Currently, from my understanding (and there very well could be examples that I just don't know about), our Court system does not allow for people to be found guilty of crimes today that were not crimes when they were committed in the past. [...] That doesn't mean that it won't be changed in the future
if it is ever changed, you will no longer really have a legal system. can you imagine never knowing if something you're doing now will be prosecutable in the future?
You might want to study some basic Germanic linguistics before making a fool of yourself. The compount word mania of New High German is largely confined to that language. Other Germanic languages such as Icelandic, Old High German, Dutch, etc. don't take compound words to the same level.
well, you sure in-ones-place-with-one-upman's-ship-skills put me!
i'm waiting for MS to buy/steal/swallow/take over CED and rename it Microsoft Opinion Server.
The problem with all of google's services
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 1
...is that they store the data on google's servers.
granted, it's required for their indexing/targeted-advertising model, but i won't use a mail service that stores my private communications forever on someone else's systems, nor will i use a calendar that gives others the dates and times of my proctologist appointments.
if they could find a way to provide the service that respects privacy, i'd be more interested, and i bet more companies would be as well. perhaps a version that lives on one's own servers and does away with the advertising, for a licensing fee.
i'm really hard-pressed finding a better application for free / open source software than voting systems. it's astonishing that this alternative is not the foremost issue in every public debate on the topic, yet in the popular media you almost never hear about it.
i've alway been a bit puzzled by the fact that people "choose careers". it seems careers should choose people, or more accurately, people's interests should determine their careers.
why would someone who is driven to be a performer, or gambler, or health provider, "choose" to work in IT?
i wonder if there are there statistics on how many people choose careers based on money rather than their personal interests.
Let's see... several months ago he offered to supply a custom build of Windows free of charge for this machine. I don't see how he'd make any money off that venture.
it's the market share, stupid.
gates and co are executing a rear-guard action to delay and minimize F/free software's influence globally. personally, i think they know they're screwed in the long run, but they maximize their personal profit by putting off F/free software nirvana as long as possible.
The only thing that helps others is letting them find or create their own opportunities to better their futures. Taking care of people today is counter-productive and can destroy opportunities in the future.
how is giving someone an otherwise useless hunk of metal, plastic, and silicon even remotely "taking care of them"? it becomes useful only if used to learn, and to communicate. is enabling people to learn and communicate "taking care of them"?
Computers don't make opportunities. Teachers don't make opportunities. Public funding of projects, businesses and markets doesn't make opportunities. Opportunities come when a given community finds that is can accomplish something that others in a market want.
computers, teachers, and public funding can ENABLE people to sieze opportunities that would otherwise be lost.
While I think Gates is right to mock these laptops,
no, he's wrong to mock these laptops. he mocks them because they run linux, and they follow a very logical design philosophy that gates's products aren't suitable for; and all this in emerging markets.
The Internet won't help here -- it isn't here to educate, it is here to help people meet each other's needs. The people using the Internet to better themselves are already living in an economy that enables them to find opportunities to better themselves. That realization is enough to give the average person the desire to make their lives better.
that paragraph is factually incorrect, conceptually vague, and barely coherent. the internet is here to do a lot of things, and one of them is to educate.
Many of the world's poor live under the thumb of a small group of elitists who think they can help the poor through force.
ah, i see the problem. you're reflexively looking at this issue through the distorting prism of your fierce libertarian and/or anarchist beliefs. this is just an opportunity for you to regale us with your political philosophy. why didn't you say so?
I hate helping others through tax-and-spend wealth redistribution: there is no accountability in how the money is spent.
see above.
I would never fund anyone in another country, never again. When I was younger I funded some Ehtiopian charity group, and a few years later had the opportunity to visit Ethiopia. The charity group's office was luxurious and the people working for it lived a very nice life. They found an opportunity: take advantage of idiots in other countries who can't hold the charity accountable.
so your anecdote proves that all foreign charities are shams.
The people the charity was meant to help received very little of the finance and support promised, and what little they did receive did not give them any hope for the future.
someone who is starving generally gets more hope for the future from a bag of grain than some motivational seminars on VHS.
It is this hope that creates opporunities. I've seen poor people climb out of poverty with no help from anyone, just because a simple opportunity opened up near them.
like, say, opening up to them a world of information, education, and communication for a hundred bucks?
