My bullshit detector is making a hell of a lot of noise.
Security is a function of the developer, not the language. To be sure, some languages have inherent security features that can help, but if you honestly think it's that much more difficult to muck up a Perl program than a PHP program, I've got some land near Baghdad you might be interested in purchasing.
Sounds like you are describing a sort of crippled Dreamweaver, which is what all this CMS business was designed to escape. At the risk of causing all the anti-Ajax people to have an aneurism, I think that when CMS's start adopting Ajax techniques, their usability quotient will go up pretty sharply. To my mind this is the sort of application for which Ajax is made -- largely internal functions in which you have some control or at least knowledge of the hardware being used. Moreover, updates and changes can be made in one place, rather than maintaining 50 copies of an app.
AI-driven interfaces predicting user desires based on billions of aggregated and sorted decisions will reduce clutter and confusion. Users who ever notice the interface will be unhappy.
What you are describing here is practically the exact opposite of what the Internet has thrived on to date. Clutter and confusion are why we all came here in the first place. The world you describe sounds a lot like Yugoslavia, circa 1956.
You are correct, in that this mission was suggested by scientists. You are also correct in that it has been in the planning stages for many years. However, until recently, it was in competition with other projects and there was never any guarantee that it would happen, even as it was being developed. Wired had a lengthy article on this very issue just a few months ago.
You are correct also, in that signatures don't fund space missions, that Congress does. However, Congress is answerable to the American people, and -- Abramoff shenanigans aside -- Congress does take public opinion into account. Public enthusiasm for this project was not *the* key factor, but it was not ignored.
Informal it may be. But I for one go to great lengths to see that my posts exhibit good grammar and spelling as well as at least half-way rational thought. Why do I care?
Well, these posts will be available for a very long time. I was once involved in a hiring decision at a company I worked for, and at one point someone Googled one of the candidates, turning up a huge trove of Usenet articles on alt.x-files. The posts made the person look like a complete doofus, and not simply because of their subject. They were riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, and their character was entirely juvenile, even though they had been posted by a 30-year-old woman. Stuff like, "David Dookuvnee is awsome!!! LOL!!!!"
Now, this might well have been questionable as far as hiring practices are concerned, but once you have something like this in your head, it can really poison your attitude. I've never forgotten it, and it has made me a much more careful person. I say either put in due diligence or make damn sure nobody can trace you.
Alright, let me rephrase. He allegedly broke the law. But it doesn't take a lawyer to look at the FISA statute and conclude that there is a case to be made.
People are upset because Bush deliberately broke the law, not because of the spying. Think what you like about Echelon, it's not covered by U.S. law. What Bush did was specifically forbidden in the FISA statute. Put that together with the constitutionally laughable "signing statements" he's been attaching to recent laws and you have a pretty clear picture of an executive with no checks on power. If you don't understand why that is a dangerous thing, I recommend you go find a fifth-grade civics book and read it.
Now then, where the F was the ACLU when the Clinton Admin was conducting physical searches without warrants?
Well, considering the law was amended to cover this shortly after, it looks to me like ACLU intervention was unnecessary. Don't try to confuse us with bullshit -- you can't get away with it.
Where was ACLU when Echelon (talk about lack of search warrants and a invasion of privacy) was uncovered?
Echelon was a lot of things, mostly bad, but it wasn't unconstitutional. Look, if you think the ACLU was doing such a piss-poor job during the Clinton administration, answer me this: where were all the libertarian legal organizations during Echelon? Why didn't they file any lawsuits?
In any case, smearing the ACLU doesn't get Bush off the hook. That's the saddest defense available.
But you know not to eat laundry soap, and you know not to grab women's naughty bits. This guy just wants to write a book about how not to eat the naughty bits of computers.
Yes, that's exactly what I need -- a million little cartridges to keep track of. Right now I have 18 programs running. Do I have to have 18 cartridges stuck into the back of my computer?
