No. People like.NET because of the very clean implementation of modern OOP principles. The drop & drag coding typically aims at mundane tasks. And the heavy OOP nature of.NET left behind a lot of the "developers" you're referring to.
The proof is in your bias assessment. The US didn't try to win a land war in Vietnam. They didn't take land and hold it. Somalia was a loss? Really? Because they made a movie out of a particular small part of the battle? The fiasco in Iraq? You mean where they kicked out one of the worlds largest armies in a weekend? Or when they toppled that same nation's government in a weekend? Afghanistan? Yeah, compared to Russia that's gone real bad.
You're confusing military capabilities with nation building and police-style actions involving the military. The US could have bombed North Vietnam into rubble anytime they wanted to, that wasn't why they were there though. The US could kill every single person in Afghanistan if they wanted without losing a single man. But they don't.
The US wasn't trying to take North Vietnam. They were trying to hold South Vietnam without doing much if anything to North Vietnam. It was part of their containment strategy for communism. Saigon didn't even fall until after America basically withdrew. Grenada? The US used like 1/1000th of it's military and technically won. It just wasn't popular. Panama? Yeah that failed bad, Noriega is just. Oh that's right he was captured and is still in jail.
You have internet access obviously, you should try reading wiki or something so you have a least a clue about the topic you're posting about.
LOL. Right, I won't think the US military is much more capable then any other military on the planet. Whatever. And as for Napoleon's Army, it's a little more complex now.
Yeah, all those private military companies are so much better?
You're talking about the most advanced and capable military in the history of the planet. The best humanity has ever done. The words incompetent and inefficient are meaningless in the way you use them because clearly there is no comparison that would lead to those conclusions. Obviously since the military has known about this and hasn't bothered to fix it they don't think it's that big of an issue. The sensationalist headline doesn't help but of course you fell for it.
Many of the stadiums and schools where this "policy" would naturally be enforced are on publicly funded campuses. This isn't quite the old "private entity - their rules" we so see often confused on the internet.
I'm not saying which way it would end up, but I would imagine that could put a twist on it.
There is a website called iCopyright. On it you can find stories from the AP. Only have you have located an AP story do you get an option to obtain permission to use text from the story. You can then paste in the text and it does a simple word count and gives you a total. The "license" actually states the words you copy/pasted and that they came from the article.
In this case, this person found an AP article, went to obtain permission to use text from it, and then purposefully submitted text that was not from the article.
The license he obtained was worthless. No one would sue the AP over granting it, it even says on the license text+article. That text wasn't in the article.
Again, the AP did not seek this person out. This person purposefully misused a website and obtained a worthless license. No laws were broken. No copyright violated. Nothing. It's a stupid story and it's sad you need it explained to you instead of doing a little bit of thinking on your own.
No, it does not. That is the article he used as a starting point before clicking on the link to obtain permission to use an except from the article. It does no checking.
Except for a bunch of virgins whining on the interwebs, why does the service need to be changed? Who was harmed? What law was broken? Someone misused the service on purpose, wasted 12 USD on a worthless license, and then got the money back.
Holy fucking wow!
Let me know when someone actually pays the AP for a license, only the words are not under copyright by the AP, that someone then uses those words, and gets sued, and he tries to pull the "AP gave me a license" card. That would be interesting. If only to watch the entire legal system laugh at them. No one in their right mind believes the AP actually granted him a license for words he doesn't own. The AP has a service that grants rights for stuff they do own. The service was misused, ON PURPOSE, and the result was a worthless piece of paper. And a bunch of pissed of virgins.
I'm sure the law-people that work for the AP are smart enough to put a disclaimer on the license that would negate any and all possibilities of the "false copyright claim" you bring up. It would take all of 2 seconds to do.
The AP grants you to right to use the AP owned crap you submitted to the AP. If the stuff you submitted wasn't owned by the AP, GFY!
Pretty simple if you ask me. Basically you're getting the right from the AP for AP controlled crap. If the AP doesn't own it, that it's not "false copyright claim" it's worthless.
He *offered* to pay them for words they don't own and they accepted his money since the mechanism for doing so does not check ownership. It's simply a word count. AP did not seek him out to collect charges. That is a big difference. In fact, that difference to me is why it's a non-story. Basically the AP is charging on a "per word" basis. So all they need to do count words. That someone decided to pay the AP for a worthless license and the AP decided to issue a worthless license doesn't mean anything. No laws were broken. No trust broken. No rights violated. The person did this with intent to gain a worthless license even. He got what he paid for.
