It's really more like "writing the scripts and templates from which the XHTML/CSS is dynamically-generated," "writing an AJAX web app (which, of course, uses XHTML/CSS as its UI)", etc.
Nope. I'm not talking about scripts and templates. I'm talking about custom page development for marketing-oriented sites.
You can't say something is the "best" without defining what you think those qualities are that make something best.
You also can't ask the question "what computer game is the best of all time?" and expect to get anything but arbitrary opinions, no matter what criteria you stipulate. It's like saying, "What's the best religion, on the basis of overall bliss, personal satisfaction, and possibility of eternal salvation?"
The Dot-Commers got the idea from the Valley technology companies back in the 80's.
Indeed. The money to fund exorbitant play activities like foosball tables dried up after the Dot Bomb, but the relaxed dress code, flexible hours, and "it's what you do, not how you look" attitude of Silicon Valley entrepreneurism never changed. I can't think of the last time I saw a suit in a meeting, and that includes gatherings with VCs.
The idea of someone being "good" with HTML is hilariously outdated.
I disagree. Someone truly skilled at XHTML/CSS can make a lot of money even today. I know multiple people who are doing just that. Faster rendering, easier maintainability, and protection from vendor lock-in are very compelling reasons for having a skilled XHTML/CSS developer do the work. It's not programming, but it can be extremely important. Just ask one of the many Fortune 500 companies that are still hamstrung by reliance on WYSIWYG tools that generate table-driven layouts and spaghetti code.
It seems we gave up on the FSF's publicity machine too soon:
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner.'
No, the Judo move is going to be about 6 months after the GPLv3 is in force and there has been quite a few project moved over with improvments and all.
I could be wildly off base here, but I think a lot of projects are going to wait a while before moving to GPL 3, if they do at all. The process of getting GPL 3 written was fairly traumatic, and if I had a big project under GPL 2, I wouldn't be anxious to move it to GPL 3 any time soon. Also, I would be surprised if anyone at Microsoft could outsmart Eben Moglen. You're probably right about Stallman not even realizing anything else was going on last Friday. I think I overestimated his abilities as a showman. But Moglen is extremely aware of what's going on around him.
I haven't given GPL 3 a close read yet, but for your sake and mine, I hope your fears don't come true.
There are some things in the GPLv3 that will eventually blow up on them, doing this to hide the publicity amongst the Apple fanfare is just par for the course.
You seem to be implying that Stallman is announcing this on June 29th so he can hide behind the big iPhone rollout. I haven't met Stallman in person, but nothing I've heard indicates that he would ever try to hide one of his announcements. He has a lot of ego invested in the GPL. My guess is he's deliberately announcing it on June 29th because he'll be able to leverage the iPhone launch. I could see him calling attention to the iPhone and the perils of hardware companies and content providers limiting our options.
He's going to try and pull a judo move on the 29th.
Yeah, all they moan about is how they could feed their family
Bullshit. They also moan about how their bodies are used up in half the time yours and mine are. They complain about terrible working conditions, terrible health, and short lifespan. Just because some people survive off a horrible job doesn't mean it should continue to exist.
I've been wondering why this hasn't happened yet for years. The answer, of course, is that the ag industry could rely on incredibly cheap labor, so it wasn't worth developing a technological replacement. But if anything is proof that the debate about illegal immigration has turned a corner, this is it.
Once you've seen the back-breaking labor involved in the California agriculture industry, it's impossible not to applaud the development of technology that will make it obsolete. Nobody says after years of work in the strawberry fields, "Gee, I'm sure glad I got the opportunity to explore my full human potential in that career!"
I know a few folks who spent a fair amount of time tweaking their sites to make them work with WebTV, back in the day. According to some, WebTV was going to someday comprise an appreciable portion of Web viewing, so we were all supposed to craft all sorts of tricky solutions. Of course, WebTV never panned out.
My point is not that we shouldn't be cognizant of how a new device will display websites. But until your logfiles start showing some actual traffic from said device, it's not worth losing sleep over.
We Slashdotters hope for the day that either Microsoft discontinues it's illegal activities and becomes a fair player in the free market or dies a miserable, hated death.
Much appreciated. In fact, The entire Slashdot Collective thanks you!
