Yes, like those recent tunes, "This Land Is Your Land", or from any Disney movie or any Broadway musical or any of those other songs that kids sometimes sing in school. You're right. We shouldn't rely on the latest songs by current artists like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Peter Paul & Mary, Judy Garland, or any of those other faddish folk.
Of *course* you can still provide an excellent education without those songs, but if your school doesn't have lots of money to spend on copyrighted music (which few schools do), that education is going to be lacking in some important cultural touchstones of the past 70 years. It's not just trendy stuff the way you make it out to be.
And yes, I know all my exact examples probably wouldn't be a problem in Germany, what with them being English songs and all, but I've no doubt there are comparable German language examples that someone better versed in German music for the past century would be able to refer to instead.
I was responding to someone who was suggesting that you don't need to use proprietary drivers, that it's just a want. I said no, it's also a need. It might not be a universal need, but it's still a need. Does that clear up my point?
Depends on what you need to do. Some people actually need to do jobs which require they use modern graphics cards' capabilities. It's quite a stretch to argue those people don't need vendor supplied drivers. Sure, an individual (who is fanatically purist) could pick a different line of work, but SOMEONE is going to be doing that work (because society wants the work done), and that SOMEONE needs those drivers (because there simply isn't an alternative).
Now you know. And the Art of which you speak isn't about looking pretty, it's about being able to see the cleverly simple way to cleanly solve the problem at hand. It's an Art which isn't restricted to software, and it's most certainly not solved by architects. I'd equate the building architect to part of the requirements gathering process...then it's up to the civil engineer to find a way to meet the requirements (i.e., construct the damn thing such that it won't fall down).
You are sorely mistaken if you think Drudge isn't about the content of the story. He is very much about the content of the story. What I respect about his "spin" is that it's not a mindless slave to, say, the RNC, or Rupert Murdoch, or the Pope for that matter. He's a conservative, and the spin is generally conservative, but he's not mindlessly conservative. For example, in the last presidential election, it was Blatantly Obvious that he was pulling for Obama. None of the other candidates got nearly as sympathetic a treatment from Drudge as Obama did. As someone who was pulling for the same guy, I appreciated that, but don't think for a moment that the other candidates didn't notice or didn't care. Drudge has a tremendous ability to define "the story" with his story selection and that "slant" that you don't seem to think exists. The movers and shakers would love to have a better handle on how to get Drudge on their team, but he's been pretty successful at remaining fairly independent.
But don't mistake that independence for lacking bias. The bias is there and it's reckless to think otherwise. What's particularly appalling to me is that clearly, from your and other comments, there are a lot of people who seem to truly believe Drudge is completely objective when nothing could be further than the truth. It's kinda sad to me, too, that what I thought was a pretty reasonable discussion of that would get marked flamebait, but I suppose that's just/. not having the -1 Disagree.
And I could care less about who broke anything about Clinton. He was a fool for dallying around like he did.
Not even remotely true. Drudge exhibits its biases on a constant basis. They might not do it with lengthy prose, but they make ample use of the multiple tools in their arsenal.
First, there is story selection bias. Why does drudge highlight stories about "CityX has record cold day for DayOfYear!"? Because he's thumbing his nose at "global warming advocates". And that's just an easy example.
Second tool: link wording. He's not copying the source's headline, nor is he describing the contents of the article in some objective fashion. He's putting a spin on it with his choice of words. Granted, most headlines have a similar source of bias, but just because it's widespread doesn't mean it isn't real.
Third tool: highlighting. Why do some stories get the flashing red light? Why are some linked in bold red? Why are others bold? Others normal font? It's purely a function of bias. It's not the output of any objective function.
Is drudge worse than other sites? Probably not...although I think some of his biases are disingenuous (the aforementioned global warming issue being one of my big complaints. "Global warming" was a bad name, but right or wrong, it is certainly not proved or disproved because Arlen, TX had a record cold day on July 27th.). The biases that Drudge exhibits are true of pretty much any news organization. Only a more automated tool, more like Google News, is capable of being free of that sort of internal bias. Even something like Google News is subject to collective bias...if the majority of its indexed sites have a bias, the stories it highlights will likely have a similar bias...but at least it's not adding an additional bias for the most part (recognizing that they've added some extra functionality which isn't simply about indexing news sites...some "value add" stuff).
huh? there's all sorts of problems that have been solved by engineers where I'm certain the engineer went into the situation without a clue of exactly how they were going to solve the problem...and thus no idea exactly how long it would take. Engineering is only predictable in the sense you say if the problem being solved is one which is relatively common. But if you're, say, engineering a novel new bridge, there's a whole host of problems which aren't "predictable".
