That's like assuming that business men with a mathematical background will prove that P = NP. It's not going to happen, because some problems are so hard that it requires a full time devotion to the subject in order to simply to understand them, and an exceptionally bright mind to make progress. Technical work is like this, it requires a full time devotion to stay on top of technology and to master it. Solutions created by people who think of themselves primarily as business men will be atrociously bad (even worse than normal), and businesses that rely on such people will quickly go under.
The only way KinderStart's claims have a chance in hell is if they can claim that they were unfairly discriminated against, which I think is unlikely. However this possibility is why the judge let them re-file I suspect, contrary to the claims of other posters that "Google owns their search engine so they can do whatever they want with it". Even if you own something there are limitations under the law how you use it / run your establishment, and it is possible for Google to run afoul of them.
Isn't that a bit like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, reasoning: if I'm dead then I won't care about the aftermath, therefore no reason not to!
The video was a little low on content (I guess it was aimed at a more general audience). I think they should have spent a little more time explaining why re-creating conditions at the big bang will NOT create a second big bang that will obliterate the universe. (yes, some people actually worry about that)
No, but I am saying that our current expectations of the web (I'm looking at you AJAX) are a passing fad. Next year there will be some other hot new web technology that will make Rails and AJAX obsolete. It might even make web pages obsolete, who knows. The point is that it is better to keep your options open since the future is unknowable. Given two options it is better to learn X when it can do a, b, and c than to learn Z which can only to a, really well, because if a becomes obsolete at least you have b and c to fall back on. Ruby, a programming language, can do nearly anything. Rails, a framework, is much more restricted. Generally it is a bad idea to sacrifice future productivity for gains now, unless you have a short life expectancy.
No, but I am saying that our current expectations of the web (I'm looking at you AJAX) are a passing fad. Next year there will be some other hot new web technology that will make Rails and AJAX obsolete. It might even make web pages obsolete, who knows. The point is that it is better to keep your options open since the future is unknowable.
Your very wording however reveals the difference that I am driving at. Consider "the extensibility and architecure of Rails make it adaptable". This implies that one has to work to adapt Rails to new situations. You would not say the same thing about a programming language. A programming language simply is adaptable, one doesn't have to work to adapt it to new kinds of algorithems. The distinction I am making here is that you can learn something X (say Ruby) which you can apply to many tasks, or you can learn something Y (say Rails) which is suited for a particular task. Even if you can adapt Rails to do something else, that is more like learning Z (Rails 2.0) which is suited for something else. The key is one doesn't want to have to constantly chase around the latest trends, that is a good way to get burnt out.
I would invest time and money in Ruby on Rails, except that it is obviously a passing fad. This is because Rails is designed to solve a specific problem (serving web pages), and we know for sure that the serving web pages won't be a problem for all time. What people want the web to do, and how we share information over the internet, is bound to change, and when it does the Rails way of doing things will be about as useful as the Java Applet way of doing things (which was for a time The Big Thing, but now is used only in special situations). Ruby as a whole however is definitely worth learning, since it is an adaptable language, although I fear its association with Rails may kill it when Rails dies.
I see your point, but I think that most people will simply never use LaTeX regularly enough for it to pay off for them. For example I use LaTeX on a (on average) bi-weekly basis, which means that it is going to take quite a long time for me to become equally or more proficient with it. Secondly, the amount of time I spend working with complex equations doesn't justify the productivity boost. Even if I have to spend twice as long as the most proficient LaTeX user to set up my equations it isn't a big loss for me, since I don't spend that much time with them to begin with. I wouldn't deny that some people need LaTeX, but I think the majority of people who need equations would benefit more from a simple user interface. It's the same reason we have GUI interfaces for the file system. Sure if you do a lot of work with it the command line is better, but, for people who simply want to run programs, the GUI is a better choice.
Although the capabilities of Latex are nice I do have one beef with it: it's still eassier to use the equation editor that comes with Word (in the windows version of office). The Word equation editor lets you select formatting options from a list, each of which is accompanies by a visual representation, and you can see the results immediately. With Latex you have to remember all the formatting commands you want, and you have to wait until the very end, when you compile your document, to see what you have actually created. More frustrating is that with the version of Latex I am using when you use a command improperly you simply get an error message, leaving the user to find what was wrong by themselves, in contrast with the Word equation editor where errors are impossible. In summary I'll take usability over power anyday, because I simply want to get the job done; it doesn't matter how pretty the math is, it simply needs to be readable.
Embrace, extend, extinguish? At least that is what everyone here is going to say, so I don't even see why the editors bothered to post this story. It's slashdot, we always have the same response to news about microsoft.
