Re:Web 2.0: Where solutions don't need problems?
on
Web 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Also, from a development perspective, this is exactly the Model View Controller framework that so many people really like to enforce in their development practices.... And you can't accidentally put view functionality into the model, the XML communications library you set up shouldn't be processing raw HTML (since passing raw HTML is an abuse of ajax, you should be xmlifying your data, and sending it *as* data).
It's funny, I think MVC is a huge design mistake that has been so accepted that people think it's actually a good design. Here are two great articles on why MVC is really quite bad. So one thing that I've liked about AJAX is that it presents an oppoturnity for people to stop using MVC and start using more object-oriented (and thus more reusable) designs. A great framework for this kind of MVC-less design is Rico. It makes it easy to break MVC by not "xmlifying" your data. When you have components that can display themselves, AJAX is easy.
a lot of people jump straight into Rails without any prior knowledge of Ruby
Ok, but if you go on RoR's official site, you will see several quotes including:
Ruby on Rails is a breakthrough in lowering the barriers of entry to programming
Sounds to me that one of RoR's supposed selling points is that people can "jump straight into Rails." I'm sure if the RoR site had a big banner at the top of the page saying "Please go learn Ruby before reading anything else on this site!" then it would not have nearly as much mindshare.
You can't have it both ways. If you want to "lower the barriers of entry" then you must realize that your target audience includes inexperienced programmers. At least Microsoft understands this, and have created the mother of all mind-numbing IDEs, Visual Studio. If instead you want to say your target audience only includes experienced programmers, then that good ol' barrier to entry just got raised pretty high.
The CLR affords far better platform specific integration than Java.
You mean better Win32 integration than Java. Don't throw the term platform out there unless you support more than one.
Java does a much better job with cross-platform protocols, like CORBA and SOAP..NET works better with unsafe Win32 code. That's why Java is used in businesses and.NET is used for desktop apps...
Err I mean SOME desktop apps. Microsoft doesn't even eat its own dog food. It's not like Office 2003, or Outlook Express, or MSN Messenger are written using.NET. Is anything in Vista written in C#? The only thing they've used C# for outside of Visual Studio is SQL Server 2005, and that was a painful experience for them. But I digress...
The security framework built into.NET (Code Access Security) is arguably more refined and capable than the model built into Java.
Oh really. Please show us this argument. MS has such a great track record when it comes to security... Do you even know what Java's security framework is?
While both.NET and Java are free, the application servers they run on are not.
Perhaps you haven't heard of Tomcat, JBoss, Geronimo, etc.
As far as language comparison goes, it's not really all that useful since the CLR supports pretty much everything you could think of, including a nearly 1 to 1 copy of Java.
But yet you still claim that.NET is not a rip-off of Java?
Actually I'd say that Yahoo is all about using people's insight over algorithmiic insight. Examples:
Yahoo News has always used editors to determine top stories. Google News prides itself on not using people for this, just its search engine and clustering of results
Yahoo's local search uses user reviews of search results. So if you search for "Chinese food" near a certain location, Yahoo will show you higher rated/reviewed results over closer ones potentially.
It's not hard to imagine them using tags to improve search results in their web search now.
I have a friend who thought much the same way. She is somewhat anti-technology, always complaining about technology and especially about people spending large amounts of money on technology. For example, we have a mutual friend who about a Mercedes with a navigation system about three years ago. She totally thought that was stupid and a huge waste of money. When it comes to television, her and her husband only had an old TV that was maybe 15" in size. They had a small apartment, but he was always wanting to get a better TV. She would always shoot him down though.
Then on one weekend they came out to my house. There was a football game on my TV, a 40" HDTV. The game was in HD and I'm one of those apparently rare people who actually has his eqipment setup properly. Anyways, my friend was dumbstruck by the picture quality. She just kept staring at and making comments like "You can see every detail on the quarterback's face!" Her husband just kept quietly saying "thank you" to me...
I've had the pleasure of telling many bosses that I was leaving. In every case I told them in person, never through a letter. This way I could explain why I was leaving, I could give them a chance to convince to me to stay, and we could discuss what they needed from me during the rest of my time there. I think you should have done the same thing. Submitting a letter to HR is very impersonal. It probably wasn't somebody in HR who made the decision to hire you. They'll have you fill out paperwork anyways, so it's not like you have to worry about them not being in the loop. Nope, the first person you need to talk to is your boss and you really need to talk.