Ha ha. My probably too-subtle point was, you can't get parents to be responsible by just bitching on Slashdot, and the social problems that may (or may not -- the fact hasn't been established) arise from such irresponsibility will wind up costing you and the rest of us *even though you bitched and got a +5 insightful for it.*
Well, I'm not much in agreement with the law being discussed here, but I feel I should point out that if lack of parental supervision is a problem, it's a problem that isn't going to be fixed by simply not passing laws like these.
A few points about billionaires: 215 new ones in two years. At the same time we also added about 200,000,000 people. 200,000,000 people produce a lot of wealth. Guess who amassed most of it. That's right: people who were already rich. Calling them "new" billionaires totally ignores the fact that they were $900 millionaires two years ago.
And this: "Even the Waltons, which are technically heirs, are the product of being born to a self-made man." This is just ridiculous. "Technically" heirs? They are just heirs, same as any others.
Moreover, the Forbes article is full of shit. It says Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud is a self-made man. Please, he's the goddamn nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia. Bill Gates was born to a wealthy family and had a million-dollar trust fund, but according to Forbes, he's self-made. Silvio Berlusconi a rags to riches story? I think not.
As for anecdotal evidence and my analogy: Ordinarily I wouldn't have to go into this much detail with anyone except my three-year-old daughter, but I will spell it out for you in Very Simple Terms. One looks out the window and fails to see an example of predation. Therefore one assumes predation does not exist. Analogously, one looks at one's rich friends, and sees that they are all self-made. Therefore one assumes that self-made rich people is the norm. The point is not whether the assumption is a negative or positive one, but that it is an assumption made from false evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
My bullshit detector is making a hell of a lot of noise.
Security is a function of the developer, not the language. To be sure, some languages have inherent security features that can help, but if you honestly think it's that much more difficult to muck up a Perl program than a PHP program, I've got some land near Baghdad you might be interested in purchasing.
Sounds like you are describing a sort of crippled Dreamweaver, which is what all this CMS business was designed to escape. At the risk of causing all the anti-Ajax people to have an aneurism, I think that when CMS's start adopting Ajax techniques, their usability quotient will go up pretty sharply. To my mind this is the sort of application for which Ajax is made -- largely internal functions in which you have some control or at least knowledge of the hardware being used. Moreover, updates and changes can be made in one place, rather than maintaining 50 copies of an app.
AI-driven interfaces predicting user desires based on billions of aggregated and sorted decisions will reduce clutter and confusion. Users who ever notice the interface will be unhappy.
What you are describing here is practically the exact opposite of what the Internet has thrived on to date. Clutter and confusion are why we all came here in the first place. The world you describe sounds a lot like Yugoslavia, circa 1956.I personally don't like any of this stuff...
Hey man, you can admit it. This is slashdot.
Eventually all the wealth on earth will be tied up in a bunch of dead people.
You are correct, in that this mission was suggested by scientists. You are also correct in that it has been in the planning stages for many years. However, until recently, it was in competition with other projects and there was never any guarantee that it would happen, even as it was being developed. Wired had a lengthy article on this very issue just a few months ago.
You are correct also, in that signatures don't fund space missions, that Congress does. However, Congress is answerable to the American people, and -- Abramoff shenanigans aside -- Congress does take public opinion into account. Public enthusiasm for this project was not *the* key factor, but it was not ignored.
Informal it may be. But I for one go to great lengths to see that my posts exhibit good grammar and spelling as well as at least half-way rational thought. Why do I care?
Well, these posts will be available for a very long time. I was once involved in a hiring decision at a company I worked for, and at one point someone Googled one of the candidates, turning up a huge trove of Usenet articles on alt.x-files. The posts made the person look like a complete doofus, and not simply because of their subject. They were riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, and their character was entirely juvenile, even though they had been posted by a 30-year-old woman. Stuff like, "David Dookuvnee is awsome!!! LOL!!!!"
Now, this might well have been questionable as far as hiring practices are concerned, but once you have something like this in your head, it can really poison your attitude. I've never forgotten it, and it has made me a much more careful person. I say either put in due diligence or make damn sure nobody can trace you.
Alright, let me rephrase. He allegedly broke the law. But it doesn't take a lawyer to look at the FISA statute and conclude that there is a case to be made.
