The comment said nothing of why she was hired-- the comment was in regard to her legacy. Calling out her legacy included designer skirts was undeniably sexist.
But I would agree the commentator is an asshole for pointing out someone's evident bias.
You know... I've always wanted a more complicated, over-engineered way of controlling the volume of my iPod. The volume control interface is just too damn easy to use.
Nothing I can think of, but thats not the point. The point is that in a federal system each state has the right to enact laws that make sense for its residents. If the residents of Arizona want the same protect from telemarketers that residents or Oregon provide then let them lobby thier state govenrement for that. The federal government is there to provide support for the system as a whole. This isn't a problem that requires an overeaching federal involvement. The best government, and in fact most government, should come from the local level and not the federal.
What would it cost to either a)delay launch until the site is standards compliant, b)rush production time to meet the launch date or c)just go IE and screw the rest?
It's great to try to be all things to all people, but it's inefficient and costs money. Money, I might add, that comes out of my pocket. Are you willing to pay a few dollars more a year for broad based standards support? How about a few hundred? Seriously, where is the line here? How much are you willing to spend to ensure standards support?
I'd rather see that money go to feed poor children, heal the sick, prevent disease or, God forbid, go into my own friggin' wallet.
Let's look at it another way: Should the government be required to make all documentation available in Esperanto; It is standards-based after all.
Ultimately, this should be about what it costs to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. If the office hit's 90%+ of the target audience and the other 10% or so could EASILY use an IE browser to hit the site, then I'm all for launching now and improving efficiency.
Why in the world would he be bitter-- hackers and criminals keep him employed and have made him somewhat of a known figure. I understand his frustration at the lack of real morality in some people, but the bitterness is a bit over the top.
Let's look at it another way-- do you really think Batman would be happy if Gotham (or the world) were rid of crime? What would he do?
Or yet another point of view-- hackers are actually helping the economy. They have created a new market in security which creates jobs, revenue and all the other economic benefits. As Gordon Gecko might say "Hacking is good!"
To expand this a bit-- without crime there would be no need for a police force. Without war there would be no need for a military. What would we do with all that excess production capacity?
So I have a software based suggestion for how to ameliorate the dupe problem. My suggestion would add a step to both the initial submit of the story as well as to the post of the story. Additionally, the responsibility for preventing dupes is shared between the submitter and the editor.
1) User completes submission form 2) The user's write-up is compared to the last year or so worth of posts. (You could pull keywords from the submission, pattern match or use any number of other techniques.) 3) The user is presented with a list of similar articles 4) The user then reviews the list of articles 5) The user either abandons the submit as a dupe or continues/certifies the submit as not a dupe to the best of his/her knowledge
The editor would encounter a similar process (following steps 3-5). It is important that the editors follow this process as well to help them find and reject dupes that a submitter may not have (or chose not to) noticed.
This would probably not eliminate all dupes, but should help mitigate the issue.
Isn't the competition obvious? Microsoft is/will be the biggest competitor to both Adobe and Macromedia.
SVG isn't really the competition long term for Flash. Macromedia hasn't been shy about the fact they'd like to turn Flash into an application front end for the desktop. Microsoft's Avalon features are a direct competitor to this.
Adobe and Microsoft have been skirting around real competition for years. XDocs anyone? There is no question that Microsoft will be looking to oust Adobe and PDF as the long term format for secure document interchange.
This isn't a merger of two major forces-- this is a merger of two minor players in the long term hoping to compete with the big dog.
So he took off... took 67 (or 80 hours depending on your source) and landed in the same spot. I seem to be running into a divide by 0 error on my calculator here.
Of course we don't HAVE to waste those keystorkes. If only we could harness the power of all those keystorkes and convert to electricity. I'm smelling a geek challenege here.... keyboard powered fan anyone? I wonder if you could generate enought electricity to power an old ZX81?
If you assume for a minute that patents are TRULY unique and must satisfy a fairly rigorous set of criteria to be granted this does begin to make sense. It is true at entity A could sue and entity B for violating its patent rights but that presupposes that the patent was truly unique. In the case of Operating Systems and the like, it would open the door to a whole new world of competition.
If protection rights were much more difficult to obtain, then the market for many types of software technology begins to open up. Sure it screws a couple of players here and there, but it opens up the industry to a MUCH larger group of players. In the end, I think this is probably a good for innovation and good for the market. Even Open Source projects could benefit by coming up with truly unique and patentable technology that would be afforded much greater protection than is possible with copyrights.
On the other hand, what's to prevent me from taking MS's Windows code, compiling it, sticking my own label one it and selling it as my own? Assuming they have no patented technologies (absurd, I know) in the code this would potentially be perfectly legitimate.
In the end, I think there is some sort of third option which marries the uniqueness and utility tests of patents with the strict "written" aspects of copyrights. Perhaps some sort of fuzzy match for copyrights makes sense. While you would be prohibited from redistributing existing code, code that is somewhat removed yet accomplishes the same tasks would be ok.
