Yann Martell picked up a Booker Prize for this gem. Warning: Not geeky at all--Pi is the main character's name, not a mathematical constant. Just a great story about a guy trapped at sea in a lifeboat with a wounded zebra, a spotted hyena, a seasick orangutan, and a 450-pound Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.
Perhaps I am missing something, but this looks like just blind grouping by message subject. I tried it. It created a conversation entitled "Lunch" that contained 27 items from seven different senders. In reality, there were mulitple threads contained in this "conversation." It also does not automatically include my responses, which end up in the sent mail folder.
This view may be useful at times, but it is not what I expect a threaded view to be.
Whatever works is fine, even if it is a tad ugly. However, according to the article, "It's not something where they would lose data," Gavaghan said. "The software just stops working." So it doesn't sound like PTC has come up with a workaround. Maybe it's just me, but I find it especially ironic that the company in question specializes in product lifecycle management! Live fast, die young?
I worked on a large Y2K program for a hospital chain. From what I observed, I can tell you this:
There were, in fact, many problems that were found and fixed before they did any harm.
A lot of infrastructure was upgraded on somewhat dubious claims of Y2K problems. In some cases, resetting the system clock once on 1/1/00 would have sufficed.
Consulting firms and contractors had a feeding frenzy. Some added value, others did not.
Many corporations were frightened by the prospect of lawsuits that might occur if they had Y2K problems. Lawfirms were licking their chops with anticipation.
As a result of all of the above, for the only time in recorded history CIOs could get whatever they wanted. Naturally, they played it safe. Wouldn't you?
The program in question was revised in 1997. Most companies already had kicked off their Y2K programs by then. The popular press was already starting to run end of the world warnings. OK, so it wasn't a Y2K problem as such, but how this company managed to ignore the problem at that time is truly baffling.
OK! OK! I didn't mean to provoke a language flamewar here. My original posting merely tried to give some dates to some old software, which was the subject of the original thread. I certainly didn't intend to disparage LISP in any way, though I still maintain that (for better or worse) it had less impact than COBOL or FORTRAN. Truth be told, my favorite language was MUMPS, but I don't imagine most/. readers have ever heard of it, much less used it. In every way other than productivity, it is a terrible language.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Fortunately, nobody is forced to choose. Embedded processors are everywhere. Toasters, cars, cell phones. I sure wouldn't like my ABS to fail because I ran out of disk space while downloading MP3s. It is also nice to have a machine that plays MP3s, lets my edit documents, write programs and play chess with me.
But even on a general purpose device, the problem of information sharing across applications remains. That's a difficult problem
Actually, the first FORTRAN compiler dates back to 1954. COBOL followed about five years later. LISP was developed around the same time as COBOL, though it never got much use outside AI and other research circles.
OK, I'll burn some karma here by being off-topic and politically incorrect. I don't understand why everyone seems to be so concerned about NYT registration. I registered years ago, and just out of curiosity I looked at my user profile just now. It showed an old, long-defunct email address and a fraudulant zip code. There were some other demographic drop-down boxes that I had never selected. So what's the big deal? I had to supply an email address to register for/. too. Neither one has abused that information AFAIK.
I think this may be the most deeply nested comment in the thread. It seemed like a good place to point out that the original article dealt with an RIAA court defeat. Interesting as some of the above comments may be, they are completely offtopic.
Don't underestimate the opposition. If today's court defeat is upheld, it won't be long before we see new legislation directed at P2P. Seems to me it would be fairly easy to convince congress that a network like MUTE threatens national security, copyright holders, apple pie and motherhood. Look for conspiracy prosecutions, which are often much more serious than a simple misdemeanor.
I just slogged through the text of the decision. It is not light reading, but what is clear is that this case was decided on very narrow grounds. In particular, the court did not even examine the constitutional issues of free speech protection or issuing a subpoena when no suit is before the court. Rather, court said that an ISP that is only a conduit (not storing infringing material on its own servers) cannot be subpoenaed under the DMCA because the copyright owner cannot satisfy its notification requirements. Congress will need to enact new law to allow the DMCA provisions to apply to P2P nets. At least that's what I think it said, IANAL, etc. What is clear, though, is that the court did not address any of the things that really bother me about the RIAA's use of the DMCA.
As for the RIAA's response, they will no doubt appeal. And they will no doubt push for new legislation that will pass muster with the courts. No doubt the new bill will have the words "security" and "pornography" in its title.
