So, like, I'm confused. Who is actually answering these questions here? The title and story intro say the questions are answered by the "Ron Paul campaign." So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...? It's the media juggernaut collectively referred to as "Ron Paul". I'm sure at some level Ron Paul read and responded to these questions, but then his answers were filtered through layers of PR people into palatable pre-digested "safe" answers that give a general feeling of Ron Paul's opinion without actually answering anything definitively that way if he should happen to do something different after election they have enough freedom to spin the answer to the inevitable questions. Unfortunately that's politics for you, you're never going to get a simple straight answer short of cornering one of the candidates someplace by himself and hoping he'll actually answer your questions.
The practices I was referring to are mostly common sense things like not putting code on production systems until it's been through QA, and not trying to force developers to pull 60 hour work weeks to meet an entirely artificial deadline because some upper manager promised the CEO it would be out this week and doesn't want to look bad right before his annual review. It's things like actually getting a set of basic requirements finalized before you start coding, and then not changing half the requirements while the software is going through a QA cycle. It's doing code review, and not picking tools and libraries based on how slick the sales guy is, or how shiny the manual is, and instead listening to the developers opinions. Notice I didn't say "best practices", but rather "common practices" specifically because in programming "best practices" has a particular meaning which is usually associated with programming style and certain approaches to solving problems, where as the practices I'm talking about are more to do with the entire development process, not just the programming itself.
Lol, you should specify that you are talking about another comment. For a moment I thought you were talking about the article link so i hurried to click when I read "deffinitely NSFW"... unfortunately it is slashdotted, and as I started reading the other comments, I realized you were talking about the last measure troll It was actually a reply to the troll post, but because of the comment hiding you can't see the comment I was replying to. If you browse at -1 you'll probably see it.
My comment was made on the assumption that the software would be developed using current "standard" practices that exist unfortunately in the majority of companies. If there was a top to bottom cleanup and you actually have good developers and management that understood that you can't magically cut time out of the budget by throwing a bunch of contractors at the problem, then yes, it's entirely possible to make drastic improvements in software quality for little extra cost. That being said however, the kinds of broad changes necessary to achieve that state are, to say the least, highly unlikely. Further, the main point I was getting at, is that it doesn't really make that big a difference in most cases if you have licensed engineers or developers (which ever term tickles your fancy) doing the development, as the problem is usually the entire organization.
Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Can it be done relatively easily? Some can, particularly if the company as a whole is willing to improve itself. Is it likely to happen? I don't think so, but I would love to be wrong (FYI, I left one of my previous jobs because I was disgusted with the development process they used).
True for now, but if it becomes common for people to bypass the restriction like that they'll be forced to implement other forms of blocking. Most likely they'll block the IPs that the DNS record maps to, which of course can be gotten around in other ways. It's an arms race and as I said before, it will be interesting to see the blocking and counter-blocking tech develop.
(To expand on the ideas of your post)
A great deal of crap software is actually pushed out the door against the objections of the developers that created it. Ultimately it comes down to marketing and PR and not the developers in most cases as to when a particular piece of software is ready to ship. Also, as has been pointed out, people would be unwilling to underwrite the cost of a theoretically "perfect" piece of software that would never crash (barring hardware failure, or cosmic ray induced bit flipping), because given the choice between a $50 piece of software that crashes once a week, or a $9000 piece of software that crashes never, almost everyone is going to pick the $50 one and live with the occasional crash. Does that mean developers like that? No, and most of them cringe whenever anything they wrote so much as hiccups, but sometimes they're just not given the chance or the resources (or clear documentation) they need to design it properly, because the bean counters know that the $9k piece of software the developer dreams of will never sell, but that $50 one they're puttering around with now is just about the right level already.
Just out of curiousity, to which home state do you refer? Arkansas. She moved to New York just before running for senate, but she lived in Arkansas for the majority of her life (born in Illinois though).
As I wrote elsewhere, TDC and Telia have both stated to comon.dk that they will not be implementing this blocking unless they lose a court case. It's good to hear the other ISPs aren't going to fold as easy this time as they did in the past, but putting something like that out on the table is likely to be seen as an invitation to take them to court.
