Are you talking about ICANN or the UN. This is just ICANN getting a taste of what they've been dishing out to the rest of us. Yes it stinks but so does the way ICANN has behaved in the past.
Trouble is parsing and reinterpreting the DOM efficiently of course. All dynamic stuff via your input format is not a paragon of efficiency, although it doesn't have to boil down to that. But in principal I agree. The implementation as it stands does not build complexity on simple components making implementation easy. It's just big and complex from the outset, this is a huge mistake when shooting for cross platform implementations. Compatability has to be top of the list and the ONLY way to get there is simplicity, elegance and tests.
The scary thing is they're still racing ahead with other stuff. They're specing faster than anyone can implement and they know it. On one level I am annoyed by this, on another I just throw up my hands and say they're idiots let them get on with it it's their sand pit. The major problem is it's just a 2D vector format for the web and that doesn't seem to attract or excite the best and brightest (no offence).
Difficult to stuff up you might think, but they've managed it.
Actually I've read and helped implement the spec on mobile devices which is probably more than you've done. I'm off doing other things now, thank goodness. Feel free to try to implement it yourself then tell me I'm wrong.
Sorry, it is not superior. There are ambiguities, it relies on SMILE for it's animation and SMILE is badly specified and overly complex. The implementation issues and ambiguities mean that very simple animations produce different results on different browsers. The complexity means that there aren't a lot of very functional implementations because it's a big job to implement what should be a simple format.
My bad, thanks for the guidance. Interesting history, I always assumed this implied the more literal interpretation. That's what I get for not being an American and missing the cultural reference.
Actually there are errors, but of course standards were more lax, something to bear in mind today. There are also errors in the Declaration of Independence. I'm not referring to Churchill's spelling rather his famous quote on spelling which fits very nicely in this context, so since you insist:
"Poor spelling does not prove poor knowledge, but is fatal to the argument by intimidation." ~Winston Churchill
But at least he could laugh about grammar:
"From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put." ~Winston Churchill
Your post is a sad attempt to start your own counter meme with no justification.
The U.S. Constitution has numerous spelling errors, it's a fact not some abuse of an idea, similarly I refer to Churchill's famous quote on spelling nothing else, again not the abuse of a meme. Web posts are replete with folks pointing out spelling issues and typos with nothing substantive to say other that impugn the related content. It's a fact that this spelling obsession is a relatively modern phenomenon.
It is not inappropriate to point out how ludicrous this spelling lint picking is by citing well known evidence that shows how clearly false any theory equating inteligence and rigor to perfect spelling.
Moreover, you're the one appealing to ad hominem in implying my post was on par with citing Nazis & Hitler, neither of which I did. Of course you couldn't resist.
As I said in another response, we disagree, you have no basis to shoot this down besides your spelling obsession. I could quote Churchill or the U.S. Constitution w.r.t. spelling, but why bother, your type obsesses over lint like this.
Poor spelling on a document does not mean they are sloppy on the facts. *YOU* are sloppy, where's your evidence to support that satement? You don't have any, you just bade it up. It's pure conjecture with nothing to back it up.
You're making the common mistake of equating spelling with intelligence. Whatever floats your boat.
Well we disagree, you have no basis to shoot this down besides your spelling obsession. I could quote Churchill or the U.S> Constitution w.r.t. spelling, but why bother, your type obsesses over lint like this.
You seem confused, I make no claims for the article, you on the other hand do. I did include two links, the second even comments on the first if you'd bothered to look.
Form your own opinion, but he seems to have interviewed the people, spell checking is entirely unrelated issue to fact checking. You may think it cute to equate the two, I don't see the point.
Seems to me at your place a programmer is a very low level function, that's never been the case for me, a programmer does some design, or is that a software engineer. Seems th distinction is not being drawn anywhere in this article or discussion.
