Before commenting on open standards let me say something on this idealism-vs-practicality. All but the most abstract forms of idealist are essentially long term practicality.
Mozilla is not served well by including h264 in it's browser. Firstly, it costs money, they make a free product, large part of the success of Mozilla comes from the fact that their product can be reproduced at virtually zero cost. Secondly, the license doesn't cover versions compiled by third parties, which means that their open source software can't be legally compiled from source legally, they become another tivo. This is specially means that distro-specific packages would need to be licensed again. This is specially ridiculous given that Linux is the only platform for which built-in h264 is necessary, MS made a h264 for Firefox anyway because they are promoting h264 so the platform who would benefit form the builtin codec is the one that can't inherit it. All of this to perpetuate a codec that can't be used to produce, reproduce or *even stream* without a license? Maybe you think escaping from h264 at this point is impossible, but I don't blame Mozilla for believing it could be done.
Now, to talk about open standards, you say that the thing that Mozilla needs is to stop being heavy handed and make a protocol G+ and facebook can use to import and export user profiles without the kind of moral restrictions these companies don't like.
Do you realise how awful that sounds?
So if Mozilla makes a protocol that requires the user's consent to reveal the users contact list and facebook doesn't like it, are you really suggesting that Mozilla you make it opt-out by default just to please the facebook God? What kinds of morals are you asking them to forgo? Hopefully is not "has much as required to make facebook adopt this standard".
Also, you must be delusional, even if Mozilla agreed to make it mandatory that all the users offline browsing history would be transferred to facebook in the background along with a UID and behavioural fingerprinting, facebook will only implement the half of the protocol that allows them to import user data.
The half required to export data will never be implemented because facebook has made it clear that they are against people scrapping their own profile to export your data to another network.
Indeed, if the games are not causing confusion there is no place for a trademark infringement case.
Example, let's said I make a racer game called Mario Ferrari. Like so Nintendo has a good case that I'm trying to make it seem like a version of Mario Kart. Even Ferrari, the car company, belonging to a completely different industry, has a case that I'm trying to make it seem as if they endorsed the car models in the game.
BUT, if there was a very popular F-1 pilot named Mario Ferrari, and the game has licensed his image from his agents, then suddenly neither Nintendo nor Ferrari have a case since since few people would be confused about the trademark.
He called privacy a "misconception", he's obviously out of his mind. He also is probably a tea-partier/conservative who thinks as long as he doesn't do anything wrong --and he never does anything wrong-- he has nothing to hide. He is also a moron who doesn't understand such phenomena as self-censorship, groupthink, pluralistic ignorance or chilling effects. Basically he believes that everybody must have the mentality of a social activist from the cradle. He also disagrees in principle with such legal concepts as secret ballots in elections, doctor-patient confidentiality, or lawyer-client confidentiality, although I'm almost sure he will deny that under some dubious, weaksauce argument that somehow "it's different".
The two problems with.NET is that it promised a lot of things that are either false or pointless. The other problem is the fanboys that keep preaching these features even when they are false and/or pointless.
And please don't tell me PHP/Ruby/Python has fanboys too, I'm not arguing that. Let me review some of the fantastic claims of.NET although let me admit that I only worked with.NET for a living for a little over 2 years.
1) It's cross-platform!
No it's not. Not in any adventitious way. For a lot of users this involves the very lengthy and slow -albeit simple- process of installing the.NET runtime. Now get this, if cross-platform by installing extra runtimes is your definition of cross-platform then python, ruby and of course Java are cross-platform too.
1.1) My code is compatible with all the important operative systems because only Windows matters and only idiots don't have.NET installed hur hur!
No ass-hat, and yes this is an argument people are making here in slashdot. Now I understand that all your clients work in Windows, I understand that you don't need platform independence, but you don't get to brag about platform independence when you don't have it, it's a have your cake or eat it matter.
1.2) But it runs on XP and W7, it *is* cross-platform!
Again, not in any meaningful way. XP and W7 are not different enough to get called different platforms. I have yet to find an XP program that doesn't run on W7, if random C/C++/Delphi apps for XP run fine on W7 cross-platformness is not an advantage of.NET
1.3) Mono...
Mono can't run.NET apps..NET may run Mono apps, but that's an argument in favor of Mono, not.NET. Probably you would have to code in a subset of Mono, this coupled with the fact that Mono will always play catch up to.NET means that developing cross-platform apps in Mono will always place severe restrictions on you. Now I admit that this might be worthy for the people who want to code in C# AND care about cross-platformness. If you are going to code in something else than C# you are better off coding directly to that environment, like Python or Ruby. So it's only half a point.
