Anything to support that opinion? I mean, it's pretty damn sweeping. I suspect you don't even really understand Javascript - which is nothing unusual for a detractor.
"Understand" JavaScript? How can anyone understand JavaScript, first of all? Secondly, I understand it insofar as most any programmer does -- I understand what it can do and how to accomplish the things I need to do with it. Do I "understand" it like I do a great language like Python? Hell no! Why? Because it's impossible to understand like the latter.
Regarding AJAX being a kludge, the concept isn't, but the implementation is. It's implemented in JavaScript, which, by definition, makes it kludgy.
I don't think the parent was implying the AJAX, itself, is too complex, but rather that JavaScript is, a statement which I entirely agree with. To do anything in JavaScript requires many lines of code -- and kludgy code, to me. JavaScript needs to either be seriously revamped or entirely rewritten. Unfortunately, the time it will take to a) get this new language written and, most importantly, b) get it standardized in all the major browsers (*ahem* especially IE) would probably just be too long. I don't think JavaScript is going to get a major revamp anytime soon. I think it's time for an alternative, though.
Hey, client-side Python would be great; I'm all for it!:)
Hey, as long as the car itself uses another fuel source, people and government agencies will love and applaud it! Disregard the prices of natural gas -- they're not relevant!
Yeah, I'd have to agree with you; Slashdot moderators are definitely on crack. Just because of my somewhat turbulent history here with supposed flamebait and trolling, my good posts aren't modded up and my bad ones are modded down.
While the concept of "class sites" where profound interactions between teacher and student can take place seems nice (and it really does), it was implemented in such a way that even the most intelligent of geniuses can't figure out its interface and why some things were done the way they were.
First of all, we use Blackboard in my county, and it was an exciting thing when we first got it. Wow, we thought, we could finally check our assignments online! But the novelty quickly wore down when teachers realized that they had to go to Hell and back to enter in their class rosters and get each of their classes set up under the interface. It then became a source of conflict between teachers and students when sometimes teachers forgot to put in their assignments for the day and students would come to class with the excuse that because their teachers forgot, they were somehow no longer obligated to do that class's assignments. This just led to more problems than it fixed.
Then, Blackboard would go down several times a year for "maintenance" or some other nonsense for periods of up to a few days. How can teachers and students rely on a service that goes down for days at a time?
Furthermore, the interface is just awful. It looks like some kindergartener went into MS Paint and made all the little buttons that you see for each class on the left.
Lastly (that I can list right now), there are too many security and ethical concerns with listing grades online, at least in my county. So, we're not even utilizing that (and more) functionality of Blackboard, which in many respects is the coolest part about it! I would definitely like to be able to log on to Blackboard and check the results of a quiz or test I recently took, or even see a list of all my grades so far so that I could know and act accordingly.
Maybe this merger will bring about positive changes, but somehow I doubt it. I just hope some decent OSS alternative comes around.
Just because something is invented doesn't justify its widespread use. It has been made quite obvious by the majority of Americans in the past several years that they are the metaphorical sheep in the herd.
With possible abuse by government and free-market corporations alike, it is quite essential to be cynical. After all, who in history has turned the tide of the slippery slope but cynics?
Again, like some others have said, it's not the ostensible *idea* that's bad -- in fact, the idea itself is superficially good -- but the inevitable abuse that will occur with the issuing of such implanted chips.
At least to me, it seems glaringly obvious that these cards will be pushed for sex offenders, "so they can be tracked at all times;" for small children, "so their parents know where they are at all times;" for mentally and physically handicapped persons, "for their well-being and safety;" for air travellers, "for our safety and security;" for convicted felons, "for our safety and security;" and the list just goes on, as more politicians can think of more ways to institute the chip.
On the other hand, like you said, there are some good things to be said for such a chip, like unified credit cards, drivers licenses, personal information to verify identity, credit reports, etc. etc. etc. But what happens when hackers get into people's chips? Your entire life can be ruined. What happens when there are new, initially "optional" programs that allow government agencies to track you "for your safety?" I'd bet you that half the country would be willing to sign up for that, right off the bat. They've already demonstrated that will with the PATRIOT Act.
