You can be a great leader and still get a large group of followers to drink the poisoned Kool-Aid or kill millions of people. Being a poor leader isn't the problem. We have great leaders, but they are leading based on their...as you've stated...self-centered and obnoxious ways. The problem falls to determining if the person if looking out for themselves, their race (humanistic or political), religion, private organization, company, or someone they know.
At least we don't stone people to death, crucify them, or burn them at the stake any more.
I would argue that we still do... only our stones are faster, the cross is in HD1080p, and their burns come from electricity, chemical, or lifetime incarceration. Keeping a man alive in a cell is no better than burning him at the stake. You still take away his life, offer him no choice and if he does survive, he's scarred for life and unable to get a decent job.
The purpose of watching a movie is to see Bruce Willis "kill a helicopter with a car" and not to worry if the helicopter had children that might be hurt by that action.
Someone sensed that people weren't respecting the Patriot Act any more so they needed someone to push the limits to get the normal people back in line again. I'm also sure it has nothing to do with the idea of pushing the billions of dollars in high speed rail spending.../end conspiracy theory
There's no lock-in involved in switching away from Chrome. It uses open standards to access data on the Internet that Google wants to use open standards.
Now, if Chrome only allowed you to access special parts of the Internet controlled by Google you might have an argument. Since it utilizes open standards, there's little or no pain in choosing another competitor.
I also don't like their attitude with not keeping things private for their users.
You have all the information you need to attempt to obtain my phone number and give me a call telling me how public my information is. I'll even give you a hint (not that it will get you further in this test.) I have a Droid, with my number registered to Google as well as a Google Voice Number forwarded to that same phone. That gives you twice as much chance to stumble upon a number. Call me if you can. I doubt you'll find my phone number in all that public information you claim Google is publishing.
Proxy settings on a client app have nothing to do with open communication protocols... Talk about reaching for straws.
You've posted this several times and are completely wrong every time. Locking users in? (below) Locking them into what? Operating system settings that they can change?
So your whole complaint is that you can't download other people's posted video? What if they wanted to share it, but didn't want you downloading it? If they did want you to download it, they would have provided it on another site. It's not your data. You can watch it. The protocols are well established to do that. You can even embed it in your own site... on Google's dime. What you want is free access to everyone else's data?
You apparently have an agenda here. This isn't the only fuel (from reading our history) supporting your supposed hatred for Google, open source/Linux (except when dealing with Google...) and anything not Microsoft? I smell a bit of hypocrisy looking through your post and submit history.
Yes, and that's how I agree with the direction they are going. That's why I think the only thing missing right now is a way to do what I said... Otherwise, Google is more open with me than most other companies and I agree with their push to open (and keep open) the Internet protocols and communication. This is why they promote sharing tools and code that keeps this going.
Uh, no. They mean having the data you send to them and the data they send to you be an open and understood format. They mean being able to open an email client and have someone send you an email/Contact from GMail and still be able to read it without requiring Outlook. You can close your client if you like, but they'll give you the ability to read data provided by them or anyone for that matter without needing to install a special client.
Because none of those are needed to promote an open Internet experience... the data they provide is in an open format (for the most part... video is kind of tricky) so anyone getting an email from GMail will be able to display it properly. GMail server code doesn't have to be open for that to happen. You don't have to have an open Wave reader to let the user download the finished document in an open format that can be uploaded somewhere else (I haven't used Wave, but I suppose you should be able to download your document and open it in OpenOffice/Word... right?)
There's a difference between using open protocols and using open source.
Personally, I have no problem with companies using open protocols. The only thing I think Google is missing is a way to export all your Google information into a data file you can upload into someone else (or a way to give someone a "key" to your information to side load it), otherwise, they don't use proprietary email standards (*cough* Exchange *cough*) or use proprietary web page extensions (*cough* ActiveX *cough*) that cause people to have to buy Google servers, software and equipment to be able to use said protocols.
I'm all for open protocols, even if you don't open source the code generating it as long as you don't need the code generating it to use it (or have to pay a patent or other license to use it.)
That's the most screwed up logic I've heard today... software is a machine because software + computer == machine? You realize that's like saying water is a plant cause water + seed == plant.
With all these improvements to Javascript bytecode, how long will it be until it replaces conventional VMs? Should I even worry about learning Clojure (which I just started on) if Javascript bytecode is becoming fast enough to develop on?
"The U.S. Government, as with any government, by definition, intrudes on your life."