OK, so they know about it. Have they acknowledged it? There is no mention of it in the only KB article I could find that mentions patch problems, even though the patch (824145) is specifically cited. The MS-MVPs are offering work arounds (use the arrow keys, etc.) and saying that it will be fixed Real Soon Now. But Redmond is silent. Maybe they will fix it. Or maybe it will be relegated to the same class as the disappearing status bar in IE6, which was finally acknowledged as a known bug about a year ago, but has still not been fixed.
Yeah, patch Q824145. In my case, it turned out to be a blessing. I got so pissed off that MSFT broke standard UI scrolling behavior that I switched to Firebird. I don't understand how a large, successful software company can do such sloppy QA and think that nobody will notice. But then, there are many things that I don't understand.
Probably not, but that's no reason not to be pleased that they are going after a big time spammer. As a large email provider, Microsoft has to spend a lot of money on storage, processing and bandwidth for spam. It also has to deal with all the customer complaints that spam generates. So it is certainly in Microsoft's corporate interest to reduce the flow of spam. That also happens to be in everyone else's interest as well, so Microsoft does deserve some appreciation in this case.
If you listen to the Flash feature on the page (yeah, politically incorrect here) you will learn that they are assuming that the gifts repeat on successive days. Hence the huge cumulative price.
Well, that makes the process a bit slower and a bit more expensive, but it doesn't stop it. The methods that the RIAA employed resulted in some well-known errors, but for the most part the people they identified were, in fact, sharing files that infringed copyright. With a bit of fine tuning, I would guess that it would be possible to come up with a method that would pass muster for most judges.
The manufacturer specs on my machine clearly indicate a minimum operating temperature of 0 degrees C. IAMNAHG (I am not a hardware guy), but the CPU is only one part of a computer system, and it won't do much good to overclock the CPU if another vital system component freezes to death.
Perhaps it's time to redefine DRM. I suggest Defective Recording Media. You can probably come up with something better. Digital rights management has about as much to do with my rights as the Patriot Act has to do with patriotism.
Curiously though, the California anti-spam law is silent about false or deceptive content. So as long as the headers and subjects are not misleading, the contents can be as outrageous as the spammer likes.
I think your fear that this may just be a big exercise in wasting public money is well founded. Spain is one of the major entry points for illegal immigration into the EU. Spaniards are not at all happy with the influx, and will probably be appalled at any development to facilitate the process.
Right, so you don't think the government can be trusted to solve the problem. I tend to agree, though I would support legislation (and prosecutions) that put both scumball spammers and the companies that hire them at risk. I suspect that problem has become so large that only a successor or enhancement to SMTP will provide any real relief. It's just too easy to get away with at the moment, but that could be changed.
The ecosystem argument is totally bogus. There are also ecosystems surrounding war, AIDS, drug dealing and many other undesirable things that we live with. Most of the people fighting on the front lines on those problems would be delighted if those problems went away, even if that meant that they had to look for other work. Increasing the GDP by digging holes only to fill them in does not produce anything of social value.
Slashdot Mirror
Yann Martell picked up a Booker Prize for this gem. Warning: Not geeky at all--Pi is the main character's name, not a mathematical constant. Just a great story about a guy trapped at sea in a lifeboat with a wounded zebra, a spotted hyena, a seasick orangutan, and a 450-pound Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.
This view may be useful at times, but it is not what I expect a threaded view to be.
Whatever works is fine, even if it is a tad ugly. However, according to the article, "It's not something where they would lose data," Gavaghan said. "The software just stops working." So it doesn't sound like PTC has come up with a workaround. Maybe it's just me, but I find it especially ironic that the company in question specializes in product lifecycle management! Live fast, die young?
There were, in fact, many problems that were found and fixed before they did any harm.
A lot of infrastructure was upgraded on somewhat dubious claims of Y2K problems. In some cases, resetting the system clock once on 1/1/00 would have sufficed.
Consulting firms and contractors had a feeding frenzy. Some added value, others did not.
Many corporations were frightened by the prospect of lawsuits that might occur if they had Y2K problems. Lawfirms were licking their chops with anticipation.
As a result of all of the above, for the only time in recorded history CIOs could get whatever they wanted. Naturally, they played it safe. Wouldn't you?
The program in question was revised in 1997. Most companies already had kicked off their Y2K programs by then. The popular press was already starting to run end of the world warnings. OK, so it wasn't a Y2K problem as such, but how this company managed to ignore the problem at that time is truly baffling.