Judge Tells SCO: No, *You* Have to Show the Code First
Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:13 PM EST
The big news from the hearing today is that Judge Wells told SCO that they have to go first. They have to show IBM what code they are alleging is infringing. All during discovery, SCO has been telling IBM they had to show all their code first, and then SCO would identify the alleged infringements. IBM kept telling SCO in reply that they had the burden, as plaintiffs, to at least tell IBM what code was involved. Today the judge told SCO that IBM was right. SCO has 30 days to comply. IBM doesn't have to turn over anything until they do it. The judge's order will be filed Wednesday, and SCO has a month to show the code. They can't force IBM to go first. That dance is over. Cody Hilton of Guru Labs , a Utah Linux training company, attended the hearing, and the second big piece of news is that David Boies didn't show up. Darl's brother represented SCO. His brother is Kevin McBride, the same person we noted who was involved in writing the Open Letter yesterday.
Why Boies didn't show up is hard to understand. And then again, maybe not. Brent Hatch was there and so was Darl. There was no media presence at all. Or more accurately, there was a lot of press there in the building but they were all there to cover the Olympic bribery trial , which got thrown out by the judge. Nobody in the courthouse was interested in talking to Darl today, according to my eyewitnesses, to the extent that they noticed, and they were looking.
Cody talked to him, though, after it was over. He asked him why he was there, and Darl said he just wanted to get a feel for it. Cody asked him what he thought about how it went, with IBM winning both motions. Darl said he expected it. Cody rode in the elevator with IBM's Marriott and asked him how he felt about how things went. Marriott said, "We're happy. Everything went as we'd planned. We're happy with the decision."
For IBM, it was David Marriott and Todd M. Shaughnessy. There were about 15 people there sitting in the gallery, including one woman, who rumor had it might be the patent attorney SCO hired and mentioned as possibly having a conflict of interest. But that is only a rumor.
The room was small, with maybe seats in the gallery for about 20 people, but no one was denied entrance. There were seats available.
Cody says that when the judge entered, she told them that it was her inclination to grant IBM's motions, and then she let both sides speak. First, SCO's Keven McBride spoke for about 40 minutes. The judge interrupted a few times and to Cody, it seemed like the presentation was hard to follow. Basically, he was arguing that IBM should hand over code first, so SCO could go over it and then categorize the violations as to whether they were copyright violations, trade secret, etc. Then Marriott spoke for IBM. He spoke for only 20 minutes. Cody described it as clear, crisp, easy to follow, easy to understand. He cited a case, Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., he believes, which you can find mentioned here, in footnote 3 of IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery, where the judge ruled like this:
"[3] See also Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 64 F.R.D. 367, 371 (S.D.N.Y., 1974) ('[Plaintiff] should be able to identify in detail the trade secrets and confidential information alleged to have been misappropriated by [defendant]. Clearly until this is done, neither the court nor the parties can know, with any degree of certainty, whether discovery is relevant or not; and it is doubtful whether [plaintiff] can undertake a meaningful discovery program'.)" The hearing lasted an hour and a half.
Frank Sorenson was there too and he also reports similarly:
"Judge Wells came into the courtroom, and announced that she had read all the filings and the relevant case law, and it was her intention to grant IBM's Motions and postpone any further Discovery until this matter was
Judge Tells SCO: No, *You* Have to Show the Code First
Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:13 PM EST
The big news from the hearing today is that Judge Wells told SCO that they have to go first. They have to show IBM what code they are alleging is infringing. All during discovery, SCO has been telling IBM they had to show all their code first, and then SCO would identify the alleged infringements. IBM kept telling SCO in reply that they had the burden, as plaintiffs, to at least tell IBM what code was involved. Today the judge told SCO that IBM was right. SCO has 30 days to comply. IBM doesn't have to turn over anything until they do it. The judge's order will be filed Wednesday, and SCO has a month to show the code. They can't force IBM to go first. That dance is over. Cody Hilton of Guru Labs , a Utah Linux training company, attended the hearing, and the second big piece of news is that David Boies didn't show up. Darl's brother represented SCO. His brother is Kevin McBride, the same person we noted who was involved in writing the Open Letter yesterday.
Why Boies didn't show up is hard to understand. And then again, maybe not. Brent Hatch was there and so was Darl. There was no media presence at all. Or more accurately, there was a lot of press there in the building but they were all there to cover the Olympic bribery trial , which got thrown out by the judge. Nobody in the courthouse was interested in talking to Darl today, according to my eyewitnesses, to the extent that they noticed, and they were looking.