Your response is weak. A slavery clause would be in violation of The Constitution, namely the Thirteenth Ammendment. Obviously a contract cannot contain provisions that violate The Constitution. So you see no line has to be drawn. It's already been drawn by The Constitution. As long as we have The Rule of Law, then we know what the line is.
Well following your line of reasoning then one should expect to always be able to break any contract. It's all just a mesh right? I'll bend it however I need to! But what happens if I think I should be able to bend a contract to my liking and the person I made the contract with thinks that they should be able to do the same thing? Who gets to do the bending? If neither person can be held reponsible for breaking the contract then we are in a "might makes right" situation where the stronger party will always take advantage of the weaker one.
But what you want is even worse. The student broke a contract with the university (or so they claim and you do not seem to dispute this) so you want the government to step in? So one should expect to be able to break a contract and have the government step in so that you get away with it? So now it's just a matter of who can manipulate the government to get their way.
I'm sure that sounds ok to you as long as the government does what you want it to. When they don't then you'll surely cry that there is corruption.
Personally I don't want the government to have a vote in a private matter. I like this thing called The Rule of Law. You might have heard of it. I expect the law to be well-defined and enforced.
And yes the law must be an absolute position. Otherwise then somebody could take an action that has been ruled legal previously, only to have it turned around and rule illegal. The law cannot be flexible. Government can ammend the laws, but otherwise it must not change.
So does expecting The Rule of Law mean that I am afraid to think? No, just the opposite. Expecting an unchanging law is a necesarry assumption for one to be able to use their intellect to make decisions.
Just because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal. After all, whose morals are we talking about? If you use that argument then you wind up with the Taliban in power.
Why should a business be FORCED to sell to anyone? Shouldn't they be free to choose who they sell to? We may find their choices repugnant, but that does not mean we should take away freedoms to rectify a particular situation.
Free speech is with regards to the government, not to private parties. Write an email to everyone in your company saying what a jerk your boss is and you will be fired. The Constitution does not protect such things. However, you will not be arrested for writing such an email. Similarly you will not be arrested or have your property taxes doubled, etc. for blogging about how you disagree with the war in Iraq. That is free speech. That is protected by The Constitution.
This is not a free speech issue, it is a contract issue. He had a contract with the university. They are claiming that he violated that contract by violating their code of conduct, and thus are taking actions that their contract says they can do in such cases. He can only argue that he did not break their contract or that their contract language was too vague and thus non-binding.
Now Marquette may reverse their ruling because of the bad press. They will probably be worried that less people will be willing to enter into contract with them given their actions in this case. That would mean their school would be less desirable to students and thus their business would suffer. Or they may decide that such negative effects are not significant enough.
I must disagree. I am no diplomat and have no experience in international affairs. I have been around the corporate world for awhile though, and the language used here would be considered pretty strong there. The letter says that the key to the success of the internet is the lack of government control. It then directly criticizes the EU's position saying that it would exert government control. If this was an internal issue to a company it would be like saying "hey what you are proposing will be disastorous for us." That is a very strong assertion. Even in the corporate world you would only see an examination of the opposing position, without even directly saying who is supporting this position. You would then just see some statements about how your position holds some advantages over the opposing position. Thus no direct criticism of the opposing position and correlation betwen the opposing position and the people proposing it.
If you had RTFA, you might have noticed that they key to it working is limiting data points. In other words, the population it works on is always small, just the people in the pictures you have in you picture collection. So it has a relatively small number of people to identify, but usually has lot of pictures of those people. It's the perfect kind of dataset for this kind of technology to work with. So maybe you should try to technology first, or at least try to understand it.
