With only minimal care (mostly, making my file paths platform-agnostic, just as one would do in Java) I can run assemblies built by visual studio right out of the box with mono on Linux. Haven't tried it, but Mono has a package for Mac OS X too, so I don't see why they wouldn't run there either.
Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, sounds out a lot like cross-platform to me!
Thank you, I was about to say the same thing. What the GP post said had nothing to do with stock price value. Google's financials and prospects are quite impressive, but not nearly enough to justify such insanely high P/E.
I'd also add that Google's products have little lock-in value, aside from the bizarre emotional attachment they seem to generate from the likes of the GP poster and the Slashdot moderators (who won't give us a day without a Google story).
The fact that Google was able to overtake the previous market leaders so rapidly and decisively should be proof enough of this. The moment some company comes up with a better search algorithm, or perhaps even an altogether different paradigm, that obsoletes search engines as we know them now, Google will be in big troubles, and their revenues (which are mostly ad-based afaik) could plumet very rapidly.
I'm not saying this will happen - after all, Google is still quite innovative, and they have basically emptied comp sci deparments everywhere of the best and brightest. But it's a distinct possibility.
That's quite easy to say. But what if they were the original reporters for those vulnerabilities, and they kept quiet while MS & Mozilla fixed them? Couldn't they be allowed to publicize them now that they are fixed, and get the appropriate recognition without putting the users to risk?
I haven't check the history for those advisories; maybe they truely are 'glory whores', I'm just saying we shouldn't rush to judgement.
Oh, I forgot, this is America, the Land That Traded Freedom For Safety.
And the solution to that: Let's restrict free speech on the net. Maybe they won't notice that the books are being burnt too as they watch Survivor 69: the Island of Desire on their big screen TV.
Dude, the story is that the supremes STRUCK DOWN the law, not upheld it, so why don't you reserve your grandstanding and nazis-burning-books rethoric for a more appropriate occasion?
I mostly agree with the rest of your post, though.
"If I hadn't been able to download a few episodes of The Sopranos, I never would have bought the entire DVD collection. Viewing times just don't suit my work habits unfortunately, and I'm not abou to shell out $100 on something that might just be garbage."
And if I hadn't shoplifted this copy of The Economist from the newstands the other day, I would never have seen how good it was and subscribed to the magazine.
The reasons we have more and more restrictions on air travel, and liberty in general, all have at their root cause terrorism (mainly the middle-eastern sort, since you mention it).
It's been that way since the 70's when the first skyjackings occurred, and the governments of the world started scanning passengers and baggages.
If the government reacts with dumb measures like the one you mention, or more scary ones such as iris scans at the airport and biometrically-stamped passports like we're about to get here in Canada, it's because people are scared and expect the government to act this way.
You'd be surprised at how these measures are popular. When biometric ids were announced here, I thought there'd be a revolution or something. Instead I saw polls where something like 80% of the population supported it.
Is the government/bureaucracy (ab)using the terrorism scare to push its agenda? Absolutely.
But what they are doing is more or less what the people want.
And, even more sadly, a good part of it is really needed, i.e. the terrorists are forcing us into it.
It's really sad that it has to be repeated but, you know, these guys are real. They really blew up the two tallest skyscrapers in NYC, parts of the Pentagon, downed 4 airliners, and killed almost 3000 people 3 years ago. They really burned a 100 people to death in Bali (almost none of which had anything to do with the U.S., btw) in 2002. They have committed a lot more outrages before or after that. These guys are not (just) GWB's strawmen.
*They* are the greatest threat to your liberty, no matter how much you or I may loathe that Ashcroft prick.
First of all, let me put into perspective: I hate spammers. I hate them because they and their likes, the virus/worm/etc writers, the child-porn freaks, terrorists, are forcing the rest of us to dismantle a lot of the features that we build into the Internet (ie to close down our machines with firewalls and anti-virus software).
This proposal may or may not be good for reducing spam, but it seems to me like a very good way to get 'rid' of privacy on the Internet. Using assymetric crypto techniques to identify bad guys means you'll be able to identify everybody, too. If this catches on, expect it to be extended to every tcp, or even ip, protocol. (after all, don't we want to get rid of im spammers, blog spammers, etc. too?)
I love the Internet because I can say anything and get away with it, 99% of the time (that is if you don't go contrary to evil laws like the DMCA or the <name your favorite nation here> anti-hate-speech laws). This has a lot to do with the fact that it is still largely out of control of a single government, multi-or-extra-national organization, or corporation. If a single, tracable identification measure follows you throughout the Internet, it is inevitable that it will be taken over by one such organization it the medium term.
Personally, I got rid of 95% of spam with Mozilla. And I still get the spam I want, like amazon or chapters.
A restaurant's prices reflects, among other things, what it must charge to make a profit. This includes accounting for the cost of broken plates, stolen ashtrays, etc., e.g. other customers' mistakes.
On the one hand, this all seems so ridiculous, . You've got this two bit outfit suing IBM, which has more lawyers on its payroll than most companies have employees. Same than ups the ante, wants to sue the world and his cousin. All this while claiming as its own the hard work of hundreds aroundt the world.
