, and what limitations on its scope will result in the greatest benefit TO SOCIETY.
Create table Locales (PK LocaleID int LocaleName int)
Create table LocalizableFields (PK FieldID int)
Create table LocalizedValues (FieldID, LocaleID, LocalizedValue)
Then, instead of creating table products with:
ProductID int, ProductName nvarchar, ProductDescription nvarchar
You use:
ProductID int, ProductName int, ProductDescription int
When you want to fetch stuff back out, you do a join like this:
SELECT lpn.LocalizedValue AS ProductName,
lpd.LocalizedValue AS ProductDescription
FROM Products p
INNER JOIN LocalizedValues lpn
ON p.ProductName = lpn.FieldID
AND lpn.LocaleID = [Users Locale ID]
INNER JOIN LocalizedValues lpd
ON p.ProductDescription = lpd.FieldID
AND lpn.LocaleID = [Users Locale ID]
WHERE p.ProductID = [ProductID you want]
Using this technique, you can multilingualize everything in an open ended fashion. You can also use snippits for your user interface.
Create table Snippit (PK SnippitID int, Snippit int)
Then make a function that takes a SnippitID and a LocaleID and returns a string, and replace every single piece of localizable text in your static pages with snippits.
Once you've set all this up, you want to have a default locale so that if there isn't a translated version available for the users locale, it will look for a value in the default locale and show that instead, and if that isn't available (ie data entered in french, default locale english, user locale german) then it shows whatever it has (french).
Finally, overload your snippit function so that a translator can enter "translation mode" and, while in translation mode, instead of just showing the text it wraps it in an anchor tag that, when clicked, fires a popup in which the translator can enter the correct value in the locale they are logged in as and have it update the database and reload the page being edited. You could also use AJAX if you don't like popups.
End result: a highly flexible and extensible localization engine for a web app. I've used this same setup for several of my clients in the past with great success. Enjoy.
I wouldn't use gmail anyways, and I won't send emails to a gmail account.
No, no privacy concerns. That's all FUD.
I mean, they scan all your personal email to build and keep a profile on you, but that's not a privacy concern.
And they keep duplicate copies of all your email forever, even if you try to delete it from the server, but that's not a privacy concern.
And they make it all searchable by any government agency that might want a peek, but that's no concern.
And then, aside from privacy concerns, there's the fact that they will be manipulating you with targeted advertising every single time you use their service to communicate. I don't know about you, but I stopped watching TV because I hate advertising, and stopped listening to the radio because I hate advertising, and don't visit websites whose advertisements I can't block. Why would I want to sign up for gmail? It's like having a telephone where every time you get a call, a telemarketer who's been tracking your conversations whispers in your ear telling you what you should buy. Would you buy a phone like that?
Me neither. Hotmail might be bad. But GMail is WORSE.
This might mean the end of a lot of free content, but it won't mean the end of peoples desire to publish. And computers are cheap. And getting cheaper. And bandwidth is cheap. And getting cheaper. So anyone can publish, and peer to peer is getting better. And ISPs like to make money.
If all the advertising in the world dried up tomorrow, there would be an instant and huge opportunity for ISPs that provided good, seamless and easy P2P publishing, because whichever ISP provided it would be the one providing the free content.
It's not hard to imagine a scenario where this happens. It might spell the end of a lot of the crappy "me too" technical review sites and others of their ilk who are churing out mediocre content purely for the money, but a good reputation is still a valuable thing, and being published and respected worldwide is still a valuable personal asset.
I imagine that there'd be another greed-based crisis later when the ISPs try to leverage access to the content it's users create as a means of getting more users by cutting off access to other ISPs unless they pay, until we end up with a global monopoly in the ISP market or we collectively call for the governments to step in and roll ISP services into their basic tax-funded infrastructure.
Regardless, the people are collectively happy to publish for free, they want to read what other people have written, they don't want to be manipulated by scumbag advertisers when they do it, and they are already paying money every month
for access to the internet. That is a market waiting to be tapped.