1) You say that as if the community doesn't support old drivers at all. Also, just how much is gained from keeping secret how to control your device?
nVidia and ATI are both notorious for "optimizing" their drivers to perform better on both synthetic benchmarks and popular games. Often a new card sees dramatic performance improvement from revisions to its driver. Some of these revisions amount to "if (title == "Doom3") then { make special use of hardware }"
I believe one of the worst idea's to come out of the Catholic Church is that the Pope determines what is heretical and not God and His scriptures. History has shown that men can be corrupted so I have difficulty putting so much trust in a man.
but then you say:
My beliefs do not come from elected men in man made hierarchies of power. My beliefs come from and are supported by the scriptures.
I find this incredibly amusing. You say that men can be corrupted, so don't trust them. Sounds good. Then you say that everything you believe in comes from scripture. Well who do you think wrote the scriptures? Men. Oh I know, they claimed to be just writing down the word of God, but a Pope or a priest or, for that matter, a serial killer, could say that they or simply telling you the word of God. So how is it wiser to trust a book written by men, especially when you don't even know exactly what men wrote it? And of course you're not even reading what was originally written. Obviously it's been translated as well as copied, re-copied, etc. Even if you really believed that the men who wrote the original text were definitely writing the word of God directly, there have been countless other intermediaries since then. Enumerable opportunities for one person or another to change what was written, either for bad reasons or by honest mistake.
Here's an idea: Trust your brain and nothing else. You're right that you shouldn't just believe something because the Pope says you should. You've got to make up your own mind. Logic and reason -- these things are your best bet.
Here's another quote I liked:
If you can subjectively dismiss any part of the Bible because it doesn't agree with your beliefs or agenda then why would any of it be true?
That is a good point. So don't subjectively dismiss things. Try being objective instead.
What is the algorithm used to determine which passages are fact and what is fiction? Is it mere opinion? How can something be true yet not accurate? If it is inspired by God it is perfectly conceived unless God isn't perfect. If it isn't perfectly conceived how can any of it be trustworthy?
So if you read something, it cannot be trusted unless you believe it came directly from God? Clearly you have to be able to deal with information that did not come from God. If you know something didn't come from God, then surely you use your reason to determine if it makes sense or not. This is a good test. You should apply it to everything, including things that you have been told are directly from God. That includes speeches by pontiffs and books like The King James Bible.
Contrary to some popular beliefs, there's nothing wrong with examining evidence yourself. There's nothing wrong with testing a hypothesis. There's nothing wrong with listening to the ideas of others, but being critical of those ideas. If somebody's ideas don't make sense, there's nothing with rejecting them as being wrong. Let free will and reason empower you.
You're absolutely right, but it really begs the question: why bother with anything but the minimal TPM? How many potential Mac users are savvy enough to defeat the most minimal security? Look at all the hacks that have been so far. As "easy" as some of them were, they were still beyond the grasp of 95+% of all computer owners. Even if it is "easy" to crack their TPM, it's not like you're going to go into Walmart and find a whitebox PC running OSX for sale. It's not like Dell is going to make OSX an option on its machines, no matter how "easy" it is to crack the OSX TPM.
Many others have pointed out that Apple could wind up selling more Macs if they make it easier for people to crack OSX's TPM. There's some definite truth in that, but at the very least, an easily cracked OSX is not going to significantly affect Mac sales. Whatever time Apple spends "toughening" their TPM is time wasted.
I think it's a good omission. So what if there's a why behind it. It doesn't change the fact that it is a strike against free speech. Here's a new flash, all campaign finance laws are anti-free speech. Anytime you limit what people say, you are limiting free speech. Anytime somebody wants to limit freedom, there's always a why.
You have some factual problems ($38 at Amazon is a sale price, the list is $50+ and you can get all of season one for $35 on iTunes,) as others have pointed out, but there is some insight to it. That being said, there are several advantages that iTunes has over DVD-box sets:
You can buy just one episode. What if you want to give a show a try. You're not going to want to throw down $40-60 for the full season, DVD box set.
Not all TV shows make it to DVD. It's mostly the ones with some kind of "loyal" following of people who have already seen all the shows, but want them for posterity sakes.
Size. A purely digital download only takes up HD space, not "physical" space like a DVD, or worse, a box of DVDs. Of course you can rip from your DVDs, but that is non-trivial, is anything but quick, and thus obviously less convenient.
Portable playback. The new iPod is the first of what is likely to be many portable devices for playing downloaded video. There are portable DVD players, but they are much bigger than a new iPod, for example.
