Translation: We don't want to do this. It's a bunch of headache. We liked being able to rely on ISO/IEC, it made our life easier. But we've seen things recently that make us wonder if we have any choice but to find alternatives. Needless to say, we're not going to make any rash statements before we know our options, but honestly, if this wasn't a really big deal, we never would have got off our asses enough to make a statement about this issue in the first place. ISO matters in that we miss them, and we're pissed off that they let us down, but not in the sense that we feel secure enough to continue using their standards, because we don't.
I share your concern. I was planning to add Google Chrome to our Selenium test suite and see how our application performs, but I'm thinking I'd better hold off and check with the management. From the look of it, we might need to warn our clients not to use this browser, or actively block it from the admin interface.
The oil is being pulled out of the ground as fast as possible, and burned as fast as it's pulled out of the ground. What difference does it make who burns it? If the demand in China were less, it would just end up being burned elsewhere.
How did youtube manage to convert it into a proprietary format when it is released under the Attribution-No-Derivative-Works 3.0 License?
Because transcoding process isn't creating a new derived work in the way copyright law understands it. The CC license in question, however, grants the right to "distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works." The only clause in the CC license that has any bearing is the DRM clause, "When You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work, You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise of the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License", and that says nothing about proprietary formats per se. I don't think anyone in CC is arguing that proprietary formats are evil as long as they don't impede with distribution.
They're distributing it on their website. They're using Flash Video to distribute the movie in a fashion that prevents the recipient from re-distributing it. That means they're imposing illegal technological measures to prevent redistribution, which means they waived their right to distribute the work by failing to honour one of the covenents of the license.
You shouldn't be saving your pennies to have a child, you idiot. You are a 25 year old man. You should already have several children. You shouldn't be just finishing school, you should have your own home and a history of service in your community.
What you are living in is "I have all the tickets, I own that house and that land and that food and everything, and unless you sacrifice your life to serve me, I will see to it that you starve to death."
You should DEMAND what you need, you should TAKE what you need, and you should participate actively in a healthy society.
You have a right and a responsibility to a woman, a family, a home, land, food, and involvement in the realities of your society.
You have been robbed and given trivialities in exchange. You should get your peers and your guns and create something new for yourself from the wreckage in which you live before you are too old and worn out.
So... lets outsource the caregiving to countries with young populations...
Ok, so why should those young populations bother to care for you? Because you have a police state? Because they have big hearts and respect for the political-economic system that has been oppressing them in their home country and promises to make them slaves to old rich people who have more points than their neighbour?
Why should they do anything but laugh at your misfortune and arrogance as they replace your own culture with their own?
Fortunately for us, we're still in a position to attract skilled immigrants to make up the labor shortfall...That gives us the benefit of their labor, without having to have paid their costs as they were growing up.
No, you're not. You make immigrants feel like criminals and second class citizens, people are afraid to come to your country on business these days. Plus, after absorbing Fannie May and Freddie Mac into the Fed, and being about to absorb a major bank into the Fed, you're poised to lose your AAA borrowing status from the world bank. Which means no more printing US dollars so the rest of the world can hoard them as oil currency instead of cashing them in for US domestic production. Which means you're going to move from being an empire to being a nation.
Either they choose to keep working, or they didn't put enough of THEIR OWN money away for retirement.
You willfully blind people, always talking about money. Look at demographics. Look at how they are affecting what is currently happening in Japan. Old folks homes with robots and minimal staff, looking like the worst elements of the Matrix
Look at hyper-inflation.Watch some old videos of Russian grandmothers trying to buy bread with wheelbarrows of cash.
Understand that this is the future for all western cultures. Blame the chemist who sells the birth control and the feminists and capitalists who tell young people they should get an education and a mortgage and put off child rearing till their 30s or later. Blame the aftermath second world war for creating the cultural trauma that created this malignant social order. But for fucks sake, understand what is happening.
It's not that pensions aren't enough. If there is a need for 10 caregivers, and there are only 2 young people, 8 people are going to be neglected, regardless of how much money they all have. There are not enough young people. There hasn't been any appreciable domestic reproduction for generations.
Understand, it was the fact that there were no dependent young that made those boomers rich all their lives.
