You only have to record your party affiliation in states that have closed primaries (i.e. primaries in which only people registered to that party may vote). Many states (like Minnesota, for example) have open primary/caucus systems, where anyone may show up and make their voice heard, regardless of their party affiliation. In fact, when I registered to vote here, there wasn't even a box on the form to record your party preference.
Besides, even in states that have closed primaries, you're still allowed to register yourself as "Indedpendent", (i.e. none of the above).
I guess that's one of the big differences between European and USAian attitudes. Here in the USA we treat governments with the same level of mistrust (and, in the case of some agencies, a higher level of mistrust) than corporations. In Europe, it almost seems to be the reverse.
Probably a combination of the concepts of clustering, outsourcing and thin clients. I mean, what you're really doing is paying another company to maintain a cluster that happens to run your thin client web app, right?
The *real* reason we're talking about the fall of IE (if you want to call it that) is that the web is mostly mature now, as a platform.
No. The real reason IE is no longer the sole dominant force in the browser space is because Firefox managed to match IE on price (free), while surpassing it in features (pop-up blocker, extensions, etc.).
It depends. I'm not a lawyer, of course, but, generally the legal system looks rather favorably on you if you're warning your boss about the possible legal ramifications. If you warned the boss, the boss can't toss the legal stuff down onto you by saying you went ahead and did this without his authorization.
Of course, in a criminal case its different. Its illegal for you to do something that's criminally wrong even if you're ordered to by your boss. But, in general, things like this aren't handled by the criminal justice system, but are usually handled by the civil courts.
They may have questionable morality but the fact is that you have agreed to work for and being loyal to them, don't sink to their level. They might even have legal grounds to sue you if they find out since you clearly have willingly sabotaged their business.
Since when did going in to work require you to hang up your morals and ethics at the door? If your employer is doing something unethical, many would argue that you're obligated (morally) to blow the whistle on it, since to do otherwise allows people to profit from unethical examples - setting a bad precedent. If your employer is violating a contract, you'd call them out on it. And that's exactly what a Terms of Service agreement is - a contract specifying the terms by which you may use the other site.
While this is good news, its still important to remember that Hubble is running on backup systems, and that whatever redundancy was built into the original design is largely used up. Hopefully this will allow NASA to push the scheduled repair mission forward.
Agreed. If the grandparent were looking at things fairly, he or she would find plenty of things that are unintuitive with Windows or Mac as well.
Typical example - how the hell does it make sense to drag a disk to the trash when you want to eject it? When you drag other files to the trash, they're deleted. Therefore, when you drag a disk to the trash, shouldn't it be erased?
While Microsoft hasn't directly attacked anyone, they've certainly tried to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt regarding the patent situation on Linux. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has claimed that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. If he wasn't trying to sow doubt amongst enterprises as to the long term viability of Linux, why would he do such a thing? Lets also not forget Microsoft's aid in arranging funding for SCO. So, while Microsoft hasn't gone after anyone directly for patent issues, they've certainly done so indirectly.
There is a reason why Windows servers are so popular and it is no one makes directory services, file sharing, group policy, and email/calendaring as easy as Microsoft.
Or perhaps its because no one makes directory services, file sharing, group policy, and email/calendaring as incompatible (with third party products) as Microsoft. Its not that Microsoft's products are any easier or more intuitive than the competition. Its that Microsoft's products work natively with Windows, and therefore allow Microsoft to leverage its monopoly in the desktop OS market into a monopoly in other spaces as well.
The reality is that the third option is the one that is frequently the right one: Acknowledge it and move on.
Unfortunately, in many cases, this isn't an option any more. In the current litigious society, if a security flaw can possibly be exploited, there's no way a company can go on record saying, "Yeah, we know about this vulnerability, but the costs of fixing it outweigh the benefits." If the vulnerability is later found and exploited, that sort of statement will be seen as tantamount to an admission of guilt in the court of public opinion, if not the court of law.
