Rubbish attitude - this is why software is regarded as a 'hobby' for inexperienced and generally poor developers - you're too busy 'learning something new' all the time and not focussing on getting things done.
I don't know what to say other than I feel really sorry for you if you're a developer. I grew up coding C/C++ and had I only had your attitude, I never would have used LISP, PROLOG, Java, Ruby, etc. Could I be some badass C/C++ developer if I had never been "sidetracked" and "not getting things done"? Maybe.
But -- at the risk of being modded down as a shill -- I submit to you a recently launched site I coded with a friend. He did the canvas stuff, I did the backend. I could have picked any solution out there but I ended up going with Ruby on Rails. Is it slow? Yes, compared to C/C++. Is this a super complex site with massive usage? Well, not really. That's what made Rails a great choice. I haven't earned a dime on this project (we decided against ads). But guess how much time I put into making that backend? About 15 hours. I think I spent more time trying to figure out how the host allows me to manage my gems in Rails 3 than I did actual coding. I didn't even reuse a login module from my other sites. Hell, that was all pretty much from scratch aside from Rails 3 and jQuery.
Now, I know how to do this in Java, PHP, C++ and even Clojure. It's essentially a RESTful interface for particular CRUD operations. But could I have done all that in 15 hours if I had selected another technology and framework? I don't think so.
"change for change's sake"
I don't understand where you thought I said I now do all my development in $LANGUAGE_OF_THE_WEEK. There are now more tools in my toolbox. If I pick a different tool next time, I'm going to have a reason for doing it. In the above case, the prototyping time was far less in Rails.
If you really need something new, go for Google's native client and get that better supported across browsers and platforms.
Forgive me if I see this as directly opposed to your opening sentence. Tell me, what makes a new technology "noble" enough for your attention? How do you know NaCl won't flop?
Regardless of how you see it, I with my "rubbish attitude" and "inexperience" and "poor development" and inability to get things done am doing quite well in the job market...
It's interesting that Google took part in abandoning ECMAScript 4, which would have been almost fully backward compatible with current implementations while solving most of the "fundamental problems" Google claims require a brand new language to fix.
Yeah? How many free license programming languages have you released and continued to support?
As a developer, I love to learn a new language. I write a few simple programs in the new language. I explore what advantages and disadvantages that language has and then I put it in my toolbox. If a problem comes along that I must fix, I select the best tool for the job from said toolbox. I don't know how any sane developer could get by any other way -- there is no silver bullet programming language.
The more tools I have at my disposal, the more effective I am. So shut your hole. I don't want people to stop exploring new languages just because it hurts your feelings that the market might fracture and you might have to -- *gasp* -- learn something new!
So thats why the most popular sites on the internet-- Google, Craigslist, Wikipedia-- are or have been moving towards clean, simpler designs?
I think in your mind they're the most useful. But Wikipedia lies behind Facebook, Yahoo and a number of other complex UIs. Craigslist is number 37 on that list. You also don't define what "clean, simpler" means in terms of UI. It's part magic and part science so until you can tell me what makes wikipedia cleaner and simpler than, say, a bulletin board system I can ask why we're not all recording articles and editing them in some sort of encyclopedic bulletin board system.
Craigslist is a great example of what the rest of the web should be.
Why impose a false dichotomy of simple versus complex? Craigslist is an extreme. The rest of the web should not be extremely simple as some people prefer complex controls. Some solutions, by definition, are inherently complex. Glancing at my tabs, Yahoo Fantasy Hockey and Google Docs would not be at all usable if they were implemented in a Craigslist sort of way. They could truly be reduced to their basic elements, not use GWT or AJAX or whatever and just get by on the marriage of function and function. But they don't.
Craigslist succeeded because it was providing a simple solution to a simple problem. Add bidding or payment to your system and I think you'll find that complexity is a necessity. Do I wish more sites implemented a more simplistic approach? Yes, of course. But to suggest that it is a shining example of what the rest of the web should be is design and UI nonsense.
Look at Facebook, extremely clean and simple compared to MySpace but so was Friendster. Facebook grows more and more complex everyday yet a Craigslist-style social networking site isn't going to unseat it because Facebook usually picks its complexity wisely (or has so far). I enjoy a little complexity, hell, I'm posting on Slashdot not Reddit...
When climate scientists say is often used to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy.
I challenge you to present me one published paper where a climate scientist tells me what I can and can't do. Or even where they merely suggest restrictions of what a person can do. All the papers I read say things to effect of "In X years, the northern ice cap could recede to Y size" or "Greenhouses gases have contributed to a rise in temperatures." What you want to do with that information is up to you. It's not the place of scientists to call for political or even international policy on carbon credits or cap and trade or whatever you want to do to control this problem. So why do the scientists get attacked? Attack the politicians and say "I'm okay with fucking up the Earth for my children because I want the freedom to buy a Hummer that gets 8 miles to the gallon." Use your voice and stand up for yourself, don't attack the scientists. They aren't setting the policies, they're just telling you what is happening. What's that? That sentence makes you sound like an idiot? Well, go ahead and attack the scientists then but be warned you've got an awful lot of targets.
Not even a month ago I tried this same logic in a post (and probably in earlier posts):
The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientist because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?
Surprise surprise, no one cares. You can point out the scientific consensus or ask why there are no political witch hunts in other fields and people just don't seem to even respond to my concerns because they just saw a two minute YouTube video and suddenly they're informed and ready to discredit someone who has devoted their life to studying this field and reading papers. CFCs were bad, that was okay, everyone gobbled that up. Everyone saw maps of the ozone layer and totally trusted the scientists that it was CFCs doing it... not just a regular natural process. Show someone a map of ice coverage on the Arctic Circle and tell them it's greenhouse gases at work. Suddenly the same scientists are lying to them. What the hell is different about these two scenarios? I've pretty much given up the fight...
