Because look at how well socially adjusted other children in school are! They see infantile behavior and are surrounded by immature role models, adapt their behaviors and become sterling members of the community!
True, many children in public school are not doing well socially, and a large part of that is due to the behavior they see. The other thing that makes this possible is the failure of parents and teachers to correct that improper behavior. We've gone from detention for chewing gum in class to not knowing whether to report a classroom blowjob for fear of retaliation.
You get grades for "plays well with others" because the modern educational paradigm is a joke, and that's the punchline.
Well, sort of. It's not the educational paradigm that's the problem, it's a level of discipline that has been slowly receding for decades. If you don't get in trouble for something, why would you see it as wrong? If you *do* get in trouble for something, but your parents sue the school to protect your record, why would you see it as wrong?
Getting poor marks in the "plays well with others" department used to generate a serious discussion between teacher and parents, whereas now it often just gets a chuckle and "you really need to work with him/her on that".
Babies look around and learn behaviors from those around them. They notice noise coming out of the adults, and so they try and emulate that. As they get closer to speech, more and more positive reinforcement (along with some brute force awesome brainskills) result in omg a grasp of language. Babies do not learn their language by sitting in a crib with ten other babies all drooling with one another and comparing notes.
True, and not teaching babies and children what's acceptable or appropriate leaves them as unprepared to be decent people as not teaching them to talk would leave them unprepared to communicate. Both are pretty important, in my book.
Without mature role models (older children, with whom there is no socialization in school, or adults), there are no mature behaviors observed to emulate.
In every school I know of, the teachers are adults, and they interact with the children. A good teacher should be a good role model, right?
Know lots of rude, maladjusted home schooled kids, do you? I know lots of rude, maladjusted public and private schooled kids. (You're welcome to infer from the tone of this comment which I am)
I'm not sure what you're getting at, because I wasn't saying that home-schooled kids are maladjusted. I don't home school my kids, but I do make sure that I teach them as much as I can about the things I can. I try to show them that some things are interesting and fun to learn about (my 6-year-old and 4-year-old can both point out mars, venus, and the big dipper in the night sky just because they think planets and stars are interesting).
What I *was* was saying that not providing interaction with other kids (home-schooled or otherwise) is an indication that you're not doing the best job of home schooling. If you want your kids prepared to deal with people in the real world, they need to encounter lots of different people and personalities from angel to asshole. Public schools provide a good service, in that respect. Not doing that (exposing your kids to lots of other people their age who may behave strangely in your kids' eyes) means you're not doing it right.
Wouldn't you agree that many of elementary school behaviors are transitory ?
Only in the case of behavior that is actively addressed by a parent or guardian. I know plenty of kids that go through childhood uncorrected on any number of issues and keep right on doing them as adults.
They are not *naturally* transitory for the most part. Naturally, kids would grow up taking things from each other and eating all the glue without sharing, and they'd beat the piss out of (or kill) each other if not for being taught that "hands are for helping, not for hurting".
Playing well with adults is definitely important, but if you don't learn as a kid, it's a lot more difficult and painful to learn as an adult.
It's simple, but not that simple. Even if a license says "for non-commercial use only," it can be used by a commercial entity under fair use provisions. Excerpts for reviews in magazines, for instance.
...which I said two paragraphs after the one you quoted, along with a few other things. Read slower;)
If you're home-schooling but not giving your kids daily interaction with other kids, you're not doing it right. That's part of school, whether at home, or on a public campus. That's why you get grades for "plays well with others" in elementary school.
An article can still be insightful and spark good conversation without having the same viewpoint as your own.
Too bad this article isn't a good example.
Any fool can (and does) write scathing articles on subjects that they don't (or pretend not to) understand. Dvorak saying (paraphrasing here) "I just don't understand it...they say it's okay for noncommercial sites to post, but not commercial ones. Can someone explain that to me?" is either an attempt at prodding an explanation that he doesn't want to bother with, or such a serious inability to grasp a simple concept that I don't know if he's worth reading.