So fuck off and die, doubleclick. We don't need you.
They take education seriously in India. What makes you think they'd want to hire Americans?
No, they (plants, not bacteria) don't grow. They try to grow, get all fucked up, and they die. If you have evidence to the contrary, post a link.
Plants like cues from gravity as well, although they don't usually require them and are easier to adapt.
There are NO plants that will grow without gravity. Not one. Technologists are working on creating strains that can survive and grow, but have not yet met with success.
You can disagree all you want. Fill your boots. That's your right. You can say it's a stupid law, you can say it's a bad law, whatever. Won't here a peep from me.
That's not what you did though. What you did was attack the government for listening to their constituents. And you said that the government was wrong in choosing to listen to their constituents to the detriment of external corporations. That's not Democracy.
When you make a statement like that, you're not just expressing the opinion that it's a bad law, you're saying that the government should ignore the wishes of the people and instead act on the wishes of the corporations. The politically correct term for that is Corporatism. It's also referred to as Fascism.
The hard part of living in and maintaining a Democracy is when the people vote for something you think is wrong or stupid and you have to support the government doing it anyway.
So, since I believe in Democracy, and see very little of it going on in your country these days, I will stand up and tell you in no uncertain terms that you're a shithead and why, in the hopes that it will help others to recognize your disgusting attitude for what it is when they see it in others.
You have every right to disagree with the majority population of Utah. However, you have no right to attack a democratic government for listening their wishes. Have I made that clear enough for you?
I wasn't comparing it to Windows XP. I was comparing it to Linux.
I stand corrected. IntelliTXT is run by Vibrant Media. Google uses Adwords, which creates a contextually determined HTML based advertisement that runs down the side of the page and Autolink, which replaces keywords in the site with links in the same sort of fashion as IntelliTXT.
This is really funny, in a shake your head in disgust kind of way.
The reason that people turn to something like RSS is because it lets them get to the meat faster without the extraneous crap. Searching through google results exposes you to it, searching through your various favorite sites in your bookmarks exposes you to it, etc. RSS does not, and therefore people gravitate towards it.
Advertising IS extraneous crap. If you put it in RSS feeds, people will no longer have the motivation to use it. You'll be breaking the tool.
It's such a joke. A new information-location technology comes out that is more effective at filtering out crap, the public jumps onboard because they don't want to see the crap, the IT guys jump onboard because that's where the people are and try to make a profit by forcing the public to waste their time looking at someones crap, and the people leave for greener pastures.
Thing is, people came to recognize that it's not the technology that was important, but the providers of the technology... they're the ones you trust (or don't trust) not to betray you, break the tool, and waste your time.
Google didn't rise to prominance because they have wonderful technology... lots of companies have wonderful technology. They rose to prominance because people came to trust them to filter the crap and give them what they're looking for better than their contemporaries.
Now, google is a big publicly traded company. They shove some crap in your face when you do a search, carefully weighing just how much crap they can get away with. They corrupt and poison the very infrastructure of the web itself with their "replace key words in content with div-pops and links to advertising in a way that obfuscates the fact that is advertising until you have already been exposed to it" technology. I can't speak for others, but while flash ads and banners merely annoy me, this particular technique actually makes me angry as hell.
While there is a large amount of inertia to overcome, this sort of shit will eventually spell the end of their relevance, because people will eventually come to realize that it doesn't really matter what the technology of the moment is, they will come to know that google is going to pervert it and waste their time in the name of profit.
This happened to sites like yahoo and msn and that provided the opportunity for google to rise to prominance. Now it's happening to google and providing an opportunity for another to rise to prominance.
Not a moment too soon if you ask me. If I never see another IntelliText link slip through my adblocker, it will be too soon.
He's not writing it there to help you. He's writing it there to get it off his chest so he can focus.
