Why is someone spamming from CoolTechZone.com and gets accepted?
The last two stories from CTZ were probably posted by the same user under different names, but what is common in both users is that they both specified http://slashdot.org/ as url (when clicking on their nicks). I don't think it's too far fetched to assume that someone is spamming with the intention to post inflammatory/poorly written stories to/. to drive ad revenue, apart from the editors of course.
Your post is the stupidest comment I've read whole day.
The criticism I've brought up is what pretty much everyone critical of PHP is saying for years now, I most certainly don't have to point this out to the PHP developers. If the developers didn't bother to fix this already, then writing a mail to their mailinglist could only possibly start a flamewar at best.
Re:Backgrounds of the PHP developers.
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Perl makes easy things easy and hard things possible.
About your example, It seems very clear to me, but I'm writing obfus atm;)
Re:Backgrounds of the PHP developers.
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
PHP wasn't always a "language" (I personally think it still isn't), but as a bunch of Perl CGI scripts, maybe thats why. It wasn't designed to be a language.
Adding even more functions?
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"(...)and over 30 new core/extension functions."
Ugh. Adding still to the inconsistent, namespace mess, PHP functions have? Worst. Decision. Ever.
I wouldn't use Windows if no advertisement is in it, so that doesn't make a big difference for me.
No, it's just not my kind of system. Also, there is enough adware in windows already after a while spent using the Internet from that kind of operating system, why add more?
IF someone wants to use Windows, he/she buys it, pirates it, or simply uses something else. Advertisement-supported windows would be the remaining few percent maybe.
Actually it is. A spamfilter doesn't try to bind meaning to what it sees, it just matches certain schemes and patterns which were created by artificial means (like by a bayesian filter) and scores based on that. An intelligent ad sensing mechanism needs to find _meaning_ in the emails - human meaning - to display relevant advertising. This means it searches for humanly defined meaning. That's like flagging an email with certain tags/keywords. That's exactly what certain government organizations (would) do to find what they want.
I'm not saying Google is collecting that kind of data on anyone, but that we shouldn't be confused to mistake it for a spamfilter. The actual meaning and human content of an email is no t the same one that makes up an email electronically.
The storage solutions are much more lacking in speed/reaction time than in size.
What I would like to see is not a 1TB harddrive, the size I can get today by buying two harddrives, but rather:
Speed: It is a real bottleneck, to wait for disk access. SCSI is expensive for the home user still.
Throughput: What, still under GB/s ?
Reliability: Since a harddrive is capable storing more and more data, it is more and more important to increase reliability, It takes time to fill up a hard drive, it takes a lot of effort if its a lot of data to backup, so more reliable hard drives would eliminate a lot of problems. I don't care about guarantee, that they exchange the disk if it blows up in x years, my data is still lost then. Let's not even talk about what happens if it's over guarantee period. I'd expect a hard drive to work for five years or so flawlessly, more isn't needed since the technology gets obsolete in that timeframe already.
"How is raising prices amoral or unethical? This is the basic law of supply and demand that all private buisness is based upon. The whole idea behind capitalism is to price things as high as people will pay for, it is the measure of success and quality. Profit margin is the basis for modern society."
Imo it is unethical if it's a monopoly who does that. That is not supply-demand, as iTunes demonstrated exactly that. The theory is nice and dandy in a _free_ market. Copyright is not, which becomes increasingly problematic in a digital age. Sooner or later we have to choose: copyright or communications.
"So obviously Sony (or the company that wrote the code if you want to get pedantic) is right to have infringed upon DVD Jon's code."
Actually, no. They are wrong if you look at ethics.
GPL and alike licenses are hacks in order to get some freedom into the copyright world. In my eyes it is only valid to violate the GPL if someone deals away with the whole copyright system, because from an ethical standpoint that would be better than having GPL.
In all other cases it is an attack on what little freedom we have in the copyright-abiding world. That is why I would defend the GPL to tooth and nail while condoning the copyright violations of some other kind, like music copying. I want the copyright system dramatically changed or burned to the ground, but until that happens the GPL is needed.
I'm feeling sad that these kind of measures can be introduced in the UK and the citizens of the UK doesn't feel the need to throw those responsible for this surveilance into the ocean or something.
Seriously, why is it, that we have to live in such a passive society? Like if it would have been bred for obedience.
First, there were cameras on the streets and noone said a word
Then, there were monitoring of cars and noone said a word ...