Cody talked to him, though, after it was over. He asked him why he was there, and Darl said he just wanted to get a feel for it. Cody asked him what he thought about how it went, with IBM winning both motions. Darl said he expected it. Cody rode in the elevator with IBM's Marriott and asked him how he felt about how things went. Marriott said, "We're happy. Everything went as we'd planned. We're happy with the decision."
There's nothing particularly wrong with Copyrights (although terms are now excessive) but it is SCO who is assaulting them by trying to steal the work of thousands of developers, not the other way around.
Use it all the time AC smartass, that doesn't mean I waste my time googling for battlestar trivia, I knew there was a film without searching. Looks like it was made from TV episodes and released in the UK, (I had no idea being from the UK) that's enough to throw anyone off the scent. The spinoff where they reached Earth was called Galactica, oh well, I knew it existed.
The bogus article derides the original series but the guy never even mentions the films that launched the TV series. And what's this about one season anyway? My memory is struggling a bit but didn't they have additional shows that were truly terrible where they actually reached the Earth... on another season... yes indeed they did. I remember the motorcycles that could sprout wings and rocket off into orbit (shudder).
Devices like cameras use FAT because they can plug the flash card into a windows PC and mount the file system to transfer data.
This situation is ridiculous, if Microsoft controls the windows platform and only supports FAT then tries to charge for using it, everyone must then pay the monopoly operating system vendor a tax to interoperate with the PC platform solely because they force you to use that technology by eliminating choice. FAT isn't used because it's good, it's used because it's the only darned thing available on Windows that does the job (NTFS isn't an option and again is a Microsoft format). There are better technologies unencumbered by patents (especially crazy patents over long names that are redundant), but Microsoft has never supported them in their operating systems.
But goods are coming back, and of course you're buying that stuff. It's almost impossible to buy anything that ain't made in china or at least has components made in China these days, but sooner or later inflation will drive the cashflow from China to some other country.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about ICANN or the UN. This is just ICANN getting a taste of what they've been dishing out to the rest of us. Yes it stinks but so does the way ICANN has behaved in the past.
Trouble is parsing and reinterpreting the DOM efficiently of course. All dynamic stuff via your input format is not a paragon of efficiency, although it doesn't have to boil down to that. But in principal I agree. The implementation as it stands does not build complexity on simple components making implementation easy. It's just big and complex from the outset, this is a huge mistake when shooting for cross platform implementations. Compatability has to be top of the list and the ONLY way to get there is simplicity, elegance and tests.
The scary thing is they're still racing ahead with other stuff. They're specing faster than anyone can implement and they know it. On one level I am annoyed by this, on another I just throw up my hands and say they're idiots let them get on with it it's their sand pit. The major problem is it's just a 2D vector format for the web and that doesn't seem to attract or excite the best and brightest (no offence).
Difficult to stuff up you might think, but they've managed it.
Well SVG is heading the same way (bloat) because implementations won't stop at the static stuff.
You don't hedge with a bet on the same horse.
Actually I've read and helped implement the spec on mobile devices which is probably more than you've done. I'm off doing other things now, thank goodness. Feel free to try to implement it yourself then tell me I'm wrong.
Sorry, it is not superior. There are ambiguities, it relies on SMILE for it's animation and SMILE is badly specified and overly complex. The implementation issues and ambiguities mean that very simple animations produce different results on different browsers. The complexity means that there aren't a lot of very functional implementations because it's a big job to implement what should be a simple format.
The whole thing is a wasted opportunity.
My bad, thanks for the guidance. Interesting history, I always assumed this implied the more literal interpretation. That's what I get for not being an American and missing the cultural reference.
Actually there are errors, but of course standards were more lax, something to bear in mind today. There are also errors in the Declaration of Independence. I'm not referring to Churchill's spelling rather his famous quote on spelling which fits very nicely in this context, so since you insist:
"Poor spelling does not prove poor knowledge,
but is fatal to the argument by intimidation." ~Winston Churchill
But at least he could laugh about grammar:
"From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put." ~Winston Churchill
Your post is a sad attempt to start your own counter meme with no justification.
The U.S. Constitution has numerous spelling errors, it's a fact not some abuse of an idea, similarly I refer to Churchill's famous quote on spelling nothing else, again not the abuse of a meme. Web posts are replete with folks pointing out spelling issues and typos with nothing substantive to say other that impugn the related content. It's a fact that this spelling obsession is a relatively modern phenomenon.
