I for myself still think global warming could be nice, after the initial, inevitable adaptation pains. More crops, more habitable lands.
...more disease vectors, greater drought, more flooding, colder and longer winters, drier summers...The list goes on. The fact that the issue has been "downgraded" is irrelevant. If we're still going to suffer 5 degrees increase in climate temperature, then the point is moot. Climate change is still happening, and its still a bad thing. I can see the evidence locally: the domestic livestock are delivering their young at the same time each year, but these days it's still frosting, and a lot of young die from the amniotic fluids (from their birth) freezing. The issue itself hasn't been downgraded, rather the level of impact humas have on it has. To me it sounds like we're in for pretty much the same disaster (OK, maybe slightly lower sea levels, but otherwise pretty much the same) and yet they now think mankind is a smaller factor in the situation... IE. our bad behaviour hasn't contributed as much as previously thought to the cause, so our remedial behaviour won't be able to contribute as much as previously thought to the solution. Scary stuff.
Because they are inefficacious. You can bet that the Department of Homeland Security / MI6 / ASIO / (insert your local stasi of choice) already know where they live too.
One man's revolutionary militia is another man's terrorist organisation. Seriously, what are the chances of an armed revolution succeeding in the US nowadays? Zilch - the participants would be off to Gitmo faster than you could blink.
Let's say you write a song at age 20-25 like the Beatles. Well, you'd have the rights for that until you're 70.
Wrong. In the UK, he has the right for 70 years after his death. It's his record company that can only retain copyright for 50 years.
Actually I see that as a good thing - if they don't sell out to RIAA they can keep making money until well after they're dead, but if they do then hell, let's cut the copyright to 5 years.
Paper and pen? Luxury. When I were lad, we had to use papyrus and lump o' charcoal, and compilin' were done by chisellin' machine code int' stone tablet.
I notice you didn't specify who fists whom though - perhaps they are lining you up for a bit of vicarious revenge on males in general. At the very least, make sure they take their rings off first, lest they take yours off instead...
You missed the major factor - contact surface area. If you've got a polished wood floor, a 120lb woman can very easily damage it in high heels if the surface area of the heel is small. I imagine a 300lb geek dressed as a pirate in high heels would go right through to his parent's basement.
Actually, as a theoretical worst-case he may have not even been the one who "put in the successful tender", and just been stuck with the rather lengthy maintenance contract.
Yes.
I know it can be used in annoying ways, how difficult is it to do something outside of superficial changes to the browser? A computer is practically worthless to most people if you cannot use it to browse the internet nowadays. So, forget about things outside the browser, and start thinking about user-website interaction through the browser. You can rely on so many trivial vectors to build an effective attack to manipulate a user's browsing experience, and in the case of most sheeple they'll be none the wiser. And the proliferation of it with the latest AJAX fad simply means more people are likely to have it on globally by default rather than have a degraded browsing experience.... as well as more sites with forms and other input vectors for XSS and other attacks too.
It seems like you should be able to have a simple scripting language that can only really manipulate superficial aspects of web pages without any real increase to the security risk. I thought this was what javascript was. Am I wrong? Largely, you're correct. But it's scope of manipulation is such that it can be effectively used to dupe gullible and/or less tech-savvy users into doing something foolish... It's an effective tool in the right hands, in as much as a hand-grenade is. Give it to someone who has no idea how it functions, with a "Pull Me" tag on the ring-pull, and the consequences will eventually be dire... even if it's not the fault of the grenade itself.
Again, it depends on the client and the situation. If they explicitly specify in the development contract they want it done the cheapest and fastest way possible, and you know there is no guarantee of you getting the maintenance contract afterwards because that goes out to a separate tender, well that's the way it's gotta be. I agree with you - it is a false economy as far as the client is concerned, and they should have all the information they need to make an informed decision, but ultimately it is theirs to make.
Of course, it makes my skin crawl too, and there's nothing stopping you turning down such a contract on principle. But if you don't build it some other code-monkey will.