Downloads are available the day after a show airs on TV. DVD box sets usually come out when the next season starts, usually a year later.
Recently I watched seasons 1-3 of Alias on DVDs that I got through Netflix. It took me about three months to do this. I pay $18/month to Netflix. A single DVD of Alias was usually one of three Netflix DVDs I would have at any one time. So that was definitely a more economic way to go than if Alias was available on iTunes. Of course I didn't get to keep the shows, though I could have ripped them and/or copied the DVDs if I would have been so inclined.
Anyways, the good news is that there are becoming more and more ways to access this kind of content. More options means more compettition, which is always good for consumers. The prices of DVD box sets may go down thanks to iTunes. Maybe the prices of Netflix will also go down, or maybe they will offer a download alternative. Maybe more cable companies will offer TV shows on-demand, who knows?
Not necesarrily. There is a debugger version available from MSDN, but there is also a non-debugger one as well. Don't know what the parent was running, but my non-debugger system was also very sluggish in places, though it did boot tremendously fast. IE 7 on both Vista and XP is incredibly slow too.
Yeah no kidding. Personally the prospect of Front Row + TV Shows on iTunes seems a lot more interesting. Take a Mac Mini, add Front Row, hook it all up to your home theater, add a Bluetooth enabled keyboard+mouse... Go buy some TV shows from iTunes and watch them on your big screen telly.
Slashdot Mirror
A less obscure source of "inspiration" might be flickr's photostream.
You can't have it both ways. If you want to "lower the barriers of entry" then you must realize that your target audience includes inexperienced programmers. At least Microsoft understands this, and have created the mother of all mind-numbing IDEs, Visual Studio. If instead you want to say your target audience only includes experienced programmers, then that good ol' barrier to entry just got raised pretty high.
Java does a much better job with cross-platform protocols, like CORBA and SOAP.
Err I mean SOME desktop apps. Microsoft doesn't even eat its own dog food. It's not like Office 2003, or Outlook Express, or MSN Messenger are written using
- Yahoo News has always used editors to determine top stories. Google News prides itself on not using people for this, just its search engine and clustering of results
- Yahoo's local search uses user reviews of search results. So if you search for "Chinese food" near a certain location, Yahoo will show you higher rated/reviewed results over closer ones potentially.
It's not hard to imagine them using tags to improve search results in their web search now.I have a friend who thought much the same way. She is somewhat anti-technology, always complaining about technology and especially about people spending large amounts of money on technology. For example, we have a mutual friend who about a Mercedes with a navigation system about three years ago. She totally thought that was stupid and a huge waste of money. When it comes to television, her and her husband only had an old TV that was maybe 15" in size. They had a small apartment, but he was always wanting to get a better TV. She would always shoot him down though.
Then on one weekend they came out to my house. There was a football game on my TV, a 40" HDTV. The game was in HD and I'm one of those apparently rare people who actually has his eqipment setup properly. Anyways, my friend was dumbstruck by the picture quality. She just kept staring at and making comments like "You can see every detail on the quarterback's face!" Her husband just kept quietly saying "thank you" to me...
I've had the pleasure of telling many bosses that I was leaving. In every case I told them in person, never through a letter. This way I could explain why I was leaving, I could give them a chance to convince to me to stay, and we could discuss what they needed from me during the rest of my time there. I think you should have done the same thing. Submitting a letter to HR is very impersonal. It probably wasn't somebody in HR who made the decision to hire you. They'll have you fill out paperwork anyways, so it's not like you have to worry about them not being in the loop. Nope, the first person you need to talk to is your boss and you really need to talk.
Your response is weak. A slavery clause would be in violation of The Constitution, namely the Thirteenth Ammendment. Obviously a contract cannot contain provisions that violate The Constitution. So you see no line has to be drawn. It's already been drawn by The Constitution. As long as we have The Rule of Law, then we know what the line is.
Well following your line of reasoning then one should expect to always be able to break any contract. It's all just a mesh right? I'll bend it however I need to! But what happens if I think I should be able to bend a contract to my liking and the person I made the contract with thinks that they should be able to do the same thing? Who gets to do the bending? If neither person can be held reponsible for breaking the contract then we are in a "might makes right" situation where the stronger party will always take advantage of the weaker one.