Clearly there is no easy solution, but anything that pushes innovation and opens up markets is worth considering.
No matter how much Barry White he has...
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
I also pointed out that should an election be the victim of fraud a recount would more than likely happen when teh result was something other than what it should have been. Clearly I can't fully defend this position, but it intuitively makes sense.
Moreover, I think the second requirement throws an undue burden on the IP owner. Someone is bound to say this isn't true because all parties would be required to work under the same market conditions. This, however, doesn't change the fact that some of the IP owner's competition would not be competing were it not for the fact they were able to get the IP owner's source in the first place.
1) Require a paper audit trail 2) Open the code for wanyone to see
Why is #2 necessary if #1 is implemented? Would not #1 ensure that the election is fair? Of course, #1 is only used in the case of a recount, but I would expect if the elections were rigged in any significant way (ie. outcome was something other than it should have been) then a recount would occur. In the case where an election was altered but that alteration had no meaningful effect on the outcome I don't really care.
Moreover, by opening the code you inescapably harm the code owner's benefit to having either created or obtained that code. It would be far to easy for another entity to steal or improve upon that code to create a competing product.
For those of you who are truly paranoid there is another option: Move the creation of electornic voting software into the government itself. Make it part of the FEC and then open source it. Mandate that all elections use this software so that there is no competition issue.
This, however, is an unattainable and uneccessary endeavour.
Requiring a paper audit trail should clear up any real issues thse machine may have.
On the face of things the criticism is aimed at the bloggers. The more disturbing accusation, allbeit veiled, is that the people are too stupid, ignorant or lazy to understand that the blogs are not objective news sources. It is as if the author thinks people can't evaluate the value of a news source.
Moreover, the author seems to suggest that people need to be shielded from these bloggers who are trying to mislead them. I guess the First Amendment only applies to Viacom and the like?
Slashdot Mirror
The comment said nothing of why she was hired-- the comment was in regard to her legacy. Calling out her legacy included designer skirts was undeniably sexist.
But I would agree the commentator is an asshole for pointing out someone's evident bias.
You know... I've always wanted a more complicated, over-engineered way of controlling the volume of my iPod. The volume control interface is just too damn easy to use.
Nothing I can think of, but thats not the point. The point is that in a federal system each state has the right to enact laws that make sense for its residents. If the residents of Arizona want the same protect from telemarketers that residents or Oregon provide then let them lobby thier state govenrement for that. The federal government is there to provide support for the system as a whole. This isn't a problem that requires an overeaching federal involvement. The best government, and in fact most government, should come from the local level and not the federal.
Sounds like federalism is working then to me. What works in TX may/may not work in ME.
Itchy and Scratchy have been doing this for at 15 years now...
Nothing to see here please move along...
What would it cost to either a)delay launch until the site is standards compliant, b)rush production time to meet the launch date or c)just go IE and screw the rest?
It's great to try to be all things to all people, but it's inefficient and costs money. Money, I might add, that comes out of my pocket. Are you willing to pay a few dollars more a year for broad based standards support? How about a few hundred? Seriously, where is the line here? How much are you willing to spend to ensure standards support?
I'd rather see that money go to feed poor children, heal the sick, prevent disease or, God forbid, go into my own friggin' wallet.
Let's look at it another way: Should the government be required to make all documentation available in Esperanto; It is standards-based after all.
Ultimately, this should be about what it costs to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. If the office hit's 90%+ of the target audience and the other 10% or so could EASILY use an IE browser to hit the site, then I'm all for launching now and improving efficiency.
Of course many libraries also lend DVDs. Somehow Blockbuster has managed to stay in business.
I could see Amazon doing with books what Netflix does with DVDs. It is essentially the same thing with the same issues.
Did anyone else read this as "Imsproving Evolution?"
It was a sersios Dr. Moreau moment....
Why in the world would he be bitter-- hackers and criminals keep him employed and have made him somewhat of a known figure. I understand his frustration at the lack of real morality in some people, but the bitterness is a bit over the top.
Let's look at it another way-- do you really think Batman would be happy if Gotham (or the world) were rid of crime? What would he do?
Or yet another point of view-- hackers are actually helping the economy. They have created a new market in security which creates jobs, revenue and all the other economic benefits. As Gordon Gecko might say "Hacking is good!"
To expand this a bit-- without crime there would be no need for a police force. Without war there would be no need for a military. What would we do with all that excess production capacity?
*tounge firmly planted in cheek*
ET: "Can you hear me now?"
SETI Scientist: "Damn cell phone interference."
You are going to make a great father. Maybe you'll luck out and your kid won't turn out to be "college material" so you won't have to pay for it.
Only 10 days? I guess the RIAA sent cease and desist letters.
So I have a software based suggestion for how to ameliorate the dupe problem. My suggestion would add a step to both the initial submit of the story as well as to the post of the story. Additionally, the responsibility for preventing dupes is shared between the submitter and the editor.
