It's quite straightforward. If he feels he's been libelled, which is illegal, he has to sue. The ISPs can't give up the information he's looking for without a court subpoena.
"My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a "John or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my 'biographer.' Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name."
He has a personal attorney already. He's clearly upset. So, then he should sue, get a subpoena, and prosecute his case against the person who libelled him.
Re:Comment every conditional branch or loop
on
How to Write Comments
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Comments can be good, Avoid 'magic numbers' too, You've heard of constants?
Seriously, this is not good code: if (u & 0xFF1234) - what the hell is u? Is it the start of the file? What if your file structure changes, you want to grep for every instance of 0xFF1234 and see if it needs to be changed? What if you changed your definition of what a good file is?
Why not: if isValid(fileStart) - or if all you're doing is printing, just put it in the print statment? You do have to comment to explain why you're doing something, but the clearer the code is the easier it is to read and maintain.
The comment about a small embedded system above made sense. But still - who are you going to get to analyze it? Some company that is an expert in a) handwritten embedded systems, and b) hand written graphics drivers, and c) hand written database applications, and d) buffer overflow problems, and e) secure code?
I don't see an entire system like this being very reviewable. Simply not the way to find out a problem, no matter how long you sit and stare at it.
It would make much more sense to simply test the machines with an automated testing tool or process, where you know what's going in and compare it to what's coming out. And make sure that the system itself keeps detailed logs of what's going on at every action. The main section of the code I'd check out thoroughly is the logging. Nobody seems to have done extensive hands on testing with these machines. That's the way to find problems in software systems in my experience. Five people could look at the same code in a review, all agree it makes sense, and then have it fail in some small percentage of the time due to an obscure condition.
So how exactly did you expect anyone to comply? There will always be an operating system, probably either windows or a *nix. In both cases it is impossible to provide all the names. With a *nix, you could get all the code - but only 0.001% would be relevant to the process of counting votes. Why do you want to review the inner workings of USB and graphic card drivers?
Alternic tried this, their main selling point being that they sold.xxx names. They went out of business. People who bought domain names from them had nowhere to turn after that. The big problem with companies running this is conflict. Think about it, there are two profit driven companies selling domain names. They both get a request to sell bob.com. They want the sale. They both make the sale. Two different people put up bob.com sites. What determines which site you get to when you type it in your browser? Whichever company happens to have formed a partnership with your ISP to recognize their domain names. Unless of course there really is a bob.com for real, in which case the ISP probably directs the traffic to the real bob.com, and not to bob.com being handled by either company.
It doesn't have to work that way of course. The problem comes when people want a common tld - everyone wants a.com or.org. So the two companies above could coexist fine, if one had.xxx and one had.yyy. Which again doesn't work.... I don't really see a good system where private enterprise can handle the apportioning of valuable tlds like.com and.xxx in a fair and consistent manner. The standard we have might not be great, but at least it's a standard.
Can you explain please? How is he entering a dynamic sig or dynamic url in slashdot? That works from an archived discussion? I just clicked on the Preferences link, and in the URL I see only an option to enter a URL. The sig is 120 chars - not enough room for javascript even if it wasn't stripped out.
Wow. Turning the whole internet into a quantum mechanical system in a constant state of flux. I'm sure it would suck in real life, but it sounds pretty cool to me.
I checked all the stories submitted by him, and didn't see the link in his name ever change from the George Harrison site. The original side discussion was about those links changing every time he submits a story, I don't see any sign of that.
I suggest you actually read it. It's not binding on you. It's binding on Microsoft, saying they won't ever exercise any of their patent rights against you when you build software that operates on their file format (unless you sue them first, when of course they'd sue back).
If this was just some open standard divorced from Microsoft there would be nothing stopping Microsoft from suing you if they felt your implementation violated the patents they hold.
I've heard tons of anecdotal reports that a file that takes 3 seconds to open in Word can take 5 minutes to open in OpenOffice. Maybe they just think the ODF spec will always have performance problems?
I think it would have to do with how developer friendly it is. Both of the above are fine.
Who knows how Office stores info about layout inside of it though? Did you ever export a word doc as html? Did you see the kind of code that created? Yes it worked, and it was 'valid' but it looked like it was written by a drunk alien - it did not look like html anyone would write, and you really could not modify it. I think that's what developers are afraid they'll see again in the new file format.
See the list of articles above. The point was that he changes the link that's on his name, submits a new spammy site, gets pagerank from google. Rinse, wash, repeat. Pretty standard to do that with blogs that accept anonymous posts, much more unusual (but also more effective) to do it with a site like Slashdot.
I can't figure out how he'd be making money though, I didn't see any ads on his site (though they might just be in my filter already), though he certainly had enough tracking javascripts at the bottom. Maybe he's building up pageviews, and will then add the advertisments? That might make sense.