If you think you're entitled to any indemnity by paying this extortion, you're sadly mistaken.
Personally I restrict my custom to companies who show some modicum of ethics and decency in their dealings, and I am willing to pay a premium for those principles if needs be. That's why I'll never buy (or allow anyone I know to buy) a Sony product again. I was never going to buy a Zune anyway, largely because it is just not worth it for the features. Hearing that it comes bundled with an extortion payment to the **AA is hardly surprising for a Microsoft product, but nonetheless is the final nail in the coffin as far as my decision goes. If Apple go down this route I'll likewise never touch an iPod again. There are still plenty of other choices.
In that case, why not tax electrical sockets? Everyone knows that everyone that uses electricity steals movies and music. And what else would someone need a computer at home for? That should be taxed too.
How dare you republish our business plan without our express written consent! What, stealing music isn't good enough for you any more? Rest assured we're coming for you, pal... that is, as soon as we're done with the local orphanage, the octogenarian scraping by on a state pension, and the guy who's been dead for the last 27 years.
Signed,
**AA cartel legal thugs. At least get the title right, it took years of Law School to earn it!
If you can't find some way or another to make doing it the "right" way pay extra dividends that users can appreciate, maybe it's not really the right way...
Sometimes the "cruddy" implementation is all they need. Why should they lose extra time and money to functionality they don't need? To borrow from the previous buzzphrase (Extreme Programming), once the unit test is green its good to go.
Really it depends on the client and the situation. Sometimes (as you suggest) quality, reusability and maintainability are more important than minimising time and cost. But sometimes delivering a predetermined standard of functionality/performance for the minimum cost, or in the shortest time, is more preferable. I've said it before and I'll say it again... Good, Fast, Cheap: pick two.
While I'll concede "mobile" is the default slang version, plenty of people still use the canonical term "Mobile phone" whenever there is a need to disambiguate the subject. Read a newspaper sometime.
To put the terminology in an OO format, IMHO the "Satellite phone" and "cordless phone" types inherit from the "mobile phone" type. For nominative consistency we should be referring to "GSM phones" etc. but it's a relatively new technology and sometimes it takes a while for terms to sink in... GSM will probably be obsolete before that happens, but people already talk about WAP phones, so you see my point. You don't call them all "objects" now do you?
Slashdot Mirror
Because they are inefficacious. You can bet that the Department of Homeland Security / MI6 / ASIO / (insert your local stasi of choice) already know where they live too.
Was "speicial relationship" a typo, or a deliberate mistake? The relationship does indeed seem to be becoming more and more specious...
One man's revolutionary militia is another man's terrorist organisation. Seriously, what are the chances of an armed revolution succeeding in the US nowadays? Zilch - the participants would be off to Gitmo faster than you could blink.
My guess would be some fella called "Windows Update"...
Wrong. In the UK, he has the right for 70 years after his death. It's his record company that can only retain copyright for 50 years.
Actually I see that as a good thing - if they don't sell out to RIAA they can keep making money until well after they're dead, but if they do then hell, let's cut the copyright to 5 years.
Paper and pen? Luxury. When I were lad, we had to use papyrus and lump o' charcoal, and compilin' were done by chisellin' machine code int' stone tablet.
I was thinking more along the lines of "Relax, guy! Put your feet up!"
...or for the Google-impaired, this...
Ballmer was taken out of context - they dropped the following sentence. It should read:
"Click Once and Run. Away."
I notice you didn't specify who fists whom though - perhaps they are lining you up for a bit of vicarious revenge on males in general. At the very least, make sure they take their rings off first, lest they take yours off instead...
Bill, is that you?
You missed the major factor - contact surface area. If you've got a polished wood floor, a 120lb woman can very easily damage it in high heels if the surface area of the heel is small. I imagine a 300lb geek dressed as a pirate in high heels would go right through to his parent's basement.
Actually, as a theoretical worst-case he may have not even been the one who "put in the successful tender", and just been stuck with the rather lengthy maintenance contract.