I personally don't like nerdcore. Aparently the reviewer doesn't really like it either, and I quote: "Listen to a couple tracks at a time. Don't listen to 15 in a row or it'll break you." Generally that is a sign you find something distasteful, and are tolerating it only for some other reason (want to feel like you fit in with the nerd crowd?)
I guess it's good that the big boys are fighting it out, maybe the patent trolls will lose this time. However this doesn't fix the real problem with the patent system. And no the real problem is not that you can get a patent for anything. The real problem is that it is too costly to defend against an illegitimate claim. If you could defend yourself cheaply against these stupid patents then it wouldn't matter if they were granted, you could just swat them away without blinking.
Adblock, adblock, adblock. I know you can do something like adblock with Opera, but it doesn't even compare with firefox's version. That's the reason that I still use firefox even though it isn't as small or as fast as Opera; I want my adblock.
Reading your ill-thought out response caused me pain and mental hardship, not to mention that it wasted my precious time. Thus by your own logic I am justified in taking the law into my own hands and beating you with a 2x4. Good call!
Well it would give them the ability to better estimate how likely it is that their communications are currently tapped, so if the number is low it may encourage criminal behavior. Yes, I know it's a stretch.
I know you will all hate me for saying this, but with a warrent the officials should be able to get into anywhere they want, including your electronic systems. As far from the article this law isn't about removing the needs for warrents, simply about making it possible for systems to be tapped when needed and when lawful. Denying officials access to these systems would be like denying them access to certain buildings. Although it is true that most buildings will never need to be investigated some will have bodies buried under the basement. Our right to privacy is protected by the need for warrents; making it harder for officials to conduct lawful investigations just helps criminals.
It is because of cases like this that we need better defined privacy laws, espcially for minors. I don't think the privacy laws currently enacted are necessarily bad, or being used in bad faith, but simply that they are vague enough that in many cases both parties might legitimitely believe that they are acting within the law.
Seems like scaremongering to me. It is true that a large poor population will probably result in increased social problems, such a crime. However this doesn't mean necessarily that there will be a revolt. Generally the poor are too busy trying to just get by to take up arms. Secondly the cost of living in India is much lower than in America, so while the Indians are poorer than Americans, imagining someone here living on $1 a day doesn't tell you how an Indian living on $1 a day is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's like assuming that business men with a mathematical background will prove that P = NP. It's not going to happen, because some problems are so hard that it requires a full time devotion to the subject in order to simply to understand them, and an exceptionally bright mind to make progress. Technical work is like this, it requires a full time devotion to stay on top of technology and to master it. Solutions created by people who think of themselves primarily as business men will be atrociously bad (even worse than normal), and businesses that rely on such people will quickly go under.
The only way KinderStart's claims have a chance in hell is if they can claim that they were unfairly discriminated against, which I think is unlikely. However this possibility is why the judge let them re-file I suspect, contrary to the claims of other posters that "Google owns their search engine so they can do whatever they want with it". Even if you own something there are limitations under the law how you use it / run your establishment, and it is possible for Google to run afoul of them.
Isn't that a bit like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, reasoning: if I'm dead then I won't care about the aftermath, therefore no reason not to!
The video was a little low on content (I guess it was aimed at a more general audience). I think they should have spent a little more time explaining why re-creating conditions at the big bang will NOT create a second big bang that will obliterate the universe. (yes, some people actually worry about that)
No, but I am saying that our current expectations of the web (I'm looking at you AJAX) are a passing fad. Next year there will be some other hot new web technology that will make Rails and AJAX obsolete. It might even make web pages obsolete, who knows. The point is that it is better to keep your options open since the future is unknowable. Given two options it is better to learn X when it can do a, b, and c than to learn Z which can only to a, really well, because if a becomes obsolete at least you have b and c to fall back on. Ruby, a programming language, can do nearly anything. Rails, a framework, is much more restricted. Generally it is a bad idea to sacrifice future productivity for gains now, unless you have a short life expectancy.
No, but I am saying that our current expectations of the web (I'm looking at you AJAX) are a passing fad. Next year there will be some other hot new web technology that will make Rails and AJAX obsolete. It might even make web pages obsolete, who knows. The point is that it is better to keep your options open since the future is unknowable.
Your very wording however reveals the difference that I am driving at. Consider "the extensibility and architecure of Rails make it adaptable". This implies that one has to work to adapt Rails to new situations. You would not say the same thing about a programming language. A programming language simply is adaptable, one doesn't have to work to adapt it to new kinds of algorithems. The distinction I am making here is that you can learn something X (say Ruby) which you can apply to many tasks, or you can learn something Y (say Rails) which is suited for a particular task. Even if you can adapt Rails to do something else, that is more like learning Z (Rails 2.0) which is suited for something else. The key is one doesn't want to have to constantly chase around the latest trends, that is a good way to get burnt out.