But what you want is even worse. The student broke a contract with the university (or so they claim and you do not seem to dispute this) so you want the government to step in? So one should expect to be able to break a contract and have the government step in so that you get away with it? So now it's just a matter of who can manipulate the government to get their way.
I'm sure that sounds ok to you as long as the government does what you want it to. When they don't then you'll surely cry that there is corruption.
Personally I don't want the government to have a vote in a private matter. I like this thing called The Rule of Law. You might have heard of it. I expect the law to be well-defined and enforced.
And yes the law must be an absolute position. Otherwise then somebody could take an action that has been ruled legal previously, only to have it turned around and rule illegal. The law cannot be flexible. Government can ammend the laws, but otherwise it must not change.
So does expecting The Rule of Law mean that I am afraid to think? No, just the opposite. Expecting an unchanging law is a necesarry assumption for one to be able to use their intellect to make decisions.
Just because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal. After all, whose morals are we talking about? If you use that argument then you wind up with the Taliban in power.
Why should a business be FORCED to sell to anyone? Shouldn't they be free to choose who they sell to? We may find their choices repugnant, but that does not mean we should take away freedoms to rectify a particular situation.
Free speech is with regards to the government, not to private parties. Write an email to everyone in your company saying what a jerk your boss is and you will be fired. The Constitution does not protect such things. However, you will not be arrested for writing such an email. Similarly you will not be arrested or have your property taxes doubled, etc. for blogging about how you disagree with the war in Iraq. That is free speech. That is protected by The Constitution.
This is not a free speech issue, it is a contract issue. He had a contract with the university. They are claiming that he violated that contract by violating their code of conduct, and thus are taking actions that their contract says they can do in such cases. He can only argue that he did not break their contract or that their contract language was too vague and thus non-binding.
Now Marquette may reverse their ruling because of the bad press. They will probably be worried that less people will be willing to enter into contract with them given their actions in this case. That would mean their school would be less desirable to students and thus their business would suffer. Or they may decide that such negative effects are not significant enough.
I must disagree. I am no diplomat and have no experience in international affairs. I have been around the corporate world for awhile though, and the language used here would be considered pretty strong there. The letter says that the key to the success of the internet is the lack of government control. It then directly criticizes the EU's position saying that it would exert government control. If this was an internal issue to a company it would be like saying "hey what you are proposing will be disastorous for us." That is a very strong assertion. Even in the corporate world you would only see an examination of the opposing position, without even directly saying who is supporting this position. You would then just see some statements about how your position holds some advantages over the opposing position. Thus no direct criticism of the opposing position and correlation betwen the opposing position and the people proposing it.
I was going to say the same thing. The same thing was done on Napster just before it was shutdown. Didn't work there, won't work here.
If you had RTFA, you might have noticed that they key to it working is limiting data points. In other words, the population it works on is always small, just the people in the pictures you have in you picture collection. So it has a relatively small number of people to identify, but usually has lot of pictures of those people. It's the perfect kind of dataset for this kind of technology to work with. So maybe you should try to technology first, or at least try to understand it.
They only support IE6. So maybe they are using an ActiveX control or heavily depend on some invalid DHTML. That used to be the norm, y'know.
First you say but then you say: I find this incredibly amusing. You say that men can be corrupted, so don't trust them. Sounds good. Then you say that everything you believe in comes from scripture. Well who do you think wrote the scriptures? Men. Oh I know, they claimed to be just writing down the word of God, but a Pope or a priest or, for that matter, a serial killer, could say that they or simply telling you the word of God. So how is it wiser to trust a book written by men, especially when you don't even know exactly what men wrote it? And of course you're not even reading what was originally written. Obviously it's been translated as well as copied, re-copied, etc. Even if you really believed that the men who wrote the original text were definitely writing the word of God directly, there have been countless other intermediaries since then. Enumerable opportunities for one person or another to change what was written, either for bad reasons or by honest mistake.