2) It's language independent!
Again, not in any meaningful way. Not only does IronPython and IronRuby have little syntax differences, they have huge library ones. A non trivial Python program has little chance to run unmodified in IronPython. An IronPython one has zero-chance to run in a real Python interpreter.
And of course there is an easy way to write python/ruby programs that are cross-platform. Write for the real interpreter!
2.1) But I can share libraries!
Sure to an extent. However calling dynamic typed code from static typed code is still cumbersome and you wouldn't want to do it since static type coders avoid dynamic languages like the plague.
Calling static code from dynamic code on the other hand is a very good use case. Python/Ruby/PHP/etc already have great support for calling code from compiled libraries. Of course, since Iron$language is incompatible with $language, it means that you have to port code, which you wouldn't't do if you choose to remain compatible with real $language.
So calling C# code from your Iron$language code is only an option if you forgo compatibility with $language but still hate C#, except C# is the crown jewel of.NET you can't hate it.
2.2) Not true! Lot's of people mix multiple languages in.NET
The only two languages that people ordinarily mix on.NET are C# and VB.NET and VB.NET is a microcosmos of failure on it's own. VB.NET was built on the premise that it was compatible with VB, which it isn't. On the 2+ years I spent on that.NET shop, the only two VB.NET projects I worked on suffered from it. As the resident language gu
I only said so because the most common reason for not seen the buttons is being logged out, which is the normal behaviour of anyone sharing their computer with the family.
BTW, do you have a way to share things you don't want Google to know? Or you just meant that you don't share ANYWHERE stuff you don't want Google to know? On that subject do you have a way to search stuff you don't want Google to know?
I love experimentation. If I had to say something against this black/latino guy would be that he is kinda gimmicky, meaning, his background doesn't flow naturally from the plot but from a deliberate effort to make him a multiracial bi-minority.
But in the spirit of experimentation, why not create a new superhero? I think it's lame that you have the dare to experiment with his race but avoid experimenting with a new franchise.
Ugh, all you did was read me a list of your Internet preferences. My point is that a Common Name policy does nothing to prevent identity theft, spam, scams, etc. It was not an invitation to discuss how much you don't care using your real name.
Actually I wasn't calling you hypocrite for using a pseudonym in slashdot, I only meant that using a pseudonym. doesn't make your opinions any less worthy (nor any less worthless). What is hypocrite stupid is that you admit it may have deterred you from joining slashdot but don't see the problem with G+'s policy, what's more hypocrite however is that you complain about the people complaining.
What's your problem with the people complaining? Do you really think complaining about complains somehow makes everything better? But don't fuss about that. My point is that Alice Smith is not someone I should thrust.
Personally, I'm happy to use a network where there is a small chance of the person I'm exchanging crap with is the person I think I'm exchanging crap with.
If you can't confirm the "Alice Smith" you are talking to in G+/Facebook is the same "Alice Smith" you know in real life without relying on G+/Facebook then you still don't know who she is. In fact I'm willing to bet a year's salary that 99% of identity theft cases use common names, not pseudonyms.
Also if the only way you have to contact "Alice Smith" is G+/Facebook you don't really know her. You can't even now if the "Alice Smith" you found on G+ is the "Alice Smith" you find on Facebook and the "Alice Smith" you find on LinkedIn.
the only thing you know is what alice-smith.uk-lon.1994@gmail.com says about herself. And it hasn't any more veracity than what "asdf7890" tells about himself.
We have these two users gregfortune and Alice Smith. Alice is always trying to sell me viagra and getting me into pyramid scams but she uses a common name so I must listen to her. gregfortune? I don't know, I have never read anything written by him but he doesn't use his real name so he must be a terrorist pirate child pornographer communist.
As it has been mentioned a hundred times before, the common name policy doesn't hurt spammers AT ALL.
For a spammer it only means that he must come up with a common name for the account, so instead of GetBigNow selling you penis enlargements you have "Jossie Miller" selling you penis enlargements.
Whatever problems the common name policy is supposed to fix, spam, scams and any other type of user abuse are NOT any of them. My guess is that they want your real name so that they can make a permanent, universal profile on you.
Right now they might have a profile with your religion, political affiliation and porn tastes. But if you are like most computer users, you have multiple accounts, on multiple sites, you get on the Internet on multiple devices and share those devices with other people. Not only that but if you get sick of google you can use another service.
