Since the bucket doesn't enforce any schema, you never know what color paint the bucket might hold. Heck, it could even be full of honey. You just can't know, and not being able to know is, well, like programming assembly.
Buckets aren't indexed, so you're not able to find that one ounce of paint that you really want to use next. You've got to split up all of the paint into ounce cups each time and examine very cup. It's very intensive, and really slows down your painting. If you stored the paint in a B-tree of ounce cups, your search for the right ounce of paint would be much more efficient.
Painting is so old. I mean, get with the program. Gold plate your house, or something newer (since newer is always better!). In fact, decades of research into titanium has determined that it'll hold up better to the elements, anyway, so you should just get titanium siding instead of painting.
Painting is an incomplete process. What if you want a window? Yeah, you can't paint a window for yourself, now can you? Did you need a jacuzzi? A fireplace? A new car? Sorry! Painting doesn't support those features yet. You'd better not paint at all if you want those things.
Painting, believe it or not, is incompatible with tennis. There's no racket, there's no court, and there's no ball. There's not even a net (unless you're working from a really tall building, in which case you might fall and so a net is often used). I mean, you don't even need to paint with another person. It's so... incompatible.
I sincerely doubt that any teachers are actively trolling through Facebook, looking for students to reprimand.
What's more likely is something like this: a handful of 'hip' teachers open up Facebook accounts and befriend students. Since there's social pressure to accept a person's friend request -- even if you don't really want to be his or her friend -- many students will wind up befriending their teachers.
Most of them will probably limit the teachers' photo privileges, but some less savvy students wont. And those less savvy students will also post incriminating pictures, implicating many, many other students.
Without actively looking for such material, it'll appear in the 'hip' teachers' news feeds. And what will they do? Punish! Punish!
Whether that's the right response or not is outside of my interests. But I really doubt that these teachers are spending their evenings dredging the depths of their students' picture troves.
That's a hypothetical "in court" -- they were obviously in settlement mode from the get-go, since their service was most obviously using unlicensed music.
iMeem was getting their asses handed to them in court; in all likelihood, they've given all of the records labels tons of equity and cuts of future revenue. As a startup, they're running on borrowed money right now -- and if you think it's hard to make a startup work under normal conditions, consider the prospect of trying to do that with a "you infringed on our copyrights and now you owe us" tax on all of your future earnings, in addition to most of your company board being controlled by pig-headed record label executives.
This deal is just another way the record labels are attempting to kill the problem while sucking up any money in the surrounding area.
You're right, it is a myth. The comment is funny on two levels: not only is the lemming meme referenced in a way that mocks those who upgrade to Vista, but it also calls into question the veracity of Microsoft's alleged upgrade numbers.
Unfortunately, explaining a joke tends to reduce the amount of mirth it causes.
That popping noise is your brain realizing that every time you compile a C/C++ program you're really creating a bunch of systematically generated GOTO statements.
If Acme Plubming's requirements for fixing your sink involved taking away ownership from you, you probably wouldn't use their services. It's not an analgous situation, because AOL's stated requirements for using their search involves taking ownership of said information. AOL does provide a link to their privacy policy on their front page. And it states--right up at the top of the second section--that they store personally identifiable information, including user searches.
Don't get me wrong: I don't think this is good in any sense of the word. Legality isn't always good; and I do think this storing of information is legal.
To answer your initial question, "why can't they do with their property what they want to?", I'll cite their terms of service:
Your AOL Network information will not be shared with third parties unless it is necessary to fulfill a transaction you have requested, in other circumstances in which you have consented to the sharing of your AOL Network information, or except as described in this Privacy Policy.
(And No, there aren't explicit exceptions for disclosing search information in their policy). While a company's Privacy Policy may not be legally binding in terms of what they themselves can take or own, it is binding in terms of what they can disclose. If they say, "We don't give away your information" and then in fact do, they're violating a precedent set with the customer and I contend that this is litigable (although, of course, IANAL).