That's pretty much along the lines that I was thinking when I read this article. I don't understand how some people can support this -- unless, of course, you're a rabid Christian fundamentalist who believes in the GWB and all that.
As it is, you're just doing something that is easy and makes you feel like you're fighting The Man, but the only real effect is to harrass some wage slaves. I hope you'll someday have the experience of being harrassed by people who figure that maybe, just maybe, your irritation will trickle a dozen levels up the chain and convince your boss's boss's boss's boss's boss to change something.
I look forward to that day, because that day is when I quit that job. If I'm ever in that position, it's because my job's responsibilities include annoying and pestering people.
There's absolutely no use arguing with you, but to do something is at least better than doing nothing. Both you and I are both going off of assumptions, you that it will do virtually nothing, me that it will do something, even if it won't rid the world of the hellish TSA and related government agencies (*cough* DHS). At least there's a small chance that I'll get somewhere with mine, whereas with yours, you've basically conceded failure to change anything and are now doing as you're told -- exactly what the TSA wants from you.
TSA employees can do something under pressure and they subsequently will do something if enough people bother them and give 'em a hard time about everything. They'll complain to their boss, who will in turn complain to his/her boss, and the chain will continue. Perhaps not immediately, but it is quite inevitable that if enough people give enough TSA employees a hard enough time, something will happen to bring about change. Note that these "enoughs" are purely hypothetical and dependent upon people actually doing this, so at this rate, it doesn't look like much is going to happen.
Also, I think you're assuming that these congressmen think that most people are happy with the way airport security is being handled -- or, at the very least, the direction it is headed. However, do you really know? When the congressmen voted for the Patriot Act, did they ask the public what they thought? Did they even care?
Exchanging a body search for removing your shoes isn't standing up for your rights. It's just inconveniencing yourself to no benefit. And it won't make the TSA do anything at all... they'll happily hold up the line behind you in order to search you thoroughly. If enough people did it to slow down the security lines significantly, they'd just use that to argue they need more staff and/or the new backscatter x-ray machines so they can violate your privacy more quickly and more thoroughly.
I'm surprised that, considering you travel by air each week, you haven't perceived annoyance or frustration from TSA employees when someone refuses to take their shoes off -- or, more likely, you just haven't seen anyone refuse.
If you want to stand up for your rights, join John Gilmore and refuse to show ID. Demand that they show you the law that requires you to identify yourself. More realistically for most of us, writing your congressmen will have far more impact than keeping your shoes on. If even ten percent of travelers bothered to do that, we'd see some changes. After writing to your congressmen, write to the major airlines and tell them that due to the invasive security requirements you've decided to take the train rather than fly. Then do it. If a significant percentage of travelers did that you can be certain things would change. After all, the whole point of instituting the post-9/11 security "enhancements" was to keep the airlines from going bankrupt.
There isn't just one way to stand up for your rights and that's it. Writing to your congressman is useless, because they'll never do anything about it. They know that a lot of people are fed up with the TSA and its policies, but heck, mine voted for the bill that instituted the TSA.
Civil disobedience and making a big scene are more useful than passive requests for change by writing to your useless congressman.
What ID are you talking about? At security? Sure, one can question all that -- and validly, as well -- but refusing to take one's shoes off is another way to trouble the TSA's employees, and it seems to work pretty well. I should demand that they show me a section of their code that allows them to demand that people take their shoes off or they'll be patted down and wanded -- or a section of their code, at all.
It's not mere and trivial recalcitrance that leads me to disobey the so-called "authority" that is the TSA.
Think about it this way: if enough people do a certain thing, they're bound to make a difference. If enough people just stand up for their rights and say, "I've had enough," you can bet the TSA will be forced to revise its draconian policies.
On the other hand, if you don't want to waste a few minutes to make a public statement and state your disagreement with these policies (and politics) -- however trivial it might ostensibly be -- that's fine, but don't expect change anytime soon.
