Other parts include language models (the ability to handle phrases, synonyms, diacritics, spelling mistakes, and so on), query models (it's not just the language, it's how people use it today), time models (some queries are best answered with a 30-minutes old page, and some are better answered with a page that stood the test of time), and personalized models (not all people want the same thing).
Obviously, this usage of the word "open" is not related to open source software. It's more like he is willing to talk about it at all.
Here's a tip. You don't really need an MSDN license to do good Windows development anymore. The.NET SDK provides everything that you need to develop and build great.NET applications and it is free (as in beer).
What's that you say? No VS.NET with the.NET SDK? That's true. Your favorite text editor can do the job with the writing and NAnt can do the job with building it. True, you won't get your precious statement completion that you get in VS.NET unless you use the OSS IDE SharpDevelop.
VS.NET can be more of a crutch than a tool since there is no first class, built in support for modern IoC/DI style MVC frameworks such as Unity or Spring.
Re:Second person narration as a method of aggravat
on
Second Person
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the insightful comment. Your intelligent remarks restore my confidence in/. I don't know why your post was moderated as funny.
One problem that I ran into was subject verb agreement between what the gaming system provides and what you provide. Another problem was in the combinatorial explosion of the interactive nature of the media. In non-interactive fiction, you know what has already happened in the story so you can reference those things while writing. In interactive fiction, the user may not have navigated to a particular room so you have to be careful when you need to refer to another place or event. I have blogged on this elsewhere.
they are really a bunch of clowns that come up with useless stuff
The tone is a little on the harsh side; however, the conclusion is not without merit. I first ran into this approach through MIT's oxygen project. The idea here is that the cognitive barrier to using computers is mostly with the input devices. In other words, the keyboard and the mouse is too foreign a concept for most folks here in the real world.
Perhaps this approach has merit for ubiquitous computing. Yes, it does take some training to use a keyboard and a mouse. So what? I think that most humans are smart enough to be trained. Look at cars. It takes training to drive car and cars are ubiquitous.
Project oxygen is not all about input devices. With traditional computers, you have to get really clear about what it is that you want done and to reduce that to a series of operand (make a selection) and operator (choose a menu) tasks. Again, with a little training this is easy.
This argument is relevant. I cannot speak for twitter but I have seen many a company develop a poor architecture in-house, experience poor results, rewrite the whole thing at great cost, and blame the technology instead of the architecture for political reasons. It's an easier sell to the CEO to ask for the rewrite when the blame game is targeting someone who can't defend himself.
There is some confusion here about the issue. The post here seems to be about performance whereas the original article referenced scalability as the issue. Performance and scalability are two different things.
The argument is a false dichotomy. You can have an architecture that is both clean and performs well. This is usually brought about by a lot of reliance on caching. I am not a rails guru but it is my understanding that rails attempts to support caching via the query cache, page caching, action caching, and fragment caching. If the application uses javascript and XHR on the web browser, then consider using the HTML and HTTP cache directives.
Here is a more interesting dichotomy. Can you have an architecture that performs well and is scalable? It is not possible to optimize for both. There is always going to be some trade offs here so the job of the architect is to pick a judicious and relevant combination of the two.
Even better than speaking to a lawyer, just walk away. IANAL, but it is a forensic issue to investigate the cause of death, including any searches of any property like computers or accounts. What if the police decided to mount a criminal investigation and they encounter your snooping around? Do you really want to be in that situation? What if the deceased becomes a victim of identity fraud later? You will become the prime suspect. Besides, anything you encounter won't be admissible in court anyway.
This smells like a set up. If the family really wants to know what is in this child's computer(s) and/or account(s), then have them seek credible council on the matter. This is really a forensics and/or probate issue. Don't get involved. If you do get involved and you end up in prison and the other inmates ask you what you are in for, you'll have to say "stupidity."
Exchange is a pit. A big money pit. It's fine for 100 users in a small business. Past that, its storage systems show the strain.
I used to work for a small ISV. They had about a dozen employees. They used Exchange. This ISV also has data warehousing and SaaS offerings so lack of IT infrastructure was not an issue. They have plenty of IT infrastructure. It was more cost effective to outsource email to a third party vendor, then it was to continue to support Exchange in house.