True, but even with those clauses there are still lots of ways to slip out of responsibility. For example, if you're hit by a virus hidden in a utility program, you'll have to prove that the lost time and data was worth more than the limit. In effect, it shifts the burden of proof to you to prove significant damages and away from the software maker, who doesn't have to prove that their program was perfectly safe.
On the other hand, it can be a win for the little guy as well. If I sue a big company for something that I believe I have a legitimate case for, and the judgment goes against me, I only have my own legal fees to pay. If I had to pay for the large corporation's legal fees as well, I'd be essentially bankrupted.
In other words, an automatic loser-pays system would make whistle-blower lawsuits almost automatically nonviable, since those suits are hardly ever sure wins.
a commercial software vendor could get sued (or lose credibility among people purchasing it..and lose the business) if there is malicious code in place, so it is in their best interest to make sure it's not there.
Not necessarily. Its pretty standard practice among software companies to put a clause into the license agreement indemnifying them from losses caused by the program. Every closed source program I've purchased has had that clause, either in the click-through EULA or on a slip in the box.
Getting the code in wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be easy in a closed-source project either.
Depends on the company of course. Yeah, at a place like Microsoft, or Google they probably use nice things like source control to keep track of who contributed what. But, there are lot of small fly-by-night software companies who don't do any of that. At a place like that, its trivial to get your code into the application without getting it reviewed.
My concern was that it's a similar situation with closed v open source; if someone working for a closed software company puts malicious code into a project and they get caught, they lose their job and face legal action, difficulties finding employment in the future etc. There doesn't need to be 100% detection for it to be an effective deterrent. However, if someone wants to contribute a malicious patch to an open source project, if they get caught they can just set up a new persona and try again - there has to be 100% accuracy in detection of malicious code, and the various C obsfucation contests show that's not an easy task.
While that point of view is certainly a valid one, it doesn't really seem to fit with my personal experience (your mileage may vary). I've found that all of the major stories I've read about "logic bombs" and other malicious functionality being inserted into programs are about closed source, rather than open source.
I guess it comes down to motivation. If you've got an interest in an open source program, its likely because you're genuinely interested in helping the program and making it better. Also, you're already a user of the program - why would you want to make it worse for the next guy to use it? Finally, you're not depending on this program to provide you with a paycheck - if your code gets rejected or you get "fired" from the project, the sting isn't as painful as losing a job.
In contrast, the motivations behind closed source programming are a lot more diverse. If you see your (programming) job as nothing more than a paycheck, if you think your employer sees you as nothing more than a number on a balance sheet, if you never interact with the customers or users of your program, it can be very tempting to put in a logic bomb or virus as a sort of "farewell present" when you get laid off.
Per capita GDP is not a measure of prosperity, as it often hides tremendous inequalities in the distribution of wealth.
Its rather a bit like the old joke, "If Bill Gates walked in the room, our average net worth would be over a billion dollars." In the same manner, oil barons and royalty in those states are enormously rich, while the average person makes a pittance.
All the the while "electing" and supporting violent leaders who do most of their crimes in the name of Islam.
Its funny you mention elections, because the most prosperous Muslim-majority nations are the ones that are democracies (Indonesia) or closer to it on that spectrum (Pakistan). The poorest Muslim-majority states are the ones that are under dictatorships, either religious (Iran) or secular (Syria, Libya, Jordan, etc.).
In other words, I'm not sure how you can blame the public for the actions of what is usually a very small ruling bloc.
That example works, though the thing I had in mind was more along the lines of C vs. C++ or Java. Object orientation in C is a pain.
Or, if you're of a more functional bent, you could think of Lisp vs. Java - its very hard (but possible) to write functional code in Java. Its dead easy to do the same in Lisp.
Slashdot Mirror
And even Manhattan isn't absolutely devoid of greenery. There's Central Park, and several other smaller parks scattered out on the island.