On the other hand, I can't help but remember that the fate of Linux and the GPL are about to be handed over to the same legal system that got OJ acquitted and awarded millions to some idiot who couldn't figure out that driving a car with hot coffee between her laps was a bad idea.
The way this McBride talks (IBM, Red Hat, HP, now Novell, next *BSD, then you and me?), it looks like lawsuits will be flying around for a long, long time. Add to this the fact that (yeah, yeah, IANAL) that stupid laws like the DMCA seem give his company at least some grounds for his lawsuits (and besides, who knows if IBM et al. didn't do some really stupid things?).
Who wins in the end? You already know of course: Bill.
IANAL (of course), but isn't such a broad ban unconstitutional? Does the First Amendment protect commercial speech like any other form of speech? And doesn't the fact that the burden of proof is transfered from the accused to the accuser violates the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"? Or Am I way of base here?
LexisNexis is a little different. Since he would not have otherwise paid $300,000 for the service, he didn't really cost them that money.
I'm not sure you understand what LexisNexis is (it's a very very big database of articles from just about every news organization). It's not a service provided by the NYT, but rather one to which it subscribes . This means it's LexisNexis that charged the $300K to the NYT, rather than an hypothetical $300K charge that the NYT would have billed to Adrian.
That's not his whole point. His fear of 'balkanisation' of the Net is well founded, in my view. Hell, it has already started, with some ISPs blocking SMTP ports, and even sometimes the WWW port, to avoid all those IIS-cracks and spamming problems.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see full-fledged ISP-level firewalls spreading, because of said ISPs getting fed up with dumb users not setting up their own firewall and not keeping their anti-virus up to date, and then getting cracked from the Windows Hole-du-jour. Only geeks will complain, so they won't care.
When that happens, only "legitimate" (whatever that means) hosts will be allowed to setup servers outside of their LAN, and your ISP (or beyond) will get to decide what goes in or out.
The upshot is that, on the one hand, spammers and crackers will not go away on their own. On the contrary, they are merging and getting ever more radical, as the recent DoSes on blacklists show. On the other hand, the net is taking a more and more critical role in the economy and everybody's lives. At some point, unless some radical technological breakthrough happens on the security front, the powers that be will demand action due yesterday and they won't give a rat's ass if they throw the baby out with the bath water, as long as Jane User gets her emails and can get to yahoo and the bank.
Slashdot Mirror
No? Nothing to see here, move along.
My household spends $10,000 per year for music
Wow! Is that a typo?! How do you do that?
select * from pg_database is not good enough for you?
Wow! Congrats, this is funny as hell.
Well ... why not Mono? It's pretty damn good!
With only minimal care (mostly, making my file paths platform-agnostic, just as one would do in Java) I can run assemblies built by visual studio right out of the box with mono on Linux. Haven't tried it, but Mono has a package for Mac OS X too, so I don't see why they wouldn't run there either.
Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, sounds out a lot like cross-platform to me!
Thank you, I was about to say the same thing. What the GP post said had nothing to do with stock price value. Google's financials and prospects are quite impressive, but not nearly enough to justify such insanely high P/E.
I'd also add that Google's products have little lock-in value, aside from the bizarre emotional attachment they seem to generate from the likes of the GP poster and the Slashdot moderators (who won't give us a day without a Google story).
The fact that Google was able to overtake the previous market leaders so rapidly and decisively should be proof enough of this. The moment some company comes up with a better search algorithm, or perhaps even an altogether different paradigm, that obsoletes search engines as we know them now, Google will be in big troubles, and their revenues (which are mostly ad-based afaik) could plumet very rapidly.
I'm not saying this will happen - after all, Google is still quite innovative, and they have basically emptied comp sci deparments everywhere of the best and brightest. But it's a distinct possibility.
That's quite easy to say. But what if they were the original reporters for those vulnerabilities, and they kept quiet while MS & Mozilla fixed them? Couldn't they be allowed to publicize them now that they are fixed, and get the appropriate recognition without putting the users to risk?
I haven't check the history for those advisories; maybe they truely are 'glory whores', I'm just saying we shouldn't rush to judgement.
How about: 0?
Not knowing that web applications involves more than writing HTML does not make you a reference on what is a lead programmer.
What's a Slashdot story without an anti-American post?
And the solution to that: Let's restrict free speech on the net. Maybe they won't notice that the books are being burnt too as they watch Survivor 69: the Island of Desire on their big screen TV.
Dude, the story is that the supremes STRUCK DOWN the law, not upheld it, so why don't you reserve your grandstanding and nazis-burning-books rethoric for a more appropriate occasion?
I mostly agree with the rest of your post, though.
And if I hadn't shoplifted this copy of The Economist from the newstands the other day, I would never have seen how good it was and subscribed to the magazine.
And if you don't like it, write your own OO system in Lisp Still in college, are you?
You have to be pretty dumb to believe that.
The reasons we have more and more restrictions on air travel, and liberty in general, all have at their root cause terrorism (mainly the middle-eastern sort, since you mention it).
It's been that way since the 70's when the first skyjackings occurred, and the governments of the world started scanning passengers and baggages.