Are you responding to the same comment I see? Where does "running in a dmz" == "running as root"? Your points about it being bad for web servers to rewrite their own config are fine and dandy...but I'm hard pressed to see how they have anything to do with a dmz....
From TFA, looks like it's discussing a soft block...which would mean that Verizon customers could still edit, they would just have to do so from an account. No doubt all those Verizon customers will Really Suffer when they have to use/create a login to wikipedia...a login which is really nearly as anonymous as the ip editing. <gasp!>
Assuming $160k price holds, that makes for a 17% rate of return. Not too shabby. And, interesting enough, that's almost the same exact rate of return for someone who bought apple at IPO. Although the missing 4 years of appreciation would leave you with only half as much money.
leave out the part about the Pure Ones coming to steal their young away in the night to work as slaves in the fleck mines. *that's* just a myth...it's the wizards. really!
leave out the part about the Pure Ones coming and stealing their youth away in the night to work as slaves in the fleck mines. *that's* just a myth...it's the wizards. really!
leave out the part about the Pure One's stealing their young away in the night to work as slaves in the fleck mines.... *that's* all a myth...it's the wizards, really!
try intellij. it's far and away the best java editor. and you can configure what is expanded and collapsed when looking at a file, achieving your goal of hiding everything you're not looking at. All the major ides make inserting setters and getters fairly easy i believe. For IntelliJ, at least, ctrl-i gives you the ability to implement methods, and alt-insert allows you to insert getters/setters/equals/hash/tostring. I think...that the "issues" being discussed are VERY much an issue of editor design at least as much as language design. I think that lots of the "boilerplate" has value, or can have value in some situations. The key is having editors which are in tune with the language and which know how to make the programmer's job easier. I don't believe language design should be handicapped by what best facilitates development in vi. It should be editable in vi or other text editors, but I have no problem with a language designer taking more advanced editing facilities into account when designing their language.
Not that I think this has any business being used to verify school attendance...but on point 3: would the answer to that be for it to be challenge-response? i.e., scanner sends a unique, always changing code. chip encrypts, sends back encrypted version of code, scanner knows what the key used by that asset tag is *supposed* to be, decrypts with that key, verifies that key and id match and are correct. The user has no knowledge of key being used, therefore can only share by passing physical tag (which, in the aforementioned implant scenario, would be unlikely). Key could be designed to deactivate permanently if temperature drops too low to prevent accidental security breach due to amputation/death of owner.
So he has a different worldview than you (or I). Personally, I think it's much more interesting to try to understand how he sees things and what his vision actually is than to hate him for believing something which, frankly, is far from being inherently hateful. It's not like he held Facebook out as a safety-deposit box for your personal details. Yes, I completely think his vision was a little flawed because it didn't take privacy into account from the get-go. But I don't really blame him for not seeing every nuance of what he was creating. And I certainly don't believe that he had some grand master plan to eliminate privacy and that's why he built Facebook the way he did. I've known far too many programmers and/or technical managers who brush off this or that issue with their plan by saying "that's not important". Later, when pressed, maybe they (like Zuckerberg) might develop a rationale to attempt to support their decisions, but it's after the fact, not the reason for why they did (or didn't do) things initially.
The key point there seems to be who gets to define what "good faith" is. I'd imagine that the courts would say that, for example, you can't buy a stolen Rembrandt in good faith because you should be reasonably expected to inquire the provenance? It just seems like there must be some situations where the courts would not hold that the most recent purchaser of an item is, in fact, the lawful owner. Also, assuming that they *do* allow the current ownership to stand, where does that leave the original owner? Are they completely SOL? Is their only hope for redress to pursue damages against the thief? If there were other 'bad faith' owners prior to the 'good faith' sellers/owners, would they also be liable for damages?
I always hated that technique for extending the rubric of "swear word" to other words. It's idiotic. "here's a situation where you might feel a certain way. someone could swear in this situation, therefore, any utterance will be likewise deemed a swear word." when what I think they really want to say is "you shouldn't have those thoughts or feel that way."
I don't think that's entirely true. As should be quite obvious, pretty much all swear words have lost much of their ability to shock as their use has become more widespread...and yet I still find an appropriately placed "damn it!" or even 'fuck!' to be quite cathartic. There are more shocking, disgusting words ('santorum' comes to mind), but I don't curse simply to gross people out, I curse, when I do, because the curse words I'm using have definitions which are in line with my current sentiment.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, like those recent tunes, "This Land Is Your Land", or from any Disney movie or any Broadway musical or any of those other songs that kids sometimes sing in school. You're right. We shouldn't rely on the latest songs by current artists like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Peter Paul & Mary, Judy Garland, or any of those other faddish folk.