It is not inappropriate to point out how ludicrous this spelling lint picking is by citing well known evidence that shows how clearly false any theory equating inteligence and rigor to perfect spelling.
Moreover, you're the one appealing to ad hominem in implying my post was on par with citing Nazis & Hitler, neither of which I did. Of course you couldn't resist.
That's not yellow journalism. Yellow implies cowardice and takes many forms, I wouldn't call the article yellow.
Your theory of correlation is *fabricated*.
As I said in another response, we disagree, you have no basis to shoot this down besides your spelling obsession. I could quote Churchill or the U.S. Constitution w.r.t. spelling, but why bother, your type obsesses over lint like this.
Poor spelling on a document does not mean they are sloppy on the facts. *YOU* are sloppy, where's your evidence to support that satement? You don't have any, you just bade it up. It's pure conjecture with nothing to back it up.
You're making the common mistake of equating spelling with intelligence. Whatever floats your boat.
Well we disagree, you have no basis to shoot this down besides your spelling obsession. I could quote Churchill or the U.S> Constitution w.r.t. spelling, but why bother, your type obsesses over lint like this.
You seem confused, I make no claims for the article, you on the other hand do. I did include two links, the second even comments on the first if you'd bothered to look.
In the interest of balance I included two links, feel free to read them both before shooting your mouth off.
Form your own opinion, but he seems to have interviewed the people, spell checking is entirely unrelated issue to fact checking. You may think it cute to equate the two, I don't see the point.
Whe should anyone care what Andreesen says after the truth is out, read about it here:
e esen.htm
http://www.chrispy.net/marca/gqarticle.html
or is he really the great Entrepreneur:
http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/alfred/290/andr
Seems to me at your place a programmer is a very low level function, that's never been the case for me, a programmer does some design, or is that a software engineer. Seems th distinction is not being drawn anywhere in this article or discussion.
The attribution is in the text of the article title and the phrase MIRROR in the title of my post you dummy.
Judge Tells SCO: No, *You* Have to Show the Code First
Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:13 PM EST
The big news from the hearing today is that Judge Wells told SCO that they have to go first. They have to show IBM what code they are alleging is infringing. All during discovery, SCO has been telling IBM they had to show all their code first, and then SCO would identify the alleged infringements. IBM kept telling SCO in reply that they had the burden, as plaintiffs, to at least tell IBM what code was involved. Today the judge told SCO that IBM was right. SCO has 30 days to comply. IBM doesn't have to turn over anything until they do it. The judge's order will be filed Wednesday, and SCO has a month to show the code. They can't force IBM to go first. That dance is over.
Cody Hilton of Guru Labs , a Utah Linux training company, attended the hearing, and the second big piece of news is that David Boies didn't show up. Darl's brother represented SCO. His brother is Kevin McBride, the same person we noted who was involved in writing the Open Letter yesterday.
Why Boies didn't show up is hard to understand. And then again, maybe not. Brent Hatch was there and so was Darl. There was no media presence at all. Or more accurately, there was a lot of press there in the building but they were all there to cover the Olympic bribery trial , which got thrown out by the judge. Nobody in the courthouse was interested in talking to Darl today, according to my eyewitnesses, to the extent that they noticed, and they were looking.
Cody talked to him, though, after it was over. He asked him why he was there, and Darl said he just wanted to get a feel for it. Cody asked him what he thought about how it went, with IBM winning both motions. Darl said he expected it. Cody rode in the elevator with IBM's Marriott and asked him how he felt about how things went. Marriott said, "We're happy. Everything went as we'd planned. We're happy with the decision."
For IBM, it was David Marriott and Todd M. Shaughnessy. There were about 15 people there sitting in the gallery, including one woman, who rumor had it might be the patent attorney SCO hired and mentioned as possibly having a conflict of interest. But that is only a rumor.
The room was small, with maybe seats in the gallery for about 20 people, but no one was denied entrance. There were seats available.
