Yet, as anyone who's ever visited MySpace can attest, today content is king. With all of us simultaneously contributing and consuming on blogs, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, Digg, and SecondLife, who needs a Webmaster anymore?
Saying "Content is King" in the same sentence as Myspace et. al. is like saying an overflowing ashtray is a sign of productivity.
Fox's Snyder is particularly irked at the persistent amount of camcording he and his distribution team have been able to track directly back to several of Cineplex's Montreal theatres. (Fox and other studios use forensic watermarking to know the exact time, date and auditorium where a copy was made.)
OK - so let me make sure I understand this correctly.
Fox sends a copy of a film to the theater on 123 main street. It plays there for 3 weeks.
Without changing the copy of the film, They can tell which screen, which date, and what time the film was recorded? Interesting
And I would assume that that particular copy of that particular film would NEVER be shown either before or afterward in another theater, in another town, in another country.
Sounds like bullshit to me. Methinks they place too much store in the tinfoil hats they borrowed from the props department.
I think the point (to the degree that it even makes sense to demand justification of a phrase given completely out of context) is that if government-funded research is required to be published in open access journals, that effectively destroys any other publishers.
Simple question. If research has been funded by the government, then the people have already, by definition, paid for it.
So please tell me in terms I can understand why publishers should be able to make you pay again for something you've already paid for?
The publishers have no right to exist in the future just because they exist now, and have in the past. In the past, they were required - it took skill, expertise and a shit load of money to lay something out, print it, and distribute it - and they served a very useful function, and absolutely deserved to make money for what they did.
But that need no longer exists - any more than society today has much of a need for sword makers, carters, or wheelers.
Those professions/trades went by the way side when society no longer needed them. What is wrong with the same thing happening to the journal publishers, if a more efficient, cheaper publishing & distribution method exists?
Party colours. The Liberals are a center-left party, and the Tories are center-right/right wing party. Liberal party colours are red; Tory colours are blue.
A Red or Blue Tory is on the left or right wing of the party - the same applies for the Liberals.
I will also say that Jean Charest, the Prime Minister, is the MOST, and I stress MOST, HATED Prime Minister of Quebec
He's the Premier, not he Prime Minister.
and technically, the PLQ is only the PCQ, the Parti Conservateur du Québec. Simple to see: Charest is an EX-Conservative deputee.
Charest was a member of the national Conservative Party, not the provincial party, before he entered Quebec politics and joined the provincial Liberals. The PLQ is the provincial wing of the national LIBERAL party. And even when he WAS a Tory, he was a very, very RED Tory.
That was a wonderfully well-written and reasoned reply... I wish there were more of them here on slashdot.
There's only one tiny, teensy little problem with it.
To re-highlight the part of my quote that you highlighted from the blog/TFA/whatever:
although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don't know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data
Now - maybe it's just me. But how does somebody saying "I don't know" imply anything about anything, other than his own admission of lack of knowledge? It sure as hell doesn't imply ANYTHING about a "lack of scientific concensus".
And since that assumption is the basis for your other comments, the rest of your reply - however well-written and reasoned - is kind of beside the point.
Just to make sure there's no doubt, a little further on, you say
If he didn't know (and that seems to be the case)... please let him say so.
I can only assume that you read the sentence that I highlighted, and not the rest.
Again, from TFA:
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy.
And that is in the context of her comments, just above that, talking about people who disagree with climate change being caused by man. The entire blog entry was about meteorologists who disagree with man being the cause.
This also, btw, ignores the fact that a meteorologist is NOT a climatologist.
Don't you think they also have a duty to point out that they're not talking about THEIR OWN specialty, before they start blathering on can?
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.
I think the point of the argument you missed is not her boss's attitude but rather her boss's sex.
Whether he boss has an innie or an outie is immaterial by itself. The discussion is about attitudes, BECAUSE of what sex they are, not their sex per se.
And my point was that it may NOT have been because of her boss, but becuse of her boss' wife, the current legal climate that - like it or not - very much dictates how people in the workplace relate to each other. And neither of those has anything to do with her boss being sexist.