Of *course* you can still provide an excellent education without those songs, but if your school doesn't have lots of money to spend on copyrighted music (which few schools do), that education is going to be lacking in some important cultural touchstones of the past 70 years. It's not just trendy stuff the way you make it out to be.
And yes, I know all my exact examples probably wouldn't be a problem in Germany, what with them being English songs and all, but I've no doubt there are comparable German language examples that someone better versed in German music for the past century would be able to refer to instead.
I was responding to someone who was suggesting that you don't need to use proprietary drivers, that it's just a want. I said no, it's also a need. It might not be a universal need, but it's still a need. Does that clear up my point?
Depends on what you need to do. Some people actually need to do jobs which require they use modern graphics cards' capabilities. It's quite a stretch to argue those people don't need vendor supplied drivers. Sure, an individual (who is fanatically purist) could pick a different line of work, but SOMEONE is going to be doing that work (because society wants the work done), and that SOMEONE needs those drivers (because there simply isn't an alternative).
but that's kind of my point. i'm not saying i'm shocked he has bias. i'm shocked that people don't want to recognize that it exists.
Now you know. And the Art of which you speak isn't about looking pretty, it's about being able to see the cleverly simple way to cleanly solve the problem at hand. It's an Art which isn't restricted to software, and it's most certainly not solved by architects. I'd equate the building architect to part of the requirements gathering process...then it's up to the civil engineer to find a way to meet the requirements (i.e., construct the damn thing such that it won't fall down).
You are sorely mistaken if you think Drudge isn't about the content of the story. He is very much about the content of the story. What I respect about his "spin" is that it's not a mindless slave to, say, the RNC, or Rupert Murdoch, or the Pope for that matter. He's a conservative, and the spin is generally conservative, but he's not mindlessly conservative. For example, in the last presidential election, it was Blatantly Obvious that he was pulling for Obama. None of the other candidates got nearly as sympathetic a treatment from Drudge as Obama did. As someone who was pulling for the same guy, I appreciated that, but don't think for a moment that the other candidates didn't notice or didn't care. Drudge has a tremendous ability to define "the story" with his story selection and that "slant" that you don't seem to think exists. The movers and shakers would love to have a better handle on how to get Drudge on their team, but he's been pretty successful at remaining fairly independent.
But don't mistake that independence for lacking bias. The bias is there and it's reckless to think otherwise. What's particularly appalling to me is that clearly, from your and other comments, there are a lot of people who seem to truly believe Drudge is completely objective when nothing could be further than the truth. It's kinda sad to me, too, that what I thought was a pretty reasonable discussion of that would get marked flamebait, but I suppose that's just /. not having the -1 Disagree.
And I could care less about who broke anything about Clinton. He was a fool for dallying around like he did.
Not even remotely true. Drudge exhibits its biases on a constant basis. They might not do it with lengthy prose, but they make ample use of the multiple tools in their arsenal.
First, there is story selection bias. Why does drudge highlight stories about "CityX has record cold day for DayOfYear!"? Because he's thumbing his nose at "global warming advocates". And that's just an easy example.
Second tool: link wording. He's not copying the source's headline, nor is he describing the contents of the article in some objective fashion. He's putting a spin on it with his choice of words. Granted, most headlines have a similar source of bias, but just because it's widespread doesn't mean it isn't real.
Third tool: highlighting. Why do some stories get the flashing red light? Why are some linked in bold red? Why are others bold? Others normal font? It's purely a function of bias. It's not the output of any objective function.
Is drudge worse than other sites? Probably not...although I think some of his biases are disingenuous (the aforementioned global warming issue being one of my big complaints. "Global warming" was a bad name, but right or wrong, it is certainly not proved or disproved because Arlen, TX had a record cold day on July 27th.). The biases that Drudge exhibits are true of pretty much any news organization. Only a more automated tool, more like Google News, is capable of being free of that sort of internal bias. Even something like Google News is subject to collective bias...if the majority of its indexed sites have a bias, the stories it highlights will likely have a similar bias...but at least it's not adding an additional bias for the most part (recognizing that they've added some extra functionality which isn't simply about indexing news sites...some "value add" stuff).
huh? there's all sorts of problems that have been solved by engineers where I'm certain the engineer went into the situation without a clue of exactly how they were going to solve the problem...and thus no idea exactly how long it would take. Engineering is only predictable in the sense you say if the problem being solved is one which is relatively common. But if you're, say, engineering a novel new bridge, there's a whole host of problems which aren't "predictable".
Are you responding to the same comment I see? Where does "running in a dmz" == "running as root"? Your points about it being bad for web servers to rewrite their own config are fine and dandy...but I'm hard pressed to see how they have anything to do with a dmz....
