Oh I get that. What I don't understand is why anyone should care. If movie studios (or whoever else) want to make themselves insta-obsolete by refusing to embrace modern technology, so what? The market will provide other less short-sighted sources of entertainment.
I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about. Our nice little series of tubes is not going to be diminished if "the movie studios remove movies from the web" in any significant way. It's the movie studios that will be diminished and, likely, quickly outcompeted in the marketplace. I think it's time to start full-stop calling all the bluffs.
It's working ok. Not perfect, but not terrible either. A hell of a lot better than it would work if we handed our taxpayer money to religious fanatics with the hope that market forces will correct for quality of education as generations and generations of people are "taught" that earth is 7000 years old and that god buried dinosaur bones in the ground to test the resolve of the faithful.
Just because our current state of affairs is imperfect is no reason to go from bad to worse.
That's not true. Or, rather, that's true in some sectors (especially when it comes to the for-profit higher education sector that's mostly funded by the government) but it does not apply to traditional higher education (you know, the Harvards and the Stanfords and such) where tuition is mostly paid out-of-pocket or through commercial loans.
This will make things worse, not better.
One of the reasons we need public schools in the first place is to protect children from their parents, so to speak. Our country has a very real interest in making sure that all children have access to quality education, including children born to parents who don't believe in science, don't believe in government, or don't believe in education in the first place.
The fist thing that will happen if the government gets out of the public schools game will be that a whole chunk of our taxes is going to flow towards supporting backwards "schools" where children will be indoctrinated into any one of the existing religions, and not get to do any actual learning. Over time, these children will lose out to those, who get a real education, but this won't actually be good for anyone. Ignorance begets ignorance, and these people, having lost access to a whole slew of opportunities as adults, will happily send their children to the same backwards "schools", in a never-ending cycle of ignorance and poverty. In the end, our nation is going to be even more polarized and worse off than where we are today.
No, you're not too old.
We have just hired a software engineer in his 70s. He hit the ground running, and is continually kicking ass and taking names. It took him right around two weeks to become productive in Scala (which is not an easy language to learn).
Granted, he's an outlier, but it certainly can be done.
I still don't see your point. I'm not trying to be an as*hole here, I really don't. Myspace is providing a medium for communication. They don't have any processes in place to edit, censure, or verify anything anyone posts about themselves. They're not an online magazine, like slashdot with editor approving stories that get posted. There's no way they can ensure that all their content is safe. In fact, it's almost certain that not all of it is. They're not responsible for it, just like Slashdot's not responsible for comments that people post (as opposed to stories.)
I see absolutely no reason for them to help parents keep track of their children any more than any other entity that provides a medium for intrapersonal communication like email, web forums, cell phone companies, etc. etc. It would ne nice of them to provide educational material for concerned parents, but there's no excuse to force them to do so. Also, you have to remember that Myspace is not in the business of verifying identities, age, or anything else for that matter. A 13-year-old girl can claim to be 35 and there's nothing Myspace can do to keep her from doing so.
The problem of libel and slander is not new or unique to the internet and there are perfectly fine machanisms in place for dealing with it that have worked just fine over the years.
Disagree completely. You simply cannot push the burden of chaperoning kids onto Myspace the same way you can't expect phone companies to monitor calls to make sure the conversation is safe. That's silly. All Myspace is is a communications medium and there's absolutely no way they, as a company, can ensure that all the communication that takes place within the medium happens to be safe.
Also note that in my post above I did not single out parenting as a solution to the problem. In fact, I've never even mentioned parenting, even though it's certainly a part of the solution. The most important factor involved is education, for parents and for the kids. People need to be taught about the risks and ramifications involved in sharing personal information online.
This is not to say that sharing personal information online is always a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with being a public figure, and each public figure decides for themselves just how much they want to reveal. Some chose to remain anonymous while others post naked pictures of themselves along with phone numbers. What seems to happen quite a bit with Myspace and the like is people don't realize just how much they're revealing and how this information can be used against them. This is where education comes in.
Baning a communication medium is not the way to go. Not only is it the wrong thing to do, but it's also futile. Kids will post their camp expariences regardless of whether or not it's against the rules. Pushing them underground, so to say, achieves nothing.
It's perfectly understandable that summer camp administrators are concerned. There's cause for concern. I think, however, that trying to ban kids from socializing online and discussing their camp experiences is definitly not the way to go. Social networking sites like Myspace are a reality, and trying to ban reality never works. Teaching kids about safe behaviour on the 'net would be a much more viable option, IMHO.
I think that you're taking the analogy way the hell too far.