If they know your real name however they will be able to update your google profile with whatever they find about you online even ifr you leave google.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Part of the reason seems to be that most Firefox, Chrome AND Safari users don't install their own browsers. Safari comes included with Macs and Chrome comes bundled with a lot of crapware, specially all Google stuff. Firefox is installed mostly by nerds yes, but most Firefox installations I maintain are for family members and I suspect this happens a lot. So Opera is installed AND USED, ONLY by nerds for nerds.
But again, nothing in that joke implies sexual availability is the only thing that defines them. The crime is not so much reducing them to only their sexual availability as much as just *mentioning* it, which goes back to the fact that modern feminism is not so much about helping women than it is for repressing male sexuality. Which is a shame given that so many actual problems persist that could be helped, but the shape current feminist discourse has taken is putting even women off.
Most male programmers I know also take it like "just a job" and are not passionate about it at all. They know squat. I often had to teach them features of languages they were supposed to be experts at, And looked baffled when I explained that you can't do such and such like in $language. I know not every programmer speaks every language but I expect them to know at least one static OO language, one database language, one cross-platform scripting language. Of course they weren't up to date with the framework buzz of the 2009 or the unit testing debates of 2008 and things like contract oriented programming don't ring a bell at all.
Now I know everybody is different and have different interests, and while I AM baffled that one can work as a full time software developer without finding it fascinating, I don't think of them less as a person.
However I don't apologise for my passion for software development.
Actually the fact that you find this offensive shows that you have no idea what real objectification is.
This is a standard joke everybody could anticipate, it's the standard joke one would expect in *every* *single* tv show about IT, or any other thing.
Besides nowhere in this joke is the idea that women are impersonal objects merely for sexual gratification, if any, this is self deprecating humour by geek men against geek men.
That you choose to read it any other ways says more about your fucked up self than the slashdot community at all.
KDE's motto is "You will use our widgets and you will like it" Otherwise you are an idiot.
I'll switch to KDE when they stop using plasma, or when plasma stops being so fucking arrogant.
Why does KDE reserve two screen corners --half of them-- to configure widgets? Because configuring widgets is all the work you'll ever do on a KDE system, or at least the most important thing you'll ever want to do in your daily life, according to KDE.
Slashdot Mirror
Before commenting on open standards let me say something on this idealism-vs-practicality. All but the most abstract forms of idealist are essentially long term practicality.
Mozilla is not served well by including h264 in it's browser. Firstly, it costs money, they make a free product, large part of the success of Mozilla comes from the fact that their product can be reproduced at virtually zero cost. Secondly, the license doesn't cover versions compiled by third parties, which means that their open source software can't be legally compiled from source legally, they become another tivo. This is specially means that distro-specific packages would need to be licensed again. This is specially ridiculous given that Linux is the only platform for which built-in h264 is necessary, MS made a h264 for Firefox anyway because they are promoting h264 so the platform who would benefit form the builtin codec is the one that can't inherit it. All of this to perpetuate a codec that can't be used to produce, reproduce or *even stream* without a license? Maybe you think escaping from h264 at this point is impossible, but I don't blame Mozilla for believing it could be done.
Now, to talk about open standards, you say that the thing that Mozilla needs is to stop being heavy handed and make a protocol G+ and facebook can use to import and export user profiles without the kind of moral restrictions these companies don't like.
Do you realise how awful that sounds?
So if Mozilla makes a protocol that requires the user's consent to reveal the users contact list and facebook doesn't like it, are you really suggesting that Mozilla you make it opt-out by default just to please the facebook God? What kinds of morals are you asking them to forgo? Hopefully is not "has much as required to make facebook adopt this standard".
Also, you must be delusional, even if Mozilla agreed to make it mandatory that all the users offline browsing history would be transferred to facebook in the background along with a UID and behavioural fingerprinting, facebook will only implement the half of the protocol that allows them to import user data.
The half required to export data will never be implemented because facebook has made it clear that they are against people scrapping their own profile to export your data to another network.
Indeed, if the games are not causing confusion there is no place for a trademark infringement case.
Example, let's said I make a racer game called Mario Ferrari. Like so Nintendo has a good case that I'm trying to make it seem like a version of Mario Kart. Even Ferrari, the car company, belonging to a completely different industry, has a case that I'm trying to make it seem as if they endorsed the car models in the game.
BUT, if there was a very popular F-1 pilot named Mario Ferrari, and the game has licensed his image from his agents, then suddenly neither Nintendo nor Ferrari have a case since since few people would be confused about the trademark.
Oh, so you meant that you just don't share any stuff you don't want Google to know.
