Can it possibly be that Java -- once the hippest of hip software -- has become a legacy technology,
Java was once the hippest of hip software - but largely due to Sun's marketing.
LAMP's success was due to the Open Source model. Because you didn't need to take huge training courses or buy huge packages to learn Apache, PHP or MySQL.
Java = Top Down. Here boys, have your language. Use it! PHP = Bottom up. "Look at the language I made, anyone wants to help extend it?"
Of course, that doesn't make LAMP superior to Java in any way. It just proves that Open Source can be a more effective marketing tool than Sun's marketing team.
Google is fighting the proposal, along with other large Internet companies including Amazon.com Inc. and eBay Inc. They fear they may have to pay telecoms millions of dollars to gain access to customers who use the premium Internet services. In addition, they argue, many small Internet start-ups would be unable to pay the fees, which could reduce consumer choice.
1. If people want to customize something, usually it's because they want it to resemble another thing they like already (*cough* Windows explorer *cough*).
2. I don't care if whatever GUI is designed to work for "dummies", "idiots", "stupids" or "Joes sixpacks". I only want to be able to click on a freaking checkbox to disable the annoying animations or whatever.
by the standards of someone who lived 100 years ago, a man walking around after a massive heart attack would be considered a "zombie".
Do NOT confuse superstition with ethics. One thing is taking a decision on whether to perform a surgery, and a very different thing is MAKING EXPERIMENTS with human DNA.
Denying ethics in the name of progress will sooner or later put us in the Nazis place, where they wanted to get rid of jews because they considered them a "sickness for mankind". Don't you love mankind? Don't you want to heal mankind? You're doing mankind a favor, just get rid of the sick humans, and mankind will "progress".
Obviously a line has to be drawn, and it's much safer for the sake of humanity, if the line is drawn a few steps back. Because, once the line is drawn, you can never go back. Take a look at abortion, in the Roe vs. Wade case. That was called "progress". And nobody has dared to go back. Any attempt to do so is attacking "women's right" and the "progress of society".
You seem too confident to know where the line (in medicine research) should be drawn. But your children may have drawn the line a step further, and your grandchildren another step further. Morals are taught by your society, by your parents, and by the media. Once you say something is "right", nobody will be able to tell future generations that it's "wrong".
Perhaps some people are more conservative than you on certain aspects, but less conservative on others. What happens if both of you take the less conservative approach? The end result could be worse than both of your individual decisions.
Can you bear with the responsibility of not drawing the line one millimeter further than it should be? Can you?
I read that Tolkien took christianity and turned the religion into hidden allegories. I mean, Gandalf descending into the pits of hell, fighting with a flame demon, to be risen as "the white"? That kinda reminds me to Jesus' resurrection.
And Sauron could be interpreted as Satan. I also read that the orcs were once elves that were turned into evil, wretched beings that hated themselves, and the elves for reminding them what they once where. Couldn't this be an allegory for the fallen angels?
And taking into account the fact that Tolkien played a key role in Lewis' conversion to christianity (does anyone have details on this?), it's not a mystery that many elements of christianity were embedded in Tolkien's works. And yet, we love Tolkien's works.
I'm sure that it wasn't Lewis' intention to push down christianity down the readers' throats, perhaps he just wanted to make his writings useful for christians, or to explain parts of christianity somehow.
I think that people have become seriously disappointed of christians, because of the amount of fundamentalism and zealotry present in today's christian environment. So they reject anything that resembles or includes christianity. But we need to go back to Tolkien and Lewis' environment, and see, from their point of view, that they went to church, where priests were still respected and earned that respect.
A problem with today's view of religion is that whenever we're mentioned catholicism or christianity, our first thoughts come to either the inquisition or pedophile priests, or religious zealots who promote creationism. But Tolkien's and Lewis' christianity was a relatively quiet part of their environment and society, not the circus we see today in the news.
2. Flying chairs screensavers earn a second place.
3. the third place, Assistant programmer, will be awarded to the one who makes a program whose clippy assistant says "Developers Developers Developers!" repeatedly.