I would invest time and money in Ruby on Rails, except that it is obviously a passing fad. This is because Rails is designed to solve a specific problem (serving web pages), and we know for sure that the serving web pages won't be a problem for all time. What people want the web to do, and how we share information over the internet, is bound to change, and when it does the Rails way of doing things will be about as useful as the Java Applet way of doing things (which was for a time The Big Thing, but now is used only in special situations). Ruby as a whole however is definitely worth learning, since it is an adaptable language, although I fear its association with Rails may kill it when Rails dies.
I see your point, but I think that most people will simply never use LaTeX regularly enough for it to pay off for them. For example I use LaTeX on a (on average) bi-weekly basis, which means that it is going to take quite a long time for me to become equally or more proficient with it. Secondly, the amount of time I spend working with complex equations doesn't justify the productivity boost. Even if I have to spend twice as long as the most proficient LaTeX user to set up my equations it isn't a big loss for me, since I don't spend that much time with them to begin with. I wouldn't deny that some people need LaTeX, but I think the majority of people who need equations would benefit more from a simple user interface. It's the same reason we have GUI interfaces for the file system. Sure if you do a lot of work with it the command line is better, but, for people who simply want to run programs, the GUI is a better choice.
Although the capabilities of Latex are nice I do have one beef with it: it's still eassier to use the equation editor that comes with Word (in the windows version of office). The Word equation editor lets you select formatting options from a list, each of which is accompanies by a visual representation, and you can see the results immediately. With Latex you have to remember all the formatting commands you want, and you have to wait until the very end, when you compile your document, to see what you have actually created. More frustrating is that with the version of Latex I am using when you use a command improperly you simply get an error message, leaving the user to find what was wrong by themselves, in contrast with the Word equation editor where errors are impossible. In summary I'll take usability over power anyday, because I simply want to get the job done; it doesn't matter how pretty the math is, it simply needs to be readable.
Embrace, extend, extinguish? At least that is what everyone here is going to say, so I don't even see why the editors bothered to post this story. It's slashdot, we always have the same response to news about microsoft.
I personally don't like nerdcore. Aparently the reviewer doesn't really like it either, and I quote: "Listen to a couple tracks at a time. Don't listen to 15 in a row or it'll break you." Generally that is a sign you find something distasteful, and are tolerating it only for some other reason (want to feel like you fit in with the nerd crowd?)
Maybe they shouldn't have been outsourcing. (that's a joke people)
Well at least they aren't suing them. That means I still have a little respect for the BPI. (although not much)
By "Pet Sematary" did you mean "Pet Seminary", because that is what I read it as?
I guess it's good that the big boys are fighting it out, maybe the patent trolls will lose this time. However this doesn't fix the real problem with the patent system. And no the real problem is not that you can get a patent for anything. The real problem is that it is too costly to defend against an illegitimate claim. If you could defend yourself cheaply against these stupid patents then it wouldn't matter if they were granted, you could just swat them away without blinking.
Adblock, adblock, adblock. I know you can do something like adblock with Opera, but it doesn't even compare with firefox's version. That's the reason that I still use firefox even though it isn't as small or as fast as Opera; I want my adblock.
Reading your ill-thought out response caused me pain and mental hardship, not to mention that it wasted my precious time. Thus by your own logic I am justified in taking the law into my own hands and beating you with a 2x4. Good call!
Well it would give them the ability to better estimate how likely it is that their communications are currently tapped, so if the number is low it may encourage criminal behavior. Yes, I know it's a stretch.
I know you will all hate me for saying this, but with a warrent the officials should be able to get into anywhere they want, including your electronic systems. As far from the article this law isn't about removing the needs for warrents, simply about making it possible for systems to be tapped when needed and when lawful. Denying officials access to these systems would be like denying them access to certain buildings. Although it is true that most buildings will never need to be investigated some will have bodies buried under the basement. Our right to privacy is protected by the need for warrents; making it harder for officials to conduct lawful investigations just helps criminals.
It's probably a bad sign when gadgets nowadays are so stupid that we need quarterly reports to mock them.
That might be legal, but is it right?
It is because of cases like this that we need better defined privacy laws, espcially for minors. I don't think the privacy laws currently enacted are necessarily bad, or being used in bad faith, but simply that they are vague enough that in many cases both parties might legitimitely believe that they are acting within the law.
Seems like scaremongering to me. It is true that a large poor population will probably result in increased social problems, such a crime. However this doesn't mean necessarily that there will be a revolt. Generally the poor are too busy trying to just get by to take up arms. Secondly the cost of living in India is much lower than in America, so while the Indians are poorer than Americans, imagining someone here living on $1 a day doesn't tell you how an Indian living on $1 a day is doing.
Overtaking Microsoft is not enough to become the dominant OS, for example see OSX.