Society is indeed wealthier if that young man and that young women stay single and work overtime than they are if she gets pregnant, only works part time and creates a new dependent who will have to be cared for for 20 years.
Well, it's wealthier for almost 50 years, anyways... Then, it collapses because there are hardly any people around to participate in maintaining the critical infrastructure upon which everyone has grown to depend.
I find doing a more rigorous requirements gathering process, then writing the spec and a code generation engine that consumes the spec is a process more conductive to maintaining long term focus and vision than your typical extreme/test-driven development style, which often seems to drift a bit and lack a certain focus. However, when tests are constructed automatically by the code generation engine, which is consuming the signed off spec, it can be a useful tool for management to track progress being made by the team and locate bugs and errors, so it certainly has its place.
Now that is much more interesting than discussions about privacy rights. How would you go about protecting the public against such occurrences?
I've been thinking that you would need a wireless mesh network and some sort of system that would automatically replicate all the recorded footage across the mesh. Like a pared down Freenet, simplified by not requiring anonymity be provided. You would also want secure personal recorders as a norm.
You put that together with a social expectation that monitoring and recording by the state must be open and transparent, and you're looking at enough layers of redundancy that it would make it very difficult to destroy evidence.
It would be interesting to design such an infrastructure and make it easy enough for non-technically inclined group of protesters to use it. Neighborhood watch programs might also find utility in such a system.
Along those lines, I'd strongly suggest to houbou, who posted the original question, that he learn test-driven development. Given the list of languages he has specialized in, he may not know it yet. In the Java world it's becoming more and more important. I now don't hire people without at least a year of unit testing experience unless they're absolutely stellar in other regards.
You can make some awfully shiny turds that way. Not that it can't work, but it's not a silver bullet...
Screw your privacy. This is great. It should be accessible to the public at all times. This is a way to watch the cops and the politicians, not the other way around.
Your point is an aside. Contrast FreeBSD with MacOSX, consider the locks and keys that have been added to the later, consider the number of people who have already been locked in. The FreeBSD folks helped put those people in those chains by giving Apple the liberty to use their work as the basis for OSX. The GPL exists to protect the developer against that shame.
I live in Vancouver, and when I went to talk to an agent at a multinational staffing company about some opportunities they had, they made me sign a form acknowledging that my information would be stored in their systems in California, and that it was therefore subject to the PATRIOT act, meaning that Homeland Security could show up, demand copies of my data, and make it illegal for them to tell me.
If you signed it, you're a traitor to your country. Those people are evil, and if you're with them, you're against the rest of us.
Nietzsche was just depressed and prone to bouts of melodrama and depression because he was born with the foresight to see my coming, but a century too early to meet me.
As much as I hate nitpicking over software licenses, that's not a valid analogy. Even with public domain software nobody can 'put a fence around your farm' - the original software will always be available regardless of any proprietary extensions other people make.
Yes, they can, and everybody knows about it. It happens so much, we make cutesie little sayings to reference it, like embrace, extend, extinguish.
I would call it free, period. It's not free, subject to restrictions. It's free, and protected against future restrictive subversions, as opposed to free and abandoned to the machinations of selfish and evil men. It's the best kind of free, the kind you can rely on continuing to be free and relevant.
Is it only me who thinks that while the ethos of OSS is "open and free for everyone", these licences are just a way of developers saying "I want my slice of the pie also" ?
Truly free code comes with no restrictions whatsoever, be it over publishing licence text, making source available, having to pay the author for commercial use or whatever.
Free means free. Anything else is so much BS on the part of the developer.
It's like this: You're all free to eat at my farm. You're all free to plant things at my farm. You're not free to put a fence around my farm. The fact that you may have planted things at my farm still doesn't give you the right to put a fence around my farm.
If you consider the "no fences" stipulation too onerous for your liking, you can fuck off and don't come back. Keep your complaints to yourself, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
I thought your post was going to turn out to be a sarcastic burn. But you appear to be serious. Sure the oil companies are making pretty big profits (though in the UK I think about 40% of the price of fuel is in taxes, maybe even more) - but if you don't like that, stealing is definitely not the way to go about solving the problem. It never is, and you're likely to end up in serious trouble in the end. I'm still hoping you were just kidding though.