Here's a tip for narrow band users or any users who just want the content without all the eye candy. Seek out the mobile pages for a web site. Internet enabled cell phones and PDAs are growing in popularity and web sites are developing mobile pages for those users. A well designed page for mobile devices shouldn't use javascript or any plugins and will go light on the graphics which is just what you are looking for.
These mobile friendly pages are sometimes hard to find because the content providers want the full featured desktop users to use the full featured web pages. Why? Because most web trend analytics tracking technologies depend on javascript which isn't available for mobile devices. Also, they have to cut out most of the advertising which also doesn't fit the ad revenue business model too well.
That is why it isn't easy to find links to the mobile edition. One way to find the mobile page for a web site is to load the main page using a mobile device. Most of the time, you will get a client side redirect to the mobile page. Then email that page's URL to yourself and use that URL from your desktop. For example,/.'s mobile page is http://slashdot.org/palm/ and Yahoo's mobile page is http://us.m.yahoo.com/
Not only is the gain in mobile device popularity driving content providers to add support for mobile devices, it is also compelling CMS vendors to add mobile device support for their products too. I have recently added a mobile page to my open source news portal application.
Interesting. I did not read TFA but your summary does sound coherent and accurate with regards to UAC.
From a security architecture perspective, I am interpreting your summary as UAC lacks transitive closure when authenticating API call requests. So UAC goes into affect when a less secure component calls a more secure component and that call crosses the windows system boundary. However, UAC does not get involved when a less secure component calls a more secure component and the call does not cross the windows system boundary.
Java lost a lot of ground in the back-end space to Python, Ruby
Uh, huh. A quick reality check over at dice shows number of jobs for java = 15831, number of jobs for python = 1396, number of jobs for ruby = 759. The same search over at Monster shows number of jobs for java > 5000, number of jobs for python = 1256, number of jobs for ruby = 663.
tight control to prevent it being forked by competitors or used in manners that they didn't approve of
Mod parent up. It's not the legislative side that allows the abuse, its the judicial side. The examiner should have to be convinced that you spent the time, mind, and money implementing the preferred embodiment. For software, that means provide what it takes to build, deploy, and test the code on the accompanied CD-ROM and provide the patent examiners with a QA department. Problem solved.
The Faceboogle concept assumes that I want to search just for those things which already match my existing online footprint.
Not at all. The idea here is that you pick friends based on what you have in common with them. In which case, it stands to reason that what they think as relevant is a reasonable determinant for what you think is relevant. Think of it this way, how many times have you searched for something because a friend of yours was telling you about it? I have blogged on this.
So, the downside is learning a new application stack and the upside is free hosting for now. This sounds like it is targeting college students who can't afford the quite minimal ISP hosting costs currently available in the market. I can't see building a business around this for the same reason that SaaS has not predominated for mission critical systems.
They make a lot of "scalability for free" claims. If true, then that might make their offering more compelling. What's that old adage? Fantastic claims require fantastic proof. I look forward to seeing where this will go but am weary at "betting the farm" on it at this point in time.
It's a decent career but there's just not enough money in it yet to make it worth the pain and stress. We need alternative business models to increase the value of the blogsphere. Anyone got ideas?
Content may be king but in this world, that content is user supplied and nearly anonymous. In order to make money off of content, you either have to be in the distribution side or form a cult of personality. In other words, build brand. In viral fashion, I have blogged on this.
Oh, I misunderstood his intentions. Mea culpa. I thought that he was interested in going after companies that used his ideas. If all he wants is to protect himself from being sued, then applying for a patent won't help. IANAL but it is my understanding that a patent is an offensive rights weapon. It has no defensive component to it. Just because you already have a patent on an idea can't keep you from being sued for using that idea. All that a patent does is give you some basis for suing someone else.
In terms of defense, all that he needs to do is publish his idea.
I can't believe that posters here are taking the original poster seriously as he is basically asking for advice on how to create submarine patents for the open source community. Hey folks, when did the ends start justifying the means?
