(...) they will always fight to keep the piracy levels as managable as possible, as they should.
Yes, they should, but in the right way, regardless of popularity. The fact is if the user puts something online he must know he is responsible for it and take it like a [insert gender here].
Actually this is part of the (wrong) principle that the website owner is automatically guilt for anything that is stored/announced/published there. People like the folks of MPAA just put the guilt in people they CAN disturb.
The real responsibility for content/files/etc... published on a website is on the publisher, not on the site itself, but this is obvious... or should be anyways. Problem is MPAA, RIAA and alike know that it's too hard to grab a user, so they just sue the service owner, making the very idea of aggregating any kind of content a real nightmare for anyone.
When your tag contains more than one word, separate them with an underscore, rather than a hyphen or a space
for an example. Of course it would be foolish to standardize which tags are "valid" or not, since this would destroy the whole concept of tagging. For that kind of purpose we have directories, like Yahoo! or DMOZ.
This whole thing about PHP being a non-secure language is so old that is getting really boring. There's no such thing as a bad programming language, there are bad developers.
You can write bad code in any language, it's your fault, your decision and yes, you should be held responsible for it.
PHP is an extremely easy language to begin with, so many developers begin their careers using it, therefore making bad applications. There are good Java coders and bad Java coders. There are good Ruby coders and bad Ruby coders. Why it's so surprising that there are bad PHP coders too?!
Where are the articles about GOOD PHP apps/programmers?! What I say is: There's a vice of calling PHP a less secure language. It's prejudice and misinformed. It's not good for the language, not good for the programmers and even worst for those who make this kind of statement.
Oh, and for those PHP features that are the source of many of the problems bad developers cause, PHP 6 will ship without the possibility of using register_globals, which is a very good thing.
The article is very good, but I disagree with the part of "one tester per developer". I don't believe there is a formula to use, since each system is/can be a different case. I don't have a good theoretical background about the subject, but for me it always seemed a good idea to divide the system in specific parts like 'login routine', 'add foo routine', 'database connection' (...), and then test them.
This may sound a little OT - sorry for that - but this story raised an old question here: is it really possible to do an automated content identifier/filter solution?
Personally I've always found these kind of solutions full of flaws. Take web surfing filtering for an instance: it's pretty common that the filtering software makes a mistake and end up identifying a "false positive bad content site". After all - google or not - both things follow the same basic principles, right?
... to see 'Web services' in that list. AFAIK Web services are used already in many applications. Maybe not calling it selves 'web services', but still...
So I wonder: What exactly people consider "main stream"? Quantification (how many people use it) or advertising/popularity (how many people scream "I use web services and I'm happy with it")?
There's a big difference: Since the participants were well aware that the subject was a computer character this experiment seems to be basically about psychological/physiological responses from the participants, while the original experiment was much more interesting as people really believed they were hurting human beings.
That's why the original experiment, IMHO, is so important: because it exposed the risks of "obedience-without-thinking".
But then again, I have little knowledge about the whole thing, so these are just my impressions.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I've meant was: Everyone (MS Windows, Mac OS) is moving (evolving, releasing new versions, implementing new features), so why Linux desktops aren't?
I believe that was the point of view that the OP was trying to make.
Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case.
Weather Vista is this or that it's not the main issue here. The problem is: Everyone is moving, so why linux desktops aren't?
As I've stated before, this is MS default "security" police: ask for confirmation. "Are you sure you want your data in the hands of others?", "Are you sure you want to execute this evil.exe?", "Are you sure you want your hard drive screwed?", and so on...
Funny thing MS don't ask questions like "Are you sure you want an annoying notice saying that your windows is not legal?"
Pathetic... but then again, nothing new on MS front...
Nearly every Web developer has cursed JavaScript at one time or another.
Not me, no, sir... JavaScript, weather people like it or not, is the de facto standard for client-side code execution. It's also what makes AJAX so interesting. Take off the "J" in AJAX and you'll have nothing. Take off the "X" and you'll still be able to work with plain text.
It's also important to notice that AJAX wouldn't be so hot without JavaScript's ability to manipulate the DOM of a HTML document.
The link leads to a page where I've found on big ugly Times New Roman Letters "Click on the sponsor logo to read this article and all of Salon for free". Okay, I click it, and then here comes the huge ad movie...
Gee, thanks... Instead of finding why the hell johnny can't code now I'm driving an Accura...
There goes MS again. Let me guess: it will show a big ass shiny shield with a really cool animated graphic and ask "Are you sure you want to execute this malicious code?" and when the user clicks the Ok button it will ask once more just to be sure.
Personally I'm very affraid about MS sniffing my code. Experience shows that it will let tons of lines of malicious code pass, while locking down many good codes out there.
When those people will learn to stop trying to do magic tricks and be serious? A solution to browser flaws already exists and it's not magical at all, but technical: it's called "patch".
Wouldn't it be great to drop in a single line of code to gain a huge amount of functionality that frees you for something else?
Actually my answer is "nope! not really!".