I see that you plan on using C and Python for teaching languages. I recognize that I am of an older generation but grasping C in its entirety or even little endian versus big endian was something that didn't fully come around until college for me. What are your strategies for teaching even younger targets with something like C (Python, however is probably easier)? Are you developing a rigid teaching course line or just happy to have the community put anything out? Furthermore, what is the point of putting all these other languages on your wiki like Processing or Lua? Could you or someone on your staff give a brief explanation for each of these links or are they here just to inspire someone to write a tutorial for -- I don't know -- harvesting data with the Raspberry Pi and displaying it in Processing on another computer? Or do you intend the processing application to compile to ARMv6 on the device and run on the device for a UI output? I know ARMv6 is supposed to be a leaner architecture but I'm not at all familiar with the Broadcom BCM2835 that you've shown on your alpha boards. All my searches for it just link back to your site.
Are you worried about malware being written to target these just like some variants target USB thumb drives or mobile phones? It seems to me that if you sold millions of these to grade schools and then the kids took them home and plugged them into their home computer, the unwary student might inadvertently be the typhoid Mary of a pandemic or spreading stuff to their home computer where their parents sensitive data is stored. Are there any plans to develop tools to or methodologies to prevent such a thing from happening? It just seems that there's a small chance botnet writers, malware authors or maybe even an especially talented student could take advantage of this even if the payload isn't for the architecture or operating system on the Raspberry Pi.
In the United States: The abolition of slavery, taxation, social security, child labor laws, welfare, the interstate highway system, eminent domain, anti-trust laws (Sherman Act), minimum wage, the draft, the inability to sell your organs, pollution laws, laws against exploiting poor people, the list is endless really. We started out as a very Capitalist nation and have slowly migrated to a better middle ground with some Socialist programs and laws. Conversely, China started out fairly Socialist and everyday move toward more Capitalist tendencies. You can argue all day which is the better way but the truth is that 1) for every country it's different and 2) the best solution is always somewhere in between the spectrum of capitalism and socialism. So you can shut up about demanding "pure capitalism" and "truly free markets" just as well as you can stop branding someone a "socialist" for merely proposing or exploring or investigating movements toward the middle.
Obviously you could pack up a small turbine and multimeter and take it outside and show the kids the power generation. You might even contact the Alaskan wind industries asking for a kit to raise awareness in schools.
Another thought is thermoelectrics via Seebeck and Peltier Effects. I think you can pick up cheap little thermoelectric kits that are horribly inefficient (10%?) but if you could coordinate with the school, you might have access to a heat exhaust or something nearby where you could set up the device and show the kids that you can harvest some of the energy coming off the exhausts. Failing that, you could boil a pot of water and position it over it? If it's cold as hell outside, you might even be able to just push it up against a window?
Really, it's just be important to get the kids thinking critically about where energy transfer is lost and how it can be harvested. Most importantly I would stress the efficiency analysis so they realize why your little device isn't the answer to all their problems (but with enough research and knowledge they might find a better solution). You know, give them a little lesson on initial cost versus return and figure out how long it would take your device sitting there at that external temperature for you to fully recoup your cost.
Take a flat tire on a moonless night for instance. While a man is out changing nuts and bolts and doing all manner of screwing on the side of the road, will a woman so much as think to grab a flashlight and help? No.
Let me guess, everything you learned about women you learned on TV? And you're still single you say? Marvelous, simply marvelous.
Companies should have a "don't sell to dictators" policy. We should isolate them from all trade. No more business with China until they have a freely elected government.
So when you deny these countries all trade, who do you think it hurts the most? Do you the dictator and their cronies care? They might care that they don't get their Bentleys and 80 year old scotch but who really gets hurt are the people.
Here's some bedtime reading for your altruistic folks that an Egyptian pointed out to me when I said that US Sanctions are the only ethical way to get dictatorships in line. When we sanctioned Iraq, half a million children died. Now, you might say that it's not your problem that a country of sand can't get an agriculture infrastructure together to save its own children but when we went in there all cavalier like a couple times do you think the people praised our troops for ousting the dictator? Do you think they didn't know that we had imposed sanctions on their country which meant many of them starved?
You can say "no more high end commodities, only food and water" which is slightly better but then those simple commodities just become the prized possessions and dictators/warlords sit on rice and use it to control their starving populace. It's a good thought but you have to be prepared for the reality of what ensues.
And polluters bribe Chinese officials and large companies bribe American lawmakers and logging companies bribe South American governments and... well, this list would get ridiculously long if we kept it going. I would be willing to bet that the spammers that operate in the United States have to grease the wheels at their banks and who knows where else? Hell, in Mexico, the police basically make you bribe them on the spot whether you can take a hint or not. You could probably say "Spammers Bribe Officials" and no doubt it's universally true.
First off, I am intimately familiar with the Russel/Norvig book that props up that monitor. Reminds me of my AI courses at two different universities. Guessing it's the de facto standard.
When I first saw this, I imagine that the inclusion of the mythos of a unicorn randomly by the male character caused the conversation to turn to belief in god. Still, from "Hi how are you" to "Do you believe in god" is a pretty funny and rapid conversation. They do not beat around the bush. I don't know why but I get the idea that they're annoyed with each other -- which is an emotion so that's actually a pretty good jump for AI!
Here's what I got from the article. It's registered in South America from Hong Kong company. Once you upload a file, you get a link but there is no way to search across uploaded files. So basically you can share that link out with only your close friends and no one else could possibly know about it and there was no mention of Bayfiles inspecting or fingerprinting these files actively -- only when issued a DMCA from a copyright holder.
I'm guessing their DMCA officers just wait for requests and then investigate the files and then delete them. Are there even any negative repercussions for the offending uploader? If so, just do it anonymously.
Sure, it's not possible for everybody to come and get whatever they want but it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.