First off, piracy isn't stealing, it's an infringement of a state sponsored monopoly over the creation of copies.
Secondly, when the industry ceases to be about reproductive and distribution infrastructure and becomes purely about using pervasive propaganda to create megahits and hiring private investigators to prevent casual infringement, it no longer has any social merit, only social cost.
Under such circumstances, refusing to financially support its ongoing operation is a moral act, even if it is in violation of law.
As for stealing, there's a difference between personal possessions and private property. You can't steal oil infrastructure, it's kind of hard to carry around. But you can nationalize it for pennies on the dollar and make the administration of it a democratically regulated process. Usually you need to hang a small percentage of the population, but that generally turns out to be a perk.
Just make sure you're nice to Russia and China so the rest of NATO stays off your back, and you're all set.
Of those extensions, the only one I use is Web Developer; the rest don't provide significant benefits. And IE7 has virtually the same thing.
It's not my fault you don't delve deeply into the subtlties of what you're working with to need these tools.
even setting aside ASP.NET, which kicks all manner of ass
Now we know why you don't delve into these tools. I've built world class apps with ASP.NET, and the stuff it spits out, it's enough to make you cringe. It's fast to develop with, if you don't know what you're doing and don't care about doing things right. But if you already know how to do things right, and you're working on a project that's going to see enough traffic that you have to do them right,.NET makes things far more difficult, because you need to undo what it does by default and force it to operate outside of it's core paradigm.
Paging through recordsets is a great example. Just fetch the entire data set to the middle tier and handle paging there... what a stupid idea. Were they reading the MySQL documentation or something? Doing it properly within the.NET model was harder than it was with Classic ASP.
Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).
The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.
After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.
As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.
Slashdot Mirror
Translation: We don't want to do this. It's a bunch of headache. We liked being able to rely on ISO/IEC, it made our life easier. But we've seen things recently that make us wonder if we have any choice but to find alternatives. Needless to say, we're not going to make any rash statements before we know our options, but honestly, if this wasn't a really big deal, we never would have got off our asses enough to make a statement about this issue in the first place. ISO matters in that we miss them, and we're pissed off that they let us down, but not in the sense that we feel secure enough to continue using their standards, because we don't.
I share your concern. I was planning to add Google Chrome to our Selenium test suite and see how our application performs, but I'm thinking I'd better hold off and check with the management. From the look of it, we might need to warn our clients not to use this browser, or actively block it from the admin interface.
The oil is being pulled out of the ground as fast as possible, and burned as fast as it's pulled out of the ground. What difference does it make who burns it? If the demand in China were less, it would just end up being burned elsewhere.
In a democracy, that's as easy to fix as holding a vote. Were you planning on letting them vote?
How did youtube manage to convert it into a proprietary format when it is released under the Attribution-No-Derivative-Works 3.0 License?
Because transcoding process isn't creating a new derived work in the way copyright law understands it. The CC license in question, however, grants the right to "distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works." The only clause in the CC license that has any bearing is the DRM clause, "When You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work, You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise of the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License", and that says nothing about proprietary formats per se. I don't think anyone in CC is arguing that proprietary formats are evil as long as they don't impede with distribution.
They're distributing it on their website. They're using Flash Video to distribute the movie in a fashion that prevents the recipient from re-distributing it. That means they're imposing illegal technological measures to prevent redistribution, which means they waived their right to distribute the work by failing to honour one of the covenents of the license.
It's pretty cut and dried. They're in violation.
You shouldn't be saving your pennies to have a child, you idiot. You are a 25 year old man. You should already have several children. You shouldn't be just finishing school, you should have your own home and a history of service in your community.
What you are living in is "I have all the tickets, I own that house and that land and that food and everything, and unless you sacrifice your life to serve me, I will see to it that you starve to death."
You should DEMAND what you need, you should TAKE what you need, and you should participate actively in a healthy society.
You have a right and a responsibility to a woman, a family, a home, land, food, and involvement in the realities of your society.
You have been robbed and given trivialities in exchange. You should get your peers and your guns and create something new for yourself from the wreckage in which you live before you are too old and worn out.