They don't need a database of every article published. They offered a service that made it easy to obtain permission to use text from works they hold a copyright of and someone purposefully misused the system to attempt to prove a *worthless* point. Now, I find the whole need for the system stupid, I can't believe most uses wouldn't be under fair use anyways, and I'm sure the AP eats babies.
However, there is nothing inherently wrong with the service, all this person did is make me think he's an ass out trying to prove a misguided point. So the AP took his money when he went to them offering it? Wow! Horrible.
Get back to me when the AP sues him over misusing the system. That would be worthy of a story.
This is a non-story. Some dude wanted to prove a point no one should care to prove. And he did.
Maybe the real point isn't done yet. Maybe the real point is that tech-news places will post any drivel they can find as news that they can flimsily relate to "your rights" and technology. If that is the case I eagerly await his follow up story.
Iran and China are not the same thing. Iran's government is much more repressive. It's not a technology issue. It's a repression issue. The "quote" acts like China and Iran are apples to apples and if China could do it too, they would. Just because China is repressive doesn't mean all repression is equal, and that they and Iran are two equals on a scale of *free -to- enslaved* . It's like when people try to compare to US to Iran because you can cherry pick incidents from each country and draw parallels. It's not a fair comparison and ignores the greater number of differences.
In contrast to your point however, Iran and China both need and encourage the intellectual elite. They see them as a means to an end, in regards to defeating their enemies. Just that the level of control they place over them is vastly different. China is much closer to joining the west in opening up. I'm not saying they are there yet, and that there are not issues in China. But compared to Iran? It's not even close.
You misread what I wrote. Based on the parent I responded to, my reply is based on the assumption that life was present before the runaway CO2 cycle.
Which, if assumed, would be an issue for Gaia theory since the self regulation of conditions favorable for life did obviously not occur. Obviously there are circumstances that one could assume that Gaia couldn't overcome. But on such long timescales, it would be a dent in the armor of Gaia.
Assuming life was able to start there in the first place (and given large amounts of water and the right temperature, it seems possible it could had).
Organisms that thrived on excess CO2 and helped trapped excess CO2 should have flourished and helped regulate the atmosphere.
You're confusing search with ads. No one is arguing about the search results. And in the case of your search, any would be fair, since it would be their trademark that triggered their add being displayed.
If we used the best buy example..Someone walks into Best Buy and asks to see a "Sony TV", and LG has paid Best Buy to show LG TV's instead whenever someone came in and asks for Sony, that would be closer tot he point at hand.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this needing a "law", or with the suit. However it is not a simple case of "be better/cheaper" which is what I replied to.
But do competitors have the right to profit using your own trademark? That's more the case in point. It's not that they are doing it better. It's that they are using the name recognition of the Rosetta Software to peddle their own product.
I don't necessarily agree with you. In general on your points I do. Provide a better service, a cheaper service, etc... I just don't know if you can apply it here. This is different.
Sadly I have. I've spit out RTF docs from websites many moons ago back when we had lots of printing issues on the web (still sucks, but at least now it's manageable).
In hindsight there was probably a better way...but I was young, and string manipulation is easy.
Except in this case the author of the article is an idiot and/. just posted it because it likes to takes shot at MS. Remember,/. makes money off of FOSS.
I read the whole article. There was an issue with IE6 defaulting to bing back in early June (that's in regards to the comment in the article), that was actually not an issue on the client, and nothing could have caught it because it wasn't actually a setting on the client. It was also fixed weeks ago without anyone having to patch, because, it wasn't on the client.
Other then that, I don't see anything in the article that shows it was the search service that did it, or even that Bing is what it was changed to.
Being a skeptic is a good thing. But that goes to all claims, not just the ones you want to agree with. Showing me a screen shot of a service starting is not proof.
If you're looking for video's I can't imagine using any other search engine then Bing right now. They're better at searching youtube then youtube is, and in a much friendlier manner.
For stuff other then videos, yeah, Google is king and will be for a loooong time.
Slashdot Mirror
No. People like .NET because of the very clean implementation of modern OOP principles. The drop & drag coding typically aims at mundane tasks. And the heavy OOP nature of .NET left behind a lot of the "developers" you're referring to.
