I mean they are not actually speeding up development and testing and fixing. I do not believe they can speed up their delivery of quality tested features by much at all. Who can?
They're just re-labeling what they have as a whole-number release much more often.
The real reason the FBI found Anonymous not to just be a collection of individuals can be found in this leaked classified recording: (Transcript below):
There should be a right to prevent others from profiting by copying and distributing or packaging your works without an agreement with you, but NOT a right to prevent the material being freely copyable where no money is being exchanged and no advertising is being glommed on.
An interesting question is whether people capable of intense mental focus (which may be medicalized into an Asperger's diagnosis) are better at programming and thus go into it or related fields, and are thus found in higher percentages among geeks, or...
Does programming train (and eventually re-pattern the connections of) the brain into being more deeply attention-focussed, thus causing Asperger's syndrome.
There is no doubt that patterns of mental work re-shape the brain's connections and tendencies (e.g. Prolonged excessive multi-tasking eventually causes lack of ability to focus) so if the programming comes first and Aspergers second, we might expect NOT to see an inheritance of the tendency, unless it is an epigenetic effect.
This overall case would seem to have two elements: One is the conflict between trademark protection and property right. The second is the horribly messy jurisdictional overlaps that occur in Internet related legal disputes.
If I acquire the domain name Googler.com legitimately because someone from the big G forgot to register that variant, I now have a property right to that domain name.
But Google also has a trademark right to it (easily confusable etc etc) so under trademark law they ought to be able to prevent me from using Googler.com in association with trade (at least in computer/advertising/software related things.)
Except that maybe I bought Googler.com while residing in, say, Canada.
So I have Canadian property rights to the domain name, apparently, and also I might be able to set up the town of Parish Ontario Googler search engine, because that's a local and foreign business, compared to google.com
Hopelessly confusing legal mess really.
It really boils down to which party owns a 737 that can be rigged up with air-to-surface missiles, doesn't it.
It's exactly the set of features that my approaching elderly parents use their computer for.
Hope the execution improves slightly, if the WSJ article's criticisms are correct, but overall I give it an A for requirements fit and usability design for the target actor role.
Every so often, a new fundamental programming concept (or an old one with a new coat of paint) shows up in a group of newly popular programming languages.
For example, Java and C# represent traditional class and single-inheritance-based object oriented programming, and go along with a particular philosophy of how you should analyse your problem domain and solution structure before beginning to program. It's that philosophy you need to learn and understand, then the languages which feature it should be easy to pick up.
Lately, a few other fundamental ideas have become popular again. "scripting" languages like Python and Ruby have re-introduced LISP's REPL-based interpreter shell, and informal type enforcement, making rapid experimental programming a breeze while retaining some advantages of object-oriented development.
Haskell and related languages are making pure functional programming popular again. To learn a language like that, it would help to take a course on the fundamentals of functional programming.
It's the particular software construction concepts that it is important to learn. The language knowledge should just come along for the ride. You should learn at least two different language examples of each new programming concept, so you can compare how they implement the concept, and thus come to learn the concept more deeply.
It was probably the best all-in-one python webapp-building mega-framework 5 years ago.
I found Turbogears great because it eliminated (unnecessary) choices (i.e. all mandatory convention), and pretty much just worked out of the box (modify a working trivial webapp was the way you got started.)
How does its latest version compare to these others? Anyone have an opinion on that?
If TG is no longer competitve, why, and which other one has its good features like I described above?
Because I agree it would be so much better if the scientific calculation program I give you computes different results for you than it does for me. Definitely better. So much better than having to fix some broken implementations of a standard in the next rev.
I guess if you're not an environmentalist: one concerned with conserving valuable properties of the eco-systems which, among other things, sustain us, you must be a vacuumist: one who is convinced humans are clever enough to live in a stripped-bare, repurposed, fully engineered world with no help from non-human natural life processes. Well why don't you launch yourself into space in an advanced tin-can for the long haul and see how well that works out for you.
Have you ever considered how many fewer prostitutes there might have been hanging out on the street if society had supported them better without inducing guilt and shame?
Might be a good reason to choose a Mac (and you can do Unix stuff on it without too much trouble.)
Seriously though I am wondering what features Opera has in mid-2011 that chrome/FF don't have now? Why would I switch to Opera if I were brilliant, at this point?
For freedom, the cloud needs to become just a layer in the protocol, as it were.
Some rules of the global cloud layer's operation:
1. Hosters must have no rights pertaining to hosted content (except to remove it, but see 3.)
2. Hosters should have no responsibility for content.
3. Hosters should be prevented technically (e.g. by strong encryption not under their control) from knowing what content they host.
4. No hoster should host more than an unintelligible (bit-wise randomly interleaved) fragment of any content document.
5. Hosting should be provided on a mix of consolidated data-centre stores (for performance) and a massively distributed and decentralized peer network, and costs of hosting should be shared by a combination of storage markets and storage-service trading (peering) arrangements, involving the edge players as well as the large-scale players.