How is the RIAA (or anybody else) supposed to find files on here that violate their copyright? Sure, you can't post your link in a forum that will be found via Google but for close knit meshes of sharers, this is a dream come true (just like Usenet or even the Dropbox accounts my friends share).
For the newly discovered pulsar, known as PSR J1719-1438, the astronomers noticed that the arrival times of the pulses were systematically modulated and concluded that this is due to the gravitational pull of a small orbiting companion, a planet. These modulations can tell astronomers several more things about the companion. First, it orbits the pulsar in just two hours and ten minutes, and the distance between the two objects is 600,000 km - a little bit less than the radius of our Sun. Second, the companion is so close to the pulsar that if its diameter was any larger than 60,000 km (less than half the diameter of Jupiter) it would be ripped apart by the gravity of the pulsar.
So it appears that the article saying "size equivalent to Jupiter" (volume?) is wrong if the Max Planck Institute is correct in saying that its diameter has to be less than half the diameter of Jupiter.
This is a fool's errand. Let's make this learning process more granular. Break it down into separate steps:
Confirm global warming is occuring.
Confirm that global warming is man-made.
Decide how best to counter this effect.
Given that climate scientists are constantly attacked by political witch hunts (and, no, there have been no formal charges of fraud against scientists claiming global warming is fake). The heart of the problem here is that the first two steps should be almost completely scientific endeavors free and devoid of any politics. Yes, the studies cost money but there's money to be had both ways (I would even say that there's more money to be had if your findings absolve polluters of any guilt).
Once everyone is at step two, we can proceed with the clusterfuck that is world politics. I recognize the core problem is that some politicians cobble it together and go back to step two or -- god forbid it -- step one and then attack those. Instead of recognizing that we've already made ground, we go back and people mire everything up with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And then the witch hunts begin and we're not making any progress... meanwhile the polluters are counting their money and protecting that profit margin by lobbying and funding "think tanks" and spreading lies.
Can we all just scientifically get to step two and then we'll go from there? The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientists because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?
I wasn't around for these but, as a member lost in the masses of astronomical UIDs, let me say we'll miss both of you guys as well. Slashdot gets a little less personal but I hope this site is remains permanent and always here showing the world what you created.
First of all, TFA makes it sound like a straightforward case of "don't advertise illegal crap". Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies.
Er, citation needed. There's a bit of a history here indicating that Google was taking ads from just about anybody... People have been selling prescription medicine on the internet forever. How real it is or where it comes from, what does it matter? The fact is that you need a prescription for it for a reason and those people get it without one.
The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).
That or they are attempting to do their job to regulate medicine.
Second, if merely accepting ads from unkosher sources commits a crime, then why the hell haven't the major broadcast networks gotten the smack-down for showing a non-stop string of crapvertisements from the likes of such blatant frauds as Enzyte and Head On?
Because Head On and Enzyte don't contain prescription drugs? They're largely over the counter drugs? It's when you get into scheduled drugs that the federal government gets upset. Here's an example of Adderall and Vicodin.
Oh. Right. "Online", the magic word that makes everything old new and illegal again.
No, but it makes it easier for you to appear legitimate, make quick semi-anonymous transactions of money and do it across a border so it's harder for law enforcement to track. "Online" increases our ability to communicate, it increases our commerce and it greatly improves our quality of life but it also amplifies the potential of illicit and illegal activities (for the same reasons I just listed). It's a double edged sword.
Google set aside $500 million for this a while ago. I'm not saying that that act alone implies guilt but it certainly indicates that they were preparing for this. If they thought these claims were bogus, I bet they would have put that money to better use. They have a history, I see news articles about these illegal prescription-less pharmacies and I'm guessing that you're just blindly defending Google for god only knows why.
Yeah, it's FUD but when you really consider it as FUD, who exactly is it targeting? I think, if I read this correctly, this is supposed to be an attempt at scaring device manufacturers away from using Android. But the core of the argument appears to be that if you distribute Android and you do not follow the GPLv2 then you will lose all your rights (as with most licenses). Once you've lost all your rights, according to the GPLv2, you have to go around to the original copyright owners and get them to okay that you can again have a GPLv2 license. Which would be nigh impossible with Linux. Okay so that seems logical. They then state that you can instantly regain your rights by simply falling in line with compliance when the source code is GPLv3 licensed. Okay, so that also sounds logical.
We've already seen claims from Edward Naughton and Florian Mueller that most Android distributors are in violation of the GPL - claims that the open source community has, for the most part, rejected.
I don't know how someone can speak for that demographic. I followed the link to find out who this spokesperson is and was brought to this in the linked article on that Slashdot article:
Textbook FUD.
And this is why people avoid GPL code. Whether Mueller is right or wrong (and he's pretty much always wrong) there is so much FUD spread over potential GPL violations all over the place that most corporations just don't want to even get within miles of the GPL for fear that some loser like Florian will try to peg crap on them.
A Slashdot Anonymous Coward
So the open source community is represented by an anonymous coward here on Slashdot?
Have I ever bought a $10 piece of trash from China and found out that I could really use the source in order to make it work with my computer? Yes. Could I foresee some BS tablet maker producing a piece of trash tablet, hacking Android and releasing it sans source code only to have consumers wonder how in the hell Android is running on that device? Definitely. I wouldn't put that past anybody given there's supposedly one GPL violation a day and the fact of the matter is that licenses don't seem to mean jack shit in China (and that's their right as a sovereign nation).
So the allegations here are that Edward Naughton and Florian Mueller (neither of whom I am defending, by the way) have spread FUD to strong arm people into migrating to GPLv3 so that device makers won't fear the repercussion of violating GPLv2 and then having to do impossible legwork to get back in good standing and regain a license?