Even bosses who weren't overtly sexist didn't treat me the same way as male associates because we just didn't "click" the same way - no invites to drinks after work, ski trips with the family, golf outings etc. So - no mentors, no advancement.
Are you sure that it's your boss that's being sexist? Maybe he's trying to protect his marriage. My wife wouldn't mind (much) if I went out for a beer with Ralph after work. But I can guarantee you she'd get SEVERELY cranked if I started going out for a beer with Michelle after work.
And let's not forget the potential for office gossip, and the very real threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit.
hmmmmm.... know what I just realized? Both of those scenarios involve a problem with a *womans* attitude, not sexism on the part of a man.
Bottom line? There can be very many reasons why there is unequal treatment. Not all of them are because of sexism, and not all are the fault of men.
We should not look down on prostitutes? Uh, why not? It is not a respectable "job". There can be male prostitutes as well you know, and I think they're just as bad as their vaginal counterparts.
OK - maybe it's just me. But I fail to see any inherent difference between a hooker selling her body for a living, and me going into an office and selling my brain for a living.
I'm not talking about some crack whore who is coerced into hooking for her next fix, or because her pimp will kick the crap out of her otherwise.
But I also know a few girls who put themselves through university by stripping and/or hooking. And I also know one who started hooking when she was 21, and retired to Florida by the time she was 32, and will never have to work again, because of the money she saved and invested
It doesn't cost $500,000 to take care of your average premie. Your experience is not evidence.
You've obviously never had a 2 lb, 10 oz baby who was born after only 27 weeks.
My daughter was born in 1989. The estimated cost for her to be in the neonatal intensive care ward for 3 months was about $450,000. And with the advances in care since then, the cost has gone UP, not DOWN. So I think that $500,000 is a convservative estimate, and certainly an appropriate round-number estimate.
If you're going to claim that people in the US are being denied healthcare because they don't have insurance, then you're eith a liar or completely ignorant.
I am neither. And I know of a FEW cases of people who can't go to the doctor because they have no insurance, but because of some weird calculations used to determine medicare/medicaid eligibility, they don't qualify for those programmes.
First, no sick person in the United States is denied healthcare because they can't afford to pay for it. In many cases, even illegal immigrants get free care, to the tune of $22 million a year in this county alone.
If my rough calculations are correct, $22 million dollars is just about enough to pay for the care of about 50 3 month premature babies.
Hardly the sort of thing that would make one want to swim the rio grande.
Oh, yeah. I'm a Canadian. My daughter was born 3 months premature.
I didn't have to worry about the cap on my insurance coverage
I didn't have to worry about having to sell the house, or taking a 2nd and/or 3rd mortage
MY only worry as getting to and from the hospital every day so I could visit her
I can't wait for the government to abolish universal health care. BR
Seriously..... you need to widen your social circles, becuase to me it sounds like you're only talking to yourself.
Well I'm your counterpart in India and I'm happy to hear you're having problems getting use to newer technologies. Keep up the good work.
Aren't you the guy that linked in that buggy, unreliable 10 Gb library into our application so you could use that new, just-freshly-developed WAY cool highly optimized parallel recursive garbage-collecting sort routine to deal with an unordered list of 10 items?
Here is the press release from Scherf's own company Gracenote's former parent, Escient about their purchase of CDDB, and it clearly states that Microsoft was a licensee:
Am i the only one here who thinks it's hilarious when a press release released by the marketing department of any company is used as proof of ANYTHING?:-)
The key word here is "replace". You can replace anything you like in Windows as well, but you have to replace it, that is, put another piece of code that provides the same function with the same interface in place.
IF you have a stable API.
IF you have a documented API.
Neither is the case with windows
With few exceptions, it's nearly impossible not to be able to do this with any software.
And microsoft has gone out of it's way to make it much more than just "nearly impossible"
The thing is, Microsoft does not have to support such a configuration.
In this, you're absolutely right. But they also don't have to go out of their way to make it IMPOSSIBLE, either.... do they?