No, it's an objet d'art.
I recognize a Skilosh demon spawn when I see one. Quick, somebody get the deoculation powder!
Infoworld == completely offline. Putting up a "geek test" is like dangling the red flag before a bull. Well done, /.
From TFA, looks like it's discussing a soft block...which would mean that Verizon customers could still edit, they would just have to do so from an account. No doubt all those Verizon customers will Really Suffer when they have to use/create a login to wikipedia...a login which is really nearly as anonymous as the ip editing. <gasp!>
Assuming $160k price holds, that makes for a 17% rate of return. Not too shabby. And, interesting enough, that's almost the same exact rate of return for someone who bought apple at IPO. Although the missing 4 years of appreciation would leave you with only half as much money.
leave out the part about the Pure Ones coming to steal their young away in the night to work as slaves in the fleck mines. *that's* just a myth...it's the wizards. really!
leave out the part about the Pure Ones coming and stealing their youth away in the night to work as slaves in the fleck mines. *that's* just a myth...it's the wizards. really!
leave out the part about the Pure One's stealing their young away in the night to work as slaves in the fleck mines.... *that's* all a myth...it's the wizards, really!
try intellij. it's far and away the best java editor. and you can configure what is expanded and collapsed when looking at a file, achieving your goal of hiding everything you're not looking at. All the major ides make inserting setters and getters fairly easy i believe. For IntelliJ, at least, ctrl-i gives you the ability to implement methods, and alt-insert allows you to insert getters/setters/equals/hash/tostring. I think...that the "issues" being discussed are VERY much an issue of editor design at least as much as language design. I think that lots of the "boilerplate" has value, or can have value in some situations. The key is having editors which are in tune with the language and which know how to make the programmer's job easier. I don't believe language design should be handicapped by what best facilitates development in vi. It should be editable in vi or other text editors, but I have no problem with a language designer taking more advanced editing facilities into account when designing their language.
What, that summer spent working as a Chippendale's dancer isn't helping to land the corner office? And it seemed like pure CV win at the time!
takes even less time if the kids have assigned seats. Not difficult to see that Bobby's desk is empty. Not a big hit with the kids, but effective.
Not that I think this has any business being used to verify school attendance...but on point 3: would the answer to that be for it to be challenge-response? i.e., scanner sends a unique, always changing code. chip encrypts, sends back encrypted version of code, scanner knows what the key used by that asset tag is *supposed* to be, decrypts with that key, verifies that key and id match and are correct. The user has no knowledge of key being used, therefore can only share by passing physical tag (which, in the aforementioned implant scenario, would be unlikely). Key could be designed to deactivate permanently if temperature drops too low to prevent accidental security breach due to amputation/death of owner.
So he has a different worldview than you (or I). Personally, I think it's much more interesting to try to understand how he sees things and what his vision actually is than to hate him for believing something which, frankly, is far from being inherently hateful. It's not like he held Facebook out as a safety-deposit box for your personal details. Yes, I completely think his vision was a little flawed because it didn't take privacy into account from the get-go. But I don't really blame him for not seeing every nuance of what he was creating. And I certainly don't believe that he had some grand master plan to eliminate privacy and that's why he built Facebook the way he did. I've known far too many programmers and/or technical managers who brush off this or that issue with their plan by saying "that's not important". Later, when pressed, maybe they (like Zuckerberg) might develop a rationale to attempt to support their decisions, but it's after the fact, not the reason for why they did (or didn't do) things initially.
The key point there seems to be who gets to define what "good faith" is. I'd imagine that the courts would say that, for example, you can't buy a stolen Rembrandt in good faith because you should be reasonably expected to inquire the provenance? It just seems like there must be some situations where the courts would not hold that the most recent purchaser of an item is, in fact, the lawful owner. Also, assuming that they *do* allow the current ownership to stand, where does that leave the original owner? Are they completely SOL? Is their only hope for redress to pursue damages against the thief? If there were other 'bad faith' owners prior to the 'good faith' sellers/owners, would they also be liable for damages?
I always hated that technique for extending the rubric of "swear word" to other words. It's idiotic. "here's a situation where you might feel a certain way. someone could swear in this situation, therefore, any utterance will be likewise deemed a swear word." when what I think they really want to say is "you shouldn't have those thoughts or feel that way."
I don't think that's entirely true. As should be quite obvious, pretty much all swear words have lost much of their ability to shock as their use has become more widespread...and yet I still find an appropriately placed "damn it!" or even 'fuck!' to be quite cathartic. There are more shocking, disgusting words ('santorum' comes to mind), but I don't curse simply to gross people out, I curse, when I do, because the curse words I'm using have definitions which are in line with my current sentiment.