What I would like to know, how does this play with the Nordic trade agreements? Norway, Denmark Sweden (and others?) have a common agreement much like the EU with free trade (I think). Since TPB is legal in Sweden and this block will hinder them doing buisness (they make money on their ads) won't this be a bit of a problem? Now that is an interesting question. Unfortunately I don't know much about EU law, and even less so about Nordic law, so I can't really offer any insight on this one. Though as these sorts of cases become more and more common I think this will be a story repeated often enough, and it's going to be interesting to see how all this settles out at the international level. Worst case scenario, each country implements their own equivalent of the great firewall of China and custom filters traffic based on the legality of the content in their country. Of course that does lead to the interesting question of what happens to traffic routed through a country but not originating in, or going to, that country.
I'm very interested to see if someone can actually come up with a working darknet implementation. In the past all attempts at a darknet either didn't scale, weren't secure, had horrendous performance problems, or some combination of the above.
If just one tenth of every Danish Tele2 customer that reads this phoned up their customer service and asked them why all out of a sudden, they can't access The Piratebay, they would soon have to reverse their decision. Angry customers on phone is expensive. Or better yet, tell them that you will switch to another ISP that doesn't block torrent sites. It isn't a question of wanting to do anything, they were ordered by the court to block access. Not living in Denmark I can't say for sure, but I'd be very surprised if after being ordered by a court to do something, Tele2 can just say "nah, we're not going to do that, too many people complained", and not immediately be closed down by the police.
Quite correct. Likely the only outcome of this is that the ISP in question starts bleeding 1,000s of customers per day.
Proxies, alternative sites, usenet, etc. etc. Plenty of alternatives. If past cases in Denmark are in indication Tele2 is just the first ISP to block access, all other ISPs in Denmark will soon follow. In short, if you live in Denmark, there really will be no alternatives. That being said however, there are other ways of establishing access other then switching ISPs (such as proxies as mentioned above). I'll be watching this closely as I can't wait to see the creative solutions that are going to be devised to prevent his sort of blocking in the future. Maybe we should take some notes from the botnets and see if there's a way to rework some of the tech like fast-flux DNS in a positive way to circumvent censorship.
I love how Hillary had to run for senate outside her home state. Was rather smart of her really, she knew her home state wouldn't be dumb enough to vote her into any sort of public office. Lets hope the majority of democrates are smart enough to know not to vote for Hillary and her conservative ideology wrapped in "think of the children" rhetoric.
Yes, Google is/was overvalued, but to conclude msft is doing something right when there is so much evidence to the contrary screams, "Hey, look at my stock portfolio!" That was kind of my reaction as well. He's doing an investment analysis based on a limited set of stock data while ignoring the technical and market analysis. That being said, I don't think Yahoo is as dead as some people think. Among the technically inclined it's definitely DOA, but then again so was AOL for a long time and they're still around (and dieing very very slowly). I've seen an awful lot of computers lately that have those nasty yahoo toolbars installed (a lot of spyware comes with them for some reason), and part of that install process usually changes the homepage (and search page) to be Yahoo. That's an awful lot of people that are using Yahoo because it's the default on their system and they really just don't care what search engine they use. I think Yahoos core market shares a definite overlap with the AOL core market.
If Yahoo was smart, they'd do some market segment analysis (should be easy, most of their users are already loaded down with spyware, just bundle the analysis software with some free screensavers or something), figure out some useful statistics and go pitch ad space that might appeal to non-tech companies. I'm sure things like American Idol would get more clicks per view on Yahoo then they would on Google for the simple reason that most Yahoo users are dumber then Google users.
Of interest is that the Perl5 compatibility module will allow Perl6 to call Perl5 code, and possibly even Perl5 code to call Perl6 code (or else passing sub refs for callbacks is likely to break some old modules) which offers quite a bit more flexibility then a static converter or an all-or-nothing mode switch on the interpreter. I don't know about Python but I suppose it might also offer similar functionality as apparently the interpreter can run Python 2 code. As for the Cobol to Java thing, if the standard JVM was capable of executing COBOL code directly I would probably argue that it is to some extent backwards-compatible. Microsoft has gotten away with it for years, after all, all those old DOS applications ran in Windows by executing inside a virtual DOS emulator, which is essentially what Perl6 and Python 3 are doing.