6. Content fragments, in co-operation with simple, standard, uniform software on each storage host, should ensure the content's own long-term survival in the cloud, via a process of periodically checking across the globally distributed storage cloud to ensure that enough copies exist and are sufficiently well distributed on reachable hosts and are stored on a mix of old reliable and newly commissioned storage hosts.
7. Access to coalesced and decrypted content should only be possible for possessors of the encryption key for the content.
It goes like this ok? Hierarchically organized groups of people are more powerful as a general rule than individual people, even than the same number of unorganized people. So one way or another, you're going to get hierarchical governance, and one way or other, you're going to get schooled by and taxed by your hierarchical governors. This will come either from the gangleader whose turf you find your sorry ass in, or from some possibly more legitimate semi-democratic kind of leadership. These are your only alternatives. Set up some libertarian paradise and the mafioso with the biggest guns and most ruthless yet charismatic gang-organizing skills will soon be asking you politely for tax payments to support his reliable "personal and property security" company.
Democratic government constrains the absolute freedom of individuals (especially when they ignore rules set down generally for the common good and act like completely selfish d1ckheads.). Democratic government systems theoretically do this on behalf of the collective will of the majority (though corporate interests are greating pretty sophisticated at buying "will" through newsvertizing and the like.)
I'm pretty sure that this hierarchical organization with SEMI-autonomous agents as parts of the whole is a thermodynamically more efficient super-organism than the same number of individuals, with our species, and many other higher "group-oriented" animal species. You aren't going to win over that. It's basic physics and the math of complex systems working against you.
Any "robust economic analysis" which ignores the environmental damage our current economy is doing is sheer folly.
However, instead of picking individual winners and losers, the government should just impose a dollar-a-gallon carbon tax and let the market sort out who stands and who falls on the new green playing field.
It seems that, according to the justice system, the errant hacker would have been better to have acted on his revenge anger immediately, rushing over and killing the accusing father in a pique of rage.
Then he would have received 10 years for manslaughter instead of 18 years for various cybercrime offenses.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean they are not actually speeding up development and testing and fixing.
I do not believe they can speed up their delivery of quality tested features
by much at all. Who can?
They're just re-labeling what they have as a whole-number release much more often.
Why? Who knows. Maybe because it's fashionable.
The real reason the FBI found Anonymous not to just be a collection of individuals can be found in this leaked classified recording:
(Transcript below):
Subject: Secret Anonymous Gathering 20100924 03:24:36Z
(sound of chanting): "We are all individuals"
"We are all individuals"
"We are all individuals"
"We are all individuals"
"I'm not!"
A Device That Goes Up but does not Come Down
Variation 1: A Device That Goes Up But Splits Into Multiple Components Before Coming Down
There should be a right to prevent others from profiting by copying and distributing or packaging your works
without an agreement with you,
but NOT a right to prevent the material being freely copyable where no money is being exchanged and no
advertising is being glommed on.
An interesting question is whether people capable of intense mental focus (which may be medicalized into an Asperger's diagnosis)
are better at programming and thus go into it or related fields, and are thus found in higher percentages among geeks, or...
Does programming train (and eventually re-pattern the connections of) the brain into being more deeply attention-focussed, thus
causing Asperger's syndrome.
There is no doubt that patterns of mental work re-shape the brain's connections and tendencies
(e.g. Prolonged excessive multi-tasking eventually causes lack of ability to focus)
so if the programming comes first and Aspergers second, we might expect NOT to see an inheritance of the tendency,
unless it is an epigenetic effect.
I'll see your "property rights equaled liberty"
and raise with "Freedom's just another name for nothin' left to lose"
In Texas they don't need renters rights. To paraphrase the NRA: Six-guns don't kill people, Disgruntled renters kill people.
This overall case would seem to have two elements:
One is the conflict between trademark protection and property right.
The second is the horribly messy jurisdictional overlaps that occur in Internet related legal disputes.
If I acquire the domain name Googler.com legitimately because someone from the big G forgot to register that variant,
I now have a property right to that domain name.
But Google also has a trademark right to it (easily confusable etc etc) so under trademark law they ought to be able to
prevent me from using Googler.com in association with trade (at least in computer/advertising/software related things.)
Except that maybe I bought Googler.com while residing in, say, Canada.
So I have Canadian property rights to the domain name, apparently, and also I might be able to set up the town of Parish Ontario Googler search engine,
because that's a local and foreign business, compared to google.com
Hopelessly confusing legal mess really.
It really boils down to which party owns a 737 that can be rigged up with air-to-surface missiles, doesn't it.
It's exactly the set of features that my approaching elderly parents use their computer for.
Hope the execution improves slightly, if the WSJ article's criticisms are correct, but overall I give it an A for requirements fit and usability design for the
target actor role.
Individual languages are not the issue.
Every so often, a new fundamental programming concept (or an old one with a new coat of paint) shows up in a group of newly popular programming languages.
For example, Java and C# represent traditional class and single-inheritance-based object oriented programming, and go along with a particular philosophy of how you should analyse your problem domain and solution structure before beginning to program. It's that philosophy you need to learn and understand, then the languages which feature it should be easy to pick up.
