If their introductory courses aren't preparing students for later courses, it seems a bit silly to be blaming any particular language. Introductory courses are all about concepts, and Java is perfectly suitable for that.
So what's with the snark? Just because they make you go to a store and limit it to a few albums--both of which are astoundingly stupid--doesn't make it any less DRM-free. Come on, slashdot... let's try, for a change, to have articles that don't make slashdotters sound as stupid as the people they are sanctimoniously ridiculing.
It's just a flexible volume-licensing, where the number of licenses and associated costs are left open for adjustment based on the needs of the business.
It sounds like the CNet author is just not a very smart guy, and that he doesn't really "get it"--remarkable considering the simplicity of the program. Also,as usual, it sounds as though there are a lot of less-than-bright slashdotters commenting. No offense intended to the 25-30% of slashdotters who actually know how to think independently.
First of all, the link you provided doesn't support your assertion at all, unless you are trying to attribute the opinions of the interviewee (Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith) to Reynolds himself.
Secondly, Reynolds' opinions are usually delivered in a very measured, reasoned way (he's a law professor), so he never "rahs rahs" anything, and to the extent that he will openly and consistently support any given policy he does so with legal justification, usually from a decidedly libertarian perspective.
He's a great blogger... I highly recommend that you try reading him sometime.
(And calling someone a "fascist" because they disagree with you--perhaps believing that the government should be able to listen to a call between two terrorists in Pakistan when it happens to pass through a US switch--makes you sound like a really, really unintelligent person. Just a bit of advice. It also conclusively illustrates that you don't even know what the word "fascists" means, which is a bit of a bonus.)
I don't know who the Dave guy is, but your post sounds conspiratorial and, generally speaking, pretty stupid. I highly doubt that the guy is "paid to try to make the populace think a certain way", and I think such a statement makes you sound juvenile and lacking in credibility.
Yeah, people attribute all of these crazy things to "the government", when in reality its just a job for an ASSLOAD of people, just like any other job. People sit around and edit wikipedia or surf the web just like they do here at my workplace and probably at your job and anyone else's job. I also think its a bit of a stretch to attribute any sort of ideological homogeneity to "the government", especially "staffers" and career bureaucrats.
Either way, the Enquirer headline about the government "censoring" wikipedia is bizarre and sensationally alarmist at best, and outright irresponsible at worst.
Just a few years ago Microsoft was pitching the world on how secure and cool XP was. Now it's telling us largely the opposite, implying that XP is a security threat
Just a few years ago, we were told to upgrade to Linux because of how secure and cool it was. Now, we are told largely the opposite, implying that we should upgrade to newer versions of SELinux because the older kernels posed a security threat.
6 years ago, Windows XP WAS secure and cool, for the most part. Shit changes in 6 years, subby.
I don't believe for a second that in any serious way "YouTube is increasingly a resource people consult for health information". People simply don't go to YouTube looking for medical information... that's stupid.
A stupid premise is no less stupid simply because a researcher from the the University of Toronto says it.
That's stupid. You sound as though you have no idea how a business works. When you buy MS Office, you are paying for MS Office... you pay for a particular product that YOU want, in exchange for a fair price that you agree upon. What Microsoft does with their profits after the fact is their business.
How stupid would you have to be to argue that Sony shouldn't be allowed to pimp Bluray, because people who buy a Sony MP3 player weren't intending for their money to be used to advertise Bluray? That's exactly the argument you are making, and I find it humorously fallacious on many levels. Maybe you should step away from the thoughtless Microsoft bashing, and actually think about what you're saying, and see what happens.
So you don't believe that Microsoft should be allowed to put an HD drive on their machines? Should Sony be forbidden from leveraging their own studios to push Bluray? Should Sony be forbidden from throwing around equally large sums of money to prop up their format, which they actually CREATED and own? Microsoft's windows marketshare has absolutely zero to do with this--as evidenced by the fact that Sony doesn't have an operating system and does the same thing--so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Being anti-MS simply for the sake of being anti-MS quit being cute about 7 years ago.
I guess I could see some merit in the article if you presuppose that I give a rats ass about bluray and that I thought that an uncontested bluray victory/monopoly would be good for such a young market.