I just visited Europe and Asia, and I saw thousands of very poor people taking advantage of opportunities that we in the U.S. would never consider doing. Many of these people realized their time investment could offer them the chance to save for the future, to give their children a better chance, to even save some money so they can better their own lives -- in the future. I would never give a homeless person a home, a car and a credit card. I would never give an uneducated person a computer or an education. I would never give a hungry person money to buy food. I would never fund health care of people who don'
It's like saying "All real cars need a 1000hp engine and 30k tires, because all non-TOY cars need to go 200mph in 8 seconds", when all I want is a freaking car to get me to work every day. Or perhaps I want a truck to go camping with or move some stuff.
i appreciate the reply of the person who backed me up - but i don't think "toy" application is the right word to use. this is really a question of development model and application architecture - not whether one approach or another can be used for heavy-duty systems.
technically, you could use either, i guess; but even with trivial applications that i might start out with a quick-n-dirty approach, i find i rather quickly start trending toward a more rigorous design, and i would have saved myself some time had i started out that way to begin with.
Well, that's how most people tend to code on top of databases. I'm sure you can point to lots of great examples as to how this is bad, so fire away.
primarily because it tightly couples the storage mechanism to the domain classes. the domain classes should be unaware of how they're stored. this isolates any change in storage mechanism to the storage layer. maybe you have to change the contructor of the storage classes in the controller layer, but that's about it.
But...what if I have another application that hits the database, and can't know about your TicketStorage class? For DBs where stored procs return datasets, it would make more sense to store the logic in the database... Or codge a view that does some of it, too (with instead of triggers to put stuff in the right places). Funny, ActiveRecord can interface with a view just this way, too.
you can push stuff into the db as needed - stored procedures etc. - and deal with it in the storage classes. also, the other application will be coming from the same overall design documents, so if you're forced to reimplement some storage-related functionality, it's all driven from the same source.
my primary point is that i don't like to see storage-specific code in the controller layer. these frameworks that automatically throw data straight from the db to the html form make me feel uneasy, because you lose the isolation between layers that way. that kind of code belongs in a library, imo - the web programmer should just have to ask for what he wants, and receive collections of pure domain objects in return, free of any storage semantics.
i reject the notion that "the db *is* the model". that's crap - the db is the db. it's where you store the model.
accordingly, things i dislike about active record:
1) it seems to mirror tables pretty directly;
2) i don't think the objects you work with in code should know how they are stored - this means they don't inherit or mix-in any database code at all. there should be separate classes that handle this.
this holds for other languages too, of course. python in this case:
# get list of this year's unpaid tickets startDate = datetime(2006, 1, 1) endDate = datetime(2006, 12, 31) tickets = ticketStore.getUnpaid(startDate, endDate)
# show the tickets for ticket in tickets:
print "unpaid ticket number %s was issued on %s" % (ticket.number, ticket.date)
... (do some stuff with tickets)
# save changes to database ticketStorage.save(tickets)
a Ticket may consist of data aggregated from several tables; the client code doesn't care about that. the TicketStorage class worries about storage.
now, inside TicketStorage, you might use your ORM of choice, or access the DB directly, or whatever. the point is, the public methods of TicketStorage draw the line in the sand between the code using the Ticket objects and anything storage-related.
that's my preference from a design perspective, anyway.
why are these alternative fuels always spec'd in miles per gallon? i know soybeans are a sustainable resource, but i think a more important measure would be dollars per mile.
with apologies to jimmy fallon: "great, i just invented a car that runs on faberge eggs and bald-eagle heads."
ironically, one of the reasons i bought samsung's most excellent YP-T8X is because it supported the open OGG format.
other nice features include accelerated fast-forward, time-out so you can listen as you go to sleep and not waste power, and auto-resume when you power off/on.
Okay, let's discuss what factors I use in determining whatever is needed:
well, of course, this article is *actually* about the different frameworks and the advantages they offer over one another, in different scenarios. isn't this obvious?
it's just a bit of article-ese to present it as a practical problem to actually select a particular framework for a particular application.
I bet the number of intel based servers without an OS sold is far greater than the number sold with an OS.
or for double-whammy effect, how many boxes sold with windows (thus counting toward their sales) are wiped clean and and converted to a free linux distro (thus detracting from linux's apparent market share when derived from dollar sales)?
but this article is about sales - which means dollars - not "deployment-share". what's really interesting is the $5.3B worth of servers sold with linux on them. this is impressive considering that the software is available for free.
i do agree that it would be interesting to get a head-count of OS-less server sales.