Lately, a few other fundamental ideas have become popular again. "scripting" languages like Python and Ruby have re-introduced LISP's REPL-based interpreter shell, and informal type enforcement, making rapid experimental programming a breeze while retaining some advantages of object-oriented development.
Haskell and related languages are making pure functional programming popular again. To learn a language like that, it would help to take a course on the fundamentals of functional programming.
It's the particular software construction concepts that it is important to learn. The language knowledge should just come along for the ride. You should learn at least two different language examples of each new programming concept, so you can compare how they implement the concept, and thus come to learn the concept more deeply.
"had the misfortune of stalling right as Django in particular was really picking up a lot of steam"
which is really too bad because Django is freakin' weird. (e.g. it calls a controller a view, seemingly just for fun.)
It was probably the best all-in-one python webapp-building mega-framework 5 years ago.
I found Turbogears great because it eliminated (unnecessary) choices (i.e. all mandatory convention),
and pretty much just worked out of the box (modify a working trivial webapp was the way you got started.)
How does its latest version compare to these others? Anyone have an opinion on that?
If TG is no longer competitve, why, and which other one has its good features like I described above?
and wait for it to be archived.
Because I agree it would be so much better if the scientific calculation program I give you computes different results for you than it does for me.
Definitely better.
So much better than having to fix some broken implementations of a standard in the next rev.
In 93, when www first "arrived" with Mosaic, but one technical leader said: Yeah but we already have the "gopher" protocol. Why do we need this?
Good to see you are relying on both your anonymity and your cowardice. :-)
I guess if you're not an environmentalist: one concerned with conserving valuable properties of the eco-systems which, among other things, sustain us, you must be a vacuumist: one who is convinced humans are clever enough to live in a stripped-bare, repurposed, fully engineered world with no help from non-human natural life processes. Well why don't you launch yourself into space in an advanced tin-can for the long haul and see how well that works out for you.
Have you ever considered how many fewer prostitutes there might have been hanging out on the street if society had supported them better without inducing guilt and shame?
Paris Hilton?
Come on. She's a freakin' genius at the art of self-promotion.
She's even got you and me working for her.
Might be a good reason to choose a Mac (and you can do Unix stuff on it without too much trouble.)
Seriously though I am wondering what features Opera has in mid-2011 that chrome/FF don't have now?
Why would I switch to Opera if I were brilliant, at this point?
For freedom, the cloud needs to become just a layer in the protocol, as it were.
Some rules of the global cloud layer's operation:
1. Hosters must have no rights pertaining to hosted content (except to remove it, but see 3.)
2. Hosters should have no responsibility for content.
3. Hosters should be prevented technically (e.g. by strong encryption not under their control) from knowing what content they host.
4. No hoster should host more than an unintelligible (bit-wise randomly interleaved) fragment of any content document.
5. Hosting should be provided on a mix of consolidated data-centre stores (for performance) and a massively distributed and decentralized peer network, and costs of hosting should be shared by a combination of storage markets and storage-service trading (peering) arrangements, involving the edge players as well as the large-scale players.
6. Content fragments, in co-operation with simple, standard, uniform software on each storage host, should ensure the content's own long-term survival in the cloud, via a process of periodically checking across the globally distributed storage cloud to ensure that enough copies exist and are sufficiently well distributed on reachable hosts and are stored on a mix of old reliable and newly commissioned storage hosts.
7. Access to coalesced and decrypted content should only be possible for possessors of the encryption key for the content.
It goes like this ok? Hierarchically organized groups of people are more powerful as a general rule than individual people, even than the same number of unorganized people. So one way or another, you're going to get hierarchical governance, and one way or other, you're going to get schooled by and taxed by your hierarchical governors. This will come either from the gangleader whose turf you find your sorry ass in, or from some possibly more legitimate semi-democratic kind of leadership.
These are your only alternatives. Set up some libertarian paradise and the mafioso with the biggest guns and most ruthless yet charismatic gang-organizing skills will soon be asking you politely for tax payments to support his reliable "personal and property security" company.
Democratic government constrains the absolute freedom of individuals (especially when they ignore rules set down generally for the common good and act like completely selfish d1ckheads.). Democratic government systems theoretically do this on behalf of the collective will of the majority (though corporate interests are greating pretty sophisticated at buying "will" through newsvertizing and the like.)
I'm pretty sure that this hierarchical organization with SEMI-autonomous agents as parts of the whole is a thermodynamically more efficient super-organism than the same number of individuals, with our species, and many other higher "group-oriented" animal species. You aren't going to win over that. It's basic physics and the math of complex systems working against you.
Any "robust economic analysis" which ignores the environmental damage our current economy is doing is sheer folly.
However, instead of picking individual winners and losers, the government should just impose a dollar-a-gallon carbon tax and let the market sort out who stands and who falls on the new green playing field.
and 3 days to 2 weeks to clear a check and credit it to me. Hmmm.
Definitely some room for improvement.
It seems that, according to the justice system, the errant hacker would have been better to have acted on his revenge anger immediately,
rushing over and killing the accusing father in a pique of rage.
Then he would have received 10 years for manslaughter instead of 18 years for various cybercrime offenses.
The fact they ARE extinct might tell you the answer to that question.