I don't know why all of my posts are modded so low all the time. I think the mods have something against me.:D
Actually, they don't mandate it. They just "recommend" it. You're not required to take your shoes off. If you go to an airport where the TSA "recommends" that you take them off, and you refuse, then you will be wanded and patted down, and may have your bags searched as well.
In my book, "recommend" meets "mandate" when one has no other choice but to either take off his shoes or be searched, wanded, and patted down like an illegal Mexican immigrant.
Look over your stuff and wand you and patt you down... I travel enough that I've learned it's quicker to take off my shoes. I try to wear shoes that I can remove and replace quickly.
It's great that you go along with the crowd. Heck, you've even found a way to go along with the crowd faster!
Except that your suggestion -- just go through the more rigorous security check -- doesn't really fight the process. You just take a different, and less convenient, route through it. The real problem is the whole notion that you should be subject to a search of your person and your belongings before you're allowed on an airplane. Not to mention the fact that you're required to identify yourself. Of course, the really huge problem, as John Gilmore discovered, is that the laws that require all of this, the laws that make it *legal* for the TSA to refuse to allow you to board a plane if you don't participate in their little security theatre, are secret. You can't check to see if the TSA is overstepping their authority, or even find out just how far they're legally allowed to go, because you're not allowed to read the laws that give them their authority.
The real problems are entirely unaffected by whether you choose to be patted down rather than making the TSA agents smell your stinky feet.
I understand what the real problem is, but now I think we're just being idealistic. I was just stating what *we* do when we are "recommended" to take off our shoes by the TSA "agents," not stating that I am solving the problem by refusing their "request."
Most people just hand it over. I would love to get into the social reasons for this, but for now, I'll just say that we're all (in Western countries at least) to just shutup and hand over anything anyone in authority or perceived authority requests...I'm starting to rant and my spellink is going to hell. Off to the porn sitesss!
That's very true.
I bet all of us have been to U.S. airports post-9/11. What's with the TSA mandating that everyone takes their shoes off? We just don't do it, and if they give us a hard time, we'll wait in that little compartment until they look over our stuff and let us go. Too many Americans just think, "oh well, it's no big deal; just get it over with." However, that's an awful mentality when we consider history and how it's affected previously apathetic populations. Needless to say, no longer were they apathetic!
No, I really don't think the distinction between using open-source and making money off of OSS is necessarily all that clear. One could say that Red Hat could have used any OS and still have pulled a profit -- perhaps BSD or even something totally different. And, as you said, one could say that TiVo's product didn't depend on and make money off of open-source products, specifically, but its success can only be attributed to the product. However, perhaps Linux and OSS provided the most viable option for building its OS and, subsequently, its product and service. Thus, one can say that one of the ways they made money was through their use of Linux and OSS.
I don't think a company has to specifically specialize in building open-source software to be classified as profit-generating from open-source products.
Aren't there some implications with this idea, that maybe it's trying to enable people to download illegal or illegitimate files? I mean, many of these so-called "polluted" files are polluted for a reason: because they're illegal for just any person without a license to have. By coming out with an idea that goes against protections against this illegal downloading, I would think there's some sort of implied statement here.
Planned what? That still doesn't mean that he doesn't think he invaded Iraq for a good cause, because he sure might.
Besides, I didn't say he *does* think it's a truth, just that he might, for all we know.
This is probably _the_ most important point. No matter how much you secure the software, the users are always a weak point. For the servers this isn't a big deal coz anyone who can log into them has (hopefully) got a clue. But you don't need to compromise the servers to cause disruption - once a single workstation has been compromised (maybe the user wanted to look at the cool new screensaver someone mailed them, whcih turned out to be a trojan) then your network is unsafe - your firewall won't do you much good now.
Very true. Too often do people forget that it is usually not the technology that gets people in trouble; rather, it is their ignorance of technology, sheer acts of stupidity, and lack of common sense that play the major role in how badly systems are affected by a hack attempt, trojan, virus, or other widespread problem.