John, it's simple. A license that says "for non-commercial use only" means "for non-commercial use only". I know it's all complicated (you mentioned that, I believe), but that's the best I can do.
Seriously...if you read one of the CC licenses and don't understand why it matters, or who would want to produce a work and license it that way, you don't need to write about it.
The CC is not a change to the copyright system, just as the GPL, BSD, and Apache licenses aren't. What they are is a specific set of conditions under which you are allowed more rights than those granted by copyright. Fair use remains intact under any of these, not sure why that's so opaque to Dvorak.
As for sparking a good conversation, I guess that if you enjoy calling Mr. Dvorak an insipid troll, then yeah, it works.
Ultimately, all this soft CANSPAM style BS needs to stop, and tougher measures need to be brought up to speed.
I half agree. CAN-SPAM was bad not because it didn't allow DDoS-type reactions, but because the preferred control mechanism is "opt-out". As many people as there were out there screaming "NO!!!", you'd think congress would've taken the hint, but hey, why do the right thing when there's an available half-measure.
Make mass-mailings double opt-in (or just opt-in...it'd be a vast improvement), and you'd have a fair number less of spammers to hunt down, and it'd be obvious who was being a serious pain in the ass, too.
As has been said before, legalized DDoS for specific infractions just opens the floodgates for a variety of things, not least of which is the potential for the spammers to DDoS the people who are DDoS-ing them. I'd rather not have my ISP's backbone clogged with that kind of traffic.
I guess that one of the most important bits in that 1999 e-mail is the third from the last:
"One of the questions which remains to be answered is what is the history of the identical code. It is possible that some of the code came from Berkeley or other third party. It is also possible that the code is exempted by the BSDI/Berkeley settlement. Additionally there are a number of other legal issues. I am awaiting an analysis from Mike Davidson on some of these issues, since he has a better feel for the history of much of this code."
Apparently, over the course of the next three years, it became obvious that there was *nothing* identifiable as copying from code that SCO owned into Linux...which is why SCO is now changing its tune and digging for contributions from AIX, which they have no obvious right to object to that they've been able to prove.
What bugs me about this is that Groklaw lets people know "there's an email that says SCO dug before and found no evidence of copying at all" (which is what the e-mail does, actually say).
Next, SCO issues a release of a memo from 3 years prior to that, which they had never mentioned before (for obvious reasons...they hadn't unsealed the e-mail before now, so they didn't need to show their flimsy counter-evidence), that says "well, way back before he came to a final conclusion, he said there was obvious copying".
You know what, even *that* statement from them is bullshit. The e-mail itself says (cut-n-paste from Groklaw):
"Bob worked on the project for (I think) 4 to 6 months during which time he looked at the Linux kernel, and a large number of libraries and utilities and compared them with several different vesrions of AT&T UNIX source code. (Most of this work was automated using tools which were designed to to fuzzy matching and ignore trivial differences in formatting and spelling)."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, fuzzy matching and ignoring trivial differences, etc doesn't sound like "an investigation limited to literal copying".
Of course, they said it in the press, not in court, so they won't get in legal trouble for it.
I'm not saying it is. In fact, in light of Verisign's new powers, I think resurrecting alternic is probably an immediate necessity.
It's not like we couldn't distribute DNS better, or come up with a P2P-based solution that was robust *and* cheap. They can all kiss my ass, let's build something that *we* (the people who use the internet) own and manage.
All that's left now is to wait for Simon's next BOFH episode on The Reg...I Imagine the BOFH will be pleased that from now on, new computers will come with absolutely no OS/2 on them.
So, the UN says "okay, we have just been given control over the internet's DNS. This is the tax we will charge on your domain name".
At that point, I start lobbying Slashdot to bring alternic back up to snuff and in use. Screw that.
I *already* pay a tax for my domain name. It's called a domain name registration fee. The money goes to support those root servers (and to the pockets of the registrars, but hey).