I think this tension is impossible to avoid with proprietary software. Think about it for a minute: you can either dominate with an incomplete and insecure solution (so as to avoid monopoly programs), or you can be the complete-yet-far-less-popular alternative who avoids the monopoly accusations due to inferior market share.
A company that assembles a complete, secure, and free package won't have to choose one of these routes. Unfortunately, security and freedom don't guarantee adoption.
I don't think that's really fair to the poor souls who work at AOL. No really, I'm being serious here.
AOL owes you nothing. If you use their service, any information you disclose to them isn't private. They have no obligation to refrain from storing it, notify you that they're storing it, et cetera. Don't mis-hear me, though: publishing this information should definitely be out of their bounds.
But seriously: if you don't trust a company, don't their services. What are you going to sue them for? Retaining records on how you used a service they provide? This is not exactly a litigable offense, unless the company lies to you about what it's doing in some way.
During one of my many refactorings, I neglected to substitute properly and created an exemplary digital palimpsest. Please pardon this protruding word, the relic of a former edit.
Replies on Slashdot are often constructed in a haphazard manner and are rather protean as a result; you really should be reading in the context of my other statements. If you still can't understand the meaning, parse with the following hint in mind:
If the data in your black box are important, the police will obtain them without your permission in the same way they would obtain the car itself: a search warrant.
Just because it's "yours" doesn't preclude their obtaining access to it. The data may considered evidence relating to a crime; an accident will involve some form of citation for breaking an obscure traffic law, even if fault is not readily apparent. The data in your box could be considered pertinent, even though the argument for their pertinence appears weak. If you're under investigation for something like vehicular homicide, the police will obtain access to your car and its contents, including the box in question.
You're always safer if no record is made than if the record exists but is "protected".
The fact that this is a problem people have to deal with makes me glad I bike to work.
Of course, I'm also glad that the car my wife and I own is from 1990. We're considering getting a newer car, but only for safety reasons (airbags). As with many software manufacturers, car companies hope their customers will feel compelled to buy a new model every few years. They also don't give much tangible reason to upgrade: my 16-year-old car still gets an average 28mpg.
With the potential privacy concerns, obvious expenses, and lack of ostensible improvement over older cars, I don't understand why anyone is buying new.
Then I was online. I clicked on "Syntaptic Package Manager" and checked the box for "Banshee". I clicked "Apply". After it downloaded, I plugged in my iPod nano, pulled my music off of it, and began to listen.
You're right, that was really hard. Fuck. I mean, it's a good think I'm a software developer, or I wouldn't have made it through that.
Don't even get me started on video cards. Mine burned out, so I bought a new one. I booted into Linux - didn't have to change a thing. I booted into Windows... whoops! Driver incompatibility - no GUI for you. What? You can't get to a command line without first booting into the GUI or entering some arcane key combination on boot? And who knows how to install graphics drivers from the command line in Windows, anyway? Well damn, I guess reinstallation is the only option. Or buy a card identical to the one that burned out.
Did you think this was a *real* product? Yes? There's obviously a reason for that, too -- ignorance.
This site is a spoof, making light-hearted fun of Ruby on Rails, Web 2.0, et cetera. The part of the joke is that you shouldn't need any specific database in a real agile environment. Then again, jokes that are over-explained wind up being less funny.
I'm more of a Postgres guy, anyway, and I think PHP is the spawn of the devil. If you're interested in understanding, do a quick comparison of the following sites, and come back with a worldview that goes beyond the purview of your toolset.
By "entire operating system would break", I assume you mean that it would uninstall the ubuntu-desktop package. I don't know what version you were trying, but currently that's just fine to do. It's a meta package to help people install a group of tools easily; ubuntu-desktop depends on a ton of useless packages, but it doesn't really do anything and (currently) its only purpose is to allow a single package install of the standard desktop.