Coders - as the term implies - like to code, not to drop a single line and watch it gain functionality without knowing what's happening behind the scenes. Coders ARE behind the scenes, so this cow can be good for companies who aren't involved in web developing or programming of any kind, but not for us, programmers.
We code. There isn't such a thing as "something else" for us, but hey, thanks for your concern =P
Slashdot Mirror
Actually this is part of the (wrong) principle that the website owner is automatically guilt for anything that is stored/announced/published there. People like the folks of MPAA just put the guilt in people they CAN disturb.
The real responsibility for content/files/etc... published on a website is on the publisher, not on the site itself, but this is obvious... or should be anyways. Problem is MPAA, RIAA and alike know that it's too hard to grab a user, so they just sue the service owner, making the very idea of aggregating any kind of content a real nightmare for anyone.
- When your tag contains more than one word, separate them with an underscore, rather than a hyphen or a space
for an example. Of course it would be foolish to standardize which tags are "valid" or not, since this would destroy the whole concept of tagging. For that kind of purpose we have directories, like Yahoo! or DMOZ.This whole thing about PHP being a non-secure language is so old that is getting really boring. There's no such thing as a bad programming language, there are bad developers.
You can write bad code in any language, it's your fault, your decision and yes, you should be held responsible for it.
PHP is an extremely easy language to begin with, so many developers begin their careers using it, therefore making bad applications. There are good Java coders and bad Java coders. There are good Ruby coders and bad Ruby coders. Why it's so surprising that there are bad PHP coders too?!
Where are the articles about GOOD PHP apps/programmers?! What I say is: There's a vice of calling PHP a less secure language. It's prejudice and misinformed. It's not good for the language, not good for the programmers and even worst for those who make this kind of statement.
Oh, and for those PHP features that are the source of many of the problems bad developers cause, PHP 6 will ship without the possibility of using register_globals, which is a very good thing.
The article is very good, but I disagree with the part of "one tester per developer". I don't believe there is a formula to use, since each system is/can be a different case. I don't have a good theoretical background about the subject, but for me it always seemed a good idea to divide the system in specific parts like 'login routine', 'add foo routine', 'database connection' (...), and then test them.
Too amateur?
This may sound a little OT - sorry for that - but this story raised an old question here: is it really possible to do an automated content identifier/filter solution? Personally I've always found these kind of solutions full of flaws. Take web surfing filtering for an instance: it's pretty common that the filtering software makes a mistake and end up identifying a "false positive bad content site". After all - google or not - both things follow the same basic principles, right?
... to see 'Web services' in that list. AFAIK Web services are used already in many applications. Maybe not calling it selves 'web services', but still...
So I wonder: What exactly people consider "main stream"? Quantification (how many people use it) or advertising/popularity (how many people scream "I use web services and I'm happy with it")?
There's a big difference: Since the participants were well aware that the subject was a computer character this experiment seems to be basically about psychological/physiological responses from the participants, while the original experiment was much more interesting as people really believed they were hurting human beings.
That's why the original experiment, IMHO, is so important: because it exposed the risks of "obedience-without-thinking".
But then again, I have little knowledge about the whole thing, so these are just my impressions.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I've meant was: Everyone (MS Windows, Mac OS) is moving (evolving, releasing new versions, implementing new features), so why Linux desktops aren't?
I believe that was the point of view that the OP was trying to make.
Sorry, wrong blockquote tag ended up in bold :(
Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case.
Weather Vista is this or that it's not the main issue here. The problem is: Everyone is moving, so why linux desktops aren't?
As I've stated before, this is MS default "security" police: ask for confirmation. "Are you sure you want your data in the hands of others?", "Are you sure you want to execute this evil .exe?", "Are you sure you want your hard drive screwed?", and so on...
Funny thing MS don't ask questions like "Are you sure you want an annoying notice saying that your windows is not legal?"
Pathetic... but then again, nothing new on MS front...
There's no such thing as control of the internet. There is only "the will to control".
One thing on this article made me think: I was wondering if anyone tried this "massive toolbar installation" on FF and tested tabbed browsing to see if it works...
Great! I'm very happy now. I'll code 3x more to emulate some things that a REAL RDBMS should do by itself...
Rasmus should try a comediant career, since he lost any ability to make plausible arguments.
The link leads to a page where I've found on big ugly Times New Roman Letters "Click on the sponsor logo to read this article and all of Salon for free". Okay, I click it, and then here comes the huge ad movie...
Gee, thanks... Instead of finding why the hell johnny can't code now I'm driving an Accura...
There goes MS again. Let me guess: it will show a big ass shiny shield with a really cool animated graphic and ask "Are you sure you want to execute this malicious code?" and when the user clicks the Ok button it will ask once more just to be sure.
Personally I'm very affraid about MS sniffing my code. Experience shows that it will let tons of lines of malicious code pass, while locking down many good codes out there.
When those people will learn to stop trying to do magic tricks and be serious? A solution to browser flaws already exists and it's not magical at all, but technical: it's called "patch".