Finally, when I got stripped from all my freedoms, labeled a criminal, then, there was noone to say a word.
The trouble is that the international entity that people want to turn over control to is even more rabidly totalitarian than the United States.
I don't think so. See below.
I mean look at the critism that most Europeans have over the U.S.... it is too easy to get guns, there aren't enough laws to restrict buisnesses, taxes are too low, "hate speech" is not punished, health care should be nationalized and controlled by a central authority, etc., etc.
The problem isn't so clear cut, restrictions doesn't mean less "freedom" right away. The best example would be looking at the North-European democracies. They ARE more democratic and free than the USA, by several independent measures (I hope I don't have to cite sources for this, they are easily found).
The hate speech part is specific to Germany. I don't think we should generalize from that to whole Europe. They have historical reasons for their stand.
Healthcare is more about efficiency than control. It just works better that way. About taxes, I'm not sure what you mean, but yeah, we have more taxes, because we get more in return, including the above mentioned healthcare.
I don't think "wanting to restrict businesses" is valid. We would be stupid to do so, economically speaking. However, keeping businesses accountable is a completely different case. The problem in the USA about corporations is that they are a legal person, but without the checks and balances, so abuses crop up, to oversimplify things.
They are not complaining for the most part that the U.S. restricts freedoms, they are complaining that the U.S. is too free
This sounds too much like "they hate our freedom" part. No, we don't think the U.S. is too free actually, on the contrary (DMCA, Patriot act, "terrorist measures", etc.).
and a "cowboy culture" (actually, there are many European countries that are more free-market and laize faire than the U.S., like Switzerland... but that is not the stereotype that Europeans generally have about themselves and the United States... many Europeans consider being free-market liberals a bad thing, and so would take it an insult instead of a compliment when I call Switzerland free market).
I think your stereotype about what you think the europeians might think is a off a bit. The "hating free market" part might have been true to the old Eastern-European socialist propaganda, but that is the past and that never been true to Western-Europe. We actually like free market, maybe some monopoly-breaking measures like the anti-media-monopoly laws that prohibit anyone from controlling too much from a particular segment of the media or the case against Microsoft signifies that in the recent times.
The trouble is, as bad as U.S. starting to regulate the Internet would be, the people who want U.N. control want it because they feel the U.S. has been neglecting the Internet.
This is true, although a more appropriate word is mismanaged (the dns system).
It is not that they don't like U.S. regulations, it is that they don't feel the U.S. has been doing enough to regulate.
This conclusion is highly stereotypical based on your false pretenses. It is just simply not true. The Internet needs less regulation, not more. I am concerned by the FBI's latest attempt to mess with pornographic material, for example, but I could also mention ICANN's bad track record managing TLDs.
In fact many think this drive by the U.S. government to regulate the Internet more is being done as a concession to ease the fears of the people who want the U.N. in control of the Internet...
Heh, completely misplaced blame and actually the opposite is the case. Personally, I want an international entity, not necessarily the U.N., in control of the root dns system exactly because I am worried that the U.S. might want to regulate the Internet (apart from the mismanagement issues)!
From the article:"They want for the first time in history to separate us from the natural rotation of the Earth, which means as the years go by we will increasingly get out of sync with astronomy and the real world,"
In other news, residents of Kansas experienced a timeshift, time going back to 1213 AD.
Sometimes people call that 'faith' a long term decision, because eventually that's what it is. This is why the argument of using the "right tool for the job today" not entirely accurate.
The long term costs, the indirect costs for using a closed source software are often overlooked. Is it faith to prefer being able to access your data 10-15 years from now on?
Evaluating which is the right tool is complex.
Open source activists often get called zealots, faith-based persons, etc., but there are very real reasons as to why use open source instead of closed source even if the open source implementation is not so feature full as the closed source one. Free access to the code makes a lot of things possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is someone spamming from CoolTechZone.com and gets accepted?
/. to drive ad revenue, apart from the editors of course.
The last two stories from CTZ were probably posted by the same user under different names, but what is common in both users is that they both specified http://slashdot.org/ as url (when clicking on their nicks). I don't think it's too far fetched to assume that someone is spamming with the intention to post inflammatory/poorly written stories to
Your post is the stupidest comment I've read whole day.
The criticism I've brought up is what pretty much everyone critical of PHP is saying for years now, I most certainly don't have to point this out to the PHP developers. If the developers didn't bother to fix this already, then writing a mail to their mailinglist could only possibly start a flamewar at best.