The solution is a 5 minute Quake session or a punching bag or something like that.... although personally, I like the "go out for a cigarette and bitch to someone who has no clue what you're talking about" approach.
Because Bill didn't say it was OK.
Mike has been playing by Bills rules for a long time. If he's making a public statement like this, it is because Bill told him it was OK.
It's an obvious step for a convicted monopolist, use your influence to bring another player into the market that won't compete on price and destroy your bottom line.
Anyone with half a brain can see that having expensive OSX fill the *nix niche in the marketplace that Linux is shooting for would be a tremendous win for Microsoft, and say whatever you like about Bill, but he ain't stupid.
And at the end of the day, it's good for Dell too. If they get everyone who might have gone for Linux interested in OSX instead, they can leverage their volume to get better deals on OSX licenses than their competitors and either undercut them or pocket some extra profit. If they're selling the boxes with Linux, there is no room for markup and no capacity to leverage their size to get better pricing than their competition.
Conspiracy theory? Maybe, but it seems as obvious as a slap in the face from where I sit...
Opening specs is a buisness decision. I personally think its a good idea, but if they dont want a certian percentage of the market, it is up to them.
It doesn't have to be up to them... there's all sorts of other documentation businesses have to provide with various products, compelling hardware companies to release docs for their hardware would be one more instance among many.
The problems with traditional media in todays day and age are numerous.
Traditional media is full of propaganda, not only because the government occasionally directly demands it, but because if journalists print the truth they often get sued, fired or both. Or they lose their sources because they're deemed too dangerous to talk too and thus their career is over, soon to be replaced by another journalist who's willing to "play ball".
Traditional media also censors huge amounts of newsworthy stories because they are vulnerable to ridiculous lawsuits from companies damaged by the truth. There was a very high-profile example of this in recent history when reporters with high journalistic standards tried to do an expose on Monsanto.
There are also lots of instances of traditional media being skewed by the owners of the companies to further their own personal and political agendas. For example, CanWest, one of the two major media conglomorates in Canada has centralized editorials which are intentionally biased towards their ideology and published nation wide, and they have repeatedly fired reporters and editors who fail to fall into line. Although I am not as well informed about them, Fox News is another that I understand does this.
Traditional media used to consist of a multitiude of small media outlets that reported the truth as best they were able, and if they did not, it was easy to determine that this was the case because there were a multitude of sources for news that you could compare them against. But in modern times, the media is controlled by only a few large organizations and that safeguard is largely removed.
Blogs are shit as news sources go. They're not generally created by competent writers or subjected to editorial review, and they have absolutely no credibility when it comes to presenting an unbiased viewpoint. Their strength, however, lies in the fact that they are not centrally controlled, so by weeding through them with a critical eye you can move towards the truth.
In my opinion, traditional media still has a place in our world, but not in the form that it has evolved into. Large, centrally consolidated media conglomorates need to fall, or they need to operate in a fashion where they serve the function of making the news and editorials created by a vast multitude of smaller media outlets easier for the public to weed through more effectively. If there is another way for a huge media outlet to operate and be trustworthy, I don't see it.
As it stands now, they aren't a source of news and truth, they're a source of propaganda, and people are becoming more and more aware of that fact and thus turning their attention elsewhere. Like to blogs. Until and unless the media outlets cease to be a source of propaganda and earn the publics trust, people will turn to alternates like blogs in ever increasing numbers because for all their flaws, they're all we've got.
The disturbing thing is that you seem to feel that paying attention to the wishes of the people who elected you is superficial pandering, when the government and the laws should exist only for the people and by their collective sufferance. They elected someone. That person is making the laws that the people who live there wish to see made. That is exactly as it should be. It is not up to you or anyone else to dictate to them what has benefit and what does not.
lol priceless
The proposed law is entirely unnecessary and simply burdens legitimate commercial establishments with addition layers of bureacracy and government regulation. The only "benefit" of this legislation is appeasing Utah's right-wing constituency
Now, I like porn as much as the next guy, but this is a very disturbing statement.