I had the same response the first time I wanted to remove a standard package - "What? Uninstall the whole desktop???". After some digging around on the forums, I realized that it's just a poorly named placeholder.
Of course, its entirely possible you have some other nefarious problem going on; if that's the case, I haven't run into it.
Administrative Contact:
DNS Admin
(NIC-1467103)
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View
CA
94043 US
dns-admin@google.com +1.6502530000 Fax- +1.6506188571
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
DNS Admin
(NIC-1467103)
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View
CA
94043 US
dns-admin@google.com +1.6502530000 Fax- +1.6506188571
Created on..............: 2004-Apr-26.
Expires on..............: 2006-Apr-26.
Record last updated on..: 2005-Nov-09 15:09:25.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ALLDOMAINS.COM
NS2.ALLDOMAINS.COM
Sure, this is old news... but is it coming to fruition?
I don't know if it's so much that AMD snatched the opportunity, but that their lower power chips are much better suited for cheap overall cost of production.
Jakob Nielsen looks at usability in terms of "what is the worst possible thing a developer could do with this technology?", rather than "what are the benefits, and how can we avoid the pitfalls?".
His main issue with Ajax is the breaking of the navigation model - well, I've got news for him: the model he describes isn't an end-all-be-all, perfect one. It's all fine and good to complain that people could use Ajax to break the back button, to create pages based on sequence of actions, et cetera - but that's not the real power of Ajax.
The model is obviously shifting. People are no longer confined to the static "page". It's more like a house that we explore than a book that we read. Sometimes, you want a window on the static wall so that you can see in real time things that are going on. But you never, and I mean never, want to distrupt the flow from room to room.
Ajax is not a navigation tool, but Nielsen is treating it that way. I mean, sure: GMail uses ajax for some navigation, and I do have certain issues with that. But within the context of a conversation - that's a perfectly fine "window" into what has happened and what is happening. GMail's dynamic view of messages is more usable than a "forward/back/refresh" paradigm, even if people have to learn something new to use it.
But like I was saying: Ajax's power is not in navigation. It would be ludicrous to suggest that. It's really powerful when it comes to providing dynamic interaction in the context of a static location. It's perfect for dashboards, maps, stock tickers, weather sites: anything that provides constantly changing data at a fixed location.
So, I'd say to Dr. Nielsen that he needs to consider Ajax outside of the navigation-misuse paradigm, because that isn't what attracts most developers to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Metadata ARE part of the records. They're plural, bitches.
It's also terrible for painting.
I sincerely doubt that any teachers are actively trolling through Facebook, looking for students to reprimand.
What's more likely is something like this: a handful of 'hip' teachers open up Facebook accounts and befriend students. Since there's social pressure to accept a person's friend request -- even if you don't really want to be his or her friend -- many students will wind up befriending their teachers.
Most of them will probably limit the teachers' photo privileges, but some less savvy students wont. And those less savvy students will also post incriminating pictures, implicating many, many other students.
Without actively looking for such material, it'll appear in the 'hip' teachers' news feeds. And what will they do? Punish! Punish!
Whether that's the right response or not is outside of my interests. But I really doubt that these teachers are spending their evenings dredging the depths of their students' picture troves.
That's a hypothetical "in court" -- they were obviously in settlement mode from the get-go, since their service was most obviously using unlicensed music.
iMeem was getting their asses handed to them in court; in all likelihood, they've given all of the records labels tons of equity and cuts of future revenue. As a startup, they're running on borrowed money right now -- and if you think it's hard to make a startup work under normal conditions, consider the prospect of trying to do that with a "you infringed on our copyrights and now you owe us" tax on all of your future earnings, in addition to most of your company board being controlled by pig-headed record label executives.
This deal is just another way the record labels are attempting to kill the problem while sucking up any money in the surrounding area.
You're right, it is a myth. The comment is funny on two levels: not only is the lemming meme referenced in a way that mocks those who upgrade to Vista, but it also calls into question the veracity of Microsoft's alleged upgrade numbers.