Regardless of how effective that is (I'm not a handset manufacturer nor do I know any straying from Android because of this) that is some pretty crazy thin ridiculous sorry FUD if I may say so myself. I worked for a Fortune 500 company for seven years and all I ever saw was a slow gradual movement toward GPL code until I think the only licenses we had were unfortunate contractual agreements from the past. Oh, and Windows. No one really cowered in fear and ran screaming when presented with the above "FUD" as the Anonymous Coward quote seems to imply.
I don't get it, we pick apart any huge company's license here on Slashdot in the name of protecting the consumer but when someone does it to the GPL and finds some hilariously minute case -- then it's FUD?
The FSF's press release on the subject emphasizes 'worries' without bringing up a specific concrete case of infringement — a classic FUD technique.
I think it's worth pointing out that in order for this to be "proven" in a court of law, I think that would mean a GPLv2 license holder would have to sue a company that used Android,
Their paper, entitled 'Heat of the Moment: Characterizing the Efcacy of Thermal Camera-Based Attacks'...
Oh sure everybody wants to show how easy it is to steal everyone else's PIN but when you release a paper detailing how to do it with X-rays and guarantee the target develops cancer and dies within a month leaving their account ripe for unnoticed pilfering then you've "gone too far"!
Obviously Ceglia's not embarrassed so I guess someone has to be. In regards to Ceglia's rap sheet, I'm not too keen on ad hominem attacks... it's sort of hard, though, when one of his key points in his rambling letter is merely an ad hominem attack on Zuckerberg:
It is obvious that these major outlets continue to protect Mark and his "new image". He is an admitted forgerer, he was forced to admit it under oath, not because he feels compelled to tell the truth, like ever, but because he carelessly wrote as his home adress on the document he was forging an address that he didnt know about or move to until more than a year after the document was supposedly written! A rational person would think I need not say more, and that surely my arrest for mushrooms 14 years ago or the fact that I fell behind on wood pellet orders that have long since paid back is irrelevant compared to the more daming and far more on point evidence that Zuckerberg is an admitted forger and an admitted hacker, yet a read of the major media outlets shows what most people know already, that our “Free Press” slant the news to the big boss’s views. A luxury afforded the Billionaires of this world that clearly have their own agendas. Perhaps calling them out like this will force some two sided coverage of the story.
Ceglia gets hilariously specific about his past problems... and hilariously unspecific about Zuckerberg's. I am in the very uncomfortable (and unfamiliar) position of defending Zuckerberg and pondering whence we begin ignoring this crackpot Ceglia.
If anyone is wondering why Ceglia has milled through four law firms, you need only read the letter he submitted to the press and (apparently) did not attach any NDAs to. I would guess this letter would be a defense attorney's wet dream (assuming Ceglia allows them to prove it came from him).
From the Arab Spring to the riots of London last week, I see that social networks are the peoples tools to not only talk about how bored we are today, or to worry about everyone seeing that last photo we put up, but also when users are oppressed somewhere and realize it, it obviously can be used to overthrow tyranny and outmanuever the forces that protect the establishment. It’s become the peoples voice and a powerful tool to unite the masses. It’s a tool that deserves to stay in the hands and control of the people.
You know what's really pathetic and disgusting to me? Watching someone try to abduct an entire set of social causes and violent radical movements for their own fucking he said/he said lawsuit that stands to benefit them to the tune of billions of dollars. Really, I don't see what that has to do with the legitimacy of your ownership of any part of Facebook. Justice shouldn't care what you do with what belongs to you, it should only be concerned with you having what belongs to you. Disgusting.
Christian Torres writes that Facebook and the pharmaceutical industry have had an uneasy partnership in recent years and many drug companies didn't join the site until Facebook gave them a privilege that others do not have — blocking the public's ability to openly comment on a page Wall.
Uh, so whoever did the investigative journalism for this piece needs to go back to Webelos and get their fact checking merit badge. All walls can be restricted to only posts by the owner of the wall on Facebook. In fact, it is so uncommon for the wall to be open to fan postings that I had to turn to Mystery Science Theater 3000 for an example of open posting. Take the current DVD distributor for MST3K, Shout Factory as an example of a non-pharmaceutical company restricting me from complaining about the packaging on some of their DVD sets openly on their wall.
Every company does it, it's not "special protection." I'm happy that big pharma is losing this option but frankly I'm wondering why anyone is allowed to open up a wall and the suppress public comments on their products. They should be proud of their products and they should engage their customers openly. You can block individual trolls but I'm shocked that their concern isn't bad publicity for their products from a few outliers but instead concern from government regulators! What? If you're giving them all your information about your drug's potential side effects, there shouldn't be any concern!
So looking at the drug they listed, Seroquel I see the user comments being actually very helpful. People talking about it losing its potency, people talking about switching on or off XR for better results. I'm sure that these comments have been weeded by some corporate automaton but, come on, these are customers helping other customers!
You know what happens when you don't put up a main page for a product? Tons and tons of hate pages. Government regulators don't notice these?
Open internet limited by lawsuit. There would still be an open internet, and things like gopher and Usenet would have grown and been able to do a little innovation. However, if gopher tried to expand to be more web like, we would have seen a legal fight that not only delayed innovation, but limited the arenas in which we innovated.
Well, he could have patented it and if he had tried to exercise those patents, my guess is that people would have been put off until a better more liberating solution came along that circumvented those very patents. It's odd that Techdirt mentions Gopher protocol. That was licensed software and, as I've speculated before, died because it cost money to use.
Techdirt's usually a good read but I don't agree with his assessment on this one. I believe we would have a completely different protocol and paradigm that might have taken longer to achieve and might have been better or worse. Who's to know? I think Gopher's example makes it plenty obvious that any patented solution limping along would be ravenously devoured by an open alternative.
Had it been patented, I simply don't believe it would have been the final solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Rubbish attitude - this is why software is regarded as a 'hobby' for inexperienced and generally poor developers - you're too busy 'learning something new' all the time and not focussing on getting things done.