Providing functionality for end user applications is what an OS does, and HTML rendering is just another function.
Providing libraries that are available for applications to use is one thing. Requiring that those libraries be present in all circumstances, and NOT BEING ABLE TO FUNCTION WITHOUT THEM, is quite another.
You keep getting hung up on the phrase "part of the OS". We're not talking about the kernel here. We're talking about the OS as a complete usable distribution of software. The only reason you can't say the same about "Linux" is because "Linux" is just a kernel.
Actually, I'm not talking about the kernel at all, nor have I implied it. You're assuming that because I don't agree with you, that I must be only thinking about the kernel. You're still missing the point. But now I will talk specifically about Linux, as an example - and as a "complete usable distribution", not just as a kernel
You can replace entire subsections of a "Linux" system, and still have a fully functional system. You can make a Linux system svelte as you want, or bloated as hell. And unless you interfere with the core functionality of the kernel itself, your system will still run. HTML rendering is not, by ANY definition of an operating system I have ever seen or heard of (Note I said OPERATING SYSTEM, not kernel), a core OS function.
Linux distributions all come with ssl libraries.... but you can remove them without breaking the OS. It's not "core" functionality
Linux distributions all come with various CD burning libraries and programmes.... but you can remove them without breaking the OS. It's not "core" functionality
Linux distributions all come with various HTML rendering libraries... and you can remove all, none, or one of them without breaking the OS. It's not "core" functionality.
Except in windows. And that, my friend, is the whole, entire problem.
And that is exactly the point that the "geeks" on slashdot are trying to make.
Even Richard Stallman argues that an OS is more than just the kernel.
And nowhere, in anything I've written, have I ever said otherwise.
Do me a favor. If you're going to disagree with me, please disagree with the points that I DO make, and stop trying to argue with me about things I have neither said nor implied.
No. I'm saying, if you remove a part of the OS, and it doing so will break a bunch of other apps besides what you removed, then you've basically broken the OS in some way. Like it or not, HTML rendering is a part of the OS that is depended upon by several parts of the OS and third party apps, removing it breaks things.
And that is exactly the problem. In Windows, HTML rendering IS part of the OS... AND IT SHOULD NOT BE.
That is one of the things that makes windows such a virus vector. It's one ot the reasons why it's so inherently insecure. AND YOU CAN'T REMOVE IT.
HTML rendering is an application task, not an OS task. And now, after we've had this little discussion, you've come full circle and in your own words have perfectly illustrated the problem.
It IS a problem with software engineering.... because the decision to make that part of the OS, where it does NOT belong, by ANY design principle, shows an incredible LACK of software engineering ability on the part of Microsoft.
They're still breaking of design principles that have been well known in the OS design field for well over 30 years.
Don't blame slashdotters. We didn't design it - Microsoft did. And it's broken. Badly.
Not if you want to use Konqueror as a file manager. Not if you want to read the KDE help system.
But that is my choice to make - and I can make it
Firefox is just a browser, it's not componentized like KHTML or MSHTML is.
You miss the point - and I'm guessing deliberately. The important thing is that removing it doesn't affect the O/S. Removing KHTML doesn't affect the O/S. Removing MSHTML (assuming you could) DOES affect the O/S.
At the cost of many kinds of apps that depend on it from working. You realize that HTML rendering is more than just web browsing, right?
You just totally destroyed your own argument with that one statement. The keyword here is APPS. It may break APPS, but the OPERATING SYSTEM will still work and run fine, thank you very much.
Depends entirely on what you define "broken" as. I'd say that if *ANY* functionality other than the web browser itself is broken by doing so, then the OS is broken.
So if I screw up an upgrade to my word processor, my OS is broken? If I accidentally bugger up my installed copy of minesweeper my OS is broken?
That is one of the silliest things I've heard here in a long time - you're just proving that you yourself are one of the geeks you were referring to earlier.
Applications are NOT the OS.
I also find it very interesting that you didn't even address the comments I made regarding the differences between the libraries used for the Linux programmes and how MSHTML is embedded into the OS core on windows.