Here's an idea: Trust your brain and nothing else. You're right that you shouldn't just believe something because the Pope says you should. You've got to make up your own mind. Logic and reason -- these things are your best bet. Here's another quote I liked: That is a good point. So don't subjectively dismiss things. Try being objective instead. So if you read something, it cannot be trusted unless you believe it came directly from God? Clearly you have to be able to deal with information that did not come from God. If you know something didn't come from God, then surely you use your reason to determine if it makes sense or not. This is a good test. You should apply it to everything, including things that you have been told are directly from God. That includes speeches by pontiffs and books like The King James Bible.
Contrary to some popular beliefs, there's nothing wrong with examining evidence yourself. There's nothing wrong with testing a hypothesis. There's nothing wrong with listening to the ideas of others, but being critical of those ideas. If somebody's ideas don't make sense, there's nothing with rejecting them as being wrong. Let free will and reason empower you.
You're absolutely right, but it really begs the question: why bother with anything but the minimal TPM? How many potential Mac users are savvy enough to defeat the most minimal security? Look at all the hacks that have been so far. As "easy" as some of them were, they were still beyond the grasp of 95+% of all computer owners. Even if it is "easy" to crack their TPM, it's not like you're going to go into Walmart and find a whitebox PC running OSX for sale. It's not like Dell is going to make OSX an option on its machines, no matter how "easy" it is to crack the OSX TPM.
Many others have pointed out that Apple could wind up selling more Macs if they make it easier for people to crack OSX's TPM. There's some definite truth in that, but at the very least, an easily cracked OSX is not going to significantly affect Mac sales. Whatever time Apple spends "toughening" their TPM is time wasted.
I think it's a good omission. So what if there's a why behind it. It doesn't change the fact that it is a strike against free speech. Here's a new flash, all campaign finance laws are anti-free speech. Anytime you limit what people say, you are limiting free speech. Anytime somebody wants to limit freedom, there's always a why.
- You can buy just one episode. What if you want to give a show a try. You're not going to want to throw down $40-60 for the full season, DVD box set.
- Not all TV shows make it to DVD. It's mostly the ones with some kind of "loyal" following of people who have already seen all the shows, but want them for posterity sakes.
- Size. A purely digital download only takes up HD space, not "physical" space like a DVD, or worse, a box of DVDs. Of course you can rip from your DVDs, but that is non-trivial, is anything but quick, and thus obviously less convenient.
- Portable playback. The new iPod is the first of what is likely to be many portable devices for playing downloaded video. There are portable DVD players, but they are much bigger than a new iPod, for example.
- Downloads are available the day after a show airs on TV. DVD box sets usually come out when the next season starts, usually a year later.
Recently I watched seasons 1-3 of Alias on DVDs that I got through Netflix. It took me about three months to do this. I pay $18/month to Netflix. A single DVD of Alias was usually one of three Netflix DVDs I would have at any one time. So that was definitely a more economic way to go than if Alias was available on iTunes. Of course I didn't get to keep the shows, though I could have ripped them and/or copied the DVDs if I would have been so inclined.Anyways, the good news is that there are becoming more and more ways to access this kind of content. More options means more compettition, which is always good for consumers. The prices of DVD box sets may go down thanks to iTunes. Maybe the prices of Netflix will also go down, or maybe they will offer a download alternative. Maybe more cable companies will offer TV shows on-demand, who knows?
Not necesarrily. There is a debugger version available from MSDN, but there is also a non-debugger one as well. Don't know what the parent was running, but my non-debugger system was also very sluggish in places, though it did boot tremendously fast. IE 7 on both Vista and XP is incredibly slow too.
People love to laugh about how slow MS has been to release Vista, but in a lot of ways, Gnome/KDE are still playing catch up to XP.
Front Row is only part of the new iMacs, at least so far. So now I have to plop down $1300+ for this solution to work.
Besides, Front Row is overkill. I just want to watch a TV show I bought on my TV. Just being able to burn it to a DVD is so much simpler.
Yeah no kidding. Personally the prospect of Front Row + TV Shows on iTunes seems a lot more interesting. Take a Mac Mini, add Front Row, hook it all up to your home theater, add a Bluetooth enabled keyboard+mouse... Go buy some TV shows from iTunes and watch them on your big screen telly.