If the government reacts with dumb measures like the one you mention, or more scary ones such as iris scans at the airport and biometrically-stamped passports like we're about to get here in Canada, it's because people are scared and expect the government to act this way.
You'd be surprised at how these measures are popular. When biometric ids were announced here, I thought there'd be a revolution or something. Instead I saw polls where something like 80% of the population supported it.
Is the government/bureaucracy (ab)using the terrorism scare to push its agenda? Absolutely.
But what they are doing is more or less what the people want.
And, even more sadly, a good part of it is really needed, i.e. the terrorists are forcing us into it.
It's really sad that it has to be repeated but, you know, these guys are real. They really blew up the two tallest skyscrapers in NYC, parts of the Pentagon, downed 4 airliners, and killed almost 3000 people 3 years ago. They really burned a 100 people to death in Bali (almost none of which had anything to do with the U.S., btw) in 2002. They have committed a lot more outrages before or after that. These guys are not (just) GWB's strawmen.
*They* are the greatest threat to your liberty, no matter how much you or I may loathe that Ashcroft prick.
No, just old and tired
First of all, let me put into perspective: I hate spammers. I hate them because they and their likes, the virus/worm/etc writers, the child-porn freaks, terrorists, are forcing the rest of us to dismantle a lot of the features that we build into the Internet (ie to close down our machines with firewalls and anti-virus software).
This proposal may or may not be good for reducing spam, but it seems to me like a very good way to get 'rid' of privacy on the Internet. Using assymetric crypto techniques to identify bad guys means you'll be able to identify everybody, too. If this catches on, expect it to be extended to every tcp, or even ip, protocol. (after all, don't we want to get rid of im spammers, blog spammers, etc. too?)
I love the Internet because I can say anything and get away with it, 99% of the time (that is if you don't go contrary to evil laws like the DMCA or the <name your favorite nation here> anti-hate-speech laws). This has a lot to do with the fact that it is still largely out of control of a single government, multi-or-extra-national organization, or corporation. If a single, tracable identification measure follows you throughout the Internet, it is inevitable that it will be taken over by one such organization it the medium term.
Personally, I got rid of 95% of spam with Mozilla. And I still get the spam I want, like amazon or chapters.
No source code = debugging hell If you say that in C, it's debugging hell allright...
So, to summarize: anything can happen?
A restaurant's prices reflects, among other things, what it must charge to make a profit. This includes accounting for the cost of broken plates, stolen ashtrays, etc., e.g. other customers' mistakes.
On the one hand, this all seems so ridiculous, . You've got this two bit outfit suing IBM, which has more lawyers on its payroll than most companies have employees. Same than ups the ante, wants to sue the world and his cousin. All this while claiming as its own the hard work of hundreds aroundt the world.
On the other hand, I can't help but remember that the fate of Linux and the GPL are about to be handed over to the same legal system that got OJ acquitted and awarded millions to some idiot who couldn't figure out that driving a car with hot coffee between her laps was a bad idea.
The way this McBride talks (IBM, Red Hat, HP, now Novell, next *BSD, then you and me?), it looks like lawsuits will be flying around for a long, long time. Add to this the fact that (yeah, yeah, IANAL) that stupid laws like the DMCA seem give his company at least some grounds for his lawsuits (and besides, who knows if IBM et al. didn't do some really stupid things?).
Who wins in the end? You already know of course: Bill.
Prove me wrong, please!
Dude, this is the 21st century. 64 MB sounds pretty puny to me.
IANAL (of course), but isn't such a broad ban unconstitutional? Does the First Amendment protect commercial speech like any other form of speech? And doesn't the fact that the burden of proof is transfered from the accused to the accuser violates the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"? Or Am I way of base here?
I am not trolling here. Just asking.
I'm not sure you understand what LexisNexis is (it's a very very big database of articles from just about every news organization). It's not a service provided by the NYT, but rather one to which it subscribes . This means it's LexisNexis that charged the $300K to the NYT, rather than an hypothetical $300K charge that the NYT would have billed to Adrian.
That's not his whole point. His fear of 'balkanisation' of the Net is well founded, in my view. Hell, it has already started, with some ISPs blocking SMTP ports, and even sometimes the WWW port, to avoid all those IIS-cracks and spamming problems.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see full-fledged ISP-level firewalls spreading, because of said ISPs getting fed up with dumb users not setting up their own firewall and not keeping their anti-virus up to date, and then getting cracked from the Windows Hole-du-jour. Only geeks will complain, so they won't care.
When that happens, only "legitimate" (whatever that means) hosts will be allowed to setup servers outside of their LAN, and your ISP (or beyond) will get to decide what goes in or out.
The upshot is that, on the one hand, spammers and crackers will not go away on their own. On the contrary, they are merging and getting ever more radical, as the recent DoSes on blacklists show. On the other hand, the net is taking a more and more critical role in the economy and everybody's lives. At some point, unless some radical technological breakthrough happens on the security front, the powers that be will demand action due yesterday and they won't give a rat's ass if they throw the baby out with the bath water, as long as Jane User gets her emails and can get to yahoo and the bank.
Hey, call me Cassandra...