Perl makes easy things easy and hard things possible.
;)
About your example, It seems very clear to me, but I'm writing obfus atm
PHP wasn't always a "language" (I personally think it still isn't), but as a bunch of Perl CGI scripts, maybe thats why. It wasn't designed to be a language.
"(...)and over 30 new core/extension functions."
Ugh. Adding still to the inconsistent, namespace mess, PHP functions have? Worst. Decision. Ever.
"that post copyrighted torrents,"
The torrents are not copyrighted (at least not by RIAA or MPAA). The data they point to is (maybe) copyrighted.
Piratebay and Suprnova do nothing illegal. It is not even unethical.
Way to not get a joke, *whoooosh*.
Actually, they were the first against the wall when the revolution came.
With kind regards, John Titor.
"Anecdotes do not evidence make,(...)"
Ah, I see young padawan, learn you lot.
BUT, I'm not going to BUY them personally. I'm sticking to my no Sony policy.
"but we were designed to die."
*cough*.
We merely evolved that way. I'll think I'm going to look for cover now.
I wouldn't use Windows if no advertisement is in it, so that doesn't make a big difference for me.
No, it's just not my kind of system. Also, there is enough adware in windows already after a while spent using the Internet from that kind of operating system, why add more?
IF someone wants to use Windows, he/she buys it, pirates it, or simply uses something else. Advertisement-supported windows would be the remaining few percent maybe.
"No different than a spam filter."
Actually it is. A spamfilter doesn't try to bind meaning to what it sees, it just matches certain schemes and patterns which were created by artificial means (like by a bayesian filter) and scores based on that. An intelligent ad sensing mechanism needs to find _meaning_ in the emails - human meaning - to display relevant advertising. This means it searches for humanly defined meaning. That's like flagging an email with certain tags/keywords. That's exactly what certain government organizations (would) do to find what they want.
I'm not saying Google is collecting that kind of data on anyone, but that we shouldn't be confused to mistake it for a spamfilter. The actual meaning and human content of an email is no t the same one that makes up an email electronically.
The storage solutions are much more lacking in speed/reaction time than in size.
What I would like to see is not a 1TB harddrive, the size I can get today by buying two harddrives, but rather:
Speed: It is a real bottleneck, to wait for disk access. SCSI is expensive for the home user still.
Throughput: What, still under GB/s ?
Reliability: Since a harddrive is capable storing more and more data, it is more and more important to increase reliability, It takes time to fill up a hard drive, it takes a lot of effort if its a lot of data to backup, so more reliable hard drives would eliminate a lot of problems. I don't care about guarantee, that they exchange the disk if it blows up in x years, my data is still lost then. Let's not even talk about what happens if it's over guarantee period. I'd expect a hard drive to work for five years or so flawlessly, more isn't needed since the technology gets obsolete in that timeframe already.
"How is raising prices amoral or unethical? This is the basic law of supply and demand that all private buisness is based upon. The whole idea behind capitalism is to price things as high as people will pay for, it is the measure of success and quality. Profit margin is the basis for modern society."
Imo it is unethical if it's a monopoly who does that. That is not supply-demand, as iTunes demonstrated exactly that. The theory is nice and dandy in a _free_ market. Copyright is not, which becomes increasingly problematic in a digital age. Sooner or later we have to choose: copyright or communications.
Why complain ?
Why not? It is certainly their right to price it higher, but it doesn't make it moral/ethical. Of course we can complain!
"So obviously Sony (or the company that wrote the code if you want to get pedantic) is right to have infringed upon DVD Jon's code."
Actually, no. They are wrong if you look at ethics.
GPL and alike licenses are hacks in order to get some freedom into the copyright world. In my eyes it is only valid to violate the GPL if someone deals away with the whole copyright system, because from an ethical standpoint that would be better than having GPL. In all other cases it is an attack on what little freedom we have in the copyright-abiding world. That is why I would defend the GPL to tooth and nail while condoning the copyright violations of some other kind, like music copying. I want the copyright system dramatically changed or burned to the ground, but until that happens the GPL is needed.
No hypocritical thinking here at all.
Isn't Sony the distributor, thus the violator of (L)GPL ?
I'm feeling sad that these kind of measures can be introduced in the UK and the citizens of the UK doesn't feel the need to throw those responsible for this surveilance into the ocean or something.
...
Seriously, why is it, that we have to live in such a passive society? Like if it would have been bred for obedience.