See, that's the problem here, the phrasing is somewhat muddled depending on how you choose to interpret the word backwards-compatible, and exactly what you're referring to when you talk about things like Perl6 and Python 3 (that is, the language, the interpreter, both, libraries, etc.).
Out of curiosity while would Russia or China be more likely then the USA to want to cut communications with the middle east? Also, by defining USA and Rebels as a maybe, they by definition must be more than 0% likely, therefore it's impossible to then list Russia or China as 100%.
yes funny. does not slashdot realize we have had a sub that can do just that for decades? This was about cutting a cable not tapping it. And apparently you don't need a special sub for that, a plain old boat anchor works just fine. Still, it is very suspicious that all three of the undersea cables have been cut within such a short time period. Considering that Egypt was already talking about rationing bandwidth they've got to be shitting themselves now.
Sounds like it's an issue with a loophole in CDA 230. After reading it over I notice CDA 230 has exemptions for federal crimes, and copyright infringement. Sounds like the problem could be solved by adding another exemption for Libel such that the ISP must take down libelous statements when ordered to do so by the court otherwise their held responsible for them, much the same as the other exceptions.
Two things. First, if some random person on the internet had access to them, they obviously weren't private photos. Second, if someone is posting lies about a person in a public forum that can damage their reputation, particularly if their claiming to be that person, and it's obviously not a case of satire, then they can be sued for Libel and possibly other things. At the very least the person who's reputation was being trashed should have contacted the hosting site and asked for the conversation to be taken down.
That's kind of the problem. Because the internet has evolved into not only a personal but also commercial tool there's more pressure to at the very least pick reasonable pseudonyms. Like it or not, if your resume lists your e-mail as HotPartyChick69@aol.com it's going to color the reviewers interpretation of your resume as well as lead them to make assumptions about you. At the company I work for all our e-mail addresses are of the form firstname.lastname@companyname.com which can also make it easier to track postings.
Of course I think this article is talking more about the sorts of things you see on things like Wikipedia involving celebrities, or sites like MySpace who's primary function is to eliminate your privacy (that whole social thing in social networking). In the first case, you're probably protected in part by Wikipedias standards concerning sources, but also in part by laws against libel. In the second case you don't really have much recourse, as by joining sites like that and providing information about yourself you're explicitly waiving your rights to privacy.
Really I think this whole thing is stupid and about on par with a company that would offer to "protect" the "reputation" of high school students (the most likely to be doing things they'll regret documenting on MySpace anyway). It's ultimately a futile exercise, and you'd be much better off not publishing the information in the first place and/or going after people for committing libel (assuming it's a lie, if you really did it, well, you're screwed).
In addition spam and parrot will now be reserved keywords. Much like goto in Java these will cause compiler errors and output the error messages "but I don't like spam!" and "Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords." respectively.
Because whether or not it's a lie is largely a technical question that's somewhat open to interpretation. If by backwards compatible you mean is the old Perl5 syntax valid Perl6 syntax, then the answer is no. If however you mean will my old Perl5 scripts run in the Perl6 interpreter, then the answer is yes. Further more the old Perl5 modules (as per your link) will still be usable from Perl6, and there will be a converter to update the Perl5 scripts to Perl6 syntax. So, a better answer to the question of "Is Perl6 backwards compatible with Perl5?" might be "maybe".
The problem is that where a paint coating of measurable thickness will take a certain amount of time to wear once direct exposure sets in, the super thin modified metal layer will only take an extremely short time to wear away. You'd have to be careful when waxing the car to apply very gently. Well, that's kind of the point of applying a fresh clearcoat periodically, it provides a transparent paint layer that will wear away at a certain rate and can be replenished. You wouldn't need to be gentle when waxing because you would be waxing the clearcoat not the bare metal (which could potentially fade if you simply smudged the surface). Really the tech isn't a compelling replacement for painting cars, although it might be useful for something else we haven't discovered yet, which was kind of the point of my post.
Yeah, it would be vulnerable to scratching and wear, but if you put a clearcoat over it as some have mentioned, and made sure to wax it like you would any other car (or at the bare minimum scrub it down really well every 10 years or so and put a fresh layer of clearcoat on it) you probably wouldn't have to worry about the actual metal being damaged.