4. Everyone in the country will be accepted to participate.
Here we had a movie called "La Ley de Herodes" (Herodes' Law), it was about politicians and how the party in power was so corrupted, etc. etc.
(Informational Note: "La ley de herodes" is a century-old mexican adult saying. It goes like this: 'O te chingas o te jodes'. A literal translation would be: Either you get f***ed, or you get f***ed. In other words, you're f***ed anyway. But it also could mean "either you bribe, or get f***ed", since the spanish word 'chingar' (which is a bad word, btw) has around 50 different meanings, depending on the context).
Anyway, this "La Ley de Herodes " movie was censored by... guess who? The government. This only caused a political scandal, and the movie became so famous it ended up being shown in theaters anyway.
Something tells me the ratings film's intention was exactly this one - to get censored by the MPAA.
how will poor countries suddenly become rich just by fighting piracy? I mean, don't tax revenues come from MONEY EARNED BY THE PEOPLE? And how will people pay taxes on some money they DON'T HAVE in the first place?
Yet another flawed "OMG look at all those stolen CD's we could earn so much money with this stuff" study.
Perhaps if Microsoft stopped charging $200 for Windows and $2000 for Visual Studio, more people would buy their products legit.
Who says you can't put the $20 inside a nice Christmas card and wrap a ribbon around it? The kid will spend the money, and he gets the Christmas card to remember 10 years from now. And surely he'll remember what he bought with that money, and think: "Ah... those times."
Heh I just remembered a gift card my sister gave me to buy an RPG magazine. It even had a smiley in it.:') It does make you nostalgic, you know.
For an Open Source product to have thriving success, it needs to be BORN open. Take firefox, for example. Even when Netscape opened its source, it had to be rewritten from scratch to fix most of the rendering bugs (massively nested tables, anyone?).
In other words, a definition I would like of Open Source Software is that it's created bottom-up. The author plants a then other people come and make it grow.
Having ONLY ONE AUTHOR would be the same as a closed-source product. What use is having the sourcecode available if nobody reads and modifies it?
Also, the program must be well-designed by its original author. Writing a program with a buggy and limited infrastructure will need to be refactored sooner or later. Multi-tier design (even in non-database apps) is a requisite.
So, if one open source program isn't designed to be configurable (hardwired values, non-unicode strings in wxWidgets), extensible (no support for modularization), it will be very difficult to overcome its limitations.
The Open Source isn't a panacea. It's a field where programs evolve (like genetic algorithms). Good programs survive, bad programs get often forgotten.
But Open Source itself does NOT guarantee a program to be bug-free. It just facilitates the conditions so the bugs can be fixed soon.
So if OpenOffice has serious bugs, don't blame the Open Source model. And yes, I don't like OpenOffice very much, as a longtime MS user, I find some of the interfaces kinda "alien" (but I manage to survive without MS Office installed, and that's a very good thing), and to my frustration i had tried OpenOffice when it still was version 1 (about 5 years ago). eew. >_<
I HAVE had religious debates with christian fundamentalists (I am a catholic, by the way so you can expect flames flying around in these debates - because the Catholic Church is seen as "the whore of babylon" by fundamentalists). One of them classified himself as a "fundy", and was a very nice person. Our online debate was very enlightening for both of us. He came to understand my position more, and I came to understand his position more, too.
But we're not talking about "fundies" here. "Prejudicious ignorants" would be a much more descriptive word. "Religious zealots" would be even more appropriate.
Of course, if they can't accept a "The Bible as Literature" course as enlightening, what can we expect from them?
here in Mexico. There was a student riot and strike (or something similar), they (the "students") shut down school. Some of them participated in violent protests against the government, and were sent to jail.
A law professor was going to give a talk about "Difference between political prisoners and criminals". The pseudo-students didn't let him start the talk, and he had to run away because they were all throwing him rotten food.
Lesson: Unless you're willing to become a martyr, never tell an angry mob they're WRONG.