Did anyone else notice that they've now turned on a Windows style autorun? Why?
"KDE has made an exciting breakthrough in its support for removable devices. On detection of specific media types KDE presents the user with a list of optional actions. These actions are configurable in KDE's control center and can be disabled entirely. This goes a great deal of the way toward fixing an old complaint, that managing removable media is too difficult in Linux, by exposing existing features in KDE and Linux to the user in an obvious fashion." [pic of windows style autorun window here, offering to let you play the cd, rip it, open in a new window, and my favorite, do nothing]
Guess you've learned your lesson now. You're free to say KDE blows and Gnome rocks, or vice versa, and not be labelled flamebait or troll - but never dare to suggest that linux has a standard base or you're marked troll.
Amusingly enough, stories about the Linux Standard Base Project http://www.linuxbase.org/ are not labelled troll, though people often use their posts in those stories saying the whole thing is a waste of time, because by gum if they had to wrestle with dependencies for an hour to compile a program, you should too.
Linux Standard Base: "We strive to develop and promote a set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. In addition the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for Linux."
Yeah, clearly a waste of time, or a "Windows for Linux". Sheesh.
Yeah, the no editing is the problem. Pure analog recording to pure analog medium played back with analog technology can sound great. But there's no room for editing, re-eq'ing, etc. and it's not a technique that's used any more anyway. And unfortunately after the physical degradation that occurs with rubbing a stylus over vinyl dozens of time, what you're left with in terms of sound quality is lower than what you'd have with a CD or especially a DVD-Audio.
I'm not a subscriber, I've never paid for slashdot. You do realize you can get an account for free right? I wanted you to be logged in so I could go post similar you = teh stoopid comments after all your comments. Fuckwad. You were totally wrong about your post and won't admit it.
BTW, you could mod-bomb me every day and it would never matter. I maxed out on karma several years ago and i get modded up routinely.
Yes, with a higher resolution audio stream your bits and bytes do more closely resemble an analog curve. But they are not analog, merely a better approximation.
Many audiophiles refuse to believe this when pointed out to them though.
These people ignore the fact that 99.9999% of modern vinyl records are mastered with digital equipment in a recording studio before being pressed to vinyl. Once it's been digitally mastered, you don't get an 'analog' vinyl pressing.
I wish you were logged in, AC. Kind of pointless to keep following up as AC when you're obviously the person I replied to.
Like I said, I saw one comment that pointed out that they weren't selling computer software. I don't see them being upset that open source was being misapplied. They're saying that the term isn't very descriptive of what Pajama Media is doing. Hardly a scathing cry of upset.
Also, the other Open Source Media brand is doing as much as possible in journalism to make the 'recipe' publicly available while the story is being worked on, and I see no problem with open source being applied to their version of journalism. There's 'open source' cola - does it make your blood boil that the term is applied to something other than computer software? By the way, I asked for a quote, not a reposting of the entire page. Your original point was that several commenters were upset that open source was being misapplied - you haven't shown anything like that.
While not a HTPC, check out these add-ons for the mac mini: http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog? entry_id=1280301/. They add sound and a hard drive. Not a HTPC for a working geek, but it would be pretty spiffy in the dorm room. Those are the nicest looking add-ons I've ever seen for any computer system.
I don't see anyone complaining about 'open source' on that page, except for one line pointing out that Pajama Media isn't selling software. Post an example maybe?
Interesting. I know Slashdot breaks their million page view per month limit (like in a couple hours), and I thought only users of AdWords were exempt from that limit? What's the deal guys? Anyone know anything else about Google Analytics?
When I used to use outlook web access with IE I hated it. It tried to emulate the outlook interface and popped up new windows with the email you wanted to see, with the predictable delay in opening a new window. Why there was any delay is beyond me, if you're writing an IE only web app you should use window.showModalDialog instead of window.open, but there was the normal 1-2 second delay while your message opened. Whereas with Firefox, it acts like normal webmail and is infinitely faster.
BTW, MS didn't serve up a 'crippled' version of the app to non-IE browsers on purpose. When the app was written, IE was the first and only browser to support XMLHTTP requests (albeit thru an ActiveX control), so they literally couldn't expect other browsers to support that method, hence the normal webmail interface for other browsers. I doubt they've done any significant modification to the app since then. Once they revamp hotmail to be an AJAX style interface I certainly hope they roll that into outlook web access, or they'll be giving away free email service that's better than what you can buy from them.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite straightforward. If he feels he's been libelled, which is illegal, he has to sue. The ISPs can't give up the information he's looking for without a court subpoena.
"My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a "John or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my 'biographer.' Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name."
