Something that I have read about on Slashdot regularly (where Windows is criticized for bothering with it at all), I thought readers would be interested in exactly why Microsoft spends so much effort on backwards compatibility, and by inference, why it is an important topic for getting Linux adopted by big business.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but is the submitter trying to say that Linux should learn from Windows in this area? Backwards compatibility is one of Linux's strong points, and Windows' performance in the area is terribly weak. Where are these people complaining about Microsoft spending TOO MUCH time on backwards compatibility; I've only seen people complaining about things being broken with every upgrade.
Raymond's blog is interesting, though. I'm glad to see someone at MS interested in backwards compatibility.
I don't see where he said that he wasn't going to college. He probably wants to find a part-time job to go alongside it.
My advice is to look for a tech job on-campus. Most companies won't touch you unless you have the right piece of paper, but once you do, experience helps. Also, prepare to be frustrated as hell; I certainly was.
Of course not; that's why those results haven't been censored yet. If the original poster's point was valid, at least one or two of the "Tiananmen" results would have been the image of the student and the tanks. I haven't seen it once in the seven pages it returned.
Poorly implemented censorship is still censorship.
There were "valid and true points", but they were the ones that were utterly irrelevant (eg, "Stallman is hairy" and "Stallman tries to sing and can't").
The author managed to give off more of a "crazy guy yelling about God-knows-what" impression than Stallman ever has, to my knowledge.
I got the same feeling from reading the article that I did when I watched a couple of episodes of the O'Reilly Factor. Someone with only a vague idea of an issue attacks an expert, and instead of actually debating the issue they launch a tirade of personal attacks and accusations, most of which are based on out-of-context quotes.
The "rhinophytophilia" term is a joke that should have been terribly obvious. He's SMELLING FLOWERS. The attacks on his personal habits don't even make sense. An aging programmer is overweight? THE HORROR. He sings karaoke? SOMEBOY STOP HIM! And how would the writer know how much Stallman codes, does he watch him through a window at night?
"Blogger is absolutely insensitive to complaints about racist and neo-Nazi content," said Brian Stokes, co-founder of FightDemBack!, a group that monitors the activities of racists, fascists and other such offenders operating in Australia and New Zealand.
This is the Internet, not a damn kindergarten. People are going to say things you don't like, and you can't stop them. Live with it. If they show up at your front door or start harassing you, there are already laws to handle that.
I hope Google doesn't back down. I figure they'll just move the blogs to a server in the US (assuming they're in AU) if challenged in court, though.
Sorry, I should have said "unless you're using copyrighted code without permission". My point was that emulators don't violate copyright, which is what the original poster seemed to be saying.
I'm actually very glad for that change...I've accidentally sent myself back several pages when pressing backspace, thinking I was editing a textbox (generally when I changed tabs to look at something else for a moment). Even if they wanted to use a single key for the "Back" button, backspace seems like a bad default choice.
It's not a failure of technology. It's BAD PEOPLE, exploiting BAD SOFTWARE, who aren't being dealt with because of BAD EXECUTION of BAD LAWS. Fix the software, the law, and the enforcement of the law (esp. jurisdiction), and you'll neutralise 95+% of the bad people.
This crap is criminal. Crimes like this are sheltered by discussions about philosophy, politics, jurisdiction, and technology. If people would stop discussing and arguing, and start working together on the problem, it could be eliminated in under 24 months.
How do you plan to fix the law, the enforcement, and the software without any discussion of philosophy, politics, jurisdiction, and technology...? Sane laws depend on philosophy and politics. Sane enforcement depends on well-designed jurisdiction. Sane software depends on an understanding of technology. If you try to solve a problem without discussing those things, the LAST thing you'll have is people working together.
That's what I was taught in civics, but it looks like it may be a bit off after checking around. ExpertLaw says that "reckless disregard of the truth" can also be considered libel if it meets the other requirements (damage to the plaintiff, etc).
Of course, two other sites say that it differs from state by state, so maybe here you could actually do that. My home state isn't known for its legal sanity.
It's only libel in the US if she can be proven to have known that what she said wasn't true. In this case, she wasn't actually able to appear in court (if TFA is correct), so she never had a chance at defending herself.
Well, if you include educational institutions and city/county governments as "businesses", then you're probably right. Most of their employees use the company CDs (or copies of them) at home. Students can generally get a copy for almost nothing at the campus bookstore, if they want it.