The proof is in your bias assessment. The US didn't try to win a land war in Vietnam. They didn't take land and hold it. Somalia was a loss? Really? Because they made a movie out of a particular small part of the battle? The fiasco in Iraq? You mean where they kicked out one of the worlds largest armies in a weekend? Or when they toppled that same nation's government in a weekend? Afghanistan? Yeah, compared to Russia that's gone real bad.
You're confusing military capabilities with nation building and police-style actions involving the military. The US could have bombed North Vietnam into rubble anytime they wanted to, that wasn't why they were there though. The US could kill every single person in Afghanistan if they wanted without losing a single man. But they don't.
The US wasn't trying to take North Vietnam. They were trying to hold South Vietnam without doing much if anything to North Vietnam. It was part of their containment strategy for communism. Saigon didn't even fall until after America basically withdrew. Grenada? The US used like 1/1000th of it's military and technically won. It just wasn't popular. Panama? Yeah that failed bad, Noriega is just. Oh that's right he was captured and is still in jail.
You have internet access obviously, you should try reading wiki or something so you have a least a clue about the topic you're posting about.
LOL. Right, I won't think the US military is much more capable then any other military on the planet. Whatever. And as for Napoleon's Army, it's a little more complex now.
Yeah, all those private military companies are so much better?
You're talking about the most advanced and capable military in the history of the planet. The best humanity has ever done. The words incompetent and inefficient are meaningless in the way you use them because clearly there is no comparison that would lead to those conclusions. Obviously since the military has known about this and hasn't bothered to fix it they don't think it's that big of an issue. The sensationalist headline doesn't help but of course you fell for it.
This crosses a blurry line though.
Many of the stadiums and schools where this "policy" would naturally be enforced are on publicly funded campuses. This isn't quite the old "private entity - their rules" we so see often confused on the internet.
I'm not saying which way it would end up, but I would imagine that could put a twist on it.
No they didn't. That is not fact.
There is a website called iCopyright. On it you can find stories from the AP. Only have you have located an AP story do you get an option to obtain permission to use text from the story. You can then paste in the text and it does a simple word count and gives you a total. The "license" actually states the words you copy/pasted and that they came from the article.
In this case, this person found an AP article, went to obtain permission to use text from it, and then purposefully submitted text that was not from the article.
The license he obtained was worthless. No one would sue the AP over granting it, it even says on the license text+article. That text wasn't in the article.
Again, the AP did not seek this person out. This person purposefully misused a website and obtained a worthless license. No laws were broken. No copyright violated. Nothing. It's a stupid story and it's sad you need it explained to you instead of doing a little bit of thinking on your own.
No, it does not. That is the article he used as a starting point before clicking on the link to obtain permission to use an except from the article. It does no checking.
Except for a bunch of virgins whining on the interwebs, why does the service need to be changed? Who was harmed? What law was broken? Someone misused the service on purpose, wasted 12 USD on a worthless license, and then got the money back.
Holy fucking wow!
Let me know when someone actually pays the AP for a license, only the words are not under copyright by the AP, that someone then uses those words, and gets sued, and he tries to pull the "AP gave me a license" card. That would be interesting. If only to watch the entire legal system laugh at them. No one in their right mind believes the AP actually granted him a license for words he doesn't own. The AP has a service that grants rights for stuff they do own. The service was misused, ON PURPOSE, and the result was a worthless piece of paper. And a bunch of pissed of virgins.
I'm sure the law-people that work for the AP are smart enough to put a disclaimer on the license that would negate any and all possibilities of the "false copyright claim" you bring up. It would take all of 2 seconds to do.
The AP grants you to right to use the AP owned crap you submitted to the AP. If the stuff you submitted wasn't owned by the AP, GFY!
Pretty simple if you ask me. Basically you're getting the right from the AP for AP controlled crap. If the AP doesn't own it, that it's not "false copyright claim" it's worthless.
He *offered* to pay them for words they don't own and they accepted his money since the mechanism for doing so does not check ownership. It's simply a word count. AP did not seek him out to collect charges. That is a big difference. In fact, that difference to me is why it's a non-story. Basically the AP is charging on a "per word" basis. So all they need to do count words. That someone decided to pay the AP for a worthless license and the AP decided to issue a worthless license doesn't mean anything. No laws were broken. No trust broken. No rights violated. The person did this with intent to gain a worthless license even. He got what he paid for.