I think what we need is better-trained, more knowledgeable computer users (especially of companies, on which we often depend for our livelihood and lifestyle) so we can minimize damage upon a serious incident like a cyberterrorist attack or a massive virus whose intentions it is to destroy infrastructures and systems.
Then there is the lie that the invasion of Iraq has anything to do with the above. This is not true - except in the sense that some people have been tricked into believing it.
Actually, for all we know, that is still a "truth" to President Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the parent was implying the AJAX, itself, is too complex, but rather that JavaScript is, a statement which I entirely agree with. To do anything in JavaScript requires many lines of code -- and kludgy code, to me. JavaScript needs to either be seriously revamped or entirely rewritten. Unfortunately, the time it will take to a) get this new language written and, most importantly, b) get it standardized in all the major browsers (*ahem* especially IE) would probably just be too long. I don't think JavaScript is going to get a major revamp anytime soon. I think it's time for an alternative, though. Hey, client-side Python would be great; I'm all for it! :)
That's _exactly_ what I was going to make a comment about -- before I saw yours.
It's so true, too.
Javascript is just a kludge -- and so is AJAX.
... we were just about to get FIOS!
Hey, as long as the car itself uses another fuel source, people and government agencies will love and applaud it! Disregard the prices of natural gas -- they're not relevant!
Yeah, I'd have to agree with you; Slashdot moderators are definitely on crack. Just because of my somewhat turbulent history here with supposed flamebait and trolling, my good posts aren't modded up and my bad ones are modded down.
Get a clue, mods.
While the concept of "class sites" where profound interactions between teacher and student can take place seems nice (and it really does), it was implemented in such a way that even the most intelligent of geniuses can't figure out its interface and why some things were done the way they were.
First of all, we use Blackboard in my county, and it was an exciting thing when we first got it. Wow, we thought, we could finally check our assignments online! But the novelty quickly wore down when teachers realized that they had to go to Hell and back to enter in their class rosters and get each of their classes set up under the interface. It then became a source of conflict between teachers and students when sometimes teachers forgot to put in their assignments for the day and students would come to class with the excuse that because their teachers forgot, they were somehow no longer obligated to do that class's assignments. This just led to more problems than it fixed.
Then, Blackboard would go down several times a year for "maintenance" or some other nonsense for periods of up to a few days. How can teachers and students rely on a service that goes down for days at a time?
Furthermore, the interface is just awful. It looks like some kindergartener went into MS Paint and made all the little buttons that you see for each class on the left.
Lastly (that I can list right now), there are too many security and ethical concerns with listing grades online, at least in my county. So, we're not even utilizing that (and more) functionality of Blackboard, which in many respects is the coolest part about it! I would definitely like to be able to log on to Blackboard and check the results of a quiz or test I recently took, or even see a list of all my grades so far so that I could know and act accordingly.
Maybe this merger will bring about positive changes, but somehow I doubt it. I just hope some decent OSS alternative comes around.
I hope there never is a replacement for Microsoft Access, OSS or not. Microsoft Access sucks!
Sometimes we "kids" are right, despite your superiority complexes. Get over it -- sir.
Just because something is invented doesn't justify its widespread use. It has been made quite obvious by the majority of Americans in the past several years that they are the metaphorical sheep in the herd.
With possible abuse by government and free-market corporations alike, it is quite essential to be cynical. After all, who in history has turned the tide of the slippery slope but cynics?
Again, like some others have said, it's not the ostensible *idea* that's bad -- in fact, the idea itself is superficially good -- but the inevitable abuse that will occur with the issuing of such implanted chips.
At least to me, it seems glaringly obvious that these cards will be pushed for sex offenders, "so they can be tracked at all times;" for small children, "so their parents know where they are at all times;" for mentally and physically handicapped persons, "for their well-being and safety;" for air travellers, "for our safety and security;" for convicted felons, "for our safety and security;" and the list just goes on, as more politicians can think of more ways to institute the chip.