So, if a website has a copyright notice saying "copying is strictly prohibited without prior written consent", but they don't go after visitors to their website, are they selectively enforcing copyright?
If I keep my temp files, and IA keeps their copy, and the primary restriction is "thou shalt not copy" (before you even get to the "redistribute" part), then it seems reasonable enough, but in a legal sense, definitely not fair.
They're not resistant to change, they're resistant to being forced to spend money.
Here's the problem you're going to run into, although it'll be a small problem by that time. Right now, the *only* people in the US that know about analog broadcasts going away in 2009 (or the fact that that's a new deadline) are the broadcasters and the geeks that read sites like slashdot.
My wife is reasonably well-informed (she reads the news online and browses fark every day), and had no clue what I was talking about when I mentioned it a few weeks ago. My neighbors are clueless, and looked at me like I was crazy when I told them that it was a good thing they had satellite TV, etc.
Here's what I'm guessing: The broadcasters are betting that by 2009, just about everyone will have cheap satellite or cable TV, and (as someone pointed out to me in a previous story on this subject), the people that don't are probably limited enough in purchasing power that it'd be worth the risk to ad revenue to go ahead with it anyway.
You'll hear one or two stories on the news saying "Still using rabbit-ears? Not for long...", then make a small stink about being forced to do it, so people will be mad at the FCC for "springing" it on them, and life goes on as normal.
If that's true, we had all better be careful not to visit *too* many pages on a given website during a given day. Either that or make sure that our web browser is set to immediately flush all downloaded content once it has been rendered.
The argument being made is that copyright is being violated, but the way the archive works might well be considered fair use, since the *only* reason it exists is for archival purposes. If having a copy of website content is illegal, in and of itself, then everyone who uses a web browser (unless they're running knoppix or something that doesn't store anything to the HD) is just as guilty as the Internet Archive.
I hereby rescind your permission to copy any of my posts, which means that if you're reading this, you're in violation of copyright law.
Okay, I now release my copyrighted work officially into the public domain. You're safe now.
Re:I realise I couldn't remember if I had a drive
on
The End of a Floppy Era
·
· Score: 5, Informative
until then the floppy is very far from dead, just like the rs232 port.
<offtopic>Actually, that's now called an EIA232 port, since it's no longer just a recommended standard. Changed in 1991, but since it had been "RS-232" for about 30 years at that point, nobody paid much attention.</offtopic>
Well, you're saying "incorrect", but that's also incorrect, since Peter-Paul's statement is an opinion of what he thinks *should* be the case.
That said, I generally agree with him, and that's a good article. I'm trying to decide whether to follow his advice...I guess I don't care about w3c validator's opinion if the code works well cross-browser without bugs.
Of course...creating a validatePage() function that checks what needs checking on a page-by page basis (with you saying "check this field for this and that", etc) gets around the issues mentioned, but is less elegant. Decisions, decisions...
Fuck that shit... I got better things to do, sleep, than stand in line for a book.
You must have missed the part about 21st-century Star Wars. One of the people I'm talking about will be in the store, in costume, attending a kind of party with other people similarly dressed before purchasing the book.
You sir (just a guess, but most ma'ams don't say "Fuck that shit"), are not a fan in the "fanatic" sense of the word. I've *seen* the fanatics...light saber, wand, same difference.
Not wanting to install a patch to a production server is not necessarily complacency. In point of fact, in some cases, it *is* vigilance, assuming you've ever installed a patch and seen software mysteriously and suddeny cease functioning...it happens on Windows servers from time to time, if you didn't know.
To be fair, most of the companies that didn't install the patch for a reason like that probably made sure the systems were protected in other ways. Just couldn't let the "no install patch" = "lazy complacent sysadmin" generalization go unqualified.