IMHO, criticizing the patent system when for profit corporations abuse it yet encouraging the same abuse when it is done by open source foundations shows a lack of integrity. Wake up, people!
The notion of trust is nothing new. The basic question comes down to this, do you trust the code (or coders for the code that) you are about to run or not? If you don't, then don't run the code. If you do, then go ahead and run the code.
That question may be easy to ask but not so easy to answer. Maybe you trust the organization but there could be inadvertent security vulnerabilities in the code. Or maybe you don't know much about the organization who authored or published the application. How do you decide whether or not to trust the application?
In theory, open source mitigates this trust issue because you can study the code yourself. In practice, it's not so easy. First of all, access to the source code is immaterial to people who are not coders themselves. Second, it would take a lot of time and mind to study the code for a large project. Sure, any competent programmer could study and verify for his or herself that my open source project can be trusted because it really isn't all that big. How can you be sure that Firefox doesn't have any malicious code in it?
One approach to this problem is to run programs in what is called a sandbox. What that means is that the program isn't written in what is called the native "machine" code. Rather, it is written in a code for a virtual machine. Every time that code makes an API call, the virtual machine checks to see if it is permitted from a security perspective. Applications that run in a sandbox don't get a lot of permissions. It is OK to run an application that you don't completely trust within the sandbox because the virtual machine is going to deny any requests that could compromise or take advantage of your system anyway.
That is why the complaint about ActiveX. Both ActiveX controls and Java applets run in a web browser. The Java applet has to run in the sandbox (unless it is signed but it is beyond the scope of this post to introduce PKI and X.509 certificates) but the ActiveX control never runs in a sandbox.
Later iterations of this sandbox concept allow the user more control over what the program can and cannot do. In.NET, this is called Code Access Security and in J2SE, this is called Java Security Policy. Before running an application, the user can specify what API calls that the application can and cannot call. The problem here is that this specification is not easy to tweak for mere mortals. When you just double click the application icon, you are running the application with whatever policy that the publishing company specified. So, you are back to trusting that company since there is nothing that keeps them from specifying a policy that is wide open.
I have no experience in AIR so I could not tell you whether or not that virtual machine implements any kind of policy control. Perhaps someone that is knowledgeable about AIR would care to clarify here?
That's the rub with what seems to me to be the most outspoken and represented opinion here on/. If you believe that the second amendment to the US constitution is just as meritorious as the first, then I claim that you should be supporting title 35 of the US code. Before you flame or moderate this post, read the rest of it for an explanation as to why I make this claim.
Everyone here seems to bash patents. IMHO it is precisely the legal notion of intellectual property (including patents) that allows OSS to exist from a legal perspective. Now IANAL but my understanding is that patents are used as an offensive rights weapon. If you publish some software under the GPL and you discover someone using your software in violation of the GPL, then how are you going to stop them? If all you have is a copyright on the code, then they just need to change the code a little bit and you have nothing on them. However, if you have patented the invention, of which the code is an embodiment, then they are much more vulnerable to protracted, extended, expensive litigation and are much more likely to stop using your code in violation of the GPL.
Now, does that mean that there are no abuses of title 35? No, there are many companies that game the system to try to use patent law to stifle innovation in their field. Is the system in need of reform? Sure. Should it be changed? You bet. It is imprudent to throw the baby out with the bath water, however.
Here is where I get to my original claim. Guns don't kill people. People mis-using guns kill people. Criminalizing gun ownership will not reduce gun related homicide since the bad guys don't care about breaking the law. The same thing is true with patents. Patents don't stifle innovation. Companies mis-using patents stifle innovation. Doing away with patents will not increase innovation because what company will spend money to innovate if anyone can take your invention at any time and do whatever they want with it without any threat of retaliation?
Salasaga seems to be about authoring slide shows in SWF format. In which case, it will need to do a better job than the Export function of the Open Office Impress application.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA...
