No, you are full of crap. If a lawyer says, "Sign this document, and we'll execute contract A," and then has you sign a document actually only authorizing contract B, the signed document would be thrown out in court. If the lawyer knew about it, he might be liable, and he might be guilty of fraud.
But in this case, isn't it rather one contract you agreed to, which had a certain sentence which could be interpreted as 'all your messages are belong to us', which they now changed ?
As in, if the lawyer knew about this, how is he guilty when people could have read the privacy policy, and agreed to it ( ok, true, very few people actually *do* read it ) ?
"We're not making any policy changes. We're making some linguistic changes to clarify certain things and explain it a little better to our users," AOL spokesperson Andrew Weinstein told eWEEK.com.
Hmmm, is it just me or does this look like making things look better ? From my experience, lawyers usually pay a lot of attention on the things they write, and especially these kind of mistakes are the ones that plainly don't happen in published legal documents...
... unless they wanted to trick you into it, ofcourse.
I've learned over the years that preemptive multithreading should be used only as a last resort, and even then, it's best to put exactly one synchronization point in the entire app. Self-contained tasks should be dispatched from that point and deliver their results back with little or no interaction with the other threads.
Exactly, and that's where design patterns come into play... many of these problems have been formally described in patterns you can follow to avoid this; with thread synchronization, you can use the Half-Sync/Half-Async pattern for example, and you can make a task an Active Object so it can deliver its own results...
Multi-Threaded programming is hard, very hard; but you're not alone who thinks it's hard, and many researchers have formally described a bunch of rules you can follow... if you follow these rules, you often enough eliminate most of the more complicated problems.
This poster hits it on the head. Everyone I know cannot stand "portals" like Yahoo! just because of all the home page clutter, ads, and crap that is displayed both on the main page and on the subsequent results.
Honestly, I'm surprised that after Google's success, other engines didn't catch on...
Because in the end it's not about being nice and make your pages pretty, but about earning money...
Last time I heard, Yahoo! was still doing a pretty good job in that area, so I don't think they really worry about the ad-loaded pages...
Seriously though, has anyone read their privacy page? It's worse than AOL's AIM TOS.
To quote a few of their policies: Yahoo! automatically receives and records information on our server logs from your browser, including your IP address, Yahoo! cookie information, and the page you request./b>
... exactly the same as apache does by default, except the cookies - oh boy...
Yahoo! uses information for the following general purposes: to customize the advertising and content you see, fulfill your requests for products and services, improve our services, contact you, conduct research, and provide anonymous reporting for internal and external clients. aka "Sell your habits as an anonymous client to advertisers
So far no real privacy issues here; they are merely analysing the behaviour of anonymous clients, and/or target advertisements based on behaviour of clients; for example, never show an advertisement more than 5 times to each user (cookies) or try to find out how often certain links are clicked from certain pages inside their site...
... still pretty normal website administration here.
These companies may use your personal information to help Yahoo! communicate with you about offers from Yahoo! and our marketing partners.
Ah, and here you do have a little point; this is probably based on your personal account information. Most likely this allows them to target for example German advertisers to German visitors...
And please, don't say I don't have any solid proof that they are not doing this; there is just as little proof that says they do do bad stuff with your privacy... I'm merely illustrating here that this shouldn't mean all terror and shouldn't be a sole reason to stay away from Yahoo!.
Would like to hear from any European Slashdotters who have actually written to or phoned or emailed their elected representatives on this noxious attempt to hobble innovation.
I'm from.nl and have written several emails and a few letters about this, heck, even joined the socialist party (although software patents aren't the only reason for that).
However, it feels like it just has no use... I feel pretty powerless, especially considering we're not the only ones trying to influence our politicians...
... and the worst thing is, the politicians actually have no idea what they're voting for. They can be told how software works, but simply, they do not understand how such a decision would influence the market.
That's not really the problem. It has more to do with Linux as a game development environment totally lacking any good tools and debugging. Game developers don't want to have to make these tools themselves, that only hinders development times.
And could this perhaps be because the largest part of the linux community aren't the most frequent gamers ?
Crime is also a very common practice. Just because it is common doesn't mean that it is right. Someone needs to start making examples of this garbage and I think that Adobe is a good place to start.
Ahh come on, you cannot compare asking wether you also would like to subscribe to service xyz and are fully aware of that if you just read what's on the page, with crime...
You should rather compare it to the people trying to sell you subscriptions on the streets, they're highly irritating, but anyone who uses common sense knows it's usually not a good thing.. the same goes for those signup forms.
To me, it looks like you have something in your guts that's against Adobe, and trying to find arguments for it...