I honestly don't know a home user that's purchased a copy of Office at anything close to full price since 2000.
I don't see a legitimate reason for gambling to be illegal. If someone wants to gamble, smoke, shoot themselves in the foot, or whatever, let them. And no, you don't have to force everyone else to support a safety net for them in the form of (publicly funded) rehab or health care. As for the "think of the children" bunch: if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.
According to the bill's title, the act was already illegal and all it is doing is enforcing it. If that's the case, why was a bill needed? Shouldn't it have been law enforcement's problem?
I think he was complaining that the article followed the strict definition which isn't normally used now, instead of the modern definition. When someone says "decimated" now, they generally mean "almost wiped out".
Suppressing religion and setting the state up as a god seems to work just as well. People are eager to accept new gods once old ones are overthrown. Case in point, China. The dominant religion at the time was so strongly anti-war that Mao decided it was better to remove it.
"They all are very hot," the governor says of Cubans and Puerto Ricans. "They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it." See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 006/09/09/GUV.TMP
Yeah, that's right up there with all black people can play basketball, cuz you know, it's in their blood man!
I suppose all the anime fans that keep telling me how hot Japanese women are are racists too, then. If this is considered racism, I don't have any problem with racists. I guess we'll need a new word for the serious sort.
I mean, if the word "murder" could mean accidentally stepping on a cricket, I wouldn't care if I lived next door to someone described as a "murderer".
I am not suggesting that we should have 2 standards of punishment: one for powerful (usually quite rich) people and one for less powerful (usually less rich) people. Rather, I am suggesting that whenever the law grants a judge or a prosecutor wide discretion in meting a punishment, they should aggressively pursue and severely punish powerful people."
Sometimes I get the feeling that although they have a female face at the top of HP (previously Fiona, now Dunn), that the board members are little more than an old-boys-club which would rather see a man leading the venerable HP than some uppity broad. The board seems to be going out of their way to make Dunn feel unwanted, so far even as to break the law to do so.
You're kidding, right? At times, I think a woman could kill an entire family and devour their hearts, and SOMEONE would find a way to blame it on male chauvinism.
The thing is, bandwidth isn't cheap. People bitch that ISPs "oversubscribe", and that we can't really deliver our advertised bandwidth to everyone all of the time. This is true, but how do you think we manage to sell people 5Mb connections for $40/month? Do you know how much 5Mb of bandwidth costs and ISP? It's a lot more than $40. In the market I'm in, we pay THOUSANDS of dollars for that much bandwidth."
No, it doesn't "have to be done". You could just advertise what you can actually deliver, and anything a customer happens to get above that is gravy. Right now, you "manage to sell" people 5Mb connections for $40 a month in the same way that the guy at the corner "manages to sell" Rolex watches for ten dollars a shot.
I don't see the problem. Even if they only use information from it that is supported by other sources, shouldn't they list it as a source? Aren't they supposed to find more than one supporting source for claims, anyway, which would alert them to inaccuracies?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I misunderstand, but is the submitter trying to say that Linux should learn from Windows in this area? Backwards compatibility is one of Linux's strong points, and Windows' performance in the area is terribly weak. Where are these people complaining about Microsoft spending TOO MUCH time on backwards compatibility; I've only seen people complaining about things being broken with every upgrade.
Raymond's blog is interesting, though. I'm glad to see someone at MS interested in backwards compatibility.
I don't see where he said that he wasn't going to college. He probably wants to find a part-time job to go alongside it.
My advice is to look for a tech job on-campus. Most companies won't touch you unless you have the right piece of paper, but once you do, experience helps. Also, prepare to be frustrated as hell; I certainly was.
Of course not; that's why those results haven't been censored yet. If the original poster's point was valid, at least one or two of the "Tiananmen" results would have been the image of the student and the tanks. I haven't seen it once in the seven pages it returned.
Poorly implemented censorship is still censorship.
There were "valid and true points", but they were the ones that were utterly irrelevant (eg, "Stallman is hairy" and "Stallman tries to sing and can't").
The author managed to give off more of a "crazy guy yelling about God-knows-what" impression than Stallman ever has, to my knowledge.
I got the same feeling from reading the article that I did when I watched a couple of episodes of the O'Reilly Factor. Someone with only a vague idea of an issue attacks an expert, and instead of actually debating the issue they launch a tirade of personal attacks and accusations, most of which are based on out-of-context quotes.