Maybe you realized that square wheels suck after all.
No. Because if there is one thing the "geeks" of Slashdot have demonstrated time and time again, it is that they do not understand the software engineering behind "IE" and the way it is the same as the equivalents on other platforms (Safari/WebCore in OS X, khtml in KDE, whatever-it-is in GNOME).
You do realise, I hope, that being one of the "geeks" on Slashdot, that this also applies to you?
Let me try to explain the differences to you.
The different browsers on the other platforms use different engines.
If I determine that khtml contains so many security risks that I don't want it on my system, I can remove it - and use Firefox, Mozilla, or whatever.
If I determin the same about Firefox, I can remove it and install khtml instead.
Or, if I'm REALLY anal, I can say "web sucks"... and delete ALL rendering programmes & systems from my machine entirely.
My computer will still run. My O/S will not be broken.
If I determine that IE is a security risk, I can.... ummmm...... not use it? But it's still there.
Now, let's go to the software engineering aspects, shall we?
khtml links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities.
Firefox links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities
BrowserDeJour(TM) links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities.
I hope you're seeing a trend here. Now - this is where the software engineering comes in.
I think the rendering engine that BrowserDeJour (TM) uses is buggy as hell. No problem. If I'm anal enough, BECAUSE IT USES A WELL-DEFINED, DOCUMENTED, STABLE API..... I can re-write the damned thing to my satisfaction and replace it. Or, or I am anal AND charismatic enough, I can start an open source project and have the peons do it for me:-)
Now.... back to IE
You can't remove it.
You can't replace the rendering engine, even if you wanted to. Why not? Because Microsoft has gone out of it's way to make that impossible.
OK - so I'll rewrite the damned thing myself (or go back to the peons) and write a replacement.
Oh, wait - that won't work, either. They keep changing the API. It's not documented. It's not stable.
Hmmmmm...... I guess I'm stuck with it then.
You see, some of us "geeks" are neither arrogant nor ignorant enough to assume that our opinion is The Final Word on anything - but sometimes, just sometimes, one or two of us DOES know what they're talking about.
You saying that there is no real difference between the the way the Microsoft HTML rendering engine and the various open source engines are architected, implemented & installed is just about as silly as saying that the difference between a round wheel and a square one is a minor implementation detail.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying "Content is King" in the same sentence as Myspace et. al. is like saying an overflowing ashtray is a sign of productivity.
OK - so let me make sure I understand this correctly.
Fox sends a copy of a film to the theater on 123 main street. It plays there for 3 weeks.
Without changing the copy of the film, They can tell which screen, which date, and what time the film was recorded? Interesting
And I would assume that that particular copy of that particular film would NEVER be shown either before or afterward in another theater, in another town, in another country.
Sounds like bullshit to me. Methinks they place too much store in the tinfoil hats they borrowed from the props department.
Simple question. If research has been funded by the government, then the people have already, by definition, paid for it.
So please tell me in terms I can understand why publishers should be able to make you pay again for something you've already paid for?
The publishers have no right to exist in the future just because they exist now, and have in the past. In the past, they were required - it took skill, expertise and a shit load of money to lay something out, print it, and distribute it - and they served a very useful function, and absolutely deserved to make money for what they did.
But that need no longer exists - any more than society today has much of a need for sword makers, carters, or wheelers.
Those professions/trades went by the way side when society no longer needed them. What is wrong with the same thing happening to the journal publishers, if a more efficient, cheaper publishing & distribution method exists?
Party colours. The Liberals are a center-left party, and the Tories are center-right/right wing party. Liberal party colours are red; Tory colours are blue.
A Red or Blue Tory is on the left or right wing of the party - the same applies for the Liberals.
He's the Premier, not he Prime Minister.
Charest was a member of the national Conservative Party, not the provincial party, before he entered Quebec politics and joined the provincial Liberals. The PLQ is the provincial wing of the national LIBERAL party. And even when he WAS a Tory, he was a very, very RED Tory.
There's only one tiny, teensy little problem with it.