I don't know what to say other than I feel really sorry for you if you're a developer. I grew up coding C/C++ and had I only had your attitude, I never would have used LISP, PROLOG, Java, Ruby, etc. Could I be some badass C/C++ developer if I had never been "sidetracked" and "not getting things done"? Maybe.
But -- at the risk of being modded down as a shill -- I submit to you a recently launched site I coded with a friend. He did the canvas stuff, I did the backend. I could have picked any solution out there but I ended up going with Ruby on Rails. Is it slow? Yes, compared to C/C++. Is this a super complex site with massive usage? Well, not really. That's what made Rails a great choice. I haven't earned a dime on this project (we decided against ads). But guess how much time I put into making that backend? About 15 hours. I think I spent more time trying to figure out how the host allows me to manage my gems in Rails 3 than I did actual coding. I didn't even reuse a login module from my other sites. Hell, that was all pretty much from scratch aside from Rails 3 and jQuery.
Now, I know how to do this in Java, PHP, C++ and even Clojure. It's essentially a RESTful interface for particular CRUD operations. But could I have done all that in 15 hours if I had selected another technology and framework? I don't think so.
"change for change's sake"
I don't understand where you thought I said I now do all my development in $LANGUAGE_OF_THE_WEEK. There are now more tools in my toolbox. If I pick a different tool next time, I'm going to have a reason for doing it. In the above case, the prototyping time was far less in Rails.
If you really need something new, go for Google's native client and get that better supported across browsers and platforms.
Forgive me if I see this as directly opposed to your opening sentence. Tell me, what makes a new technology "noble" enough for your attention? How do you know NaCl won't flop?
...
Regardless of how you see it, I with my "rubbish attitude" and "inexperience" and "poor development" and inability to get things done am doing quite well in the job market
It's interesting that Google took part in abandoning ECMAScript 4, which would have been almost fully backward compatible with current implementations while solving most of the "fundamental problems" Google claims require a brand new language to fix.
Yeah? How many free license programming languages have you released and continued to support?
As a developer, I love to learn a new language. I write a few simple programs in the new language. I explore what advantages and disadvantages that language has and then I put it in my toolbox. If a problem comes along that I must fix, I select the best tool for the job from said toolbox. I don't know how any sane developer could get by any other way -- there is no silver bullet programming language.
The more tools I have at my disposal, the more effective I am. So shut your hole. I don't want people to stop exploring new languages just because it hurts your feelings that the market might fracture and you might have to -- *gasp* -- learn something new!
So thats why the most popular sites on the internet-- Google, Craigslist, Wikipedia-- are or have been moving towards clean, simpler designs?
I think in your mind they're the most useful. But Wikipedia lies behind Facebook, Yahoo and a number of other complex UIs. Craigslist is number 37 on that list. You also don't define what "clean, simpler" means in terms of UI. It's part magic and part science so until you can tell me what makes wikipedia cleaner and simpler than, say, a bulletin board system I can ask why we're not all recording articles and editing them in some sort of encyclopedic bulletin board system.
Craigslist is a great example of what the rest of the web should be.
Why impose a false dichotomy of simple versus complex? Craigslist is an extreme. The rest of the web should not be extremely simple as some people prefer complex controls. Some solutions, by definition, are inherently complex. Glancing at my tabs, Yahoo Fantasy Hockey and Google Docs would not be at all usable if they were implemented in a Craigslist sort of way. They could truly be reduced to their basic elements, not use GWT or AJAX or whatever and just get by on the marriage of function and function. But they don't.
...
Craigslist succeeded because it was providing a simple solution to a simple problem. Add bidding or payment to your system and I think you'll find that complexity is a necessity. Do I wish more sites implemented a more simplistic approach? Yes, of course. But to suggest that it is a shining example of what the rest of the web should be is design and UI nonsense.
Look at Facebook, extremely clean and simple compared to MySpace but so was Friendster. Facebook grows more and more complex everyday yet a Craigslist-style social networking site isn't going to unseat it because Facebook usually picks its complexity wisely (or has so far). I enjoy a little complexity, hell, I'm posting on Slashdot not Reddit
When climate scientists say is often used to justify restricting in various ways things that most people either rely on or enjoy.
I challenge you to present me one published paper where a climate scientist tells me what I can and can't do. Or even where they merely suggest restrictions of what a person can do. All the papers I read say things to effect of "In X years, the northern ice cap could recede to Y size" or "Greenhouses gases have contributed to a rise in temperatures." What you want to do with that information is up to you. It's not the place of scientists to call for political or even international policy on carbon credits or cap and trade or whatever you want to do to control this problem. So why do the scientists get attacked? Attack the politicians and say "I'm okay with fucking up the Earth for my children because I want the freedom to buy a Hummer that gets 8 miles to the gallon." Use your voice and stand up for yourself, don't attack the scientists. They aren't setting the policies, they're just telling you what is happening. What's that? That sentence makes you sound like an idiot? Well, go ahead and attack the scientists then but be warned you've got an awful lot of targets.
The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientist because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?
Surprise surprise, no one cares. You can point out the scientific consensus or ask why there are no political witch hunts in other fields and people just don't seem to even respond to my concerns because they just saw a two minute YouTube video and suddenly they're informed and ready to discredit someone who has devoted their life to studying this field and reading papers. CFCs were bad, that was okay, everyone gobbled that up. Everyone saw maps of the ozone layer and totally trusted the scientists that it was CFCs doing it ... not just a regular natural process. Show someone a map of ice coverage on the Arctic Circle and tell them it's greenhouse gases at work. Suddenly the same scientists are lying to them. What the hell is different about these two scenarios? I've pretty much given up the fight ...