They don't need a database of every article published. They offered a service that made it easy to obtain permission to use text from works they hold a copyright of and someone purposefully misused the system to attempt to prove a *worthless* point.
Now, I find the whole need for the system stupid, I can't believe most uses wouldn't be under fair use anyways, and I'm sure the AP eats babies.
However, there is nothing inherently wrong with the service, all this person did is make me think he's an ass out trying to prove a misguided point. So the AP took his money when he went to them offering it? Wow! Horrible.
Get back to me when the AP sues him over misusing the system. That would be worthy of a story.
/thread
This is a non-story. Some dude wanted to prove a point no one should care to prove. And he did.
Maybe the real point isn't done yet. Maybe the real point is that tech-news places will post any drivel they can find as news that they can flimsily relate to "your rights" and technology.
If that is the case I eagerly await his follow up story.
Iran and China are not the same thing. Iran's government is much more repressive. It's not a technology issue. It's a repression issue. The "quote" acts like China and Iran are apples to apples and if China could do it too, they would. Just because China is repressive doesn't mean all repression is equal, and that they and Iran are two equals on a scale of *free -to- enslaved* . It's like when people try to compare to US to Iran because you can cherry pick incidents from each country and draw parallels. It's not a fair comparison and ignores the greater number of differences.
In contrast to your point however, Iran and China both need and encourage the intellectual elite. They see them as a means to an end, in regards to defeating their enemies. Just that the level of control they place over them is vastly different. China is much closer to joining the west in opening up. I'm not saying they are there yet, and that there are not issues in China. But compared to Iran? It's not even close.
You misread what I wrote. Based on the parent I responded to, my reply is based on the assumption that life was present before the runaway CO2 cycle.
Which, if assumed, would be an issue for Gaia theory since the self regulation of conditions favorable for life did obviously not occur. Obviously there are circumstances that one could assume that Gaia couldn't overcome. But on such long timescales, it would be a dent in the armor of Gaia.
Assuming life was able to start there in the first place (and given large amounts of water and the right temperature, it seems possible it could had). Organisms that thrived on excess CO2 and helped trapped excess CO2 should have flourished and helped regulate the atmosphere.
You're confusing search with ads. No one is arguing about the search results. And in the case of your search, any would be fair, since it would be their trademark that triggered their add being displayed.
You went off on a tangent there.
If we used the best buy example..Someone walks into Best Buy and asks to see a "Sony TV", and LG has paid Best Buy to show LG TV's instead whenever someone came in and asks for Sony, that would be closer tot he point at hand.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this needing a "law", or with the suit. However it is not a simple case of "be better/cheaper" which is what I replied to.
The question at hand is competitors having ads shown when someone searches for "Rosetta stone" not when they search for "language software".
But do competitors have the right to profit using your own trademark? That's more the case in point. It's not that they are doing it better. It's that they are using the name recognition of the Rosetta Software to peddle their own product.
I don't necessarily agree with you. In general on your points I do. Provide a better service, a cheaper service, etc... I just don't know if you can apply it here. This is different.
I hear Google is great for doing searches...
Sadly I have. I've spit out RTF docs from websites many moons ago back when we had lots of printing issues on the web (still sucks, but at least now it's manageable).
In hindsight there was probably a better way...but I was young, and string manipulation is easy.
Good answer. Now all we need is for someone to mod your post up to +5 and then lock the thread.
*sigh* it's a slow news day
Except in this case the author of the article is an idiot and /. just posted it because it likes to takes shot at MS. Remember, /. makes money off of FOSS.
I read the whole article. There was an issue with IE6 defaulting to bing back in early June (that's in regards to the comment in the article), that was actually not an issue on the client, and nothing could have caught it because it wasn't actually a setting on the client. It was also fixed weeks ago without anyone having to patch, because, it wasn't on the client.
Other then that, I don't see anything in the article that shows it was the search service that did it, or even that Bing is what it was changed to.
Being a skeptic is a good thing. But that goes to all claims, not just the ones you want to agree with. Showing me a screen shot of a service starting is not proof.
If you're looking for video's I can't imagine using any other search engine then Bing right now. They're better at searching youtube then youtube is, and in a much friendlier manner.
For stuff other then videos, yeah, Google is king and will be for a loooong time.