He called privacy a "misconception", he's obviously out of his mind. He also is probably a tea-partier/conservative who thinks as long as he doesn't do anything wrong --and he never does anything wrong-- he has nothing to hide. He is also a moron who doesn't understand such phenomena as self-censorship, groupthink, pluralistic ignorance or chilling effects. Basically he believes that everybody must have the mentality of a social activist from the cradle. He also disagrees in principle with such legal concepts as secret ballots in elections, doctor-patient confidentiality, or lawyer-client confidentiality, although I'm almost sure he will deny that under some dubious, weaksauce argument that somehow "it's different".
And we call it Alemania, where did that come from?
Skipping school is illegal? Talk about a criminalised society.
The two problems with .NET is that it promised a lot of things that are either false or pointless. The other problem is the fanboys that keep preaching these features even when they are false and/or pointless.
And please don't tell me PHP/Ruby/Python has fanboys too, I'm not arguing that. Let me review some of the fantastic claims of .NET although let me admit that I only worked with .NET for a living for a little over 2 years.
1) It's cross-platform!
No it's not. Not in any adventitious way. For a lot of users this involves the very lengthy and slow -albeit simple- process of installing the .NET runtime. Now get this, if cross-platform by installing extra runtimes is your definition of cross-platform then python, ruby and of course Java are cross-platform too.
1.1) My code is compatible with all the important operative systems because only Windows matters and only idiots don't have .NET installed hur hur!
No ass-hat, and yes this is an argument people are making here in slashdot. Now I understand that all your clients work in Windows, I understand that you don't need platform independence, but you don't get to brag about platform independence when you don't have it, it's a have your cake or eat it matter.
1.2) But it runs on XP and W7, it *is* cross-platform!
Again, not in any meaningful way. XP and W7 are not different enough to get called different platforms. I have yet to find an XP program that doesn't run on W7, if random C/C++/Delphi apps for XP run fine on W7 cross-platformness is not an advantage of .NET
1.3) Mono...
Mono can't run .NET apps. .NET may run Mono apps, but that's an argument in favor of Mono, not .NET. Probably you would have to code in a subset of Mono, this coupled with the fact that Mono will always play catch up to .NET means that developing cross-platform apps in Mono will always place severe restrictions on you. Now I admit that this might be worthy for the people who want to code in C# AND care about cross-platformness. If you are going to code in something else than C# you are better off coding directly to that environment, like Python or Ruby. So it's only half a point.
2) It's language independent!
Again, not in any meaningful way. Not only does IronPython and IronRuby have little syntax differences, they have huge library ones. A non trivial Python program has little chance to run unmodified in IronPython. An IronPython one has zero-chance to run in a real Python interpreter.
And of course there is an easy way to write python/ruby programs that are cross-platform. Write for the real interpreter!
2.1) But I can share libraries!
Sure to an extent. However calling dynamic typed code from static typed code is still cumbersome and you wouldn't want to do it since static type coders avoid dynamic languages like the plague.
Calling static code from dynamic code on the other hand is a very good use case. Python/Ruby/PHP/etc already have great support for calling code from compiled libraries. Of course, since Iron$language is incompatible with $language, it means that you have to port code, which you wouldn't't do if you choose to remain compatible with real $language.
So calling C# code from your Iron$language code is only an option if you forgo compatibility with $language but still hate C#, except C# is the crown jewel of .NET you can't hate it.
2.2) Not true! Lot's of people mix multiple languages in .NET
The only two languages that people ordinarily mix on .NET are C# and VB.NET and VB.NET is a microcosmos of failure on it's own. VB.NET was built on the premise that it was compatible with VB, which it isn't. On the 2+ years I spent on that .NET shop, the only two VB.NET projects I worked on suffered from it. As the resident language gu
I only said so because the most common reason for not seen the buttons is being logged out, which is the normal behaviour of anyone sharing their computer with the family.
BTW, do you have a way to share things you don't want Google to know? Or you just meant that you don't share ANYWHERE stuff you don't want Google to know? On that subject do you have a way to search stuff you don't want Google to know?
I love experimentation. If I had to say something against this black/latino guy would be that he is kinda gimmicky, meaning, his background doesn't flow naturally from the plot but from a deliberate effort to make him a multiracial bi-minority.
But in the spirit of experimentation, why not create a new superhero? I think it's lame that you have the dare to experiment with his race but avoid experimenting with a new franchise.
Facebook goal is owning your life (info). The less merit their employees have, the better
More to the point, you have to be logged into google so that they can track what you don't like, along with better tracking everything else..
Ugh, all you did was read me a list of your Internet preferences. My point is that a Common Name policy does nothing to prevent identity theft, spam, scams, etc. It was not an invitation to discuss how much you don't care using your real name.