I see that you plan on using C and Python for teaching languages. I recognize that I am of an older generation but grasping C in its entirety or even little endian versus big endian was something that didn't fully come around until college for me. What are your strategies for teaching even younger targets with something like C (Python, however is probably easier)? Are you developing a rigid teaching course line or just happy to have the community put anything out? Furthermore, what is the point of putting all these other languages on your wiki like Processing or Lua? Could you or someone on your staff give a brief explanation for each of these links or are they here just to inspire someone to write a tutorial for -- I don't know -- harvesting data with the Raspberry Pi and displaying it in Processing on another computer? Or do you intend the processing application to compile to ARMv6 on the device and run on the device for a UI output? I know ARMv6 is supposed to be a leaner architecture but I'm not at all familiar with the Broadcom BCM2835 that you've shown on your alpha boards. All my searches for it just link back to your site.
Are you worried about malware being written to target these just like some variants target USB thumb drives or mobile phones? It seems to me that if you sold millions of these to grade schools and then the kids took them home and plugged them into their home computer, the unwary student might inadvertently be the typhoid Mary of a pandemic or spreading stuff to their home computer where their parents sensitive data is stored. Are there any plans to develop tools to or methodologies to prevent such a thing from happening? It just seems that there's a small chance botnet writers, malware authors or maybe even an especially talented student could take advantage of this even if the payload isn't for the architecture or operating system on the Raspberry Pi.
In the United States: The abolition of slavery, taxation, social security, child labor laws, welfare, the interstate highway system, eminent domain, anti-trust laws (Sherman Act), minimum wage, the draft, the inability to sell your organs, pollution laws, laws against exploiting poor people, the list is endless really. We started out as a very Capitalist nation and have slowly migrated to a better middle ground with some Socialist programs and laws. Conversely, China started out fairly Socialist and everyday move toward more Capitalist tendencies. You can argue all day which is the better way but the truth is that 1) for every country it's different and 2) the best solution is always somewhere in between the spectrum of capitalism and socialism. So you can shut up about demanding "pure capitalism" and "truly free markets" just as well as you can stop branding someone a "socialist" for merely proposing or exploring or investigating movements toward the middle.
Obviously you could pack up a small turbine and multimeter and take it outside and show the kids the power generation. You might even contact the Alaskan wind industries asking for a kit to raise awareness in schools.
Another thought is thermoelectrics via Seebeck and Peltier Effects. I think you can pick up cheap little thermoelectric kits that are horribly inefficient (10%?) but if you could coordinate with the school, you might have access to a heat exhaust or something nearby where you could set up the device and show the kids that you can harvest some of the energy coming off the exhausts. Failing that, you could boil a pot of water and position it over it? If it's cold as hell outside, you might even be able to just push it up against a window?
Really, it's just be important to get the kids thinking critically about where energy transfer is lost and how it can be harvested. Most importantly I would stress the efficiency analysis so they realize why your little device isn't the answer to all their problems (but with enough research and knowledge they might find a better solution). You know, give them a little lesson on initial cost versus return and figure out how long it would take your device sitting there at that external temperature for you to fully recoup your cost.
Take a flat tire on a moonless night for instance. While a man is out changing nuts and bolts and doing all manner of screwing on the side of the road, will a woman so much as think to grab a flashlight and help? No.
Let me guess, everything you learned about women you learned on TV? And you're still single you say? Marvelous, simply marvelous.
Bruce Molholland, is that you?
Companies should have a "don't sell to dictators" policy. We should isolate them from all trade. No more business with China until they have a freely elected government.
So when you deny these countries all trade, who do you think it hurts the most? Do you the dictator and their cronies care? They might care that they don't get their Bentleys and 80 year old scotch but who really gets hurt are the people.
Here's some bedtime reading for your altruistic folks that an Egyptian pointed out to me when I said that US Sanctions are the only ethical way to get dictatorships in line. When we sanctioned Iraq, half a million children died. Now, you might say that it's not your problem that a country of sand can't get an agriculture infrastructure together to save its own children but when we went in there all cavalier like a couple times do you think the people praised our troops for ousting the dictator? Do you think they didn't know that we had imposed sanctions on their country which meant many of them starved?
You can say "no more high end commodities, only food and water" which is slightly better but then those simple commodities just become the prized possessions and dictators/warlords sit on rice and use it to control their starving populace. It's a good thought but you have to be prepared for the reality of what ensues.
Spammers Bribe Russian Officials
And polluters bribe Chinese officials and large companies bribe American lawmakers and logging companies bribe South American governments and ... well, this list would get ridiculously long if we kept it going. I would be willing to bet that the spammers that operate in the United States have to grease the wheels at their banks and who knows where else? Hell, in Mexico, the police basically make you bribe them on the spot whether you can take a hint or not. You could probably say "Spammers Bribe Officials" and no doubt it's universally true.
First off, I am intimately familiar with the Russel/Norvig book that props up that monitor. Reminds me of my AI courses at two different universities. Guessing it's the de facto standard.
When I first saw this, I imagine that the inclusion of the mythos of a unicorn randomly by the male character caused the conversation to turn to belief in god. Still, from "Hi how are you" to "Do you believe in god" is a pretty funny and rapid conversation. They do not beat around the bush. I don't know why but I get the idea that they're annoyed with each other -- which is an emotion so that's actually a pretty good jump for AI!
Here's what I got from the article. It's registered in South America from Hong Kong company. Once you upload a file, you get a link but there is no way to search across uploaded files. So basically you can share that link out with only your close friends and no one else could possibly know about it and there was no mention of Bayfiles inspecting or fingerprinting these files actively -- only when issued a DMCA from a copyright holder.
I'm guessing their DMCA officers just wait for requests and then investigate the files and then delete them. Are there even any negative repercussions for the offending uploader? If so, just do it anonymously.
Sure, it's not possible for everybody to come and get whatever they want but it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.
How is the RIAA (or anybody else) supposed to find files on here that violate their copyright? Sure, you can't post your link in a forum that will be found via Google but for close knit meshes of sharers, this is a dream come true (just like Usenet or even the Dropbox accounts my friends share).