1) It's not about how large the girls' breasts are, but the opinion that only girls with large breasts or this and that physical feature are "worthy".
Instead of basing themselves on the average woman, with average breast size and average face, the media guys (not necessarily game makers) give us some sex goddesses.
AND THEN the models are compared to real girls, and, because they can't be compared, they think they're not worth having a boyfriend and end up having depression / anorexia / etc.
2) The guys fantasize, because, since they DON'T HAVE a muscular Arnold kind of body, girls DON'T pay attention to them. And yes, I mean you, britney girl who doesn't date anyone with less muscle than Joe-the-Football-Player. So what happens when these low-selfesteemed guys can make their dreams reality, dreams about having a very strong body and getting not only girls, but the BEST girls around, with even more bust than the ones who rejected them at school?
See, discrimination goes two ways. What we need is society (both men and women) to stop judging others upon the physical aspects, and appreciate people as they are, with their virtues: Intelligence, Patience, kindness, generosity, etc.
Then we wouldn't need games with "bodacious" women to satisfy our overcrushed ego.
(As a side note, the Bible says the flood was sent because men became evil and only married the most beautiful women. Interesting thought, isn't it?)
Slashdot Mirror
Before: "Open standards harm competition"
After: "Two open standards are better than one".
C'mon, Steve, you can do better than that.
is a privacy paradise :) But an insecurity hell :( We wish we had 1/10th of the security the US enjoys.
:)
Well, at least i can D/L anime (without needing a tinfoil hat) to forget about everyday problems
Actually, I've got no idea where they got 10mph from.
:)
The article states 6km/h
It seems they multiplied instead of dividing, when making km / mile conversion.
6Km = 3.728 miles
6Miles = 9.654 km.
Nelson, your line
is better than none.
I'm shocked. Shocked!
Fool! The banana is with the BLUE button! Not the RED one!
Or there could be pigs flying somewhere, I don't know.
:P )
I think you mispelled "chairs".
(sorry, couldn't resist
Can it possibly be that Java -- once the hippest of hip software -- has become a legacy technology,
Java was once the hippest of hip software - but largely due to Sun's marketing.
LAMP's success was due to the Open Source model. Because you didn't need to take huge training courses or buy huge packages to learn Apache, PHP or MySQL.
Java = Top Down. Here boys, have your language. Use it!
PHP = Bottom up. "Look at the language I made, anyone wants to help extend it?"
Of course, that doesn't make LAMP superior to Java in any way. It just proves that Open Source can be a more effective marketing tool than Sun's marketing team.
Google is fighting the proposal, along with other large Internet companies including Amazon.com Inc. and eBay Inc. They fear they may have to pay telecoms millions of dollars to gain access to customers who use the premium Internet services. In addition, they argue, many small Internet start-ups would be unable to pay the fees, which could reduce consumer choice.
Ma' Bell strikes back!
No One Ever Got Fired For Buying Microsoft.
Microsoft has been BOUGHT!?!?
*Runs to Check the stock market*
Two comments I'd like to make:
1. If people want to customize something, usually it's because they want it to resemble another thing they like already (*cough* Windows explorer *cough*).
2. I don't care if whatever GUI is designed to work for "dummies", "idiots", "stupids" or "Joes sixpacks". I only want to be able to click on a freaking checkbox to disable the annoying animations or whatever.
If it has it, I'm fine with it.
by the standards of someone who lived 100 years ago, a man walking around after a massive heart attack would be considered a "zombie".
Do NOT confuse superstition with ethics. One thing is taking a decision on whether to perform a surgery, and a very different thing is MAKING EXPERIMENTS with human DNA.
Denying ethics in the name of progress will sooner or later put us in the Nazis place, where they wanted to get rid of jews because they considered them a "sickness for mankind". Don't you love mankind? Don't you want to heal mankind? You're doing mankind a favor, just get rid of the sick humans, and mankind will "progress".