To re-highlight the part of my quote that you highlighted from the blog/TFA/whatever:
Now - maybe it's just me. But how does somebody saying "I don't know" imply anything about anything, other than his own admission of lack of knowledge? It sure as hell doesn't imply ANYTHING about a "lack of scientific concensus".
And since that assumption is the basis for your other comments, the rest of your reply - however well-written and reasoned - is kind of beside the point.
Just to make sure there's no doubt, a little further on, you say
And to reiterate:
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Again, from TFA:
And that is in the context of her comments, just above that, talking about people who disagree with climate change being caused by man. The entire blog entry was about meteorologists who disagree with man being the cause.
This also, btw, ignores the fact that a meteorologist is NOT a climatologist.
Don't you think they also have a duty to point out that they're not talking about THEIR OWN specialty, before they start blathering on can?
Are you sure about that?
From the TFA:
Whether he boss has an innie or an outie is immaterial by itself. The discussion is about attitudes, BECAUSE of what sex they are, not their sex per se. And my point was that it may NOT have been because of her boss, but becuse of her boss' wife, the current legal climate that - like it or not - very much dictates how people in the workplace relate to each other. And neither of those has anything to do with her boss being sexist.
Are you sure that it's your boss that's being sexist? Maybe he's trying to protect his marriage. My wife wouldn't mind (much) if I went out for a beer with Ralph after work. But I can guarantee you she'd get SEVERELY cranked if I started going out for a beer with Michelle after work.
And let's not forget the potential for office gossip, and the very real threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit.
hmmmmm
Bottom line? There can be very many reasons why there is unequal treatment. Not all of them are because of sexism, and not all are the fault of men.
OK - maybe it's just me. But I fail to see any inherent difference between a hooker selling her body for a living, and me going into an office and selling my brain for a living.
I'm not talking about some crack whore who is coerced into hooking for her next fix, or because her pimp will kick the crap out of her otherwise.
But I also know a few girls who put themselves through university by stripping and/or hooking. And I also know one who started hooking when she was 21, and retired to Florida by the time she was 32, and will never have to work again, because of the money she saved and invested
Funny - I figured the only thing that they had enough of at SCO *was* stones
SO take it up with the management - there's no need to go pissing on fellow posters.
.......
Some people's kids
You've obviously never had a 2 lb, 10 oz baby who was born after only 27 weeks.
My daughter was born in 1989. The estimated cost for her to be in the neonatal intensive care ward for 3 months was about $450,000. And with the advances in care since then, the cost has gone UP, not DOWN. So I think that $500,000 is a convservative estimate, and certainly an appropriate round-number estimate.
I am neither. And I know of a FEW cases of people who can't go to the doctor because they have no insurance, but because of some weird calculations used to determine medicare/medicaid eligibility, they don't qualify for those programmes.
Hardly the sort of thing that would make one want to swim the rio grande.
Oh, yeah. I'm a Canadian. My daughter was born 3 months premature.
I didn't have to worry about the cap on my insurance coverage
I didn't have to worry about having to sell the house, or taking a 2nd and/or 3rd mortage
MY only worry as getting to and from the hospital every day so I could visit her
I can't wait for the government to abolish universal health care.
BR Seriously
Perverted is when you eat the chicken afterwards.
I would soooooooooooooooooooooo love to see a citation backing that claim
IF you have a documented API.
Neither is the case with windows
And microsoft has gone out of it's way to make it much more than just "nearly impossible"
In this, you're absolutely right. But they also don't have to go out of their way to make it IMPOSSIBLE, either
Actually, I'm not talking about the kernel at all, nor have I implied it. You're assuming that because I don't agree with you, that I must be only thinking about the kernel. You're still missing the point. But now I will talk specifically about Linux, as an example - and as a "complete usable distribution", not just as a kernel
You can replace entire subsections of a "Linux" system, and still have a fully functional system. You can make a Linux system svelte as you want, or bloated as hell. And unless you interfere with the core functionality of the kernel itself, your system will still run. HTML rendering is not, by ANY definition of an operating system I have ever seen or heard of (Note I said OPERATING SYSTEM, not kernel), a core OS function.