I really don't see it being much of an advantage over regular paint in most cases, but it's a cool technology to have anyway and we may find something it's really well suited to at some point.
Slashdot Mirror
The practices I was referring to are mostly common sense things like not putting code on production systems until it's been through QA, and not trying to force developers to pull 60 hour work weeks to meet an entirely artificial deadline because some upper manager promised the CEO it would be out this week and doesn't want to look bad right before his annual review. It's things like actually getting a set of basic requirements finalized before you start coding, and then not changing half the requirements while the software is going through a QA cycle. It's doing code review, and not picking tools and libraries based on how slick the sales guy is, or how shiny the manual is, and instead listening to the developers opinions. Notice I didn't say "best practices", but rather "common practices" specifically because in programming "best practices" has a particular meaning which is usually associated with programming style and certain approaches to solving problems, where as the practices I'm talking about are more to do with the entire development process, not just the programming itself.
My comment was made on the assumption that the software would be developed using current "standard" practices that exist unfortunately in the majority of companies. If there was a top to bottom cleanup and you actually have good developers and management that understood that you can't magically cut time out of the budget by throwing a bunch of contractors at the problem, then yes, it's entirely possible to make drastic improvements in software quality for little extra cost. That being said however, the kinds of broad changes necessary to achieve that state are, to say the least, highly unlikely. Further, the main point I was getting at, is that it doesn't really make that big a difference in most cases if you have licensed engineers or developers (which ever term tickles your fancy) doing the development, as the problem is usually the entire organization.
Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Can it be done relatively easily? Some can, particularly if the company as a whole is willing to improve itself. Is it likely to happen? I don't think so, but I would love to be wrong (FYI, I left one of my previous jobs because I was disgusted with the development process they used).
True for now, but if it becomes common for people to bypass the restriction like that they'll be forced to implement other forms of blocking. Most likely they'll block the IPs that the DNS record maps to, which of course can be gotten around in other ways. It's an arms race and as I said before, it will be interesting to see the blocking and counter-blocking tech develop.
(To expand on the ideas of your post)
A great deal of crap software is actually pushed out the door against the objections of the developers that created it. Ultimately it comes down to marketing and PR and not the developers in most cases as to when a particular piece of software is ready to ship. Also, as has been pointed out, people would be unwilling to underwrite the cost of a theoretically "perfect" piece of software that would never crash (barring hardware failure, or cosmic ray induced bit flipping), because given the choice between a $50 piece of software that crashes once a week, or a $9000 piece of software that crashes never, almost everyone is going to pick the $50 one and live with the occasional crash. Does that mean developers like that? No, and most of them cringe whenever anything they wrote so much as hiccups, but sometimes they're just not given the chance or the resources (or clear documentation) they need to design it properly, because the bean counters know that the $9k piece of software the developer dreams of will never sell, but that $50 one they're puttering around with now is just about the right level already.
It's a troll, and definitely NSFW.
I'm very interested to see if someone can actually come up with a working darknet implementation. In the past all attempts at a darknet either didn't scale, weren't secure, had horrendous performance problems, or some combination of the above.
Proxies, alternative sites, usenet, etc. etc. Plenty of alternatives. If past cases in Denmark are in indication Tele2 is just the first ISP to block access, all other ISPs in Denmark will soon follow. In short, if you live in Denmark, there really will be no alternatives. That being said however, there are other ways of establishing access other then switching ISPs (such as proxies as mentioned above). I'll be watching this closely as I can't wait to see the creative solutions that are going to be devised to prevent his sort of blocking in the future. Maybe we should take some notes from the botnets and see if there's a way to rework some of the tech like fast-flux DNS in a positive way to circumvent censorship.
I love how Hillary had to run for senate outside her home state. Was rather smart of her really, she knew her home state wouldn't be dumb enough to vote her into any sort of public office. Lets hope the majority of democrates are smart enough to know not to vote for Hillary and her conservative ideology wrapped in "think of the children" rhetoric.
If Yahoo was smart, they'd do some market segment analysis (should be easy, most of their users are already loaded down with spyware, just bundle the analysis software with some free screensavers or something), figure out some useful statistics and go pitch ad space that might appeal to non-tech companies. I'm sure things like American Idol would get more clicks per view on Yahoo then they would on Google for the simple reason that most Yahoo users are dumber then Google users.