That's just what I always wanted... for the company that tracks every page I view where they can and owns the DoubleClick network to build my browser.
No thanks. Somehow, I don't think the extensions I use to block Google will be supported by this fork.
So... lets outsource the caregiving to countries with young populations...
Ok, so why should those young populations bother to care for you? Because you have a police state? Because they have big hearts and respect for the political-economic system that has been oppressing them in their home country and promises to make them slaves to old rich people who have more points than their neighbour?
Why should they do anything but laugh at your misfortune and arrogance as they replace your own culture with their own?
Fortunately for us, we're still in a position to attract skilled immigrants to make up the labor shortfall...That gives us the benefit of their labor, without having to have paid their costs as they were growing up.
No, you're not. You make immigrants feel like criminals and second class citizens, people are afraid to come to your country on business these days. Plus, after absorbing Fannie May and Freddie Mac into the Fed, and being about to absorb a major bank into the Fed, you're poised to lose your AAA borrowing status from the world bank. Which means no more printing US dollars so the rest of the world can hoard them as oil currency instead of cashing them in for US domestic production. Which means you're going to move from being an empire to being a nation.
Face it. You're fucked.
Either they choose to keep working, or they didn't put enough of THEIR OWN money away for retirement.
You willfully blind people, always talking about money. Look at demographics. Look at how they are affecting what is currently happening in Japan. Old folks homes with robots and minimal staff, looking like the worst elements of the Matrix
Look at hyper-inflation.Watch some old videos of Russian grandmothers trying to buy bread with wheelbarrows of cash.
Understand that this is the future for all western cultures. Blame the chemist who sells the birth control and the feminists and capitalists who tell young people they should get an education and a mortgage and put off child rearing till their 30s or later. Blame the aftermath second world war for creating the cultural trauma that created this malignant social order. But for fucks sake, understand what is happening.
It's not that pensions aren't enough. If there is a need for 10 caregivers, and there are only 2 young people, 8 people are going to be neglected, regardless of how much money they all have. There are not enough young people. There hasn't been any appreciable domestic reproduction for generations.
Understand, it was the fact that there were no dependent young that made those boomers rich all their lives.
Society is indeed wealthier if that young man and that young women stay single and work overtime than they are if she gets pregnant, only works part time and creates a new dependent who will have to be cared for for 20 years.
Well, it's wealthier for almost 50 years, anyways... Then, it collapses because there are hardly any people around to participate in maintaining the critical infrastructure upon which everyone has grown to depend.
Rome is burning. Shut up and dance.
You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe, you say unusual, I say inevitable.
I hear God did it. That's what they're teaching the kids in school these days, right?
Honestly, who gives a shit what these people have to say? They're so far removed from credibility, they may as well be quoting Nostradamus.
I find doing a more rigorous requirements gathering process, then writing the spec and a code generation engine that consumes the spec is a process more conductive to maintaining long term focus and vision than your typical extreme/test-driven development style, which often seems to drift a bit and lack a certain focus. However, when tests are constructed automatically by the code generation engine, which is consuming the signed off spec, it can be a useful tool for management to track progress being made by the team and locate bugs and errors, so it certainly has its place.
Now that is much more interesting than discussions about privacy rights. How would you go about protecting the public against such occurrences?
I've been thinking that you would need a wireless mesh network and some sort of system that would automatically replicate all the recorded footage across the mesh. Like a pared down Freenet, simplified by not requiring anonymity be provided. You would also want secure personal recorders as a norm.
You put that together with a social expectation that monitoring and recording by the state must be open and transparent, and you're looking at enough layers of redundancy that it would make it very difficult to destroy evidence.
It would be interesting to design such an infrastructure and make it easy enough for non-technically inclined group of protesters to use it. Neighborhood watch programs might also find utility in such a system.
Along those lines, I'd strongly suggest to houbou, who posted the original question, that he learn test-driven development. Given the list of languages he has specialized in, he may not know it yet. In the Java world it's becoming more and more important. I now don't hire people without at least a year of unit testing experience unless they're absolutely stellar in other regards.
You can make some awfully shiny turds that way. Not that it can't work, but it's not a silver bullet...
Screw your privacy. This is great. It should be accessible to the public at all times. This is a way to watch the cops and the politicians, not the other way around.