Other parts include language models (the ability to handle phrases, synonyms, diacritics, spelling mistakes, and so on), query models (it's not just the language, it's how people use it today), time models (some queries are best answered with a 30-minutes old page, and some are better answered with a page that stood the test of time), and personalized models (not all people want the same thing).Obviously, this usage of the word "open" is not related to open source software. It's more like he is willing to talk about it at all.
CNet does own some worthy domains; however, they don't own $1.8B's worth. I suspect that what CBS has really purchased is a piece of the long tail.
However, you can bring back those thrilling days of yesteryear with this screen saver.
Here's a tip. You don't really need an MSDN license to do good Windows development anymore. The .NET SDK provides everything that you need to develop and build great .NET applications and it is free (as in beer).
What's that you say? No VS.NET with the .NET SDK? That's true. Your favorite text editor can do the job with the writing and NAnt can do the job with building it. True, you won't get your precious statement completion that you get in VS.NET unless you use the OSS IDE SharpDevelop.
VS.NET can be more of a crutch than a tool since there is no first class, built in support for modern IoC/DI style MVC frameworks such as Unity or Spring.
Thanks for the insightful comment. Your intelligent remarks restore my confidence in /. I don't know why your post was moderated as funny.
I tried my hand at this by authoring a TADS game and entering it in the annual IF competition. It turned out to be a lot harder than I originally thought.
One problem that I ran into was subject verb agreement between what the gaming system provides and what you provide. Another problem was in the combinatorial explosion of the interactive nature of the media. In non-interactive fiction, you know what has already happened in the story so you can reference those things while writing. In interactive fiction, the user may not have navigated to a particular room so you have to be careful when you need to refer to another place or event. I have blogged on this elsewhere.
The tone is a little on the harsh side; however, the conclusion is not without merit. I first ran into this approach through MIT's oxygen project. The idea here is that the cognitive barrier to using computers is mostly with the input devices. In other words, the keyboard and the mouse is too foreign a concept for most folks here in the real world.
Perhaps this approach has merit for ubiquitous computing. Yes, it does take some training to use a keyboard and a mouse. So what? I think that most humans are smart enough to be trained. Look at cars. It takes training to drive car and cars are ubiquitous.
Project oxygen is not all about input devices. With traditional computers, you have to get really clear about what it is that you want done and to reduce that to a series of operand (make a selection) and operator (choose a menu) tasks. Again, with a little training this is easy.
This argument is relevant. I cannot speak for twitter but I have seen many a company develop a poor architecture in-house, experience poor results, rewrite the whole thing at great cost, and blame the technology instead of the architecture for political reasons. It's an easier sell to the CEO to ask for the rewrite when the blame game is targeting someone who can't defend himself.
There is some confusion here about the issue. The post here seems to be about performance whereas the original article referenced scalability as the issue. Performance and scalability are two different things.
The argument is a false dichotomy. You can have an architecture that is both clean and performs well. This is usually brought about by a lot of reliance on caching. I am not a rails guru but it is my understanding that rails attempts to support caching via the query cache, page caching, action caching, and fragment caching. If the application uses javascript and XHR on the web browser, then consider using the HTML and HTTP cache directives.
Here is a more interesting dichotomy. Can you have an architecture that performs well and is scalable? It is not possible to optimize for both. There is always going to be some trade offs here so the job of the architect is to pick a judicious and relevant combination of the two.
Even better than speaking to a lawyer, just walk away. IANAL, but it is a forensic issue to investigate the cause of death, including any searches of any property like computers or accounts. What if the police decided to mount a criminal investigation and they encounter your snooping around? Do you really want to be in that situation? What if the deceased becomes a victim of identity fraud later? You will become the prime suspect. Besides, anything you encounter won't be admissible in court anyway.
This smells like a set up. If the family really wants to know what is in this child's computer(s) and/or account(s), then have them seek credible council on the matter. This is really a forensics and/or probate issue. Don't get involved. If you do get involved and you end up in prison and the other inmates ask you what you are in for, you'll have to say "stupidity."
I used to work for a small ISV. They had about a dozen employees. They used Exchange. This ISV also has data warehousing and SaaS offerings so lack of IT infrastructure was not an issue. They have plenty of IT infrastructure. It was more cost effective to outsource email to a third party vendor, then it was to continue to support Exchange in house.