No, it sux bigtime. The plot moves at a glacial pace. Why do you think we're always trying to escape it?
Is javascript really that horrible?
Yes. I know it can be used in annoying ways, how difficult is it to do something outside of superficial changes to the browser? A computer is practically worthless to most people if you cannot use it to browse the internet nowadays. So, forget about things outside the browser, and start thinking about user-website interaction through the browser. You can rely on so many trivial vectors to build an effective attack to manipulate a user's browsing experience, and in the case of most sheeple they'll be none the wiser. And the proliferation of it with the latest AJAX fad simply means more people are likely to have it on globally by default rather than have a degraded browsing experience.... as well as more sites with forms and other input vectors for XSS and other attacks too. It seems like you should be able to have a simple scripting language that can only really manipulate superficial aspects of web pages without any real increase to the security risk. I thought this was what javascript was. Am I wrong? Largely, you're correct. But it's scope of manipulation is such that it can be effectively used to dupe gullible and/or less tech-savvy users into doing something foolish... It's an effective tool in the right hands, in as much as a hand-grenade is. Give it to someone who has no idea how it functions, with a "Pull Me" tag on the ring-pull, and the consequences will eventually be dire... even if it's not the fault of the grenade itself.Again, it depends on the client and the situation. If they explicitly specify in the development contract they want it done the cheapest and fastest way possible, and you know there is no guarantee of you getting the maintenance contract afterwards because that goes out to a separate tender, well that's the way it's gotta be. I agree with you - it is a false economy as far as the client is concerned, and they should have all the information they need to make an informed decision, but ultimately it is theirs to make.
Of course, it makes my skin crawl too, and there's nothing stopping you turning down such a contract on principle. But if you don't build it some other code-monkey will.
Ears, you missed ears....
Follow the lead of the KGB, give him a taste of his own medicine: some Baloneyum-210!
If you think you're entitled to any indemnity by paying this extortion, you're sadly mistaken.
Personally I restrict my custom to companies who show some modicum of ethics and decency in their dealings, and I am willing to pay a premium for those principles if needs be. That's why I'll never buy (or allow anyone I know to buy) a Sony product again. I was never going to buy a Zune anyway, largely because it is just not worth it for the features. Hearing that it comes bundled with an extortion payment to the **AA is hardly surprising for a Microsoft product, but nonetheless is the final nail in the coffin as far as my decision goes. If Apple go down this route I'll likewise never touch an iPod again. There are still plenty of other choices.
How dare you republish our business plan without our express written consent! What, stealing music isn't good enough for you any more? Rest assured we're coming for you, pal... that is, as soon as we're done with the local orphanage, the octogenarian scraping by on a state pension, and the guy who's been dead for the last 27 years.
Signed,
**AA cartel legal thugs. At least get the title right, it took years of Law School to earn it!
Sometimes the "cruddy" implementation is all they need. Why should they lose extra time and money to functionality they don't need? To borrow from the previous buzzphrase (Extreme Programming), once the unit test is green its good to go.
Really it depends on the client and the situation. Sometimes (as you suggest) quality, reusability and maintainability are more important than minimising time and cost. But sometimes delivering a predetermined standard of functionality/performance for the minimum cost, or in the shortest time, is more preferable. I've said it before and I'll say it again... Good, Fast, Cheap: pick two.
Ain't that the truth. The Mob probably own most of the criminal hackers!
Even if you're reclining in an office chair at your desk, "browsing for left-handed websites" doesn't count as sex...
While I'll concede "mobile" is the default slang version, plenty of people still use the canonical term "Mobile phone" whenever there is a need to disambiguate the subject. Read a newspaper sometime.
To put the terminology in an OO format, IMHO the "Satellite phone" and "cordless phone" types inherit from the "mobile phone" type. For nominative consistency we should be referring to "GSM phones" etc. but it's a relatively new technology and sometimes it takes a while for terms to sink in... GSM will probably be obsolete before that happens, but people already talk about WAP phones, so you see my point. You don't call them all "objects" now do you?