He has a personal attorney already. He's clearly upset. So, then he should sue, get a subpoena, and prosecute his case against the person who libelled him.
Comments can be good,
Avoid 'magic numbers' too,
You've heard of constants?
Seriously, this is not good code: if (u & 0xFF1234) - what the hell is u? Is it the start of the file? What if your file structure changes, you want to grep for every instance of 0xFF1234 and see if it needs to be changed? What if you changed your definition of what a good file is?
Why not: if isValid(fileStart) - or if all you're doing is printing, just put it in the print statment? You do have to comment to explain why you're doing something, but the clearer the code is the easier it is to read and maintain.
The comment about a small embedded system above made sense. But still - who are you going to get to analyze it? Some company that is an expert in a) handwritten embedded systems, and b) hand written graphics drivers, and c) hand written database applications, and d) buffer overflow problems, and e) secure code?
I don't see an entire system like this being very reviewable. Simply not the way to find out a problem, no matter how long you sit and stare at it.
It would make much more sense to simply test the machines with an automated testing tool or process, where you know what's going in and compare it to what's coming out. And make sure that the system itself keeps detailed logs of what's going on at every action. The main section of the code I'd check out thoroughly is the logging. Nobody seems to have done extensive hands on testing with these machines. That's the way to find problems in software systems in my experience. Five people could look at the same code in a review, all agree it makes sense, and then have it fail in some small percentage of the time due to an obscure condition.
So how exactly did you expect anyone to comply? There will always be an operating system, probably either windows or a *nix. In both cases it is impossible to provide all the names. With a *nix, you could get all the code - but only 0.001% would be relevant to the process of counting votes. Why do you want to review the inner workings of USB and graphic card drivers?
Alternic tried this, their main selling point being that they sold .xxx names. They went out of business. People who bought domain names from them had nowhere to turn after that. The big problem with companies running this is conflict. Think about it, there are two profit driven companies selling domain names. They both get a request to sell bob.com. They want the sale. They both make the sale. Two different people put up bob.com sites. What determines which site you get to when you type it in your browser? Whichever company happens to have formed a partnership with your ISP to recognize their domain names. Unless of course there really is a bob.com for real, in which case the ISP probably directs the traffic to the real bob.com, and not to bob.com being handled by either company.
.com or .org. So the two companies above could coexist fine, if one had .xxx and one had .yyy. Which again doesn't work.... I don't really see a good system where private enterprise can handle the apportioning of valuable tlds like .com and .xxx in a fair and consistent manner. The standard we have might not be great, but at least it's a standard.
It doesn't have to work that way of course. The problem comes when people want a common tld - everyone wants a
Can you explain please? How is he entering a dynamic sig or dynamic url in slashdot? That works from an archived discussion? I just clicked on the Preferences link, and in the URL I see only an option to enter a URL. The sig is 120 chars - not enough room for javascript even if it wasn't stripped out.
Wow. Turning the whole internet into a quantum mechanical system in a constant state of flux. I'm sure it would suck in real life, but it sounds pretty cool to me.
I checked all the stories submitted by him, and didn't see the link in his name ever change from the George Harrison site. The original side discussion was about those links changing every time he submits a story, I don't see any sign of that.
Exactly. Ripping off MS is not 'innovative'.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=FE118952-3547-420A-A412-00A2662442D9&displa ylang=en/
e w.mspx/
Check it out (warning, windows install only). You download it. You install it. You do NOT have to agree to any EULA.
Here's the license for it http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/licenseovervi
I suggest you actually read it. It's not binding on you. It's binding on Microsoft, saying they won't ever exercise any of their patent rights against you when you build software that operates on their file format (unless you sue them first, when of course they'd sue back).
If this was just some open standard divorced from Microsoft there would be nothing stopping Microsoft from suing you if they felt your implementation violated the patents they hold.
I've heard tons of anecdotal reports that a file that takes 3 seconds to open in Word can take 5 minutes to open in OpenOffice. Maybe they just think the ODF spec will always have performance problems?
I think it would have to do with how developer friendly it is. Both of the above are fine.
Who knows how Office stores info about layout inside of it though? Did you ever export a word doc as html? Did you see the kind of code that created? Yes it worked, and it was 'valid' but it looked like it was written by a drunk alien - it did not look like html anyone would write, and you really could not modify it. I think that's what developers are afraid they'll see again in the new file format.
See the list of articles above. The point was that he changes the link that's on his name, submits a new spammy site, gets pagerank from google. Rinse, wash, repeat. Pretty standard to do that with blogs that accept anonymous posts, much more unusual (but also more effective) to do it with a site like Slashdot.