Obviously a line has to be drawn, and it's much safer for the sake of humanity, if the line is drawn a few steps back. Because, once the line is drawn, you can never go back. Take a look at abortion, in the Roe vs. Wade case. That was called "progress". And nobody has dared to go back. Any attempt to do so is attacking "women's right" and the "progress of society".
You seem too confident to know where the line (in medicine research) should be drawn. But your children may have drawn the line a step further, and your grandchildren another step further. Morals are taught by your society, by your parents, and by the media. Once you say something is "right", nobody will be able to tell future generations that it's "wrong".
Perhaps some people are more conservative than you on certain aspects, but less conservative on others. What happens if both of you take the less conservative approach? The end result could be worse than both of your individual decisions.
Can you bear with the responsibility of not drawing the line one millimeter further than it should be? Can you?
A beowulf Heater of these... :)
I read that Tolkien took christianity and turned the religion into hidden allegories. I mean, Gandalf descending into the pits of hell, fighting with a flame demon, to be risen as "the white"? That kinda reminds me to Jesus' resurrection.
And Sauron could be interpreted as Satan. I also read that the orcs were once elves that were turned into evil, wretched beings that hated themselves, and the elves for reminding them what they once where. Couldn't this be an allegory for the fallen angels?
And taking into account the fact that Tolkien played a key role in Lewis' conversion to christianity (does anyone have details on this?), it's not a mystery that many elements of christianity were embedded in Tolkien's works. And yet, we love Tolkien's works.
I'm sure that it wasn't Lewis' intention to push down christianity down the readers' throats, perhaps he just wanted to make his writings useful for christians, or to explain parts of christianity somehow.
I think that people have become seriously disappointed of christians, because of the amount of fundamentalism and zealotry present in today's christian environment. So they reject anything that resembles or includes christianity. But we need to go back to Tolkien and Lewis' environment, and see, from their point of view, that they went to church, where priests were still respected and earned that respect.
A problem with today's view of religion is that whenever we're mentioned catholicism or christianity, our first thoughts come to either the inquisition or pedophile priests, or religious zealots who promote creationism. But Tolkien's and Lewis' christianity was a relatively quiet part of their environment and society, not the circus we see today in the news.
The only question is whether slashdot is paying **Beatles-Beatles, or **Beatles-Beatles is paying slashdot.
Who cares? His stories are much more interesting than copy machines on holidays stupidity.
1. Whoever makes the first blue screen, wins!
2. Flying chairs screensavers earn a second place.
3. the third place, Assistant programmer, will be awarded to the one who makes a program whose clippy assistant says "Developers Developers Developers!" repeatedly.
4. Everyone in the country will be accepted to participate.
4b. Except in Nebraska!
Here we had a movie called "La Ley de Herodes" (Herodes' Law), it was about politicians and how the party in power was so corrupted, etc. etc.
(Informational Note: "La ley de herodes" is a century-old mexican adult saying. It goes like this: 'O te chingas o te jodes'. A literal translation would be: Either you get f***ed, or you get f***ed. In other words, you're f***ed anyway. But it also could mean "either you bribe, or get f***ed", since the spanish word 'chingar' (which is a bad word, btw) has around 50 different meanings, depending on the context).
Anyway, this "La Ley de Herodes " movie was censored by... guess who? The government. This only caused a political scandal, and the movie became so famous it ended up being shown in theaters anyway.
Something tells me the ratings film's intention was exactly this one - to get censored by the MPAA.
how will poor countries suddenly become rich just by fighting piracy? I mean, don't tax revenues come from MONEY EARNED BY THE PEOPLE? And how will people pay taxes on some money they DON'T HAVE in the first place?
Yet another flawed "OMG look at all those stolen CD's we could earn so much money with this stuff" study.
Perhaps if Microsoft stopped charging $200 for Windows and $2000 for Visual Studio, more people would buy their products legit.
Have you forgotten that mice can pilot airplanes, too? What we need, is transgenic cats! :P
Marry Christmas, here's $20 from Dad.
:') It does make you nostalgic, you know.