Your point is an aside. Contrast FreeBSD with MacOSX, consider the locks and keys that have been added to the later, consider the number of people who have already been locked in. The FreeBSD folks helped put those people in those chains by giving Apple the liberty to use their work as the basis for OSX. The GPL exists to protect the developer against that shame.
I live in Vancouver, and when I went to talk to an agent at a multinational staffing company about some opportunities they had, they made me sign a form acknowledging that my information would be stored in their systems in California, and that it was therefore subject to the PATRIOT act, meaning that Homeland Security could show up, demand copies of my data, and make it illegal for them to tell me.
If you signed it, you're a traitor to your country. Those people are evil, and if you're with them, you're against the rest of us.
Nietzsche was just depressed and prone to bouts of melodrama and depression because he was born with the foresight to see my coming, but a century too early to meet me.
As much as I hate nitpicking over software licenses, that's not a valid analogy. Even with public domain software nobody can 'put a fence around your farm' - the original software will always be available regardless of any proprietary extensions other people make.
Yes, they can, and everybody knows about it. It happens so much, we make cutesie little sayings to reference it, like embrace, extend, extinguish.
I would call it free, period. It's not free, subject to restrictions. It's free, and protected against future restrictive subversions, as opposed to free and abandoned to the machinations of selfish and evil men. It's the best kind of free, the kind you can rely on continuing to be free and relevant.
Is it only me who thinks that while the ethos of OSS is "open and free for everyone", these licences are just a way of developers saying "I want my slice of the pie also" ?
Truly free code comes with no restrictions whatsoever, be it over publishing licence text, making source available, having to pay the author for commercial use or whatever.
Free means free. Anything else is so much BS on the part of the developer.
It's like this: You're all free to eat at my farm. You're all free to plant things at my farm. You're not free to put a fence around my farm. The fact that you may have planted things at my farm still doesn't give you the right to put a fence around my farm.
If you consider the "no fences" stipulation too onerous for your liking, you can fuck off and don't come back. Keep your complaints to yourself, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
I thought your post was going to turn out to be a sarcastic burn. But you appear to be serious. Sure the oil companies are making pretty big profits (though in the UK I think about 40% of the price of fuel is in taxes, maybe even more) - but if you don't like that, stealing is definitely not the way to go about solving the problem. It never is, and you're likely to end up in serious trouble in the end. I'm still hoping you were just kidding though.
First off, piracy isn't stealing, it's an infringement of a state sponsored monopoly over the creation of copies.
Secondly, when the industry ceases to be about reproductive and distribution infrastructure and becomes purely about using pervasive propaganda to create megahits and hiring private investigators to prevent casual infringement, it no longer has any social merit, only social cost.
Under such circumstances, refusing to financially support its ongoing operation is a moral act, even if it is in violation of law.
As for stealing, there's a difference between personal possessions and private property. You can't steal oil infrastructure, it's kind of hard to carry around. But you can nationalize it for pennies on the dollar and make the administration of it a democratically regulated process. Usually you need to hang a small percentage of the population, but that generally turns out to be a perk.
Just make sure you're nice to Russia and China so the rest of NATO stays off your back, and you're all set.
Of those extensions, the only one I use is Web Developer; the rest don't provide significant benefits. And IE7 has virtually the same thing.
.NET makes things far more difficult, because you need to undo what it does by default and force it to operate outside of it's core paradigm.
.NET model was harder than it was with Classic ASP.
It's not my fault you don't delve deeply into the subtlties of what you're working with to need these tools.
even setting aside ASP.NET, which kicks all manner of ass
Now we know why you don't delve into these tools. I've built world class apps with ASP.NET, and the stuff it spits out, it's enough to make you cringe. It's fast to develop with, if you don't know what you're doing and don't care about doing things right. But if you already know how to do things right, and you're working on a project that's going to see enough traffic that you have to do them right,
Paging through recordsets is a great example. Just fetch the entire data set to the middle tier and handle paging there... what a stupid idea. Were they reading the MySQL documentation or something? Doing it properly within the
I'll stick to PHP, Java and Postgres, thanks...
Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).
No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.
The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.
After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.
As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.