But I don't believe that, and I think the submitter is an idiot. Microsoft has a vested interest in HD-DVD's success... the XB360. They don't want to prolong the format war--they want Bluray to lose, because that disincentivizes the purchase of their competitor's product, the PS3, which is likewise hoping to see HD-DVD lose and, in fact, CREATED THE F'ING FORMAT. And, of course, Sony would never work out a financial arrangement whereby a studio or retailer only provides titles on Bluray! Oh wait... THERE OWN F'ING STUDIO provides Bluray exclusives.
"blurayfanboi," indeed. Where does slashdot find such incredibly stupid people these days? I swear to God it's getting worse lately.
That article used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. But it got me thinking... perhaps we could group related snippets of code into units called "libraries", and then we could easily use those libraries to perform common tasks?
Something tells me there's another side to the story, and this guy is actually nothing more than a whiner who was fired for something more reasonable than the crap he is expecting us to believe.
75% or more of the comments here are expressing outrage that NJ is trying to require background checks. That should be a source of shame to people who still seriously consider slashdot to be a community of informed, intelligent people.
I thought Slashdot was against copyright protections, so what do you guys care? You've never cared about private property or intellectual property rights before. Or have the Nerds-On-High decreed that you should make exceptions for religious groups?
Don't get me wrong, I think these people clearly ripped off someone elses work and should pay out the ass, but I don't think this community has any credibility on this.
We have known for years that the US policy was to treat these guys nauseatingly well. Slashdot isn't known for having informed, objective people, but I am shocked at the gross ignorance on this board of things that have been public for a long time. For example, we have known since 2004, at the latest, that waterboarding required explicit permission all the way up the chain of command. We learned recently that it hasn't been used in 3 years, and that only 3 people were ever waterboarded. We have known for years, also, that soldiers were expected to treat prisoners with kid gloves--literally, in some cases--even as they had urine and semen thrown at them, and detainees trying to gouge their eyes out or choke them.
I suspect that it is a stretch, and highly unlikely, that this book made a profit. I get your point, but I think that language was unnecessarily inflammatory.
Slashdot Mirror
They said that people like Christopher Reeves would walk again if we elected THEM.
If their introductory courses aren't preparing students for later courses, it seems a bit silly to be blaming any particular language. Introductory courses are all about concepts, and Java is perfectly suitable for that.
So what's with the snark? Just because they make you go to a store and limit it to a few albums--both of which are astoundingly stupid--doesn't make it any less DRM-free.
Come on, slashdot... let's try, for a change, to have articles that don't make slashdotters sound as stupid as the people they are sanctimoniously ridiculing.
It's just a flexible volume-licensing, where the number of licenses and associated costs are left open for adjustment based on the needs of the business.
It sounds like the CNet author is just not a very smart guy, and that he doesn't really "get it"--remarkable considering the simplicity of the program. Also,as usual, it sounds as though there are a lot of less-than-bright slashdotters commenting. No offense intended to the 25-30% of slashdotters who actually know how to think independently.
First of all, the link you provided doesn't support your assertion at all, unless you are trying to attribute the opinions of the interviewee (Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith) to Reynolds himself.
Secondly, Reynolds' opinions are usually delivered in a very measured, reasoned way (he's a law professor), so he never "rahs rahs" anything, and to the extent that he will openly and consistently support any given policy he does so with legal justification, usually from a decidedly libertarian perspective.
He's a great blogger... I highly recommend that you try reading him sometime.
(And calling someone a "fascist" because they disagree with you--perhaps believing that the government should be able to listen to a call between two terrorists in Pakistan when it happens to pass through a US switch--makes you sound like a really, really unintelligent person. Just a bit of advice. It also conclusively illustrates that you don't even know what the word "fascists" means, which is a bit of a bonus.)
I don't know who the Dave guy is, but your post sounds conspiratorial and, generally speaking, pretty stupid. I highly doubt that the guy is "paid to try to make the populace think a certain way", and I think such a statement makes you sound juvenile and lacking in credibility.
Yeah, people attribute all of these crazy things to "the government", when in reality its just a job for an ASSLOAD of people, just like any other job. People sit around and edit wikipedia or surf the web just like they do here at my workplace and probably at your job and anyone else's job. I also think its a bit of a stretch to attribute any sort of ideological homogeneity to "the government", especially "staffers" and career bureaucrats.
Either way, the Enquirer headline about the government "censoring" wikipedia is bizarre and sensationally alarmist at best, and outright irresponsible at worst.
I actually have a screenshot of that.