Re:GNOME's audio backend GStreamer to use DRM
on
A Look at GNOME 2.14
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
This will ensure that users can change the code of any plugin, remove the DRM, and be left with a functional product.
when you remove the DRM from the code, you remove the ability to decode the DRM content.
how is this different from simply not installing the DRM-enabled plugins in the GNOME product, aside from being far more difficult and pointless?
Slashdot Mirror
i've noticed this for awhile too.
why?
Currently, from my understanding (and there very well could be examples that I just don't know about), our Court system does not allow for people to be found guilty of crimes today that were not crimes when they were committed in the past. [...] That doesn't mean that it won't be changed in the future if it is ever changed, you will no longer really have a legal system. can you imagine never knowing if something you're doing now will be prosecutable in the future?
everyone just now finally figured out how to create and use self-signed certs with apache and openssl :-)
well, you sure in-ones-place-with-one-upman's-ship-skills put me!
Ha-ha! you sure in-ones-place-with-one-upman's-ship-skills put him!
i'm waiting for MS to buy/steal/swallow/take over CED and rename it Microsoft Opinion Server.
granted, it's required for their indexing/targeted-advertising model, but i won't use a mail service that stores my private communications forever on someone else's systems, nor will i use a calendar that gives others the dates and times of my proctologist appointments.
if they could find a way to provide the service that respects privacy, i'd be more interested, and i bet more companies would be as well. perhaps a version that lives on one's own servers and does away with the advertising, for a licensing fee.
with postgresql available, i've never quite understood why anyone would use mysql.
it's quite telling about his ingrained monopolist mindset.
you might also draw the parallel with how MS treats their users.
i'm really hard-pressed finding a better application for free / open source software than voting systems. it's astonishing that this alternative is not the foremost issue in every public debate on the topic, yet in the popular media you almost never hear about it.
they shoud put them on sharpened sticks instead.
*please* warn us before you direct us to a porn site!
>> I got an idea, they could buy SCO.
they already have.
why would someone who is driven to be a performer, or gambler, or health provider, "choose" to work in IT?
i wonder if there are there statistics on how many people choose careers based on money rather than their personal interests.
it's the market share, stupid.
gates and co are executing a rear-guard action to delay and minimize F/free software's influence globally. personally, i think they know they're screwed in the long run, but they maximize their personal profit by putting off F/free software nirvana as long as possible.
http://laptop.org/faq.en_US.html
The only thing that helps others is letting them find or create their own opportunities to better their futures. Taking care of people today is counter-productive and can destroy opportunities in the future.
how is giving someone an otherwise useless hunk of metal, plastic, and silicon even remotely "taking care of them"? it becomes useful only if used to learn, and to communicate. is enabling people to learn and communicate "taking care of them"?
Computers don't make opportunities. Teachers don't make opportunities. Public funding of projects, businesses and markets doesn't make opportunities. Opportunities come when a given community finds that is can accomplish something that others in a market want.
computers, teachers, and public funding can ENABLE people to sieze opportunities that would otherwise be lost.
While I think Gates is right to mock these laptops,
no, he's wrong to mock these laptops. he mocks them because they run linux, and they follow a very logical design philosophy that gates's products aren't suitable for; and all this in emerging markets.
The Internet won't help here -- it isn't here to educate, it is here to help people meet each other's needs. The people using the Internet to better themselves are already living in an economy that enables them to find opportunities to better themselves. That realization is enough to give the average person the desire to make their lives better.
that paragraph is factually incorrect, conceptually vague, and barely coherent. the internet is here to do a lot of things, and one of them is to educate.
Many of the world's poor live under the thumb of a small group of elitists who think they can help the poor through force.
ah, i see the problem. you're reflexively looking at this issue through the distorting prism of your fierce libertarian and/or anarchist beliefs. this is just an opportunity for you to regale us with your political philosophy. why didn't you say so?
I hate helping others through tax-and-spend wealth redistribution: there is no accountability in how the money is spent.
see above.