On the other hand, like you said, there are some good things to be said for such a chip, like unified credit cards, drivers licenses, personal information to verify identity, credit reports, etc. etc. etc. But what happens when hackers get into people's chips? Your entire life can be ruined. What happens when there are new, initially "optional" programs that allow government agencies to track you "for your safety?" I'd bet you that half the country would be willing to sign up for that, right off the bat. They've already demonstrated that will with the PATRIOT Act.
That's pretty much along the lines that I was thinking when I read this article. I don't understand how some people can support this -- unless, of course, you're a rabid Christian fundamentalist who believes in the GWB and all that.
As it is, you're just doing something that is easy and makes you feel like you're fighting The Man, but the only real effect is to harrass some wage slaves. I hope you'll someday have the experience of being harrassed by people who figure that maybe, just maybe, your irritation will trickle a dozen levels up the chain and convince your boss's boss's boss's boss's boss to change something.
I look forward to that day, because that day is when I quit that job. If I'm ever in that position, it's because my job's responsibilities include annoying and pestering people.
There's absolutely no use arguing with you, but to do something is at least better than doing nothing. Both you and I are both going off of assumptions, you that it will do virtually nothing, me that it will do something, even if it won't rid the world of the hellish TSA and related government agencies (*cough* DHS). At least there's a small chance that I'll get somewhere with mine, whereas with yours, you've basically conceded failure to change anything and are now doing as you're told -- exactly what the TSA wants from you.
Also, I think you're assuming that these congressmen think that most people are happy with the way airport security is being handled -- or, at the very least, the direction it is headed. However, do you really know? When the congressmen voted for the Patriot Act, did they ask the public what they thought? Did they even care?
Exchanging a body search for removing your shoes isn't standing up for your rights. It's just inconveniencing yourself to no benefit. And it won't make the TSA do anything at all... they'll happily hold up the line behind you in order to search you thoroughly. If enough people did it to slow down the security lines significantly, they'd just use that to argue they need more staff and/or the new backscatter x-ray machines so they can violate your privacy more quickly and more thoroughly.
I'm surprised that, considering you travel by air each week, you haven't perceived annoyance or frustration from TSA employees when someone refuses to take their shoes off -- or, more likely, you just haven't seen anyone refuse.
If you want to stand up for your rights, join John Gilmore and refuse to show ID. Demand that they show you the law that requires you to identify yourself. More realistically for most of us, writing your congressmen will have far more impact than keeping your shoes on. If even ten percent of travelers bothered to do that, we'd see some changes. After writing to your congressmen, write to the major airlines and tell them that due to the invasive security requirements you've decided to take the train rather than fly. Then do it. If a significant percentage of travelers did that you can be certain things would change. After all, the whole point of instituting the post-9/11 security "enhancements" was to keep the airlines from going bankrupt.
There isn't just one way to stand up for your rights and that's it. Writing to your congressman is useless, because they'll never do anything about it. They know that a lot of people are fed up with the TSA and its policies, but heck, mine voted for the bill that instituted the TSA.
Civil disobedience and making a big scene are more useful than passive requests for change by writing to your useless congressman.
What ID are you talking about? At security? Sure, one can question all that -- and validly, as well -- but refusing to take one's shoes off is another way to trouble the TSA's employees, and it seems to work pretty well. I should demand that they show me a section of their code that allows them to demand that people take their shoes off or they'll be patted down and wanded -- or a section of their code, at all.
Think about it this way: if enough people do a certain thing, they're bound to make a difference. If enough people just stand up for their rights and say, "I've had enough," you can bet the TSA will be forced to revise its draconian policies.
On the other hand, if you don't want to waste a few minutes to make a public statement and state your disagreement with these policies (and politics) -- however trivial it might ostensibly be -- that's fine, but don't expect change anytime soon.
Actually, they don't mandate it. They just "recommend" it. You're not required to take your shoes off. If you go to an airport where the TSA "recommends" that you take them off, and you refuse, then you will be wanded and patted down, and may have your bags searched as well.