God help the poor soul who happens to have the same name as a midget S&M porn star.
Of interest is that the Perl5 compatibility module will allow Perl6 to call Perl5 code, and possibly even Perl5 code to call Perl6 code (or else passing sub refs for callbacks is likely to break some old modules) which offers quite a bit more flexibility then a static converter or an all-or-nothing mode switch on the interpreter. I don't know about Python but I suppose it might also offer similar functionality as apparently the interpreter can run Python 2 code. As for the Cobol to Java thing, if the standard JVM was capable of executing COBOL code directly I would probably argue that it is to some extent backwards-compatible. Microsoft has gotten away with it for years, after all, all those old DOS applications ran in Windows by executing inside a virtual DOS emulator, which is essentially what Perl6 and Python 3 are doing.
See, that's the problem here, the phrasing is somewhat muddled depending on how you choose to interpret the word backwards-compatible, and exactly what you're referring to when you talk about things like Perl6 and Python 3 (that is, the language, the interpreter, both, libraries, etc.).
Out of curiosity while would Russia or China be more likely then the USA to want to cut communications with the middle east? Also, by defining USA and Rebels as a maybe, they by definition must be more than 0% likely, therefore it's impossible to then list Russia or China as 100%.
Yeah, that's pretty much my opinion on it.
Sounds like it's an issue with a loophole in CDA 230. After reading it over I notice CDA 230 has exemptions for federal crimes, and copyright infringement. Sounds like the problem could be solved by adding another exemption for Libel such that the ISP must take down libelous statements when ordered to do so by the court otherwise their held responsible for them, much the same as the other exceptions.
Two things. First, if some random person on the internet had access to them, they obviously weren't private photos. Second, if someone is posting lies about a person in a public forum that can damage their reputation, particularly if their claiming to be that person, and it's obviously not a case of satire, then they can be sued for Libel and possibly other things. At the very least the person who's reputation was being trashed should have contacted the hosting site and asked for the conversation to be taken down.
That's kind of the problem. Because the internet has evolved into not only a personal but also commercial tool there's more pressure to at the very least pick reasonable pseudonyms. Like it or not, if your resume lists your e-mail as HotPartyChick69@aol.com it's going to color the reviewers interpretation of your resume as well as lead them to make assumptions about you. At the company I work for all our e-mail addresses are of the form firstname.lastname@companyname.com which can also make it easier to track postings.
Of course I think this article is talking more about the sorts of things you see on things like Wikipedia involving celebrities, or sites like MySpace who's primary function is to eliminate your privacy (that whole social thing in social networking). In the first case, you're probably protected in part by Wikipedias standards concerning sources, but also in part by laws against libel. In the second case you don't really have much recourse, as by joining sites like that and providing information about yourself you're explicitly waiving your rights to privacy.
Really I think this whole thing is stupid and about on par with a company that would offer to "protect" the "reputation" of high school students (the most likely to be doing things they'll regret documenting on MySpace anyway). It's ultimately a futile exercise, and you'd be much better off not publishing the information in the first place and/or going after people for committing libel (assuming it's a lie, if you really did it, well, you're screwed).
In addition spam and parrot will now be reserved keywords. Much like goto in Java these will cause compiler errors and output the error messages "but I don't like spam!" and "Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords." respectively.
Because whether or not it's a lie is largely a technical question that's somewhat open to interpretation. If by backwards compatible you mean is the old Perl5 syntax valid Perl6 syntax, then the answer is no. If however you mean will my old Perl5 scripts run in the Perl6 interpreter, then the answer is yes. Further more the old Perl5 modules (as per your link) will still be usable from Perl6, and there will be a converter to update the Perl5 scripts to Perl6 syntax. So, a better answer to the question of "Is Perl6 backwards compatible with Perl5?" might be "maybe".
Yeah, it would be vulnerable to scratching and wear, but if you put a clearcoat over it as some have mentioned, and made sure to wax it like you would any other car (or at the bare minimum scrub it down really well every 10 years or so and put a fresh layer of clearcoat on it) you probably wouldn't have to worry about the actual metal being damaged.
I really don't see it being much of an advantage over regular paint in most cases, but it's a cool technology to have anyway and we may find something it's really well suited to at some point.