Cody says that when the judge entered, she told them that it was her inclination to grant IBM's motions, and then she let both sides speak. First, SCO's Keven McBride spoke for about 40 minutes. The judge interrupted a few times and to Cody, it seemed like the presentation was hard to follow. Basically, he was arguing that IBM should hand over code first, so SCO could go over it and then categorize the violations as to whether they were copyright violations, trade secret, etc. Then Marriott spoke for IBM. He spoke for only 20 minutes. Cody described it as clear, crisp, easy to follow, easy to understand. He cited a case, Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., he believes, which you can find mentioned here, in footnote 3 of IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery, where the judge ruled like this:
"[3] See also Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 64 F.R.D. 367, 371 (S.D.N.Y., 1974) ('[Plaintiff] should be able to identify in detail the trade secrets and confidential information alleged to have been misappropriated by [defendant]. Clearly until this is done, neither the court nor the parties can know, with any degree of certainty, whether discovery is relevant or not; and it is doubtful whether [plaintiff] can undertake a meaningful discovery program'.)"
The hearing lasted an hour and a half.
Frank Sorenson was there too and he also reports similarly:
"Judge Wells came into the courtroom, and announced that she had read all the filings and the relevant case law, and it was her intention to grant IBM's Motions and postpone any further Discovery until this matter was
Judge Tells SCO: No, *You* Have to Show the Code First
Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:13 PM EST
The big news from the hearing today is that Judge Wells told SCO that they have to go first. They have to show IBM what code they are alleging is infringing. All during discovery, SCO has been telling IBM they had to show all their code first, and then SCO would identify the alleged infringements. IBM kept telling SCO in reply that they had the burden, as plaintiffs, to at least tell IBM what code was involved. Today the judge told SCO that IBM was right. SCO has 30 days to comply. IBM doesn't have to turn over anything until they do it. The judge's order will be filed Wednesday, and SCO has a month to show the code. They can't force IBM to go first. That dance is over.
Cody Hilton of Guru Labs , a Utah Linux training company, attended the hearing, and the second big piece of news is that David Boies didn't show up. Darl's brother represented SCO. His brother is Kevin McBride, the same person we noted who was involved in writing the Open Letter yesterday.
Why Boies didn't show up is hard to understand. And then again, maybe not. Brent Hatch was there and so was Darl. There was no media presence at all. Or more accurately, there was a lot of press there in the building but they were all there to cover the Olympic bribery trial , which got thrown out by the judge. Nobody in the courthouse was interested in talking to Darl today, according to my eyewitnesses, to the extent that they noticed, and they were looking.
Cody talked to him, though, after it was over. He asked him why he was there, and Darl said he just wanted to get a feel for it. Cody asked him what he thought about how it went, with IBM winning both motions. Darl said he expected it. Cody rode in the elevator with IBM's Marriott and asked him how he felt about how things went. Marriott said, "We're happy. Everything went as we'd planned. We're happy with the decision."
There's nothing particularly wrong with Copyrights (although terms are now excessive) but it is SCO who is assaulting them by trying to steal the work of thousands of developers, not the other way around.
Use it all the time AC smartass, that doesn't mean I waste my time googling for battlestar trivia, I knew there was a film without searching. Looks like it was made from TV episodes and released in the UK, (I had no idea being from the UK) that's enough to throw anyone off the scent. The spinoff where they reached Earth was called Galactica, oh well, I knew it existed.
The bogus article derides the original series but the guy never even mentions the films that launched the TV series. And what's this about one season anyway? My memory is struggling a bit but didn't they have additional shows that were truly terrible where they actually reached the Earth... on another season... yes indeed they did. I remember the motorcycles that could sprout wings and rocket off into orbit (shudder).
Devices like cameras use FAT because they can plug the flash card into a windows PC and mount the file system to transfer data.
This situation is ridiculous, if Microsoft controls the windows platform and only supports FAT then tries to charge for using it, everyone must then pay the monopoly operating system vendor a tax to interoperate with the PC platform solely because they force you to use that technology by eliminating choice. FAT isn't used because it's good, it's used because it's the only darned thing available on Windows that does the job (NTFS isn't an option and again is a Microsoft format). There are better technologies unencumbered by patents (especially crazy patents over long names that are redundant), but Microsoft has never supported them in their operating systems.
But goods are coming back, and of course you're buying that stuff. It's almost impossible to buy anything that ain't made in china or at least has components made in China these days, but sooner or later inflation will drive the cashflow from China to some other country.