You only have to record your party affiliation in states that have closed primaries (i.e. primaries in which only people registered to that party may vote). Many states (like Minnesota, for example) have open primary/caucus systems, where anyone may show up and make their voice heard, regardless of their party affiliation. In fact, when I registered to vote here, there wasn't even a box on the form to record your party preference.
Besides, even in states that have closed primaries, you're still allowed to register yourself as "Indedpendent", (i.e. none of the above).
I guess that's one of the big differences between European and USAian attitudes. Here in the USA we treat governments with the same level of mistrust (and, in the case of some agencies, a higher level of mistrust) than corporations. In Europe, it almost seems to be the reverse.
Probably a combination of the concepts of clustering, outsourcing and thin clients. I mean, what you're really doing is paying another company to maintain a cluster that happens to run your thin client web app, right?
The *real* reason we're talking about the fall of IE (if you want to call it that) is that the web is mostly mature now, as a platform.
No. The real reason IE is no longer the sole dominant force in the browser space is because Firefox managed to match IE on price (free), while surpassing it in features (pop-up blocker, extensions, etc.).
Fermat's last theorem was proved by Wiles in 1994.
It depends. I'm not a lawyer, of course, but, generally the legal system looks rather favorably on you if you're warning your boss about the possible legal ramifications. If you warned the boss, the boss can't toss the legal stuff down onto you by saying you went ahead and did this without his authorization.
Of course, in a criminal case its different. Its illegal for you to do something that's criminally wrong even if you're ordered to by your boss. But, in general, things like this aren't handled by the criminal justice system, but are usually handled by the civil courts.
They may have questionable morality but the fact is that you have agreed to work for and being loyal to them, don't sink to their level. They might even have legal grounds to sue you if they find out since you clearly have willingly sabotaged their business.
Since when did going in to work require you to hang up your morals and ethics at the door? If your employer is doing something unethical, many would argue that you're obligated (morally) to blow the whistle on it, since to do otherwise allows people to profit from unethical examples - setting a bad precedent. If your employer is violating a contract, you'd call them out on it. And that's exactly what a Terms of Service agreement is - a contract specifying the terms by which you may use the other site.
While this is good news, its still important to remember that Hubble is running on backup systems, and that whatever redundancy was built into the original design is largely used up. Hopefully this will allow NASA to push the scheduled repair mission forward.
Agreed. If the grandparent were looking at things fairly, he or she would find plenty of things that are unintuitive with Windows or Mac as well.
Typical example - how the hell does it make sense to drag a disk to the trash when you want to eject it? When you drag other files to the trash, they're deleted. Therefore, when you drag a disk to the trash, shouldn't it be erased?
While Microsoft hasn't directly attacked anyone, they've certainly tried to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt regarding the patent situation on Linux. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has claimed that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. If he wasn't trying to sow doubt amongst enterprises as to the long term viability of Linux, why would he do such a thing? Lets also not forget Microsoft's aid in arranging funding for SCO. So, while Microsoft hasn't gone after anyone directly for patent issues, they've certainly done so indirectly.
There is a reason why Windows servers are so popular and it is no one makes directory services, file sharing, group policy, and email/calendaring as easy as Microsoft.
Or perhaps its because no one makes directory services, file sharing, group policy, and email/calendaring as incompatible (with third party products) as Microsoft. Its not that Microsoft's products are any easier or more intuitive than the competition. Its that Microsoft's products work natively with Windows, and therefore allow Microsoft to leverage its monopoly in the desktop OS market into a monopoly in other spaces as well.
Its WoW with blasters.
The reality is that the third option is the one that is frequently the right one: Acknowledge it and move on.
Unfortunately, in many cases, this isn't an option any more. In the current litigious society, if a security flaw can possibly be exploited, there's no way a company can go on record saying, "Yeah, we know about this vulnerability, but the costs of fixing it outweigh the benefits." If the vulnerability is later found and exploited, that sort of statement will be seen as tantamount to an admission of guilt in the court of public opinion, if not the court of law.