Unfortunately, explaining a joke tends to reduce the amount of mirth it causes.
... 95% of the world's lemmings have jumped off a cliff.
Oh, I think I do.
The predator preys on weaker animals (like... BlueJ?).
The prey is preyed upon.
In case you're still unclear about my use of words, the important nouns have been italicized, while the important verbs have been given a bold face.
Thank you for turning a tongue-in-cheek play on words into a grammatical pissing contest.
Why does it not surprise me that someone named Jane Prey is involved in a Microsoft patent SNAFU?
That popping noise is your brain realizing that every time you compile a C/C++ program you're really creating a bunch of systematically generated GOTO statements.
brainhemorrhage:
jmp hemorrhage
Sorry, did you just say "Perl" and "Understand" in the same sentence?
If Acme Plubming's requirements for fixing your sink involved taking away ownership from you, you probably wouldn't use their services. It's not an analgous situation, because AOL's stated requirements for using their search involves taking ownership of said information. AOL does provide a link to their privacy policy on their front page. And it states--right up at the top of the second section--that they store personally identifiable information, including user searches.
Don't get me wrong: I don't think this is good in any sense of the word. Legality isn't always good; and I do think this storing of information is legal.
To answer your initial question, "why can't they do with their property what they want to?", I'll cite their terms of service:
(And No, there aren't explicit exceptions for disclosing search information in their policy). While a company's Privacy Policy may not be legally binding in terms of what they themselves can take or own, it is binding in terms of what they can disclose. If they say, "We don't give away your information" and then in fact do, they're violating a precedent set with the customer and I contend that this is litigable (although, of course, IANAL).
I think this tension is impossible to avoid with proprietary software. Think about it for a minute: you can either dominate with an incomplete and insecure solution (so as to avoid monopoly programs), or you can be the complete-yet-far-less-popular alternative who avoids the monopoly accusations due to inferior market share.
A company that assembles a complete, secure, and free package won't have to choose one of these routes. Unfortunately, security and freedom don't guarantee adoption.
Sure, but they can "smell" marijuana, or copious amounts of alcohol and be allowed search simply on the basis of that "hunch".
I don't think that's really fair to the poor souls who work at AOL. No really, I'm being serious here.
AOL owes you nothing. If you use their service, any information you disclose to them isn't private. They have no obligation to refrain from storing it, notify you that they're storing it, et cetera. Don't mis-hear me, though: publishing this information should definitely be out of their bounds.
But seriously: if you don't trust a company, don't their services. What are you going to sue them for? Retaining records on how you used a service they provide? This is not exactly a litigable offense, unless the company lies to you about what it's doing in some way.
During one of my many refactorings, I neglected to substitute properly and created an exemplary digital palimpsest. Please pardon this protruding word, the relic of a former edit.
Replies on Slashdot are often constructed in a haphazard manner and are rather protean as a result; you really should be reading in the context of my other statements. If you still can't understand the meaning, parse with the following hint in mind:
s/ostensible/actual
If the data in your black box are important, the police will obtain them without your permission in the same way they would obtain the car itself: a search warrant.
Just because it's "yours" doesn't preclude their obtaining access to it. The data may considered evidence relating to a crime; an accident will involve some form of citation for breaking an obscure traffic law, even if fault is not readily apparent. The data in your box could be considered pertinent, even though the argument for their pertinence appears weak. If you're under investigation for something like vehicular homicide, the police will obtain access to your car and its contents, including the box in question.
You're always safer if no record is made than if the record exists but is "protected".
The fact that this is a problem people have to deal with makes me glad I bike to work.
Of course, I'm also glad that the car my wife and I own is from 1990. We're considering getting a newer car, but only for safety reasons (airbags). As with many software manufacturers, car companies hope their customers will feel compelled to buy a new model every few years. They also don't give much tangible reason to upgrade: my 16-year-old car still gets an average 28mpg.