I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you on many points... seriously, the Hotmail signup process requires a LOT more unchecking of boxes than the 3 unchecks you need when downloading Acrobat... it's a very common practice, and even Joe Shmoe who is able to find out he needs Acrobat is aware to not check everything... besides, at least Adobe doesn't sell your email addy to dozens of third parties...
Secondly, what's wrong with a business paying for creating PDF's ? There's nothing really wrong with Adobe Acrobat's business model: create a portable document format, make readers available for free on any OS, guarantee that it looks the same everywhere, and let people who want to create PDF documents using Acrobat pay...
Now, there already are pdf writers other than acrobat, so what's the problem...
but surely with dual core becoming the norm we'll be seing a wave of next generation compilers that automatically optimize (as much as in possible) for dual core?
How would a compiler optimize for dual core ? Usually these kind of optimizations means Really Smart thread-synchronization, such as lock-free synchronization (this is especially important in multi-processor architectures), avoiding thread context switching, etc...
I can see a compiler optimize inline where inline should be, and consts where consts should be, but I really don't see it optimizing an applications design...
Err, what about Intel, Sony, Toshiba, HP, Sun, NEC, Fujitsu, SGI, RedHat, SUSE (Novell), Montavista, Dell, AMD, etc?
No, but if IBM puts pressure on the linux development team to have a better engineering process, and they refuse and things might go The Wrong Way and IBM forks its own kernel, don't you think the companies you just mentioned are likely to agree with IBM's decision ?
I mean, after all, all big corporations love well-documented processes...:)
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are full of crap. If a lawyer says, "Sign this document, and we'll execute contract A," and then has you sign a document actually only authorizing contract B, the signed document would be thrown out in court. If the lawyer knew about it, he might be liable, and he might be guilty of fraud.
But in this case, isn't it rather one contract you agreed to, which had a certain sentence which could be interpreted as 'all your messages are belong to us', which they now changed ?
As in, if the lawyer knew about this, how is he guilty when people could have read the privacy policy, and agreed to it ( ok, true, very few people actually *do* read it ) ?
"We're not making any policy changes. We're making some linguistic changes to clarify certain things and explain it a little better to our users," AOL spokesperson Andrew Weinstein told eWEEK.com.
Hmmm, is it just me or does this look like making things look better ? From my experience, lawyers usually pay a lot of attention on the things they write, and especially these kind of mistakes are the ones that plainly don't happen in published legal documents...
I've learned over the years that preemptive multithreading should be used only as a last resort, and even then, it's best to put exactly one synchronization point in the entire app. Self-contained tasks should be dispatched from that point and deliver their results back with little or no interaction with the other threads.
Exactly, and that's where design patterns come into play... many of these problems have been formally described in patterns you can follow to avoid this; with thread synchronization, you can use the Half-Sync/Half-Async pattern for example, and you can make a task an Active Object so it can deliver its own results...
Multi-Threaded programming is hard, very hard; but you're not alone who thinks it's hard, and many researchers have formally described a bunch of rules you can follow... if you follow these rules, you often enough eliminate most of the more complicated problems.
This poster hits it on the head. Everyone I know cannot stand "portals" like Yahoo! just because of all the home page clutter, ads, and crap that is displayed both on the main page and on the subsequent results.
Honestly, I'm surprised that after Google's success, other engines didn't catch on...
Because in the end it's not about being nice and make your pages pretty, but about earning money...
Last time I heard, Yahoo! was still doing a pretty good job in that area, so I don't think they really worry about the ad-loaded pages...
Seriously though, has anyone read their privacy page? It's worse than AOL's AIM TOS.
To quote a few of their policies:
Yahoo! automatically receives and records information on our server logs from your browser, including your IP address, Yahoo! cookie information, and the page you request./b>
... exactly the same as apache does by default, except the cookies - oh boy...
Yahoo! uses information for the following general purposes: to customize the advertising and content you see, fulfill your requests for products and services, improve our services, contact you, conduct research, and provide anonymous reporting for internal and external clients. aka "Sell your habits as an anonymous client to advertisers
So far no real privacy issues here; they are merely analysing the behaviour of anonymous clients, and/or target advertisements based on behaviour of clients; for example, never show an advertisement more than 5 times to each user (cookies) or try to find out how often certain links are clicked from certain pages inside their site...
... still pretty normal website administration here.
These companies may use your personal information to help Yahoo! communicate with you about offers from Yahoo! and our marketing partners.
Ah, and here you do have a little point; this is probably based on your personal account information. Most likely this allows them to target for example German advertisers to German visitors...
And please, don't say I don't have any solid proof that they are not doing this; there is just as little proof that says they do do bad stuff with your privacy...