Think of it, this exploit was one of the more effective Windows exploits for a while - at least of those that I remember - and it sold for a measly 4000 bucks. This is way too little for any serious criminals to get involved. While I don't know the exact prices, I'm sure that it is much much easier to generate returns of this scale by selling small quantities of drugs, which is easier, takes much less education and skill, and is a lot less tracable.
Once the figures jump by an order of magnitude or two, we can talk about serious organized crime. For now, it's still a loose network of antisocial teenagers with entirely too much time on their hands.
While this article is trash, pure and simple. Here's only a few flaws with the idea that come to mind:
1) Such a chip has obvious privacy implications.
2) Forcibly installing such chips into our computers is, well, illegal.
3) Such a policy would be unenforcible. The Internet is a global community, remeber?
4) Such a chip ensures nothing. We all know that passwords are not safe and that those methods of biometric identifications that are cheap enough to go on your average computer (fingerprints) are insecure to the point of being breakable via silly putty.
Need I go on?
Not only would this technology add _nothing_ to the end user that a username/password combination do not already do, but it would also leave him or her vulnerable to all sorts of fun fraud.
LAMP? Why not LAMJ
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I, for one, developed quite a bit for linux-apache-mysql-java.
Right now, I'm developing for linux-apache-jboss-mysql-java.
What is it with people not being able to compare apples to apples? Java is a language first and foremost. Secondly, it's a set of frameworks, starting from EJBS (IMO, an abomination) to things like Hibernate, to Struts, to whatever else.
Comparing these things simply makes no sense.
... is that high end blogger _are_ journalists. Period. There's nothing new about blogging other than the cost of entry. Regular editorial/opinion/whatever columns have existed for a long time now. The only thing that the low cost of entry changes is the average quality.
Other than that, there is no difference.
What gets me is the ever-present trend of coming up with "clever" tag words for every single manifestation of the same old thing. Writing secret data on a diskette is data theft, writing it into an iPod is "podstuffing", writing it into a digital camera is "camstuffing"... It's all the same thing.
Take your blogosphere and shove it.
You're missing the point.
Whenever code is compiled, certain compromises are made as far as speed/resource (memory, whatever) usage goes. This is where the true benefit of JIT comes in - with JIT, the comipation is optimized not only for the given machine but also for this particular point in time. It should be obvious why this approach at least has the potential to beat conventional precompilation.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I get that. What I don't understand is why anyone should care. If movie studios (or whoever else) want to make themselves insta-obsolete by refusing to embrace modern technology, so what? The market will provide other less short-sighted sources of entertainment.
I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about. Our nice little series of tubes is not going to be diminished if "the movie studios remove movies from the web" in any significant way. It's the movie studios that will be diminished and, likely, quickly outcompeted in the marketplace. I think it's time to start full-stop calling all the bluffs.
It's working ok. Not perfect, but not terrible either. A hell of a lot better than it would work if we handed our taxpayer money to religious fanatics with the hope that market forces will correct for quality of education as generations and generations of people are "taught" that earth is 7000 years old and that god buried dinosaur bones in the ground to test the resolve of the faithful.
Just because our current state of affairs is imperfect is no reason to go from bad to worse.
That's not true. Or, rather, that's true in some sectors (especially when it comes to the for-profit higher education sector that's mostly funded by the government) but it does not apply to traditional higher education (you know, the Harvards and the Stanfords and such) where tuition is mostly paid out-of-pocket or through commercial loans.
This will make things worse, not better. One of the reasons we need public schools in the first place is to protect children from their parents, so to speak. Our country has a very real interest in making sure that all children have access to quality education, including children born to parents who don't believe in science, don't believe in government, or don't believe in education in the first place. The fist thing that will happen if the government gets out of the public schools game will be that a whole chunk of our taxes is going to flow towards supporting backwards "schools" where children will be indoctrinated into any one of the existing religions, and not get to do any actual learning. Over time, these children will lose out to those, who get a real education, but this won't actually be good for anyone. Ignorance begets ignorance, and these people, having lost access to a whole slew of opportunities as adults, will happily send their children to the same backwards "schools", in a never-ending cycle of ignorance and poverty. In the end, our nation is going to be even more polarized and worse off than where we are today.
No, you're not too old. We have just hired a software engineer in his 70s. He hit the ground running, and is continually kicking ass and taking names. It took him right around two weeks to become productive in Scala (which is not an easy language to learn). Granted, he's an outlier, but it certainly can be done.
I still don't see your point. I'm not trying to be an as*hole here, I really don't. Myspace is providing a medium for communication. They don't have any processes in place to edit, censure, or verify anything anyone posts about themselves. They're not an online magazine, like slashdot with editor approving stories that get posted. There's no way they can ensure that all their content is safe. In fact, it's almost certain that not all of it is. They're not responsible for it, just like Slashdot's not responsible for comments that people post (as opposed to stories.)