In my book, "recommend" meets "mandate" when one has no other choice but to either take off his shoes or be searched, wanded, and patted down like an illegal Mexican immigrant.Look over your stuff and wand you and patt you down... I travel enough that I've learned it's quicker to take off my shoes. I try to wear shoes that I can remove and replace quickly.
It's great that you go along with the crowd. Heck, you've even found a way to go along with the crowd faster!Except that your suggestion -- just go through the more rigorous security check -- doesn't really fight the process. You just take a different, and less convenient, route through it. The real problem is the whole notion that you should be subject to a search of your person and your belongings before you're allowed on an airplane. Not to mention the fact that you're required to identify yourself. Of course, the really huge problem, as John Gilmore discovered, is that the laws that require all of this, the laws that make it *legal* for the TSA to refuse to allow you to board a plane if you don't participate in their little security theatre, are secret. You can't check to see if the TSA is overstepping their authority, or even find out just how far they're legally allowed to go, because you're not allowed to read the laws that give them their authority. The real problems are entirely unaffected by whether you choose to be patted down rather than making the TSA agents smell your stinky feet.
I understand what the real problem is, but now I think we're just being idealistic. I was just stating what *we* do when we are "recommended" to take off our shoes by the TSA "agents," not stating that I am solving the problem by refusing their "request."Most people just hand it over. I would love to get into the social reasons for this, but for now, I'll just say that we're all (in Western countries at least) to just shutup and hand over anything anyone in authority or perceived authority requests...I'm starting to rant and my spellink is going to hell. Off to the porn sitesss! That's very true. I bet all of us have been to U.S. airports post-9/11. What's with the TSA mandating that everyone takes their shoes off? We just don't do it, and if they give us a hard time, we'll wait in that little compartment until they look over our stuff and let us go. Too many Americans just think, "oh well, it's no big deal; just get it over with." However, that's an awful mentality when we consider history and how it's affected previously apathetic populations. Needless to say, no longer were they apathetic!
No, I really don't think the distinction between using open-source and making money off of OSS is necessarily all that clear. One could say that Red Hat could have used any OS and still have pulled a profit -- perhaps BSD or even something totally different. And, as you said, one could say that TiVo's product didn't depend on and make money off of open-source products, specifically, but its success can only be attributed to the product. However, perhaps Linux and OSS provided the most viable option for building its OS and, subsequently, its product and service. Thus, one can say that one of the ways they made money was through their use of Linux and OSS. I don't think a company has to specifically specialize in building open-source software to be classified as profit-generating from open-source products.
Aren't there some implications with this idea, that maybe it's trying to enable people to download illegal or illegitimate files? I mean, many of these so-called "polluted" files are polluted for a reason: because they're illegal for just any person without a license to have. By coming out with an idea that goes against protections against this illegal downloading, I would think there's some sort of implied statement here.
And I thought I invented the word back when I started using it. :-(
Planned what? That still doesn't mean that he doesn't think he invaded Iraq for a good cause, because he sure might. Besides, I didn't say he *does* think it's a truth, just that he might, for all we know.
This is probably _the_ most important point. No matter how much you secure the software, the users are always a weak point. For the servers this isn't a big deal coz anyone who can log into them has (hopefully) got a clue. But you don't need to compromise the servers to cause disruption - once a single workstation has been compromised (maybe the user wanted to look at the cool new screensaver someone mailed them, whcih turned out to be a trojan) then your network is unsafe - your firewall won't do you much good now.
Very true. Too often do people forget that it is usually not the technology that gets people in trouble; rather, it is their ignorance of technology, sheer acts of stupidity, and lack of common sense that play the major role in how badly systems are affected by a hack attempt, trojan, virus, or other widespread problem. I think what we need is better-trained, more knowledgeable computer users (especially of companies, on which we often depend for our livelihood and lifestyle) so we can minimize damage upon a serious incident like a cyberterrorist attack or a massive virus whose intentions it is to destroy infrastructures and systems.
Then there is the lie that the invasion of Iraq has anything to do with the above. This is not true - except in the sense that some people have been tricked into believing it.
Actually, for all we know, that is still a "truth" to President Bush.