Speaking of overclocking...if you adjust the "speed" calculation to allow for clock speed, you end up with (numbers in parentheses are (gflops/processors)/procspeed):
#5 ppc970 2.2 (27910 / 4800) 5.81 (2.64)
#7 itanium2 1.4 (19940 / 4096) 4.86 (3.48)
#10 opteron 2.0 (15250 / 5000) 3.05 (1.53)
#20 xeon 3.06 (9819 / 2500) 3.92 (1.28)
I'll admit, I've fallen for the "Itaniums suck" line, but clock-for-clock they appear to be speedy, based on the numbers given. Now if only I had a beowulf cluster of 3.06 GHz Itaniums...
I guess you confused me because the article was about Ruby on Rails. I figured that given that, it must have been the non-Ruby part of the solution you were asking about using with [Perl].
Works well in Firefox and IE on Windows and in Firefox on Linux. Dunno about Safari, but it should work as well there as on Linux. Seems pretty widely usable to me. Maybe complain to Firefox about brokenness on Solaris?
Slashdot Mirror
You must have never been exposed to OpenWindows or CDE...there are worse GUIs than Windows.
True, many children in public school are not doing well socially, and a large part of that is due to the behavior they see. The other thing that makes this possible is the failure of parents and teachers to correct that improper behavior. We've gone from detention for chewing gum in class to not knowing whether to report a classroom blowjob for fear of retaliation.
You get grades for "plays well with others" because the modern educational paradigm is a joke, and that's the punchline.
Well, sort of. It's not the educational paradigm that's the problem, it's a level of discipline that has been slowly receding for decades. If you don't get in trouble for something, why would you see it as wrong? If you *do* get in trouble for something, but your parents sue the school to protect your record, why would you see it as wrong?
Getting poor marks in the "plays well with others" department used to generate a serious discussion between teacher and parents, whereas now it often just gets a chuckle and "you really need to work with him/her on that".
Babies look around and learn behaviors from those around them. They notice noise coming out of the adults, and so they try and emulate that. As they get closer to speech, more and more positive reinforcement (along with some brute force awesome brainskills) result in omg a grasp of language. Babies do not learn their language by sitting in a crib with ten other babies all drooling with one another and comparing notes. True, and not teaching babies and children what's acceptable or appropriate leaves them as unprepared to be decent people as not teaching them to talk would leave them unprepared to communicate. Both are pretty important, in my book.
Without mature role models (older children, with whom there is no socialization in school, or adults), there are no mature behaviors observed to emulate.
In every school I know of, the teachers are adults, and they interact with the children. A good teacher should be a good role model, right?
Know lots of rude, maladjusted home schooled kids, do you? I know lots of rude, maladjusted public and private schooled kids. (You're welcome to infer from the tone of this comment which I am)
I'm not sure what you're getting at, because I wasn't saying that home-schooled kids are maladjusted. I don't home school my kids, but I do make sure that I teach them as much as I can about the things I can. I try to show them that some things are interesting and fun to learn about (my 6-year-old and 4-year-old can both point out mars, venus, and the big dipper in the night sky just because they think planets and stars are interesting).
What I *was* was saying that not providing interaction with other kids (home-schooled or otherwise) is an indication that you're not doing the best job of home schooling. If you want your kids prepared to deal with people in the real world, they need to encounter lots of different people and personalities from angel to asshole. Public schools provide a good service, in that respect. Not doing that (exposing your kids to lots of other people their age who may behave strangely in your kids' eyes) means you're not doing it right.
Only in the case of behavior that is actively addressed by a parent or guardian. I know plenty of kids that go through childhood uncorrected on any number of issues and keep right on doing them as adults.
They are not *naturally* transitory for the most part. Naturally, kids would grow up taking things from each other and eating all the glue without sharing, and they'd beat the piss out of (or kill) each other if not for being taught that "hands are for helping, not for hurting".
Playing well with adults is definitely important, but if you don't learn as a kid, it's a lot more difficult and painful to learn as an adult.