I see absolutely no reason for them to help parents keep track of their children any more than any other entity that provides a medium for intrapersonal communication like email, web forums, cell phone companies, etc. etc. It would ne nice of them to provide educational material for concerned parents, but there's no excuse to force them to do so. Also, you have to remember that Myspace is not in the business of verifying identities, age, or anything else for that matter. A 13-year-old girl can claim to be 35 and there's nothing Myspace can do to keep her from doing so.
Why should it work with parents? Should your wireless provider work with parents to help spy on kids?
The problem of libel and slander is not new or unique to the internet and there are perfectly fine machanisms in place for dealing with it that have worked just fine over the years.
Disagree completely. You simply cannot push the burden of chaperoning kids onto Myspace the same way you can't expect phone companies to monitor calls to make sure the conversation is safe. That's silly. All Myspace is is a communications medium and there's absolutely no way they, as a company, can ensure that all the communication that takes place within the medium happens to be safe.
Also note that in my post above I did not single out parenting as a solution to the problem. In fact, I've never even mentioned parenting, even though it's certainly a part of the solution. The most important factor involved is education, for parents and for the kids. People need to be taught about the risks and ramifications involved in sharing personal information online.
This is not to say that sharing personal information online is always a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with being a public figure, and each public figure decides for themselves just how much they want to reveal. Some chose to remain anonymous while others post naked pictures of themselves along with phone numbers. What seems to happen quite a bit with Myspace and the like is people don't realize just how much they're revealing and how this information can be used against them. This is where education comes in.
Baning a communication medium is not the way to go. Not only is it the wrong thing to do, but it's also futile. Kids will post their camp expariences regardless of whether or not it's against the rules. Pushing them underground, so to say, achieves nothing.
It's perfectly understandable that summer camp administrators are concerned. There's cause for concern. I think, however, that trying to ban kids from socializing online and discussing their camp experiences is definitly not the way to go. Social networking sites like Myspace are a reality, and trying to ban reality never works. Teaching kids about safe behaviour on the 'net would be a much more viable option, IMHO.
They only have 327,358,500 feet to go. A true breakthrough!!!
I think that you're taking the analogy way the hell too far. Think of it, this exploit was one of the more effective Windows exploits for a while - at least of those that I remember - and it sold for a measly 4000 bucks. This is way too little for any serious criminals to get involved. While I don't know the exact prices, I'm sure that it is much much easier to generate returns of this scale by selling small quantities of drugs, which is easier, takes much less education and skill, and is a lot less tracable. Once the figures jump by an order of magnitude or two, we can talk about serious organized crime. For now, it's still a loose network of antisocial teenagers with entirely too much time on their hands.
Thank you for making sense.
While this article is trash, pure and simple. Here's only a few flaws with the idea that come to mind: 1) Such a chip has obvious privacy implications. 2) Forcibly installing such chips into our computers is, well, illegal. 3) Such a policy would be unenforcible. The Internet is a global community, remeber? 4) Such a chip ensures nothing. We all know that passwords are not safe and that those methods of biometric identifications that are cheap enough to go on your average computer (fingerprints) are insecure to the point of being breakable via silly putty. Need I go on? Not only would this technology add _nothing_ to the end user that a username/password combination do not already do, but it would also leave him or her vulnerable to all sorts of fun fraud.
I, for one, developed quite a bit for linux-apache-mysql-java. Right now, I'm developing for linux-apache-jboss-mysql-java. What is it with people not being able to compare apples to apples? Java is a language first and foremost. Secondly, it's a set of frameworks, starting from EJBS (IMO, an abomination) to things like Hibernate, to Struts, to whatever else. Comparing these things simply makes no sense.
... is that high end blogger _are_ journalists. Period. There's nothing new about blogging other than the cost of entry. Regular editorial/opinion/whatever columns have existed for a long time now. The only thing that the low cost of entry changes is the average quality. Other than that, there is no difference. What gets me is the ever-present trend of coming up with "clever" tag words for every single manifestation of the same old thing. Writing secret data on a diskette is data theft, writing it into an iPod is "podstuffing", writing it into a digital camera is "camstuffing"... It's all the same thing. Take your blogosphere and shove it.
You're missing the point. Whenever code is compiled, certain compromises are made as far as speed/resource (memory, whatever) usage goes. This is where the true benefit of JIT comes in - with JIT, the comipation is optimized not only for the given machine but also for this particular point in time. It should be obvious why this approach at least has the potential to beat conventional precompilation.