I think GP means that the U.S. Government by definition is not allowed to intrude on a person's life... thus the "Try reading the Constitution" part of GP's post. Whether or not they do is a different matter. It is my personal belief through reading The Constitution was that it attempts to prevent aristocracy through government and somehow we've managed to fall back into the same routine of governmental (or oligarchical) control over the common person. You can hear it in the political races when someone claims a person isn't experienced enough to be President when all our laws really requires is that a person be natural born and 35 years old. You can pretend that that's to protect the security of our country, but I think we can all see that it's some notion of "climbing the ladder" being the only proper method of conditioning for such a position. In the document framework, the President has such little power that there's no way for him to "legally" mess up because that honor was given to the elected majority in Congress. All the President can technically do is slow things down. (That's a good thing!) Unfortunately though, the President has been slowly lifted from the seat of an executor/check of laws to the instigator/initiator position where people rest their hopes. Not to mention the constant hounding of previous Presidents based on personal activities that didn't align with the "moral" guidelines set by society. Ironically, we're slowly becoming a nation of nobility and title.
The user passes a new format and the computer hums along... or maybe I misinterpreted your question.
(...sorry, I'm being an ass because linking to a wiki page on what reflection is to someone on Slashdot who is talking about scripting is quite possibly the most condescending thing you can do.)
One night I was sitting in my room one night after going to a party and they all started demanding that I call them friends from now on. The one just sat there staring at me until I would. He kept blinking his red eyes at me unwavering while making clicking noises to scare me. It worked! I now only refer to them as friends from here out. My beautiful precious friends...
But wouldn't that be more overhead (passing an object) because now the application accepting said list of files has to understand the structure of passed object in order to process it correctly, where in Linux you simply pass text/streams as specified by the accepting application. These applications can be written by anyone with no prior knowledge of the object structure of another application that may be sending it information.
It sounds to me like PowerShell flies in the face of everything I was taught about programming functions. Now my function must be able to interpret data from another function and know how it's structured. You lose the homogeneous function input that's consistent for a system that you could pass a file structure to a function that wasn't written to handle it's object struct. I suppose that's all fine and well if you are working on a system where there's only one contributor, but what happens down the road if the structures change? Now all the tools that used that structure must be changed.
Thanks for the explorer replacement... now if I can get it approved (unless it has "portable" capabilities...)
Also, The anecdote I have for an example was when I needed my hex editor a few months ago. I couldn't remember it's name and it didn't have "hex" or "edit" or anything really to do with that in it's name, so without the start menu organization I had (Utilities / Hex Editing) I wouldn't have been able to find it by typing in ArtMoney which is a name that has nothing to do with hex editing. (Yes, I found it useful when I needed it to correct a bug in a certain RPG so "game hex editing" was what led me to it and I liked it's functionality, but I always forgot it's name.) So without having to go out to the internet and find another editor, I would have to remember the name of it... I also have several regex testers for various systems (.NET / Perl) that use names that don't exactly say "Regular Expression Tester" anywhere in the name. Usually it's a play on words or phrases and unless you use them regularly it's not efficient for me to remember their proper names to search.
Personally, I'm dreading the forced move to Windows 7 when it comes down the pipe. It may be nice for Grandma who wants transparent windows and flashy interface, but the lack of usable file tree structures (no lines anymore, needless wasted space...) really puts a damper on my development tasks (especially when you dig 14 levels into a folder of classes and version trees...) The addition of useless tool bars at the top of the windows that can't be removed also put's a damper on my minimalist self with the removal of the small status bar at the bottom of the windows. I'm not even going to mention how handy the old XP (2000?) classic menu was that allowed me to organize my applications by company, use and then product so I could quickly find what I needed without having to remember it's icon name to search for it. (Yes, there are tools that I might only use once in a blue moon, like packet sniffers, hex editors, etc. that have some ridiculous names.)
But hey... I'm a developer who uses tons of tools all day long. If MS doesn't want me to be productive, I know where I can go. Now, if I can get my company to agree...
Nah... the CLI scripting makes up for it The UI is what it is... but the PowerShell scripting components are like bash on steroids. There's nothing in UnixVille like it in terms of integration. by tomhenderson on 12/22/09 at 12:29 pm
Anyone care to point out to me how PowerShell can be more "integrated" than bash? Unless he's talking about the fact that you can replace Bash if you like and you probably can't replace Powershell... but I doubt he's talking about "integration" in that manner.
For stupidity sake, let's just pretend you're not trolling. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that comment... I assume you're talking about Fox News, but I could be wrong, seeing as you're misspelling (or maybe intentional personal bias) is getting in the way of having a logical and reasonable conversation. It also sounds as if you are implicating me as a regular viewer... to which you would also be wrong.
I can however assure you that government resources rarely go toward "useful stuff", and rightly so. The U.S. Government was given no right to intrude on my life and has stepped well beyond useful.
A software program is simply an instruction manual created to be read by a computer. I've said it before, programs/algorithms are copyrightable, but should not be patentable. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
You can be a great leader and still get a large group of followers to drink the poisoned Kool-Aid or kill millions of people. Being a poor leader isn't the problem. We have great leaders, but they are leading based on their...as you've stated ...self-centered and obnoxious ways. The problem falls to determining if the person if looking out for themselves, their race (humanistic or political), religion, private organization, company, or someone they know.