One thing I found misleading about the article is that it refers to the core as having 'the size of Jupiter' and 'the mass of Jupiter.'
Here's the correct Science Journal link and here is a better press release from the Max Planck Institute that clarifies:
For the newly discovered pulsar, known as PSR J1719-1438, the astronomers noticed that the arrival times of the pulses were systematically modulated and concluded that this is due to the gravitational pull of a small orbiting companion, a planet. These modulations can tell astronomers several more things about the companion. First, it orbits the pulsar in just two hours and ten minutes, and the distance between the two objects is 600,000 km - a little bit less than the radius of our Sun. Second, the companion is so close to the pulsar that if its diameter was any larger than 60,000 km (less than half the diameter of Jupiter) it would be ripped apart by the gravity of the pulsar.
So it appears that the article saying "size equivalent to Jupiter" (volume?) is wrong if the Max Planck Institute is correct in saying that its diameter has to be less than half the diameter of Jupiter.
How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?
This is a fool's errand. Let's make this learning process more granular. Break it down into separate steps:
Given that climate scientists are constantly attacked by political witch hunts (and, no, there have been no formal charges of fraud against scientists claiming global warming is fake). The heart of the problem here is that the first two steps should be almost completely scientific endeavors free and devoid of any politics. Yes, the studies cost money but there's money to be had both ways (I would even say that there's more money to be had if your findings absolve polluters of any guilt).
... meanwhile the polluters are counting their money and protecting that profit margin by lobbying and funding "think tanks" and spreading lies.
Once everyone is at step two, we can proceed with the clusterfuck that is world politics. I recognize the core problem is that some politicians cobble it together and go back to step two or -- god forbid it -- step one and then attack those. Instead of recognizing that we've already made ground, we go back and people mire everything up with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." And then the witch hunts begin and we're not making any progress
Can we all just scientifically get to step two and then we'll go from there? The climate scientists are the experts. You're not suddenly compelled to rip apart the latest Computer Science study as an armchair computer scientists because you haven't studied it. Why are people suddenly compelled to call climate scientists -- who are basically the same figureheads in academia that computer scientists are -- into question? When did everyone get PhDs in climate science? Why wasn't I given one? And why are all the major journals publishing and defending global warming studies only to be ignored?
We've had some good wedding times and some burnination times
I wasn't around for these but, as a member lost in the masses of astronomical UIDs, let me say we'll miss both of you guys as well. Slashdot gets a little less personal but I hope this site is remains permanent and always here showing the world what you created.
First of all, TFA makes it sound like a straightforward case of "don't advertise illegal crap". Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies.
Er, citation needed. There's a bit of a history here indicating that Google was taking ads from just about anybody ... People have been selling prescription medicine on the internet forever. How real it is or where it comes from, what does it matter? The fact is that you need a prescription for it for a reason and those people get it without one.
The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).
That or they are attempting to do their job to regulate medicine.
Second, if merely accepting ads from unkosher sources commits a crime, then why the hell haven't the major broadcast networks gotten the smack-down for showing a non-stop string of crapvertisements from the likes of such blatant frauds as Enzyte and Head On?
Because Head On and Enzyte don't contain prescription drugs? They're largely over the counter drugs? It's when you get into scheduled drugs that the federal government gets upset. Here's an example of Adderall and Vicodin.
Oh. Right. "Online", the magic word that makes everything old new and illegal again.
No, but it makes it easier for you to appear legitimate, make quick semi-anonymous transactions of money and do it across a border so it's harder for law enforcement to track. "Online" increases our ability to communicate, it increases our commerce and it greatly improves our quality of life but it also amplifies the potential of illicit and illegal activities (for the same reasons I just listed). It's a double edged sword.
Google set aside $500 million for this a while ago. I'm not saying that that act alone implies guilt but it certainly indicates that they were preparing for this. If they thought these claims were bogus, I bet they would have put that money to better use. They have a history, I see news articles about these illegal prescription-less pharmacies and I'm guessing that you're just blindly defending Google for god only knows why.
Where does the bible say is Kain's wife from?
The Land of Nod (Genesis 4:16) It also can be interpreted as nomadic peoples (at least that's what my Catholic school upbringing taught me).
Yeah, it's FUD but when you really consider it as FUD, who exactly is it targeting? I think, if I read this correctly, this is supposed to be an attempt at scaring device manufacturers away from using Android. But the core of the argument appears to be that if you distribute Android and you do not follow the GPLv2 then you will lose all your rights (as with most licenses). Once you've lost all your rights, according to the GPLv2, you have to go around to the original copyright owners and get them to okay that you can again have a GPLv2 license. Which would be nigh impossible with Linux. Okay so that seems logical. They then state that you can instantly regain your rights by simply falling in line with compliance when the source code is GPLv3 licensed. Okay, so that also sounds logical.
We've already seen claims from Edward Naughton and Florian Mueller that most Android distributors are in violation of the GPL - claims that the open source community has, for the most part, rejected.
I don't know how someone can speak for that demographic. I followed the link to find out who this spokesperson is and was brought to this in the linked article on that Slashdot article:
Textbook FUD.
And this is why people avoid GPL code. Whether Mueller is right or wrong (and he's pretty much always wrong) there is so much FUD spread over potential GPL violations all over the place that most corporations just don't want to even get within miles of the GPL for fear that some loser like Florian will try to peg crap on them.
A Slashdot Anonymous Coward
So the open source community is represented by an anonymous coward here on Slashdot?
Have I ever bought a $10 piece of trash from China and found out that I could really use the source in order to make it work with my computer? Yes. Could I foresee some BS tablet maker producing a piece of trash tablet, hacking Android and releasing it sans source code only to have consumers wonder how in the hell Android is running on that device? Definitely. I wouldn't put that past anybody given there's supposedly one GPL violation a day and the fact of the matter is that licenses don't seem to mean jack shit in China (and that's their right as a sovereign nation).