1) User completes submission form
2) The user's write-up is compared to the last year or so worth of posts. (You could pull keywords from the submission, pattern match or use any number of other techniques.)
3) The user is presented with a list of similar articles
4) The user then reviews the list of articles
5) The user either abandons the submit as a dupe or continues/certifies the submit as not a dupe to the best of his/her knowledge
The editor would encounter a similar process (following steps 3-5). It is important that the editors follow this process as well to help them find and reject dupes that a submitter may not have (or chose not to) noticed.
This would probably not eliminate all dupes, but should help mitigate the issue.
Thoughts?
Isn't the competition obvious? Microsoft is/will be the biggest competitor to both Adobe and Macromedia.
SVG isn't really the competition long term for Flash. Macromedia hasn't been shy about the fact they'd like to turn Flash into an application front end for the desktop. Microsoft's Avalon features are a direct competitor to this.
Adobe and Microsoft have been skirting around real competition for years. XDocs anyone? There is no question that Microsoft will be looking to oust Adobe and PDF as the long term format for secure document interchange.
This isn't a merger of two major forces-- this is a merger of two minor players in the long term hoping to compete with the big dog.
So he took off... took 67 (or 80 hours depending on your source) and landed in the same spot. I seem to be running into a divide by 0 error on my calculator here.
So what is the practical application here?
For those of you interested the sourceforge project page is at http://tivohme.sourceforge.net
Of course we don't HAVE to waste those keystorkes. If only we could harness the power of all those keystorkes and convert to electricity. I'm smelling a geek challenege here.... keyboard powered fan anyone? I wonder if you could generate enought electricity to power an old ZX81?
If you assume for a minute that patents are TRULY unique and must satisfy a fairly rigorous set of criteria to be granted this does begin to make sense. It is true at entity A could sue and entity B for violating its patent rights but that presupposes that the patent was truly unique. In the case of Operating Systems and the like, it would open the door to a whole new world of competition.
If protection rights were much more difficult to obtain, then the market for many types of software technology begins to open up. Sure it screws a couple of players here and there, but it opens up the industry to a MUCH larger group of players. In the end, I think this is probably a good for innovation and good for the market. Even Open Source projects could benefit by coming up with truly unique and patentable technology that would be afforded much greater protection than is possible with copyrights.
On the other hand, what's to prevent me from taking MS's Windows code, compiling it, sticking my own label one it and selling it as my own? Assuming they have no patented technologies (absurd, I know) in the code this would potentially be perfectly legitimate.
In the end, I think there is some sort of third option which marries the uniqueness and utility tests of patents with the strict "written" aspects of copyrights. Perhaps some sort of fuzzy match for copyrights makes sense. While you would be prohibited from redistributing existing code, code that is somewhat removed yet accomplishes the same tasks would be ok.
Clearly there is no easy solution, but anything that pushes innovation and opens up markets is worth considering.
he still can't get lucky.
Perhaps Arthur Anderson could supervise the election...
Ahh, I can hear the sounds of thousands of votes being shredded now.
I'm a bit wary of leaving elections up to the people who are already in power. Just seems to be a bit of a conflict of interest.
One of the benfits of having the states in charge of elections is that not all states are controlled by the same parties or interests.
I also pointed out that should an election be the victim of fraud a recount would more than likely happen when teh result was something other than what it should have been. Clearly I can't fully defend this position, but it intuitively makes sense.
Moreover, I think the second requirement throws an undue burden on the IP owner. Someone is bound to say this isn't true because all parties would be required to work under the same market conditions. This, however, doesn't change the fact that some of the IP owner's competition would not be competing were it not for the fact they were able to get the IP owner's source in the first place.
To summarize for those of you who did not RTFA:
1) Require a paper audit trail
2) Open the code for wanyone to see
Why is #2 necessary if #1 is implemented? Would not #1 ensure that the election is fair? Of course, #1 is only used in the case of a recount, but I would expect if the elections were rigged in any significant way (ie. outcome was something other than it should have been) then a recount would occur. In the case where an election was altered but that alteration had no meaningful effect on the outcome I don't really care.
Moreover, by opening the code you inescapably harm the code owner's benefit to having either created or obtained that code. It would be far to easy for another entity to steal or improve upon that code to create a competing product.
For those of you who are truly paranoid there is another option: Move the creation of electornic voting software into the government itself. Make it part of the FEC and then open source it. Mandate that all elections use this software so that there is no competition issue.
This, however, is an unattainable and uneccessary endeavour.
Requiring a paper audit trail should clear up any real issues thse machine may have.
On the face of things the criticism is aimed at the bloggers. The more disturbing accusation, allbeit veiled, is that the people are too stupid, ignorant or lazy to understand that the blogs are not objective news sources. It is as if the author thinks people can't evaluate the value of a news source.
Moreover, the author seems to suggest that people need to be shielded from these bloggers who are trying to mislead them. I guess the First Amendment only applies to Viacom and the like?