Here's a tip for narrow band users or any users who just want the content without all the eye candy. Seek out the mobile pages for a web site. Internet enabled cell phones and PDAs are growing in popularity and web sites are developing mobile pages for those users. A well designed page for mobile devices shouldn't use javascript or any plugins and will go light on the graphics which is just what you are looking for.
These mobile friendly pages are sometimes hard to find because the content providers want the full featured desktop users to use the full featured web pages. Why? Because most web trend analytics tracking technologies depend on javascript which isn't available for mobile devices. Also, they have to cut out most of the advertising which also doesn't fit the ad revenue business model too well.
That is why it isn't easy to find links to the mobile edition. One way to find the mobile page for a web site is to load the main page using a mobile device. Most of the time, you will get a client side redirect to the mobile page. Then email that page's URL to yourself and use that URL from your desktop. For example, /.'s mobile page is http://slashdot.org/palm/ and Yahoo's mobile page is http://us.m.yahoo.com/
Not only is the gain in mobile device popularity driving content providers to add support for mobile devices, it is also compelling CMS vendors to add mobile device support for their products too. I have recently added a mobile page to my open source news portal application.
Interesting. I did not read TFA but your summary does sound coherent and accurate with regards to UAC.
From a security architecture perspective, I am interpreting your summary as UAC lacks transitive closure when authenticating API call requests. So UAC goes into affect when a less secure component calls a more secure component and that call crosses the windows system boundary. However, UAC does not get involved when a less secure component calls a more secure component and the call does not cross the windows system boundary.
Uh, huh. A quick reality check over at dice shows number of jobs for java = 15831, number of jobs for python = 1396, number of jobs for ruby = 759. The same search over at Monster shows number of jobs for java > 5000, number of jobs for python = 1256, number of jobs for ruby = 663.
tight control to prevent it being forked by competitors or used in manners that they didn't approve ofDid we forget about this?
Mod parent up. It's not the legislative side that allows the abuse, its the judicial side. The examiner should have to be convinced that you spent the time, mind, and money implementing the preferred embodiment. For software, that means provide what it takes to build, deploy, and test the code on the accompanied CD-ROM and provide the patent examiners with a QA department. Problem solved.
This is simply Metcalfe's Law reloaded Web 2.0 Style.
Not at all. The idea here is that you pick friends based on what you have in common with them. In which case, it stands to reason that what they think as relevant is a reasonable determinant for what you think is relevant. Think of it this way, how many times have you searched for something because a friend of yours was telling you about it? I have blogged on this.
I agree. I ran through the getting started pages and didn't see anything better than http://www.zope.org/ or http://www.djangoproject.com/ (competing python web application stacks).
So, the downside is learning a new application stack and the upside is free hosting for now. This sounds like it is targeting college students who can't afford the quite minimal ISP hosting costs currently available in the market. I can't see building a business around this for the same reason that SaaS has not predominated for mission critical systems.
They make a lot of "scalability for free" claims. If true, then that might make their offering more compelling. What's that old adage? Fantastic claims require fantastic proof. I look forward to seeing where this will go but am weary at "betting the farm" on it at this point in time.
Content may be king but in this world, that content is user supplied and nearly anonymous. In order to make money off of content, you either have to be in the distribution side or form a cult of personality. In other words, build brand. In viral fashion, I have blogged on this.
Oh, I misunderstood his intentions. Mea culpa. I thought that he was interested in going after companies that used his ideas. If all he wants is to protect himself from being sued, then applying for a patent won't help. IANAL but it is my understanding that a patent is an offensive rights weapon. It has no defensive component to it. Just because you already have a patent on an idea can't keep you from being sued for using that idea. All that a patent does is give you some basis for suing someone else.
In terms of defense, all that he needs to do is publish his idea.
I can't believe that posters here are taking the original poster seriously as he is basically asking for advice on how to create submarine patents for the open source community. Hey folks, when did the ends start justifying the means?