Linux distributions all come with ssl libraries
Linux distributions all come with various CD burning libraries and programmes
Linux distributions all come with various HTML rendering libraries
Except in windows. And that, my friend, is the whole, entire problem.
And that is exactly the point that the "geeks" on slashdot are trying to make.
And nowhere, in anything I've written, have I ever said otherwise.
Do me a favor. If you're going to disagree with me, please disagree with the points that I DO make, and stop trying to argue with me about things I have neither said nor implied.
No. I'm saying, if you remove a part of the OS, and it doing so will break a bunch of other apps besides what you removed, then you've basically broken the OS in some way. Like it or not, HTML rendering is a part of the OS that is depended upon by several parts of the OS and third party apps, removing it breaks things. And that is exactly the problem. In Windows, HTML rendering IS part of the OS ... AND IT SHOULD NOT BE.
.... because the decision to make that part of the OS, where it does NOT belong, by ANY design principle, shows an incredible LACK of software engineering ability on the part of Microsoft.
That is one of the things that makes windows such a virus vector. It's one ot the reasons why it's so inherently insecure. AND YOU CAN'T REMOVE IT. HTML rendering is an application task, not an OS task. And now, after we've had this little discussion, you've come full circle and in your own words have perfectly illustrated the problem.
It IS a problem with software engineering
They're still breaking of design principles that have been well known in the OS design field for well over 30 years.
Don't blame slashdotters. We didn't design it - Microsoft did. And it's broken. Badly.
You miss the point - and I'm guessing deliberately. The important thing is that removing it doesn't affect the O/S. Removing KHTML doesn't affect the O/S. Removing MSHTML (assuming you could) DOES affect the O/S.
You just totally destroyed your own argument with that one statement. The keyword here is APPS. It may break APPS, but the OPERATING SYSTEM will still work and run fine, thank you very much.
So if I screw up an upgrade to my word processor, my OS is broken? If I accidentally bugger up my installed copy of minesweeper my OS is broken?
That is one of the silliest things I've heard here in a long time - you're just proving that you yourself are one of the geeks you were referring to earlier.
Applications are NOT the OS.
I also find it very interesting that you didn't even address the comments I made regarding the differences between the libraries used for the Linux programmes and how MSHTML is embedded into the OS core on windows.
Maybe you realized that square wheels suck after all.
Let me try to explain the differences to you.
The different browsers on the other platforms use different engines.
If I determine that khtml contains so many security risks that I don't want it on my system, I can remove it - and use Firefox, Mozilla, or whatever.
If I determin the same about Firefox, I can remove it and install khtml instead.
Or, if I'm REALLY anal, I can say "web sucks"
My computer will still run. My O/S will not be broken.
If I determine that IE is a security risk, I can
Now, let's go to the software engineering aspects, shall we?
khtml links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities.
Firefox links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities
BrowserDeJour(TM) links to a dynamic library with a well-defined, stable API to provide it's rendering capabilities.
I hope you're seeing a trend here. Now - this is where the software engineering comes in.
I think the rendering engine that BrowserDeJour (TM) uses is buggy as hell. No problem. If I'm anal enough, BECAUSE IT USES A WELL-DEFINED, DOCUMENTED, STABLE API
Now
You can't remove it. You can't replace the rendering engine, even if you wanted to. Why not? Because Microsoft has gone out of it's way to make that impossible.
OK - so I'll rewrite the damned thing myself (or go back to the peons) and write a replacement.
Oh, wait - that won't work, either. They keep changing the API. It's not documented. It's not stable.
Hmmmmm
You see, some of us "geeks" are neither arrogant nor ignorant enough to assume that our opinion is The Final Word on anything - but sometimes, just sometimes, one or two of us DOES know what they're talking about.
You saying that there is no real difference between the the way the Microsoft HTML rendering engine and the various open source engines are architected, implemented & installed is just about as silly as saying that the difference between a round wheel and a square one is a minor implementation detail.