I'm merely illustrating here that this shouldn't mean all terror and shouldn't be a sole reason to stay away from Yahoo!.
... here, here, here, here, here, and here.
A site such as, say, searchenginewatch.com, would never have mentioned it.
FYI: here and here, actually... :)
Would like to hear from any European Slashdotters who have actually written to or phoned or emailed their elected representatives on this noxious attempt to hobble innovation.
I'm from .nl and have written several emails and a few letters about this, heck, even joined the socialist party (although software patents aren't the only reason for that).
However, it feels like it just has no use... I feel pretty powerless, especially considering we're not the only ones trying to influence our politicians...
... and the worst thing is, the politicians actually have no idea what they're voting for. They can be told how software works, but simply, they do not understand how such a decision would influence the market.
I bet she's very popular in highschool now... :)
You go girl! :)
It's a TV show... they broadcast it for free anyhow...
Yeah, and don't you think the show is going to get less viewers when it's already on the internet, 3 weeks prior to the airing?
That's enough time to even have Kazaa be swarmed with copies of it...
That's not really the problem. It has more to do with Linux as a game development environment totally lacking any good tools and debugging. Game developers don't want to have to make these tools themselves, that only hinders development times.
And could this perhaps be because the largest part of the linux community aren't the most frequent gamers ?
Then again, it wasn't a production site.
Hmmm, yeah, I can imagine 'the system' not crashing if the fire didn't even hit production servers...
How I would love to mod you interresting, insightful or informative, can someone please translate that to normal English ?
Being a foreigner, I kinda have problems understanding English legal documents... :)
Crime is also a very common practice. Just because it is common doesn't mean that it is right. Someone needs to start making examples of this garbage and I think that Adobe is a good place to start.
Ahh come on, you cannot compare asking wether you also would like to subscribe to service xyz and are fully aware of that if you just read what's on the page, with crime...
You should rather compare it to the people trying to sell you subscriptions on the streets, they're highly irritating, but anyone who uses common sense knows it's usually not a good thing.. the same goes for those signup forms.
To me, it looks like you have something in your guts that's against Adobe, and trying to find arguments for it...
I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you on many points... seriously, the Hotmail signup process requires a LOT more unchecking of boxes than the 3 unchecks you need when downloading Acrobat... it's a very common practice, and even Joe Shmoe who is able to find out he needs Acrobat is aware to not check everything... besides, at least Adobe doesn't sell your email addy to dozens of third parties...
Secondly, what's wrong with a business paying for creating PDF's ? There's nothing really wrong with Adobe Acrobat's business model: create a portable document format, make readers available for free on any OS, guarantee that it looks the same everywhere, and let people who want to create PDF documents using Acrobat pay...
Now, there already are pdf writers other than acrobat, so what's the problem...
IMHO, you're highly overreacting.
but surely with dual core becoming the norm we'll be seing a wave of next generation compilers that automatically optimize (as much as in possible) for dual core?
How would a compiler optimize for dual core ? Usually these kind of optimizations means Really Smart thread-synchronization, such as lock-free synchronization (this is especially important in multi-processor architectures), avoiding thread context switching, etc...
I can see a compiler optimize inline where inline should be, and consts where consts should be, but I really don't see it optimizing an applications design...
complexity? Isn't multi-core programming pretty much the same as multi-processor programming?
... which usually adds a real hell of complexity to a software project...
Err, what about Intel, Sony, Toshiba, HP, Sun, NEC, Fujitsu, SGI, RedHat, SUSE (Novell), Montavista, Dell, AMD, etc?
No, but if IBM puts pressure on the linux development team to have a better engineering process, and they refuse and things might go The Wrong Way and IBM forks its own kernel, don't you think the companies you just mentioned are likely to agree with IBM's decision ?
I mean, after all, all big corporations love well-documented processes... :)
Busses and trains also start at said stations, too. :-)
lmao, thanks for the advice, i'll keep it in mind :)
Nonono, we need to invade
Use DoxyGen!
It supports multiple languages, so it's a more generic approach to automated software documentation..
Haha, that was my ringtone for ages :) Now it's Saria's Song from Zelda64. Which is also pretty hard to beat. And boy, the chicks LOVE it.
The chicks love it?
How old are you, 14 ? :-)
No, the media hype about it is just over.
Exactly. You can whine all about it, it doesn't change, it's how the system works, and you're part of it wether you like it or not.
Sure you can all the bullies insensitive clods, but in this world, the problem is at the geek's side, wether he likes it or not...
Some of those bullys go into IT. Some of those "geeks" just learn to push back.
I bet that makes all the highschool geeks who are being pushed around feel a lot better...