Mac users are in love with Apple so they will go back to using Safari even if they find something better.
Yes, this is quite insightful. Mac users do in fact love Apple. They masturbate to visions of Aqualicious dancing Apple logos and photos of a boyish Steve Jobs hawking 128k Macs.
IE is dead on the Mac. Firefox is powerful and flexible, but not very Mac-like. Safari gets the job done for Mac users (shades of IE for Windows users?). Personally I prefer Camino, and there is much to recommend in OmniWeb. Even Shiira is becoming a contender. But most people aren't browser geeks. They use what is given to them. It works that way in the Windows world and it works that way in the Mac world.
How can the parent of this, and its parent both be modded to +5 Insightful, when they are opposed? I would think one is insightful and the other is not.
I always thought the idea of the moderation system was to push trolling down to the bottom and encourage an interesting exchange of ideas. You seem to be implying that there can only be one insightful way to comment on a subject. In any debate, proponents of each side might have valid and insightful points to make. True discussion of ideas shouldn't lead to binary outcomes.
"If you know some key variables - like the major objective, the nature of the target, whether there's going to be another strong state that will intervene on the side of the target and whether you'll have an ally - you can get a sense of your probability of victory,"
Gee, thanks for the brain flash, Professor. The upshot here is that when all is certain, future events can be predicted. That should prove to be extremely helpful to policymakers in this certainty-filled world of ours.
If you want a social experience, play a game designed around socializing like Exalted or WOD revised from White Wolf.
That's the same reason I still think RuneQuest 2 (before Avalon Hill destroyed it with v3 and Mongoose took the worst parts of D&D and merged them with RQ to make v4) had the best pencil and paper RPG of any game I've played. Simple, elegant, and easy to understand and use, they facilitated roleplaying by their emphasis on acquisition of skills (through use). A newcomer to the game could jump in far more easily than in d20 or its predecessors. Plus, as a fantasy world, Glorantha was amazingly rich and varied.
Company C doesn't have mouse patents and gets sued by A and B because it made an application with a GUI and is not doing fine at all.
As such, A and B have much more to gain from retaining their patents for the simple fact they can then sue that third party until it runs out of money.
Your example seems to make sense. I was thinking more of a situation not involving a third party, but I suppose in reality there are never just two players in a given market, so the dominant players have an incentive to keep cross-license patents rather than invalidate bad patents.
Still, I could see situations in which big patent holders who are tired of being frustrated by patent trolls might want to go after companies that have no intention of ever bringing any real products to market. Having IBM, et. al. review patents held by patent trolls could be quite beneficial.
Compeditors have more to gain from a patent portfolio+cross licensing agreement then they do from invalidated patents.
Why do they have more to gain from cross licensing than from invalidating patents? If I have a strong patent portfolio and I weaken a competitor's portfolio by invalidating some of his patents, don't I come out ahead?
As for developing a version for Linux, why would Apple do that when KDE and Mozilla are already there and serving the needs of Linux users? I see no need for Apple to do more than contribute to KDE, which it is doing. There are no shortage of great browsers available for Linux users, and it would be a waste of money for Apple to devote resources to a small, already saturated market.
"Actual malice" doesn't mean actual malice. And "public figure" is not a given, either.
Actual malice means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, both of which would be very difficult to prove in this case. The fact that an algorithm handles the rating means there is a lack of human intervention, and therefore a lack of intent. Unless there were some strange sort of fraud in which the service was actually designed to screw certain individuals, proving that the algorithm somehow targets one individual is absurd.
As for him being a public figure, the lawyer is making his own public status part of his complaint. I find it difficult to believe that a judge would look at his attempt to call attention to his own standing in the community on the one hand and not think that he was holding himself out as a public figure.
Nothing is a given in the law, but I still think this guy is barking up the wrong tree and won't make it past the first motion to dismiss.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really more like "writing the scripts and templates from which the XHTML/CSS is dynamically-generated," "writing an AJAX web app (which, of course, uses XHTML/CSS as its UI)", etc.
Nope. I'm not talking about scripts and templates. I'm talking about custom page development for marketing-oriented sites.
You can't say something is the "best" without defining what you think those qualities are that make something best.