Are you using NoScript on one machine, perhaps?
You don't need to find a new way to block AJAX. NoScript blocks AJAX just fine.
True, but even with those clauses there are still lots of ways to slip out of responsibility. For example, if you're hit by a virus hidden in a utility program, you'll have to prove that the lost time and data was worth more than the limit. In effect, it shifts the burden of proof to you to prove significant damages and away from the software maker, who doesn't have to prove that their program was perfectly safe.
On the other hand, it can be a win for the little guy as well. If I sue a big company for something that I believe I have a legitimate case for, and the judgment goes against me, I only have my own legal fees to pay. If I had to pay for the large corporation's legal fees as well, I'd be essentially bankrupted.
In other words, an automatic loser-pays system would make whistle-blower lawsuits almost automatically nonviable, since those suits are hardly ever sure wins.
a commercial software vendor could get sued (or lose credibility among people purchasing it..and lose the business) if there is malicious code in place, so it is in their best interest to make sure it's not there.
Not necessarily. Its pretty standard practice among software companies to put a clause into the license agreement indemnifying them from losses caused by the program. Every closed source program I've purchased has had that clause, either in the click-through EULA or on a slip in the box.
Getting the code in wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be easy in a closed-source project either.
Depends on the company of course. Yeah, at a place like Microsoft, or Google they probably use nice things like source control to keep track of who contributed what. But, there are lot of small fly-by-night software companies who don't do any of that. At a place like that, its trivial to get your code into the application without getting it reviewed.
My concern was that it's a similar situation with closed v open source; if someone working for a closed software company puts malicious code into a project and they get caught, they lose their job and face legal action, difficulties finding employment in the future etc. There doesn't need to be 100% detection for it to be an effective deterrent. However, if someone wants to contribute a malicious patch to an open source project, if they get caught they can just set up a new persona and try again - there has to be 100% accuracy in detection of malicious code, and the various C obsfucation contests show that's not an easy task.
While that point of view is certainly a valid one, it doesn't really seem to fit with my personal experience (your mileage may vary). I've found that all of the major stories I've read about "logic bombs" and other malicious functionality being inserted into programs are about closed source, rather than open source.
I guess it comes down to motivation. If you've got an interest in an open source program, its likely because you're genuinely interested in helping the program and making it better. Also, you're already a user of the program - why would you want to make it worse for the next guy to use it? Finally, you're not depending on this program to provide you with a paycheck - if your code gets rejected or you get "fired" from the project, the sting isn't as painful as losing a job.
In contrast, the motivations behind closed source programming are a lot more diverse. If you see your (programming) job as nothing more than a paycheck, if you think your employer sees you as nothing more than a number on a balance sheet, if you never interact with the customers or users of your program, it can be very tempting to put in a logic bomb or virus as a sort of "farewell present" when you get laid off.
Per capita GDP is not a measure of prosperity, as it often hides tremendous inequalities in the distribution of wealth.
Its rather a bit like the old joke, "If Bill Gates walked in the room, our average net worth would be over a billion dollars." In the same manner, oil barons and royalty in those states are enormously rich, while the average person makes a pittance.
All the the while "electing" and supporting violent leaders who do most of their crimes in the name of Islam.
Its funny you mention elections, because the most prosperous Muslim-majority nations are the ones that are democracies (Indonesia) or closer to it on that spectrum (Pakistan). The poorest Muslim-majority states are the ones that are under dictatorships, either religious (Iran) or secular (Syria, Libya, Jordan, etc.).
In other words, I'm not sure how you can blame the public for the actions of what is usually a very small ruling bloc.
which has penetrated "98 percent of Internet-enabled desktops"
I find that turn of phrase to be quite telling, myself.
That example works, though the thing I had in mind was more along the lines of C vs. C++ or Java. Object orientation in C is a pain.
Or, if you're of a more functional bent, you could think of Lisp vs. Java - its very hard (but possible) to write functional code in Java. Its dead easy to do the same in Lisp.