I would never fund anyone in another country, never again. When I was younger I funded some Ehtiopian charity group, and a few years later had the opportunity to visit Ethiopia. The charity group's office was luxurious and the people working for it lived a very nice life. They found an opportunity: take advantage of idiots in other countries who can't hold the charity accountable.
so your anecdote proves that all foreign charities are shams.
The people the charity was meant to help received very little of the finance and support promised, and what little they did receive did not give them any hope for the future.
someone who is starving generally gets more hope for the future from a bag of grain than some motivational seminars on VHS.
It is this hope that creates opporunities. I've seen poor people climb out of poverty with no help from anyone, just because a simple opportunity opened up near them.
like, say, opening up to them a world of information, education, and communication for a hundred bucks?
I just visited Europe and Asia, and I saw thousands of very poor people taking advantage of opportunities that we in the U.S. would never consider doing. Many of these people realized their time investment could offer them the chance to save for the future, to give their children a better chance, to even save some money so they can better their own lives -- in the future. I would never give a homeless person a home, a car and a credit card. I would never give an uneducated person a computer or an education. I would never give a hungry person money to buy food. I would never fund health care of people who don'
i appreciate the reply of the person who backed me up - but i don't think "toy" application is the right word to use. this is really a question of development model and application architecture - not whether one approach or another can be used for heavy-duty systems.
technically, you could use either, i guess; but even with trivial applications that i might start out with a quick-n-dirty approach, i find i rather quickly start trending toward a more rigorous design, and i would have saved myself some time had i started out that way to begin with.
primarily because it tightly couples the storage mechanism to the domain classes. the domain classes should be unaware of how they're stored. this isolates any change in storage mechanism to the storage layer. maybe you have to change the contructor of the storage classes in the controller layer, but that's about it.
But...what if I have another application that hits the database, and can't know about your TicketStorage class? For DBs where stored procs return datasets, it would make more sense to store the logic in the database... Or codge a view that does some of it, too (with instead of triggers to put stuff in the right places). Funny, ActiveRecord can interface with a view just this way, too.
you can push stuff into the db as needed - stored procedures etc. - and deal with it in the storage classes. also, the other application will be coming from the same overall design documents, so if you're forced to reimplement some storage-related functionality, it's all driven from the same source.
my primary point is that i don't like to see storage-specific code in the controller layer. these frameworks that automatically throw data straight from the db to the html form make me feel uneasy, because you lose the isolation between layers that way. that kind of code belongs in a library, imo - the web programmer should just have to ask for what he wants, and receive collections of pure domain objects in return, free of any storage semantics.
accordingly, things i dislike about active record:
1) it seems to mirror tables pretty directly;
2) i don't think the objects you work with in code should know how they are stored - this means they don't inherit or mix-in any database code at all. there should be separate classes that handle this.
this holds for other languages too, of course. python in this case:a Ticket may consist of data aggregated from several tables; the client code doesn't care about that. the TicketStorage class worries about storage.
now, inside TicketStorage, you might use your ORM of choice, or access the DB directly, or whatever. the point is, the public methods of TicketStorage draw the line in the sand between the code using the Ticket objects and anything storage-related.
that's my preference from a design perspective, anyway.
why are these alternative fuels always spec'd in miles per gallon? i know soybeans are a sustainable resource, but i think a more important measure would be dollars per mile.
with apologies to jimmy fallon: "great, i just invented a car that runs on faberge eggs and bald-eagle heads."
so.... anyway.... how expensive is soybean oil?
other nice features include accelerated fast-forward, time-out so you can listen as you go to sleep and not waste power, and auto-resume when you power off/on.
well, of course, this article is *actually* about the different frameworks and the advantages they offer over one another, in different scenarios. isn't this obvious?
it's just a bit of article-ese to present it as a practical problem to actually select a particular framework for a particular application.
or for double-whammy effect, how many boxes sold with windows (thus counting toward their sales) are wiped clean and and converted to a free linux distro (thus detracting from linux's apparent market share when derived from dollar sales)?
but this article is about sales - which means dollars - not "deployment-share". what's really interesting is the $5.3B worth of servers sold with linux on them. this is impressive considering that the software is available for free.
i do agree that it would be interesting to get a head-count of OS-less server sales.
when you remove the DRM from the code, you remove the ability to decode the DRM content.
how is this different from simply not installing the DRM-enabled plugins in the GNOME product, aside from being far more difficult and pointless?