...which I said two paragraphs after the one you quoted, along with a few other things. Read slower ;)
If you're home-schooling but not giving your kids daily interaction with other kids, you're not doing it right. That's part of school, whether at home, or on a public campus. That's why you get grades for "plays well with others" in elementary school.
Too bad this article isn't a good example.
Any fool can (and does) write scathing articles on subjects that they don't (or pretend not to) understand. Dvorak saying (paraphrasing here) "I just don't understand it...they say it's okay for noncommercial sites to post, but not commercial ones. Can someone explain that to me?" is either an attempt at prodding an explanation that he doesn't want to bother with, or such a serious inability to grasp a simple concept that I don't know if he's worth reading.
John, it's simple. A license that says "for non-commercial use only" means "for non-commercial use only". I know it's all complicated (you mentioned that, I believe), but that's the best I can do.
Seriously...if you read one of the CC licenses and don't understand why it matters, or who would want to produce a work and license it that way, you don't need to write about it.
The CC is not a change to the copyright system, just as the GPL, BSD, and Apache licenses aren't. What they are is a specific set of conditions under which you are allowed more rights than those granted by copyright. Fair use remains intact under any of these, not sure why that's so opaque to Dvorak.
As for sparking a good conversation, I guess that if you enjoy calling Mr. Dvorak an insipid troll, then yeah, it works.
I half agree. CAN-SPAM was bad not because it didn't allow DDoS-type reactions, but because the preferred control mechanism is "opt-out". As many people as there were out there screaming "NO!!!", you'd think congress would've taken the hint, but hey, why do the right thing when there's an available half-measure.
Make mass-mailings double opt-in (or just opt-in...it'd be a vast improvement), and you'd have a fair number less of spammers to hunt down, and it'd be obvious who was being a serious pain in the ass, too.
As has been said before, legalized DDoS for specific infractions just opens the floodgates for a variety of things, not least of which is the potential for the spammers to DDoS the people who are DDoS-ing them. I'd rather not have my ISP's backbone clogged with that kind of traffic.
"One of the questions which remains to be answered is what is the history of the identical code. It is possible that some of the code came from Berkeley or other third party. It is also possible that the code is exempted by the BSDI/Berkeley settlement. Additionally there are a number of other legal issues. I am awaiting an analysis from Mike Davidson on some of these issues, since he has a better feel for the history of much of this code."
Apparently, over the course of the next three years, it became obvious that there was *nothing* identifiable as copying from code that SCO owned into Linux...which is why SCO is now changing its tune and digging for contributions from AIX, which they have no obvious right to object to that they've been able to prove.
What bugs me about this is that Groklaw lets people know "there's an email that says SCO dug before and found no evidence of copying at all" (which is what the e-mail does, actually say).
Next, SCO issues a release of a memo from 3 years prior to that, which they had never mentioned before (for obvious reasons...they hadn't unsealed the e-mail before now, so they didn't need to show their flimsy counter-evidence), that says "well, way back before he came to a final conclusion, he said there was obvious copying".
Good thing Darl doesn't have a time machine...
"Bob worked on the project for (I think) 4 to 6 months during which time he looked at the Linux kernel, and a large number of libraries and utilities and compared them with several different vesrions of AT&T UNIX source code. (Most of this work was automated using tools which were designed to to fuzzy matching and ignore trivial differences in formatting and spelling)."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, fuzzy matching and ignoring trivial differences, etc doesn't sound like "an investigation limited to literal copying".
Of course, they said it in the press, not in court, so they won't get in legal trouble for it.
It's not like we couldn't distribute DNS better, or come up with a P2P-based solution that was robust *and* cheap. They can all kiss my ass, let's build something that *we* (the people who use the internet) own and manage.
All that's left now is to wait for Simon's next BOFH episode on The Reg...I Imagine the BOFH will be pleased that from now on, new computers will come with absolutely no OS/2 on them.
At that point, I start lobbying Slashdot to bring alternic back up to snuff and in use. Screw that.