People are upset because Bush deliberately broke the law, not because of the spying. Think what you like about Echelon, it's not covered by U.S. law. What Bush did was specifically forbidden in the FISA statute. Put that together with the constitutionally laughable "signing statements" he's been attaching to recent laws and you have a pretty clear picture of an executive with no checks on power. If you don't understand why that is a dangerous thing, I recommend you go find a fifth-grade civics book and read it.
The ACLU picks and chooses its issues. That's just not something you can deny. When the group first started, they were a lot more impartial.
They have limited resources. What the fuck do you expect?Now then, where the F was the ACLU when the Clinton Admin was conducting physical searches without warrants?
Well, considering the law was amended to cover this shortly after, it looks to me like ACLU intervention was unnecessary. Don't try to confuse us with bullshit -- you can't get away with it.Where was ACLU when Echelon (talk about lack of search warrants and a invasion of privacy) was uncovered?
Echelon was a lot of things, mostly bad, but it wasn't unconstitutional. Look, if you think the ACLU was doing such a piss-poor job during the Clinton administration, answer me this: where were all the libertarian legal organizations during Echelon? Why didn't they file any lawsuits?In any case, smearing the ACLU doesn't get Bush off the hook. That's the saddest defense available.
But you know not to eat laundry soap, and you know not to grab women's naughty bits. This guy just wants to write a book about how not to eat the naughty bits of computers.
Yes, that's exactly what I need -- a million little cartridges to keep track of. Right now I have 18 programs running. Do I have to have 18 cartridges stuck into the back of my computer?
You do realize that this article is not about the United States, right?
I for one am far more sick of hearing people bitch about the hype surrounding AJAX, Web 2.0, etc. than I am of hearing the hype itself.
Yes. Yes you are.
Ha ha. My probably too-subtle point was, you can't get parents to be responsible by just bitching on Slashdot, and the social problems that may (or may not -- the fact hasn't been established) arise from such irresponsibility will wind up costing you and the rest of us *even though you bitched and got a +5 insightful for it.*
When you become a parent, you must accept the priviledge of parenting -- don't push it off on me.
and
Here's a guide to life... etc.
And how do you propose we enforce such good behavior as yours? Perhaps we could, oh, pass a law? But no, that would cost you money, wouldn't it.
Well, I'm not much in agreement with the law being discussed here, but I feel I should point out that if lack of parental supervision is a problem, it's a problem that isn't going to be fixed by simply not passing laws like these.
In combination with Dice, I think it is fair to say a relatively clear picture is emerging.
First, get elected to Congress...
They cancelled Ken Burns' "The Civil War" after just one week.
True, but it took a decidedly weird turn when the war ended after just a few episodes.
Watch PBS. They won't cancel anything.
A few points about billionaires: 215 new ones in two years. At the same time we also added about 200,000,000 people. 200,000,000 people produce a lot of wealth. Guess who amassed most of it. That's right: people who were already rich. Calling them "new" billionaires totally ignores the fact that they were $900 millionaires two years ago.
And this: "Even the Waltons, which are technically heirs, are the product of being born to a self-made man." This is just ridiculous. "Technically" heirs? They are just heirs, same as any others.
Moreover, the Forbes article is full of shit. It says Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud is a self-made man. Please, he's the goddamn nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia. Bill Gates was born to a wealthy family and had a million-dollar trust fund, but according to Forbes, he's self-made. Silvio Berlusconi a rags to riches story? I think not.
As for anecdotal evidence and my analogy: Ordinarily I wouldn't have to go into this much detail with anyone except my three-year-old daughter, but I will spell it out for you in Very Simple Terms. One looks out the window and fails to see an example of predation. Therefore one assumes predation does not exist. Analogously, one looks at one's rich friends, and sees that they are all self-made. Therefore one assumes that self-made rich people is the norm. The point is not whether the assumption is a negative or positive one, but that it is an assumption made from false evidence.
Talk about a goddamn fool.
RTFA. Mindstorms 2.0 was the best-selling Lego kit of all time at $200.