Who says you can't put the $20 inside a nice Christmas card and wrap a ribbon around it? The kid will spend the money, and he gets the Christmas card to remember 10 years from now. And surely he'll remember what he bought with that money, and think: "Ah... those times."
Heh I just remembered a gift card my sister gave me to buy an RPG magazine. It even had a smiley in it.
It's a "commercial product gone open".
For an Open Source product to have thriving success, it needs to be BORN open. Take firefox, for example. Even when Netscape opened its source, it had to be rewritten from scratch to fix most of the rendering bugs (massively nested tables, anyone?).
In other words, a definition I would like of Open Source Software is that it's created bottom-up. The author plants a then other people come and make it grow.
Having ONLY ONE AUTHOR would be the same as a closed-source product. What use is having the sourcecode available if nobody reads and modifies it?
Also, the program must be well-designed by its original author. Writing a program with a buggy and limited infrastructure will need to be refactored sooner or later. Multi-tier design (even in non-database apps) is a requisite.
So, if one open source program isn't designed to be configurable (hardwired values, non-unicode strings in wxWidgets), extensible (no support for modularization), it will be very difficult to overcome its limitations.
The Open Source isn't a panacea. It's a field where programs evolve (like genetic algorithms). Good programs survive, bad programs get often forgotten.
But Open Source itself does NOT guarantee a program to be bug-free. It just facilitates the conditions so the bugs can be fixed soon.
So if OpenOffice has serious bugs, don't blame the Open Source model. And yes, I don't like OpenOffice very much, as a longtime MS user, I find some of the interfaces kinda "alien" (but I manage to survive without MS Office installed, and that's a very good thing), and to my frustration i had tried OpenOffice when it still was version 1 (about 5 years ago). eew. >_<
I HAVE had religious debates with christian fundamentalists (I am a catholic, by the way so you can expect flames flying around in these debates - because the Catholic Church is seen as "the whore of babylon" by fundamentalists). One of them classified himself as a "fundy", and was a very nice person. Our online debate was very enlightening for both of us. He came to understand my position more, and I came to understand his position more, too.
But we're not talking about "fundies" here. "Prejudicious ignorants" would be a much more descriptive word. "Religious zealots" would be even more appropriate.
Of course, if they can't accept a "The Bible as Literature" course as enlightening, what can we expect from them?
That is informative! At least by definition.
:-)
In that case, I'm NOT from Kansas!
(Awaits for the +5 informative lol)
here in Mexico. There was a student riot and strike (or something similar), they (the "students") shut down school. Some of them participated in violent protests against the government, and were sent to jail.
A law professor was going to give a talk about "Difference between political prisoners and criminals". The pseudo-students didn't let him start the talk, and he had to run away because they were all throwing him rotten food.
Lesson: Unless you're willing to become a martyr, never tell an angry mob they're WRONG.
We want UNINSTALL. And I don't mean an "inhabilitating patch", i mean a full uninstall of the rootkit.
1) It's not about how large the girls' breasts are, but the opinion that only girls with large breasts or this and that physical feature are "worthy".
Instead of basing themselves on the average woman, with average breast size and average face, the media guys (not necessarily game makers) give us some sex goddesses.
AND THEN the models are compared to real girls, and, because they can't be compared, they think they're not worth having a boyfriend and end up having depression / anorexia / etc.
2) The guys fantasize, because, since they DON'T HAVE a muscular Arnold kind of body, girls DON'T pay attention to them. And yes, I mean you, britney girl who doesn't date anyone with less muscle than Joe-the-Football-Player. So what happens when these low-selfesteemed guys can make their dreams reality, dreams about having a very strong body and getting not only girls, but the BEST girls around, with even more bust than the ones who rejected them at school?
See, discrimination goes two ways. What we need is society (both men and women) to stop judging others upon the physical aspects, and appreciate people as they are, with their virtues: Intelligence, Patience, kindness, generosity, etc.
Then we wouldn't need games with "bodacious" women to satisfy our overcrushed ego.
(As a side note, the Bible says the flood was sent because men became evil and only married the most beautiful women. Interesting thought, isn't it?)