With the potential privacy concerns, obvious expenses, and lack of ostensible improvement over older cars, I don't understand why anyone is buying new.
That's funny... I installed ubuntu like this:
Then I was online. I clicked on "Syntaptic Package Manager" and checked the box for "Banshee". I clicked "Apply". After it downloaded, I plugged in my iPod nano, pulled my music off of it, and began to listen.
You're right, that was really hard. Fuck. I mean, it's a good think I'm a software developer, or I wouldn't have made it through that.
Don't even get me started on video cards. Mine burned out, so I bought a new one. I booted into Linux - didn't have to change a thing. I booted into Windows... whoops! Driver incompatibility - no GUI for you. What? You can't get to a command line without first booting into the GUI or entering some arcane key combination on boot? And who knows how to install graphics drivers from the command line in Windows, anyway? Well damn, I guess reinstallation is the only option. Or buy a card identical to the one that burned out.
Wait...
Did you think this was a *real* product? Yes? There's obviously a reason for that, too -- ignorance.
This site is a spoof, making light-hearted fun of Ruby on Rails, Web 2.0, et cetera. The part of the joke is that you shouldn't need any specific database in a real agile environment. Then again, jokes that are over-explained wind up being less funny.
I'm more of a Postgres guy, anyway, and I think PHP is the spawn of the devil. If you're interested in understanding, do a quick comparison of the following sites, and come back with a worldview that goes beyond the purview of your toolset.
When the article's second sentence indicates the author's desire for help with agile development, my post is considered FUNNY .
I think he's in desperate need of this:
SQL on Rails
By "entire operating system would break", I assume you mean that it would uninstall the ubuntu-desktop package. I don't know what version you were trying, but currently that's just fine to do. It's a meta package to help people install a group of tools easily; ubuntu-desktop depends on a ton of useless packages, but it doesn't really do anything and (currently) its only purpose is to allow a single package install of the standard desktop.
I had the same response the first time I wanted to remove a standard package - "What? Uninstall the whole desktop???". After some digging around on the forums, I realized that it's just a poorly named placeholder.
Of course, its entirely possible you have some other nefarious problem going on; if that's the case, I haven't run into it.
A little WHOIS action:
Sure, this is old news... but is it coming to fruition?
I don't know if it's so much that AMD snatched the opportunity, but that their lower power chips are much better suited for cheap overall cost of production.
Jakob Nielsen looks at usability in terms of "what is the worst possible thing a developer could do with this technology?", rather than "what are the benefits, and how can we avoid the pitfalls?".
His main issue with Ajax is the breaking of the navigation model - well, I've got news for him: the model he describes isn't an end-all-be-all, perfect one. It's all fine and good to complain that people could use Ajax to break the back button, to create pages based on sequence of actions, et cetera - but that's not the real power of Ajax.
The model is obviously shifting. People are no longer confined to the static "page". It's more like a house that we explore than a book that we read. Sometimes, you want a window on the static wall so that you can see in real time things that are going on. But you never, and I mean never, want to distrupt the flow from room to room.
Ajax is not a navigation tool, but Nielsen is treating it that way. I mean, sure: GMail uses ajax for some navigation, and I do have certain issues with that. But within the context of a conversation - that's a perfectly fine "window" into what has happened and what is happening. GMail's dynamic view of messages is more usable than a "forward/back/refresh" paradigm, even if people have to learn something new to use it.
But like I was saying: Ajax's power is not in navigation. It would be ludicrous to suggest that. It's really powerful when it comes to providing dynamic interaction in the context of a static location. It's perfect for dashboards, maps, stock tickers, weather sites: anything that provides constantly changing data at a fixed location.
So, I'd say to Dr. Nielsen that he needs to consider Ajax outside of the navigation-misuse paradigm, because that isn't what attracts most developers to it.