I *already* pay a tax for my domain name. It's called a domain name registration fee. The money goes to support those root servers (and to the pockets of the registrars, but hey).
If I keep my temp files, and IA keeps their copy, and the primary restriction is "thou shalt not copy" (before you even get to the "redistribute" part), then it seems reasonable enough, but in a legal sense, definitely not fair.
Here's the problem you're going to run into, although it'll be a small problem by that time. Right now, the *only* people in the US that know about analog broadcasts going away in 2009 (or the fact that that's a new deadline) are the broadcasters and the geeks that read sites like slashdot.
My wife is reasonably well-informed (she reads the news online and browses fark every day), and had no clue what I was talking about when I mentioned it a few weeks ago. My neighbors are clueless, and looked at me like I was crazy when I told them that it was a good thing they had satellite TV, etc.
Here's what I'm guessing: The broadcasters are betting that by 2009, just about everyone will have cheap satellite or cable TV, and (as someone pointed out to me in a previous story on this subject), the people that don't are probably limited enough in purchasing power that it'd be worth the risk to ad revenue to go ahead with it anyway.
You'll hear one or two stories on the news saying "Still using rabbit-ears? Not for long...", then make a small stink about being forced to do it, so people will be mad at the FCC for "springing" it on them, and life goes on as normal.
If that's true, we had all better be careful not to visit *too* many pages on a given website during a given day. Either that or make sure that our web browser is set to immediately flush all downloaded content once it has been rendered.
The argument being made is that copyright is being violated, but the way the archive works might well be considered fair use, since the *only* reason it exists is for archival purposes. If having a copy of website content is illegal, in and of itself, then everyone who uses a web browser (unless they're running knoppix or something that doesn't store anything to the HD) is just as guilty as the Internet Archive.
I hereby rescind your permission to copy any of my posts, which means that if you're reading this, you're in violation of copyright law.
Okay, I now release my copyrighted work officially into the public domain. You're safe now.
<offtopic>Actually, that's now called an EIA232 port, since it's no longer just a recommended standard. Changed in 1991, but since it had been "RS-232" for about 30 years at that point, nobody paid much attention.</offtopic>
That said, I generally agree with him, and that's a good article. I'm trying to decide whether to follow his advice...I guess I don't care about w3c validator's opinion if the code works well cross-browser without bugs.
Of course...creating a validatePage() function that checks what needs checking on a page-by page basis (with you saying "check this field for this and that", etc) gets around the issues mentioned, but is less elegant. Decisions, decisions...
You must have missed the part about 21st-century Star Wars. One of the people I'm talking about will be in the store, in costume, attending a kind of party with other people similarly dressed before purchasing the book.
You sir (just a guess, but most ma'ams don't say "Fuck that shit"), are not a fan in the "fanatic" sense of the word. I've *seen* the fanatics...light saber, wand, same difference.
I'm with you. If someone raped/killed my child or spouse, I'd probably be going to jail for murder, myself.
Not wanting to install a patch to a production server is not necessarily complacency. In point of fact, in some cases, it *is* vigilance, assuming you've ever installed a patch and seen software mysteriously and suddeny cease functioning...it happens on Windows servers from time to time, if you didn't know.
To be fair, most of the companies that didn't install the patch for a reason like that probably made sure the systems were protected in other ways. Just couldn't let the "no install patch" = "lazy complacent sysadmin" generalization go unqualified.
It's the 21st century paper-bound version of Star Wars fanaticism.
Found the link at the tail end of wikipedia's "HDCP" entry...
I'll admit, I've fallen for the "Itaniums suck" line, but clock-for-clock they appear to be speedy, based on the numbers given. Now if only I had a beowulf cluster of 3.06 GHz Itaniums...
Sorry for the mix-up.
Works well in Firefox and IE on Windows and in Firefox on Linux. Dunno about Safari, but it should work as well there as on Linux. Seems pretty widely usable to me. Maybe complain to Firefox about brokenness on Solaris?