At least we don't stone people to death, crucify them, or burn them at the stake any more.
I would argue that we still do... only our stones are faster, the cross is in HD1080p, and their burns come from electricity, chemical, or lifetime incarceration. Keeping a man alive in a cell is no better than burning him at the stake. You still take away his life, offer him no choice and if he does survive, he's scarred for life and unable to get a decent job.
The purpose of watching a movie is to see Bruce Willis "kill a helicopter with a car" and not to worry if the helicopter had children that might be hurt by that action.
At least, that's why I go to movies.
Someone sensed that people weren't respecting the Patriot Act any more so they needed someone to push the limits to get the normal people back in line again. I'm also sure it has nothing to do with the idea of pushing the billions of dollars in high speed rail spending... /end conspiracy theory
There's no lock-in involved in switching away from Chrome. It uses open standards to access data on the Internet that Google wants to use open standards.
Now, if Chrome only allowed you to access special parts of the Internet controlled by Google you might have an argument. Since it utilizes open standards, there's little or no pain in choosing another competitor.
Sorry man, but you lose that argument as well.
I also don't like their attitude with not keeping things private for their users.
You have all the information you need to attempt to obtain my phone number and give me a call telling me how public my information is. I'll even give you a hint (not that it will get you further in this test.) I have a Droid, with my number registered to Google as well as a Google Voice Number forwarded to that same phone. That gives you twice as much chance to stumble upon a number. Call me if you can. I doubt you'll find my phone number in all that public information you claim Google is publishing.
Proxy settings on a client app have nothing to do with open communication protocols... Talk about reaching for straws.
You've posted this several times and are completely wrong every time. Locking users in? (below) Locking them into what? Operating system settings that they can change?
So your whole complaint is that you can't download other people's posted video? What if they wanted to share it, but didn't want you downloading it? If they did want you to download it, they would have provided it on another site. It's not your data. You can watch it. The protocols are well established to do that. You can even embed it in your own site... on Google's dime. What you want is free access to everyone else's data?
You apparently have an agenda here. This isn't the only fuel (from reading our history) supporting your supposed hatred for Google, open source/Linux (except when dealing with Google...) and anything not Microsoft? I smell a bit of hypocrisy looking through your post and submit history.
Yes, and that's how I agree with the direction they are going. That's why I think the only thing missing right now is a way to do what I said... Otherwise, Google is more open with me than most other companies and I agree with their push to open (and keep open) the Internet protocols and communication. This is why they promote sharing tools and code that keeps this going.
Uh, no. They mean having the data you send to them and the data they send to you be an open and understood format. They mean being able to open an email client and have someone send you an email/Contact from GMail and still be able to read it without requiring Outlook. You can close your client if you like, but they'll give you the ability to read data provided by them or anyone for that matter without needing to install a special client.
Because none of those are needed to promote an open Internet experience... the data they provide is in an open format (for the most part... video is kind of tricky) so anyone getting an email from GMail will be able to display it properly. GMail server code doesn't have to be open for that to happen. You don't have to have an open Wave reader to let the user download the finished document in an open format that can be uploaded somewhere else (I haven't used Wave, but I suppose you should be able to download your document and open it in OpenOffice/Word... right?)
They, in this case, being the author of the article and not Google...
There's a difference between using open protocols and using open source.
Personally, I have no problem with companies using open protocols. The only thing I think Google is missing is a way to export all your Google information into a data file you can upload into someone else (or a way to give someone a "key" to your information to side load it), otherwise, they don't use proprietary email standards (*cough* Exchange *cough*) or use proprietary web page extensions (*cough* ActiveX *cough*) that cause people to have to buy Google servers, software and equipment to be able to use said protocols.
I'm all for open protocols, even if you don't open source the code generating it as long as you don't need the code generating it to use it (or have to pay a patent or other license to use it.)
That's the most screwed up logic I've heard today... software is a machine because software + computer == machine? You realize that's like saying water is a plant cause water + seed == plant.
With all these improvements to Javascript bytecode, how long will it be until it replaces conventional VMs? Should I even worry about learning Clojure (which I just started on) if Javascript bytecode is becoming fast enough to develop on?
</hypothetical hat>
Too many links to click... it's easier to scroll to the comments. Most of the time they have better information anyway. ;)
"The U.S. Government, as with any government, by definition, intrudes on your life."