I can't figure out how he'd be making money though, I didn't see any ads on his site (though they might just be in my filter already), though he certainly had enough tracking javascripts at the bottom. Maybe he's building up pageviews, and will then add the advertisments? That might make sense.
Did anyone else notice that they've now turned on a Windows style autorun? Why?
"KDE has made an exciting breakthrough in its support for removable devices. On detection of specific media types KDE presents the user with a list of optional actions. These actions are configurable in KDE's control center and can be disabled entirely. This goes a great deal of the way toward fixing an old complaint, that managing removable media is too difficult in Linux, by exposing existing features in KDE and Linux to the user in an obvious fashion."
[pic of windows style autorun window here, offering to let you play the cd, rip it, open in a new window, and my favorite, do nothing]
Guess you've learned your lesson now. You're free to say KDE blows and Gnome rocks, or vice versa, and not be labelled flamebait or troll - but never dare to suggest that linux has a standard base or you're marked troll.
Amusingly enough, stories about the Linux Standard Base Project http://www.linuxbase.org/ are not labelled troll, though people often use their posts in those stories saying the whole thing is a waste of time, because by gum if they had to wrestle with dependencies for an hour to compile a program, you should too.
Linux Standard Base:
"We strive to develop and promote a set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. In addition the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for Linux."
Yeah, clearly a waste of time, or a "Windows for Linux". Sheesh.
Yeah, the no editing is the problem. Pure analog recording to pure analog medium played back with analog technology can sound great. But there's no room for editing, re-eq'ing, etc. and it's not a technique that's used any more anyway. And unfortunately after the physical degradation that occurs with rubbing a stylus over vinyl dozens of time, what you're left with in terms of sound quality is lower than what you'd have with a CD or especially a DVD-Audio.
I'm not a subscriber, I've never paid for slashdot. You do realize you can get an account for free right? I wanted you to be logged in so I could go post similar you = teh stoopid comments after all your comments. Fuckwad. You were totally wrong about your post and won't admit it.
BTW, you could mod-bomb me every day and it would never matter. I maxed out on karma several years ago and i get modded up routinely.
Yes, with a higher resolution audio stream your bits and bytes do more closely resemble an analog curve. But they are not analog, merely a better approximation.
Many audiophiles refuse to believe this when pointed out to them though.
These people ignore the fact that 99.9999% of modern vinyl records are mastered with digital equipment in a recording studio before being pressed to vinyl. Once it's been digitally mastered, you don't get an 'analog' vinyl pressing.
I wish you were logged in, AC. Kind of pointless to keep following up as AC when you're obviously the person I replied to.
Like I said, I saw one comment that pointed out that they weren't selling computer software. I don't see them being upset that open source was being misapplied. They're saying that the term isn't very descriptive of what Pajama Media is doing. Hardly a scathing cry of upset.
Also, the other Open Source Media brand is doing as much as possible in journalism to make the 'recipe' publicly available while the story is being worked on, and I see no problem with open source being applied to their version of journalism. There's 'open source' cola - does it make your blood boil that the term is applied to something other than computer software? By the way, I asked for a quote, not a reposting of the entire page. Your original point was that several commenters were upset that open source was being misapplied - you haven't shown anything like that.
That thing does not fit in with any audio-visual equipment I've ever seen anywhere. Looks like a cross between a generator and a 50's radio.
While not a HTPC, check out these add-ons for the mac mini: http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cultofmac/index.blog? entry_id=1280301/. They add sound and a hard drive. Not a HTPC for a working geek, but it would be pretty spiffy in the dorm room. Those are the nicest looking add-ons I've ever seen for any computer system.
I don't see anyone complaining about 'open source' on that page, except for one line pointing out that Pajama Media isn't selling software. Post an example maybe?
Interesting. I know Slashdot breaks their million page view per month limit (like in a couple hours), and I thought only users of AdWords were exempt from that limit? What's the deal guys? Anyone know anything else about Google Analytics?
When I used to use outlook web access with IE I hated it. It tried to emulate the outlook interface and popped up new windows with the email you wanted to see, with the predictable delay in opening a new window. Why there was any delay is beyond me, if you're writing an IE only web app you should use window.showModalDialog instead of window.open, but there was the normal 1-2 second delay while your message opened. Whereas with Firefox, it acts like normal webmail and is infinitely faster.
BTW, MS didn't serve up a 'crippled' version of the app to non-IE browsers on purpose. When the app was written, IE was the first and only browser to support XMLHTTP requests (albeit thru an ActiveX control), so they literally couldn't expect other browsers to support that method, hence the normal webmail interface for other browsers. I doubt they've done any significant modification to the app since then. Once they revamp hotmail to be an AJAX style interface I certainly hope they roll that into outlook web access, or they'll be giving away free email service that's better than what you can buy from them.