You also can't ask the question "what computer game is the best of all time?" and expect to get anything but arbitrary opinions, no matter what criteria you stipulate. It's like saying, "What's the best religion, on the basis of overall bliss, personal satisfaction, and possibility of eternal salvation?"
The Dot-Commers got the idea from the Valley technology companies back in the 80's.
Indeed. The money to fund exorbitant play activities like foosball tables dried up after the Dot Bomb, but the relaxed dress code, flexible hours, and "it's what you do, not how you look" attitude of Silicon Valley entrepreneurism never changed. I can't think of the last time I saw a suit in a meeting, and that includes gatherings with VCs.
The idea of someone being "good" with HTML is hilariously outdated.
I disagree. Someone truly skilled at XHTML/CSS can make a lot of money even today. I know multiple people who are doing just that. Faster rendering, easier maintainability, and protection from vendor lock-in are very compelling reasons for having a skilled XHTML/CSS developer do the work. It's not programming, but it can be extremely important. Just ask one of the many Fortune 500 companies that are still hamstrung by reliance on WYSIWYG tools that generate table-driven layouts and spaghetti code.
It seems we gave up on the FSF's publicity machine too soon:
No, the Judo move is going to be about 6 months after the GPLv3 is in force and there has been quite a few project moved over with improvments and all.
I could be wildly off base here, but I think a lot of projects are going to wait a while before moving to GPL 3, if they do at all. The process of getting GPL 3 written was fairly traumatic, and if I had a big project under GPL 2, I wouldn't be anxious to move it to GPL 3 any time soon. Also, I would be surprised if anyone at Microsoft could outsmart Eben Moglen. You're probably right about Stallman not even realizing anything else was going on last Friday. I think I overestimated his abilities as a showman. But Moglen is extremely aware of what's going on around him.
I haven't given GPL 3 a close read yet, but for your sake and mine, I hope your fears don't come true.
There are some things in the GPLv3 that will eventually blow up on them, doing this to hide the publicity amongst the Apple fanfare is just par for the course.
You seem to be implying that Stallman is announcing this on June 29th so he can hide behind the big iPhone rollout. I haven't met Stallman in person, but nothing I've heard indicates that he would ever try to hide one of his announcements. He has a lot of ego invested in the GPL. My guess is he's deliberately announcing it on June 29th because he'll be able to leverage the iPhone launch. I could see him calling attention to the iPhone and the perils of hardware companies and content providers limiting our options.
He's going to try and pull a judo move on the 29th.
All we need now are robots which can claim benefits and commit crime!
Gee, why'd you post that as an AC, I wonder?
Yeah, all they moan about is how they could feed their family
Bullshit. They also moan about how their bodies are used up in half the time yours and mine are. They complain about terrible working conditions, terrible health, and short lifespan. Just because some people survive off a horrible job doesn't mean it should continue to exist.
Most of them say, "I'm glad I didn't starve back home."
And most of us say, "I sure am glad strawberries are so cheap!"
Coal miners are glad not to starve too. That doesn't mean we should continue to use human labor for inhumane tasks.
I've been wondering why this hasn't happened yet for years. The answer, of course, is that the ag industry could rely on incredibly cheap labor, so it wasn't worth developing a technological replacement. But if anything is proof that the debate about illegal immigration has turned a corner, this is it.
Once you've seen the back-breaking labor involved in the California agriculture industry, it's impossible not to applaud the development of technology that will make it obsolete. Nobody says after years of work in the strawberry fields, "Gee, I'm sure glad I got the opportunity to explore my full human potential in that career!"
I know a few folks who spent a fair amount of time tweaking their sites to make them work with WebTV, back in the day. According to some, WebTV was going to someday comprise an appreciable portion of Web viewing, so we were all supposed to craft all sorts of tricky solutions. Of course, WebTV never panned out.
My point is not that we shouldn't be cognizant of how a new device will display websites. But until your logfiles start showing some actual traffic from said device, it's not worth losing sleep over.
Yes, they exist independent of the Internet, but damn, I've grown to hate these terms:
We Slashdotters hope for the day that either Microsoft discontinues it's illegal activities and becomes a fair player in the free market or dies a miserable, hated death.
Much appreciated. In fact, The entire Slashdot Collective thanks you!