Just a few years ago Microsoft was pitching the world on how secure and cool XP was. Now it's telling us largely the opposite, implying that XP is a security threat
Just a few years ago, we were told to upgrade to Linux because of how secure and cool it was. Now, we are told largely the opposite, implying that we should upgrade to newer versions of SELinux because the older kernels posed a security threat.
6 years ago, Windows XP WAS secure and cool, for the most part. Shit changes in 6 years, subby.
I don't believe for a second that in any serious way "YouTube is increasingly a resource people consult for health information". People simply don't go to YouTube looking for medical information... that's stupid.
A stupid premise is no less stupid simply because a researcher from the the University of Toronto says it.
Boot to repair console, type "bootcfg /renew". End of story.
Problem solved. Can you do that with a brick? Then STFU. :-)
That's stupid. You sound as though you have no idea how a business works. When you buy MS Office, you are paying for MS Office... you pay for a particular product that YOU want, in exchange for a fair price that you agree upon. What Microsoft does with their profits after the fact is their business.
How stupid would you have to be to argue that Sony shouldn't be allowed to pimp Bluray, because people who buy a Sony MP3 player weren't intending for their money to be used to advertise Bluray? That's exactly the argument you are making, and I find it humorously fallacious on many levels. Maybe you should step away from the thoughtless Microsoft bashing, and actually think about what you're saying, and see what happens.
So you don't believe that Microsoft should be allowed to put an HD drive on their machines? Should Sony be forbidden from leveraging their own studios to push Bluray? Should Sony be forbidden from throwing around equally large sums of money to prop up their format, which they actually CREATED and own? Microsoft's windows marketshare has absolutely zero to do with this--as evidenced by the fact that Sony doesn't have an operating system and does the same thing--so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Being anti-MS simply for the sake of being anti-MS quit being cute about 7 years ago.
I guess I could see some merit in the article if you presuppose that I give a rats ass about bluray and that I thought that an uncontested bluray victory/monopoly would be good for such a young market. But I don't believe that, and I think the submitter is an idiot. Microsoft has a vested interest in HD-DVD's success... the XB360. They don't want to prolong the format war--they want Bluray to lose, because that disincentivizes the purchase of their competitor's product, the PS3, which is likewise hoping to see HD-DVD lose and, in fact, CREATED THE F'ING FORMAT. And, of course, Sony would never work out a financial arrangement whereby a studio or retailer only provides titles on Bluray! Oh wait... THERE OWN F'ING STUDIO provides Bluray exclusives. "blurayfanboi," indeed. Where does slashdot find such incredibly stupid people these days? I swear to God it's getting worse lately.
That article used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. But it got me thinking... perhaps we could group related snippets of code into units called "libraries", and then we could easily use those libraries to perform common tasks?
Something tells me there's another side to the story, and this guy is actually nothing more than a whiner who was fired for something more reasonable than the crap he is expecting us to believe.
75% or more of the comments here are expressing outrage that NJ is trying to require background checks. That should be a source of shame to people who still seriously consider slashdot to be a community of informed, intelligent people.
I thought Slashdot was against copyright protections, so what do you guys care? You've never cared about private property or intellectual property rights before. Or have the Nerds-On-High decreed that you should make exceptions for religious groups?
Don't get me wrong, I think these people clearly ripped off someone elses work and should pay out the ass, but I don't think this community has any credibility on this.
Like GData. That has been around since the summer of 2005.
We have known for years that the US policy was to treat these guys nauseatingly well. Slashdot isn't known for having informed, objective people, but I am shocked at the gross ignorance on this board of things that have been public for a long time. For example, we have known since 2004, at the latest, that waterboarding required explicit permission all the way up the chain of command. We learned recently that it hasn't been used in 3 years, and that only 3 people were ever waterboarded. We have known for years, also, that soldiers were expected to treat prisoners with kid gloves--literally, in some cases--even as they had urine and semen thrown at them, and detainees trying to gouge their eyes out or choke them.
Sometimes the groupthink on slashdot is pathetic.
Were any of them, by any chance, named Fluffy, Snowflake, or Mr. Tinkles?
I suspect that it is a stretch, and highly unlikely, that this book made a profit. I get your point, but I think that language was unnecessarily inflammatory.
I'm not sure what you think a "typical Wal-Mart customer" is, but I suspect that 90+% of Americans have access to and occasionally shop at Wal-Mart.
B2B support? Consulting? Etc.?