First, there were cameras on the streets and noone said a word
Then, there were monitoring of cars and noone said a word
Finally, when I got stripped from all my freedoms, labeled a criminal, then, there was noone to say a word.
Sad.
I looked and i found no substantial polish.
The installer didn't say "Czesc" and still spoke english. Where is this polish then they keep talking about?
The trouble is that the international entity that people want to turn over control to is even more rabidly totalitarian than the United States.
... it is too easy to get guns, there aren't enough laws to restrict buisnesses, taxes are too low, "hate speech" is not punished, health care should be nationalized and controlled by a central authority, etc., etc.
I don't think so. See below.
I mean look at the critism that most Europeans have over the U.S.
The problem isn't so clear cut, restrictions doesn't mean less "freedom" right away. The best example would be looking at the North-European democracies. They ARE more democratic and free than the USA, by several independent measures (I hope I don't have to cite sources for this, they are easily found).
The hate speech part is specific to Germany. I don't think we should generalize from that to whole Europe. They have historical reasons for their stand.
Healthcare is more about efficiency than control. It just works better that way. About taxes, I'm not sure what you mean, but yeah, we have more taxes, because we get more in return, including the above mentioned healthcare.
I don't think "wanting to restrict businesses" is valid. We would be stupid to do so, economically speaking. However, keeping businesses accountable is a completely different case. The problem in the USA about corporations is that they are a legal person, but without the checks and balances, so abuses crop up, to oversimplify things.
They are not complaining for the most part that the U.S. restricts freedoms, they are complaining that the U.S. is too free
This sounds too much like "they hate our freedom" part. No, we don't think the U.S. is too free actually, on the contrary (DMCA, Patriot act, "terrorist measures", etc.).
and a "cowboy culture" (actually, there are many European countries that are more free-market and laize faire than the U.S., like Switzerland... but that is not the stereotype that Europeans generally have about themselves and the United States... many Europeans consider being free-market liberals a bad thing, and so would take it an insult instead of a compliment when I call Switzerland free market).
I think your stereotype about what you think the europeians might think is a off a bit. The "hating free market" part might have been true to the old Eastern-European socialist propaganda, but that is the past and that never been true to Western-Europe. We actually like free market, maybe some monopoly-breaking measures like the anti-media-monopoly laws that prohibit anyone from controlling too much from a particular segment of the media or the case against Microsoft signifies that in the recent times.
The trouble is, as bad as U.S. starting to regulate the Internet would be, the people who want U.N. control want it because they feel the U.S. has been neglecting the Internet.
This is true, although a more appropriate word is mismanaged (the dns system).
It is not that they don't like U.S. regulations, it is that they don't feel the U.S. has been doing enough to regulate.
This conclusion is highly stereotypical based on your false pretenses. It is just simply not true. The Internet needs less regulation, not more. I am concerned by the FBI's latest attempt to mess with pornographic material, for example, but I could also mention ICANN's bad track record managing TLDs.
In fact many think this drive by the U.S. government to regulate the Internet more is being done as a concession to ease the fears of the people who want the U.N. in control of the Internet...
Heh, completely misplaced blame and actually the opposite is the case. Personally, I want an international entity, not necessarily the U.N., in control of the root dns system exactly because I am worried that the U.S. might want to regulate the Internet (apart from the mismanagement issues)!
that this is
"This bill could fundamentally alter the fabulously successful end-to-end Internet"
It should read as:
"This bill could fundamentally alter the USA's section of the fabulously successful end-to-end Internet"
Unless of course you want to give yet another reason for why the USA should relinquish control over root dns to some truly international entity.
From the article:"They want for the first time in history to separate us from the natural rotation of the Earth, which means as the years go by we will increasingly get out of sync with astronomy and the real world,"
In other news, residents of Kansas experienced a timeshift, time going back to 1213 AD.
Sometimes people call that 'faith' a long term decision, because eventually that's what it is. This is why the argument of using the "right tool for the job today" not entirely accurate.
The long term costs, the indirect costs for using a closed source software are often overlooked. Is it faith to prefer being able to access your data 10-15 years from now on?
Evaluating which is the right tool is complex.
Open source activists often get called zealots, faith-based persons, etc., but there are very real reasons as to why use open source instead of closed source even if the open source implementation is not so feature full as the closed source one. Free access to the code makes a lot of things possible.
Hm, ok. I started digging, i found this:
Original
Debunking