I would consider anything short of an official statement from AT&T or Apple to be nothing but a rumor.
Sad but true.
Shouldn't these comments be modded -1 Offtopic ;) (including this one)
LOL. True, though I often find Slashdot most interesting when the discussion segues into different territory
Mac users are in love with Apple so they will go back to using Safari even if they find something better.
Yes, this is quite insightful. Mac users do in fact love Apple. They masturbate to visions of Aqualicious dancing Apple logos and photos of a boyish Steve Jobs hawking 128k Macs.
IE is dead on the Mac. Firefox is powerful and flexible, but not very Mac-like. Safari gets the job done for Mac users (shades of IE for Windows users?). Personally I prefer Camino, and there is much to recommend in OmniWeb. Even Shiira is becoming a contender. But most people aren't browser geeks. They use what is given to them. It works that way in the Windows world and it works that way in the Mac world.
How can the parent of this, and its parent both be modded to +5 Insightful, when they are opposed? I would think one is insightful and the other is not.
I always thought the idea of the moderation system was to push trolling down to the bottom and encourage an interesting exchange of ideas. You seem to be implying that there can only be one insightful way to comment on a subject. In any debate, proponents of each side might have valid and insightful points to make. True discussion of ideas shouldn't lead to binary outcomes.
"If you know some key variables - like the major objective, the nature of the target, whether there's going to be another strong state that will intervene on the side of the target and whether you'll have an ally - you can get a sense of your probability of victory,"
Gee, thanks for the brain flash, Professor. The upshot here is that when all is certain, future events can be predicted. That should prove to be extremely helpful to policymakers in this certainty-filled world of ours.
If you want a social experience, play a game designed around socializing like Exalted or WOD revised from White Wolf.
That's the same reason I still think RuneQuest 2 (before Avalon Hill destroyed it with v3 and Mongoose took the worst parts of D&D and merged them with RQ to make v4) had the best pencil and paper RPG of any game I've played. Simple, elegant, and easy to understand and use, they facilitated roleplaying by their emphasis on acquisition of skills (through use). A newcomer to the game could jump in far more easily than in d20 or its predecessors. Plus, as a fantasy world, Glorantha was amazingly rich and varied.
Company C doesn't have mouse patents and gets sued by A and B because it made an application with a GUI and is not doing fine at all. As such, A and B have much more to gain from retaining their patents for the simple fact they can then sue that third party until it runs out of money.
Your example seems to make sense. I was thinking more of a situation not involving a third party, but I suppose in reality there are never just two players in a given market, so the dominant players have an incentive to keep cross-license patents rather than invalidate bad patents.
Still, I could see situations in which big patent holders who are tired of being frustrated by patent trolls might want to go after companies that have no intention of ever bringing any real products to market. Having IBM, et. al. review patents held by patent trolls could be quite beneficial.
Compeditors have more to gain from a patent portfolio+cross licensing agreement then they do from invalidated patents.
Why do they have more to gain from cross licensing than from invalidating patents? If I have a strong patent portfolio and I weaken a competitor's portfolio by invalidating some of his patents, don't I come out ahead?
I get the feeling I'm missing something here.
Now how about contributing to KDE and or making a version for Linux?
Perhaps you missed the memo.
Maybe you missed this one too.
As for developing a version for Linux, why would Apple do that when KDE and Mozilla are already there and serving the needs of Linux users? I see no need for Apple to do more than contribute to KDE, which it is doing. There are no shortage of great browsers available for Linux users, and it would be a waste of money for Apple to devote resources to a small, already saturated market.
"Actual malice" doesn't mean actual malice. And "public figure" is not a given, either.
Actual malice means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, both of which would be very difficult to prove in this case. The fact that an algorithm handles the rating means there is a lack of human intervention, and therefore a lack of intent. Unless there were some strange sort of fraud in which the service was actually designed to screw certain individuals, proving that the algorithm somehow targets one individual is absurd.
As for him being a public figure, the lawyer is making his own public status part of his complaint. I find it difficult to believe that a judge would look at his attempt to call attention to his own standing in the community on the one hand and not think that he was holding himself out as a public figure.
Nothing is a given in the law, but I still think this guy is barking up the wrong tree and won't make it past the first motion to dismiss.