The "rhinophytophilia" term is a joke that should have been terribly obvious. He's SMELLING FLOWERS. The attacks on his personal habits don't even make sense. An aging programmer is overweight? THE HORROR. He sings karaoke? SOMEBOY STOP HIM! And how would the writer know how much Stallman codes, does he watch him through a window at night?
This is the Internet, not a damn kindergarten. People are going to say things you don't like, and you can't stop them. Live with it. If they show up at your front door or start harassing you, there are already laws to handle that.
I hope Google doesn't back down. I figure they'll just move the blogs to a server in the US (assuming they're in AU) if challenged in court, though.
The same thing is in place for registering .us domain names, isn't it?
1 4239&from=rss
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/31/0
Sorry, I should have said "unless you're using copyrighted code without permission". My point was that emulators don't violate copyright, which is what the original poster seemed to be saying.
He's either lying or trolling; emulators are perfectly legal. You'd have to actually be using code from HP to be violating copyright.
I'm actually very glad for that change...I've accidentally sent myself back several pages when pressing backspace, thinking I was editing a textbox (generally when I changed tabs to look at something else for a moment). Even if they wanted to use a single key for the "Back" button, backspace seems like a bad default choice.
Unfortunately, not everyone can afford a lawyer.
The first amendment isn't only supposed to apply to those with deep enough pockets to protect themselves.
How do you plan to fix the law, the enforcement, and the software without any discussion of philosophy, politics, jurisdiction, and technology...? Sane laws depend on philosophy and politics. Sane enforcement depends on well-designed jurisdiction. Sane software depends on an understanding of technology. If you try to solve a problem without discussing those things, the LAST thing you'll have is people working together.
That's what I was taught in civics, but it looks like it may be a bit off after checking around. ExpertLaw says that "reckless disregard of the truth" can also be considered libel if it meets the other requirements (damage to the plaintiff, etc).
Of course, two other sites say that it differs from state by state, so maybe here you could actually do that. My home state isn't known for its legal sanity.
It's only libel in the US if she can be proven to have known that what she said wasn't true. In this case, she wasn't actually able to appear in court (if TFA is correct), so she never had a chance at defending herself.
Perhaps they consider the overreaction to the case to be newsworthy, though the original story shouldn't have been.
Well, if you include educational institutions and city/county governments as "businesses", then you're probably right. Most of their employees use the company CDs (or copies of them) at home. Students can generally get a copy for almost nothing at the campus bookstore, if they want it.
I honestly don't know a home user that's purchased a copy of Office at anything close to full price since 2000.
I don't see a legitimate reason for gambling to be illegal. If someone wants to gamble, smoke, shoot themselves in the foot, or whatever, let them. And no, you don't have to force everyone else to support a safety net for them in the form of (publicly funded) rehab or health care. As for the "think of the children" bunch: if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.
According to the bill's title, the act was already illegal and all it is doing is enforcing it. If that's the case, why was a bill needed? Shouldn't it have been law enforcement's problem?
I think he was complaining that the article followed the strict definition which isn't normally used now, instead of the modern definition. When someone says "decimated" now, they generally mean "almost wiped out".
About Step 8:
Suppressing religion and setting the state up as a god seems to work just as well. People are eager to accept new gods once old ones are overthrown. Case in point, China. The dominant religion at the time was so strongly anti-war that Mao decided it was better to remove it.
I suppose all the anime fans that keep telling me how hot Japanese women are are racists too, then. If this is considered racism, I don't have any problem with racists. I guess we'll need a new word for the serious sort.
I mean, if the word "murder" could mean accidentally stepping on a cricket, I wouldn't care if I lived next door to someone described as a "murderer".
That sounds like two standards to me...
You're kidding, right? At times, I think a woman could kill an entire family and devour their hearts, and SOMEONE would find a way to blame it on male chauvinism.
No, it doesn't "have to be done". You could just advertise what you can actually deliver, and anything a customer happens to get above that is gravy. Right now, you "manage to sell" people 5Mb connections for $40 a month in the same way that the guy at the corner "manages to sell" Rolex watches for ten dollars a shot.
I don't see the problem. Even if they only use information from it that is supported by other sources, shouldn't they list it as a source? Aren't they supposed to find more than one supporting source for claims, anyway, which would alert them to inaccuracies?