What did you think that elected officials were supposed to do? Appease national and international commercial establishments? The only proper purpose of legislation is to appease the will of the constituents. It's their state and their laws, and if you don't live there, it's none of your damned business. I wouldn't want to live there personally, but they've got the right to govern themselves as they see fit with absolutely ZERO consideration of how that affects outside interests.
It's this thing called democracy, and there's little enough of it going on in the US as it is without ppl like you painting it to be a bad thing just because it doesn't hold in keeping with how YOU think things should be run.
Software engineering is very different from computer science. Software engineers don't do engineering, while computer scientists don't do science. Very different animals indeed.
Finally I turned around "do you know how to build a cryptosystem or multiply large numbers quickly?" The guy said no and I said "figures."
I was pissed about how superior they felt they were. These are the types that spend little time in society and don't understand that just because you can't do their specialized problem like they can doesn't make you inferior.
I'm gonna leave this one alone... it would be like beating a child...
a) You remember them because they have meaning. If something has meaning and you repeat it a few times, it sticks. Especially if it's funny, unusual and topical.
b/c) You make your choices consistently in terms of wording and case, then you'll know how you did it because you do it the same every time.
Think what you want. I use it, it works. I suggest it to my friends, they use it and thank me because it works. You get tired of thinking about stuff and decide to employ a little scientific method and actually test it, you'll likely find out it works too. It's the same sort of technique those "memory master" guys who remember whole playing card decks in order use, and is generally recognized as an effective remembering technique.
But then, this is slashdot, where everything's an opinion and no ones opinion is as good as ones own. Argue with me and do what you always do, I give a shit?
Terrorists generally exist because they have been sorely abused by a government and they have a passionate hatred of that government. With so many people on the planet, hard to avoid such people coming to exist.
Terrorist sympathizers and supporters, however, generally exist because they have been completely disenfranchised and oppressed, and they feel there is no effective non-violent means of changing the situation. These people generally will cease to support violent action if they are given a non-violent means to improve their situation.
So yeah, you can't please everyone all the time, you can't avoid there being a few crazies out there. But if you try to put a stop to it with more systematic violent oppression, you end up with a large moderate population that is sympathetic to the terrorists and wants to help them. If the majority of the population renders no more aid than to merely turn a blind eye when they see something suspicious, any attempts to stop violent terrorism before it happens are pretty much doomed to failure.
If, on the other hand, the effort that would be dedicated to controlling the population by force is instead dedicated to empowering the population and providing them with effective non-violent means of dealing with their grievances, the large moderate population will be more effective in putting a stop to the terrorists than any police or military force could ever be.
</opinion>
And if you think the large moderate majority of arab-muslims give a shit what you do in your own country, you're on glue. If they were left to live in peace without bombs and economic sanctions, they would probably be satisfied with looking down their noses at how you live while working on improving their own lot in life. As it stands, they don't really have the leisure to worry about dealing with their own internal affairs because they're too damned busy trying to deal with aggressive foreign powers first.
A better technique is to break down your development planning into stages, then give approximate "uninterrupted time" estimates for each stage, and an approximate completion date for the current stage.
:)
Each time one of these "hi priority" tasks comes down the pipe, double your estimate on how long they will take, push your completion date for the current stage forward that much and notify everyone important of the fact when you take on the job, then use any extra time you bought to get ahead of the game on your main project.
This way, you get some extra breathing room on all your "high priority" tasks if you need it, you get some extra time to work on the main project that management isn't accounting for so you can come in on time if your estimate was aggressive and early/extra features if it wasn't, and you provide some extra motivation for management to restrict these extra projects to ones that really are high priority.
When you get further ahead of your floating schedule the more often interruptions come down the pipe and management is blaming the people who hand you the extra work for the schedule being pushed ahead instead of blaming you, you're doing it right