So the allegations here are that Edward Naughton and Florian Mueller (neither of whom I am defending, by the way) have spread FUD to strong arm people into migrating to GPLv3 so that device makers won't fear the repercussion of violating GPLv2 and then having to do impossible legwork to get back in good standing and regain a license?
Regardless of how effective that is (I'm not a handset manufacturer nor do I know any straying from Android because of this) that is some pretty crazy thin ridiculous sorry FUD if I may say so myself. I worked for a Fortune 500 company for seven years and all I ever saw was a slow gradual movement toward GPL code until I think the only licenses we had were unfortunate contractual agreements from the past. Oh, and Windows. No one really cowered in fear and ran screaming when presented with the above "FUD" as the Anonymous Coward quote seems to imply.
I don't get it, we pick apart any huge company's license here on Slashdot in the name of protecting the consumer but when someone does it to the GPL and finds some hilariously minute case -- then it's FUD?
The FSF's press release on the subject emphasizes 'worries' without bringing up a specific concrete case of infringement — a classic FUD technique.
I think it's worth pointing out that in order for this to be "proven" in a court of law, I think that would mean a GPLv2 license holder would have to sue a company that used Android,
Their paper, entitled 'Heat of the Moment: Characterizing the Efcacy of Thermal Camera-Based Attacks' ...
Oh sure everybody wants to show how easy it is to steal everyone else's PIN but when you release a paper detailing how to do it with X-rays and guarantee the target develops cancer and dies within a month leaving their account ripe for unnoticed pilfering then you've "gone too far"!
It is obvious that these major outlets continue to protect Mark and his "new image". He is an admitted forgerer, he was forced to admit it under oath, not because he feels compelled to tell the truth, like ever, but because he carelessly wrote as his home adress on the document he was forging an address that he didnt know about or move to until more than a year after the document was supposedly written! A rational person would think I need not say more, and that surely my arrest for mushrooms 14 years ago or the fact that I fell behind on wood pellet orders that have long since paid back is irrelevant compared to the more daming and far more on point evidence that Zuckerberg is an admitted forger and an admitted hacker, yet a read of the major media outlets shows what most people know already, that our “Free Press” slant the news to the big boss’s views. A luxury afforded the Billionaires of this world that clearly have their own agendas. Perhaps calling them out like this will force some two sided coverage of the story.
Ceglia gets hilariously specific about his past problems ... and hilariously unspecific about Zuckerberg's. I am in the very uncomfortable (and unfamiliar) position of defending Zuckerberg and pondering whence we begin ignoring this crackpot Ceglia.
If anyone is wondering why Ceglia has milled through four law firms, you need only read the letter he submitted to the press and (apparently) did not attach any NDAs to. I would guess this letter would be a defense attorney's wet dream (assuming Ceglia allows them to prove it came from him).
From the Arab Spring to the riots of London last week, I see that social networks are the peoples tools to not only talk about how bored we are today, or to worry about everyone seeing that last photo we put up, but also when users are oppressed somewhere and realize it, it obviously can be used to overthrow tyranny and outmanuever the forces that protect the establishment. It’s become the peoples voice and a powerful tool to unite the masses. It’s a tool that deserves to stay in the hands and control of the people.
You know what's really pathetic and disgusting to me? Watching someone try to abduct an entire set of social causes and violent radical movements for their own fucking he said/he said lawsuit that stands to benefit them to the tune of billions of dollars. Really, I don't see what that has to do with the legitimacy of your ownership of any part of Facebook. Justice shouldn't care what you do with what belongs to you, it should only be concerned with you having what belongs to you. Disgusting.
Christian Torres writes that Facebook and the pharmaceutical industry have had an uneasy partnership in recent years and many drug companies didn't join the site until Facebook gave them a privilege that others do not have — blocking the public's ability to openly comment on a page Wall.
Uh, so whoever did the investigative journalism for this piece needs to go back to Webelos and get their fact checking merit badge. All walls can be restricted to only posts by the owner of the wall on Facebook. In fact, it is so uncommon for the wall to be open to fan postings that I had to turn to Mystery Science Theater 3000 for an example of open posting. Take the current DVD distributor for MST3K, Shout Factory as an example of a non-pharmaceutical company restricting me from complaining about the packaging on some of their DVD sets openly on their wall.
Every company does it, it's not "special protection." I'm happy that big pharma is losing this option but frankly I'm wondering why anyone is allowed to open up a wall and the suppress public comments on their products. They should be proud of their products and they should engage their customers openly. You can block individual trolls but I'm shocked that their concern isn't bad publicity for their products from a few outliers but instead concern from government regulators! What? If you're giving them all your information about your drug's potential side effects, there shouldn't be any concern!
So looking at the drug they listed, Seroquel I see the user comments being actually very helpful. People talking about it losing its potency, people talking about switching on or off XR for better results. I'm sure that these comments have been weeded by some corporate automaton but, come on, these are customers helping other customers!
You know what happens when you don't put up a main page for a product? Tons and tons of hate pages. Government regulators don't notice these?
Open internet limited by lawsuit. There would still be an open internet, and things like gopher and Usenet would have grown and been able to do a little innovation. However, if gopher tried to expand to be more web like, we would have seen a legal fight that not only delayed innovation, but limited the arenas in which we innovated.
Well, he could have patented it and if he had tried to exercise those patents, my guess is that people would have been put off until a better more liberating solution came along that circumvented those very patents. It's odd that Techdirt mentions Gopher protocol. That was licensed software and, as I've speculated before, died because it cost money to use.
Techdirt's usually a good read but I don't agree with his assessment on this one. I believe we would have a completely different protocol and paradigm that might have taken longer to achieve and might have been better or worse. Who's to know? I think Gopher's example makes it plenty obvious that any patented solution limping along would be ravenously devoured by an open alternative.
Had it been patented, I simply don't believe it would have been the final solution.