OK! OK! I didn't mean to provoke a language flamewar here. My original posting merely tried to give some dates to some old software, which was the subject of the original thread. I certainly didn't intend to disparage LISP in any way, though I still maintain that (for better or worse) it had less impact than COBOL or FORTRAN. Truth be told, my favorite language was MUMPS, but I don't imagine most /. readers have ever heard of it, much less used it. In every way other than productivity, it is a terrible language.
But even on a general purpose device, the problem of information sharing across applications remains. That's a difficult problem
Actually, the first FORTRAN compiler dates back to 1954. COBOL followed about five years later. LISP was developed around the same time as COBOL, though it never got much use outside AI and other research circles.
OK, I'll burn some karma here by being off-topic and politically incorrect. I don't understand why everyone seems to be so concerned about NYT registration. I registered years ago, and just out of curiosity I looked at my user profile just now. It showed an old, long-defunct email address and a fraudulant zip code. There were some other demographic drop-down boxes that I had never selected. So what's the big deal? I had to supply an email address to register for /. too. Neither one has abused that information AFAIK.
I think this may be the most deeply nested comment in the thread. It seemed like a good place to point out that the original article dealt with an RIAA court defeat. Interesting as some of the above comments may be, they are completely offtopic.
Don't underestimate the opposition. If today's court defeat is upheld, it won't be long before we see new legislation directed at P2P. Seems to me it would be fairly easy to convince congress that a network like MUTE threatens national security, copyright holders, apple pie and motherhood. Look for conspiracy prosecutions, which are often much more serious than a simple misdemeanor.
As for the RIAA's response, they will no doubt appeal. And they will no doubt push for new legislation that will pass muster with the courts. No doubt the new bill will have the words "security" and "pornography" in its title.
OK, so they know about it. Have they acknowledged it? There is no mention of it in the only KB article I could find that mentions patch problems, even though the patch (824145) is specifically cited. The MS-MVPs are offering work arounds (use the arrow keys, etc.) and saying that it will be fixed Real Soon Now. But Redmond is silent. Maybe they will fix it. Or maybe it will be relegated to the same class as the disappearing status bar in IE6, which was finally acknowledged as a known bug about a year ago, but has still not been fixed.
Yeah, patch Q824145. In my case, it turned out to be a blessing. I got so pissed off that MSFT broke standard UI scrolling behavior that I switched to Firebird. I don't understand how a large, successful software company can do such sloppy QA and think that nobody will notice. But then, there are many things that I don't understand.
One can only hope that this is a long, expensive legal battle that weakens both parties.
Probably not, but that's no reason not to be pleased that they are going after a big time spammer. As a large email provider, Microsoft has to spend a lot of money on storage, processing and bandwidth for spam. It also has to deal with all the customer complaints that spam generates. So it is certainly in Microsoft's corporate interest to reduce the flow of spam. That also happens to be in everyone else's interest as well, so Microsoft does deserve some appreciation in this case.
If you listen to the Flash feature on the page (yeah, politically incorrect here) you will learn that they are assuming that the gifts repeat on successive days. Hence the huge cumulative price.
Well, that makes the process a bit slower and a bit more expensive, but it doesn't stop it. The methods that the RIAA employed resulted in some well-known errors, but for the most part the people they identified were, in fact, sharing files that infringed copyright. With a bit of fine tuning, I would guess that it would be possible to come up with a method that would pass muster for most judges.
The manufacturer specs on my machine clearly indicate a minimum operating temperature of 0 degrees C. IAMNAHG (I am not a hardware guy), but the CPU is only one part of a computer system, and it won't do much good to overclock the CPU if another vital system component freezes to death.
Perhaps it's time to redefine DRM. I suggest Defective Recording Media. You can probably come up with something better. Digital rights management has about as much to do with my rights as the Patriot Act has to do with patriotism.
Yes, that's why it's called the Can Spam Act. Perhaps someday it will be replaced with a Cannot Spam Act.
Curiously though, the California anti-spam law is silent about false or deceptive content. So as long as the headers and subjects are not misleading, the contents can be as outrageous as the spammer likes.
I think your fear that this may just be a big exercise in wasting public money is well founded. Spain is one of the major entry points for illegal immigration into the EU. Spaniards are not at all happy with the influx, and will probably be appalled at any development to facilitate the process.
The ecosystem argument is totally bogus. There are also ecosystems surrounding war, AIDS, drug dealing and many other undesirable things that we live with. Most of the people fighting on the front lines on those problems would be delighted if those problems went away, even if that meant that they had to look for other work. Increasing the GDP by digging holes only to fill them in does not produce anything of social value.