IMHO, criticizing the patent system when for profit corporations abuse it yet encouraging the same abuse when it is done by open source foundations shows a lack of integrity. Wake up, people!
The notion of trust is nothing new. The basic question comes down to this, do you trust the code (or coders for the code that) you are about to run or not? If you don't, then don't run the code. If you do, then go ahead and run the code.
That question may be easy to ask but not so easy to answer. Maybe you trust the organization but there could be inadvertent security vulnerabilities in the code. Or maybe you don't know much about the organization who authored or published the application. How do you decide whether or not to trust the application?
In theory, open source mitigates this trust issue because you can study the code yourself. In practice, it's not so easy. First of all, access to the source code is immaterial to people who are not coders themselves. Second, it would take a lot of time and mind to study the code for a large project. Sure, any competent programmer could study and verify for his or herself that my open source project can be trusted because it really isn't all that big. How can you be sure that Firefox doesn't have any malicious code in it?
One approach to this problem is to run programs in what is called a sandbox. What that means is that the program isn't written in what is called the native "machine" code. Rather, it is written in a code for a virtual machine. Every time that code makes an API call, the virtual machine checks to see if it is permitted from a security perspective. Applications that run in a sandbox don't get a lot of permissions. It is OK to run an application that you don't completely trust within the sandbox because the virtual machine is going to deny any requests that could compromise or take advantage of your system anyway.
That is why the complaint about ActiveX. Both ActiveX controls and Java applets run in a web browser. The Java applet has to run in the sandbox (unless it is signed but it is beyond the scope of this post to introduce PKI and X.509 certificates) but the ActiveX control never runs in a sandbox.
Later iterations of this sandbox concept allow the user more control over what the program can and cannot do. In .NET, this is called Code Access Security and in J2SE, this is called Java Security Policy. Before running an application, the user can specify what API calls that the application can and cannot call. The problem here is that this specification is not easy to tweak for mere mortals. When you just double click the application icon, you are running the application with whatever policy that the publishing company specified. So, you are back to trusting that company since there is nothing that keeps them from specifying a policy that is wide open.
I have no experience in AIR so I could not tell you whether or not that virtual machine implements any kind of policy control. Perhaps someone that is knowledgeable about AIR would care to clarify here?
That's the rub with what seems to me to be the most outspoken and represented opinion here on /. If you believe that the second amendment to the US constitution is just as meritorious as the first, then I claim that you should be supporting title 35 of the US code. Before you flame or moderate this post, read the rest of it for an explanation as to why I make this claim.
Everyone here seems to bash patents. IMHO it is precisely the legal notion of intellectual property (including patents) that allows OSS to exist from a legal perspective. Now IANAL but my understanding is that patents are used as an offensive rights weapon. If you publish some software under the GPL and you discover someone using your software in violation of the GPL, then how are you going to stop them? If all you have is a copyright on the code, then they just need to change the code a little bit and you have nothing on them. However, if you have patented the invention, of which the code is an embodiment, then they are much more vulnerable to protracted, extended, expensive litigation and are much more likely to stop using your code in violation of the GPL.
Now, does that mean that there are no abuses of title 35? No, there are many companies that game the system to try to use patent law to stifle innovation in their field. Is the system in need of reform? Sure. Should it be changed? You bet. It is imprudent to throw the baby out with the bath water, however.
Here is where I get to my original claim. Guns don't kill people. People mis-using guns kill people. Criminalizing gun ownership will not reduce gun related homicide since the bad guys don't care about breaking the law. The same thing is true with patents. Patents don't stifle innovation. Companies mis-using patents stifle innovation. Doing away with patents will not increase innovation because what company will spend money to innovate if anyone can take your invention at any time and do whatever they want with it without any threat of retaliation?
http://www.spatch.net/games/play.cgi?game=putpbad
I believe the original poster is most probably asking about DB2 UDB and not the mainframe version.
Salasaga seems to be about authoring slide shows in SWF format. In which case, it will need to do a better job than the Export function of the Open Office Impress application.
Also, here is the obligatory link to the Martin Fowler Refactoring catalog.
http://www.refactoring.com/catalog/index.html