Actually I wasn't calling you hypocrite for using a pseudonym in slashdot, I only meant that using a pseudonym. doesn't make your opinions any less worthy (nor any less worthless). What is hypocrite stupid is that you admit it may have deterred you from joining slashdot but don't see the problem with G+'s policy, what's more hypocrite however is that you complain about the people complaining.
What's your problem with the people complaining? Do you really think complaining about complains somehow makes everything better? But don't fuss about that. My point is that Alice Smith is not someone I should thrust.
I think you left adblock plus is enabled.
Personally, I'm happy to use a network where there is a small chance of the person I'm exchanging crap with is the person I think I'm exchanging crap with.
If you can't confirm the "Alice Smith" you are talking to in G+/Facebook is the same "Alice Smith" you know in real life without relying on G+/Facebook then you still don't know who she is. In fact I'm willing to bet a year's salary that 99% of identity theft cases use common names, not pseudonyms.
Also if the only way you have to contact "Alice Smith" is G+/Facebook you don't really know her. You can't even now if the "Alice Smith" you found on G+ is the "Alice Smith" you find on Facebook and the "Alice Smith" you find on LinkedIn.
the only thing you know is what alice-smith.uk-lon.1994@gmail.com says about herself. And it hasn't any more veracity than what "asdf7890" tells about himself.
We have these two users gregfortune and Alice Smith. Alice is always trying to sell me viagra and getting me into pyramid scams but she uses a common name so I must listen to her. gregfortune? I don't know, I have never read anything written by him but he doesn't use his real name so he must be a terrorist pirate child pornographer communist.
As it has been mentioned a hundred times before, the common name policy doesn't hurt spammers AT ALL.
For a spammer it only means that he must come up with a common name for the account, so instead of GetBigNow selling you penis enlargements you have "Jossie Miller" selling you penis enlargements.
Whatever problems the common name policy is supposed to fix, spam, scams and any other type of user abuse are NOT any of them. My guess is that they want your real name so that they can make a permanent, universal profile on you.
Right now they might have a profile with your religion, political affiliation and porn tastes. But if you are like most computer users, you have multiple accounts, on multiple sites, you get on the Internet on multiple devices and share those devices with other people. Not only that but if you get sick of google you can use another service.
If they know your real name however they will be able to update your google profile with whatever they find about you online even ifr you leave google.
The fuck?
Part of the reason seems to be that most Firefox, Chrome AND Safari users don't install their own browsers. Safari comes included with Macs and Chrome comes bundled with a lot of crapware, specially all Google stuff. Firefox is installed mostly by nerds yes, but most Firefox installations I maintain are for family members and I suspect this happens a lot. So Opera is installed AND USED, ONLY by nerds for nerds.
But again, nothing in that joke implies sexual availability is the only thing that defines them. The crime is not so much reducing them to only their sexual availability as much as just *mentioning* it, which goes back to the fact that modern feminism is not so much about helping women than it is for repressing male sexuality.
Which is a shame given that so many actual problems persist that could be helped, but the shape current feminist discourse has taken is putting even women off.
Isn't that what they are trying to do with the Wii U?
Your use of the words certainty, research and grants determine you are 95% likely to be male.
Well du'h, a domination is when you kill someone three times before they can kill you.
Most male programmers I know also take it like "just a job" and are not passionate about it at all. They know squat. I often had to teach them features of languages they were supposed to be experts at, And looked baffled when I explained that you can't do such and such like in $language. I know not every programmer speaks every language but I expect them to know at least one static OO language, one database language, one cross-platform scripting language. Of course they weren't up to date with the framework buzz of the 2009 or the unit testing debates of 2008 and things like contract oriented programming don't ring a bell at all.
Now I know everybody is different and have different interests, and while I AM baffled that one can work as a full time software developer without finding it fascinating, I don't think of them less as a person.
However I don't apologise for my passion for software development.
Actually the fact that you find this offensive shows that you have no idea what real objectification is.
This is a standard joke everybody could anticipate, it's the standard joke one would expect in *every* *single* tv show about IT, or any other thing.
Besides nowhere in this joke is the idea that women are impersonal objects merely for sexual gratification, if any, this is self deprecating humour by geek men against geek men.
That you choose to read it any other ways says more about your fucked up self than the slashdot community at all.
KDE's motto is "You will use our widgets and you will like it" Otherwise you are an idiot.
I'll switch to KDE when they stop using plasma, or when plasma stops being so fucking arrogant.
Why does KDE reserve two screen corners --half of them-- to configure widgets? Because configuring widgets is all the work you'll ever do on a KDE system, or at least the most important thing you'll ever want to do in your daily life, according to KDE.