I think GP means that the U.S. Government by definition is not allowed to intrude on a person's life... thus the "Try reading the Constitution" part of GP's post. Whether or not they do is a different matter. It is my personal belief through reading The Constitution was that it attempts to prevent aristocracy through government and somehow we've managed to fall back into the same routine of governmental (or oligarchical) control over the common person. You can hear it in the political races when someone claims a person isn't experienced enough to be President when all our laws really requires is that a person be natural born and 35 years old. You can pretend that that's to protect the security of our country, but I think we can all see that it's some notion of "climbing the ladder" being the only proper method of conditioning for such a position. In the document framework, the President has such little power that there's no way for him to "legally" mess up because that honor was given to the elected majority in Congress. All the President can technically do is slow things down. (That's a good thing!) Unfortunately though, the President has been slowly lifted from the seat of an executor/check of laws to the instigator/initiator position where people rest their hopes. Not to mention the constant hounding of previous Presidents based on personal activities that didn't align with the "moral" guidelines set by society. Ironically, we're slowly becoming a nation of nobility and title.
The user passes a new format and the computer hums along... or maybe I misinterpreted your question.
(...sorry, I'm being an ass because linking to a wiki page on what reflection is to someone on Slashdot who is talking about scripting is quite possibly the most condescending thing you can do.)
One night I was sitting in my room one night after going to a party and they all started demanding that I call them friends from now on. The one just sat there staring at me until I would. He kept blinking his red eyes at me unwavering while making clicking noises to scare me. It worked! I now only refer to them as friends from here out. My beautiful precious friends...
But wouldn't that be more overhead (passing an object) because now the application accepting said list of files has to understand the structure of passed object in order to process it correctly, where in Linux you simply pass text/streams as specified by the accepting application. These applications can be written by anyone with no prior knowledge of the object structure of another application that may be sending it information.
It sounds to me like PowerShell flies in the face of everything I was taught about programming functions. Now my function must be able to interpret data from another function and know how it's structured. You lose the homogeneous function input that's consistent for a system that you could pass a file structure to a function that wasn't written to handle it's object struct. I suppose that's all fine and well if you are working on a system where there's only one contributor, but what happens down the road if the structures change? Now all the tools that used that structure must be changed.
Sounds like a headache to me.
Thanks for the explorer replacement... now if I can get it approved (unless it has "portable" capabilities...)
Also, The anecdote I have for an example was when I needed my hex editor a few months ago. I couldn't remember it's name and it didn't have "hex" or "edit" or anything really to do with that in it's name, so without the start menu organization I had (Utilities / Hex Editing) I wouldn't have been able to find it by typing in ArtMoney which is a name that has nothing to do with hex editing. (Yes, I found it useful when I needed it to correct a bug in a certain RPG so "game hex editing" was what led me to it and I liked it's functionality, but I always forgot it's name.) So without having to go out to the internet and find another editor, I would have to remember the name of it... I also have several regex testers for various systems (.NET / Perl) that use names that don't exactly say "Regular Expression Tester" anywhere in the name. Usually it's a play on words or phrases and unless you use them regularly it's not efficient for me to remember their proper names to search.
Personally, I'm dreading the forced move to Windows 7 when it comes down the pipe. It may be nice for Grandma who wants transparent windows and flashy interface, but the lack of usable file tree structures (no lines anymore, needless wasted space...) really puts a damper on my development tasks (especially when you dig 14 levels into a folder of classes and version trees...) The addition of useless tool bars at the top of the windows that can't be removed also put's a damper on my minimalist self with the removal of the small status bar at the bottom of the windows. I'm not even going to mention how handy the old XP (2000?) classic menu was that allowed me to organize my applications by company, use and then product so I could quickly find what I needed without having to remember it's icon name to search for it. (Yes, there are tools that I might only use once in a blue moon, like packet sniffers, hex editors, etc. that have some ridiculous names.)
But hey... I'm a developer who uses tons of tools all day long. If MS doesn't want me to be productive, I know where I can go. Now, if I can get my company to agree...
I read it and the comments from the author...
Nah... the CLI scripting makes up for it
The UI is what it is... but the PowerShell scripting components are like bash on steroids. There's nothing in UnixVille like it in terms of integration.
by tomhenderson on 12/22/09 at 12:29 pm
Anyone care to point out to me how PowerShell can be more "integrated" than bash? Unless he's talking about the fact that you can replace Bash if you like and you probably can't replace Powershell... but I doubt he's talking about "integration" in that manner.
For stupidity sake, let's just pretend you're not trolling. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that comment... I assume you're talking about Fox News, but I could be wrong, seeing as you're misspelling (or maybe intentional personal bias) is getting in the way of having a logical and reasonable conversation. It also sounds as if you are implicating me as a regular viewer... to which you would also be wrong.
I can however assure you that government resources rarely go toward "useful stuff", and rightly so. The U.S. Government was given no right to intrude on my life and has stepped well beyond useful.
government resources that could have been spent on actually useful stuff.
Where have you been?
A software program is simply an instruction manual created to be read by a computer. I've said it before, programs/algorithms are copyrightable, but should not be patentable. Period.