In order for the plaintiffs to have standing, they have to be sending spam to the UK.
False. Indeed, their entire basis of the claim was that they were falsely labelled as spammers by Spamhaus, which is why they wanted Spamhaus ordered to pay damages and publicly apologize and admit that they weren't spamming.
So, no, they wouldn't have to be sending spam to have standing.
I think another important question here is culpability. Under US (and Illinois) law would a *US-based* operation similar to Spamhaus actually have a legal problem here?
A US-based service would have probably spent the money to fight the suit, and quite likely, I expect, would have prevailed on the merits. Spamhaus chose not to because, I would guess, they judged that their assets exposed to a US judgement didn't warrant the cost of actually defending the suit, not because they thought they would lose.
Actually, NASA has a pretty big focus on more smaller cheaper and much cheaper probes, etc., so, yeah, a license for a commercial OS for each might make a difference. Though cutting costs doesn't just mean cutting licensing costs. The open source nature of Linux may make it easier for NASA to customize to their rather specialized application, whereas getting either similar source code rights to Windows or getting Microsoft to build them a customized version would have a substantial additional cost above the license cost.
I think the eternal problem with MySQL is that everyone thinks that just because "SQL" is in the name it's a relational database. It's not. Sure, it's got tables and you can join tables together and use SQL queries, but it wasn't originally designed to do the things that a relational database must do.
"Good" and "bad" languages are highly subjective, not some kind of universal objective truth. If you like a language that clearly embraces any particular model of programming, PHPs kitchen-sink approach won't have much appeal.
For large projects, I'd think that approach would also make it very hard to maintain compared to languages with a "cleaner" design, but I'm more of a small-project hobbyist, so I don't really know how big of a difference it makes in practice.
Would you prefer to have the patchwork system that made itself into a DBMS at some point after it's wide adoption, or the one that started out a relatively proper system and then just tweaked things to get performance gains?
Personally, I don't care what it used to be, I care what it is now. And, even if I did, I don't see how either course you describe is worse than the other. They are different development models, and depending on your needs the products will have very different advantages and disadvantages before they converge to both being relatively feature-complete and efficient, but generally neither is worse or better.
Regarding PHP: it's okay for moderate tasks and I use it, but I only use it because nobody else who's likely to maintain my code in the future seems to know any actual useful programming languages.
If you use it, and it works, and you have people that are more productive maintaining it than some other languages, it is, ipso facto, an "actual useful programming language".
Now, it might lack features that you would find ideal in a perfect world where everyone shared your background and tastes, but that doesn't stop it from being actually useful.
And if you think I'm a database and language elitist, you might want to reconsider your position: am I an elitist, or are you (not the OP, you the reader) just poorly informed about the underlying concepts of these two things?
I've reconsidered. I still think you seem to be an insecure language and database elitist with a strong need to feel superior to everyone whose preferences differ from yours, and a deep resentment that your favored tools aren't always the most popular.
Say you are subscribed to a lot of techie mailing lists; they are all easily sorted into folders for future perusing and the 'Inbox' is left with just the stuff that actually needs attention.
Yeah, Google does that just fine: you set your filters to apply the appropriate tags, and automatically archive the messages that the tags are applied to. Only the untagged stuff will be in your inbox.
GMail on the other hand just tells me that I have 238 new messages, and I have to substract the totals of 9 different tags to find out how much "real" mail I have.
So, wait, you are comparing a mail client with folders when you use filters to automatically direct mail out of the inbox and into the folders with Gmail when you don't use the available filter functionality that allows you to acehive exactly the same thing, with pretty much identical set up?
The problem with online applications is that if your dependent on them, then your out of luck if something happens to your network connection. Even with Google Calendar, when I'm on the wireless network on campus sometimes parts of it become unusable because of a weak connection. Remote file storage allows you to just retrieve the data once, regardless of the quality of your connection, and allows you to cache your file/changes locally if your connection drops.
Online applications cannot provide this functionality.
Well, alone, sure; of course, you could have a combination of remote file store and online app with a desktop app that provided the same functionality, with both the online app and the desktop have having a feature to store to the local location and synchronize the remote copy, where you'd get the benefits of a desktop app on minimizing network dependence, and the use-anywhere features of an online app, with all the benefits of remote storage.
The problem, of course, is the effort of maintaining common feel across an online and desktop app, and maintaining the two. Using (e.g.) Java for both might reduce that extra burden on the developer/provider.
What Google ads are relatively unobtrusive, Yahoo! ads are quite the opposite. Google ads interfere with the experience less.
Furthermore don't you feel creepy when you realize its been reading your mail to determine what to display?
No. Google's computers are seeing every bit of my mail in any case. It should bother me that Google enhances my experience by serving me unobtrusive ads for things I might actually be interested in rather than just a random selection weighted only by how much money advertisers have paid? Not only do Google's ads get in the way less, I've actually occasionally been interested enough to click on them.
Now, yes, that's a win for Google's advertisers and Google, because it means the advertising is working, and Google is more able to sell ads. But its also a win for me: if I'm going to have ads shoved at me in exchange for a free webmail service, I'd rather they be (1) not distracting, and (2) more likely to be interesting.
Plus, Google doesn't attach ads to my outgoing mail.
There are no ads when you pay and you get the nifty disposable email addresses.
Well, yes. If we want to compare Yahoo!'s paid service to other paid email services, we can do that; but its pretty irrelevant to the comparison of Yahoo!'s free service to Google's free service.
Google's ads don't get in the way or bother me, so if Google had an ad-free paid service, I wouldn't even think about it unless it added some other big feature. I'm no fan of internet ads, but Google's are among the very few that don't make me want to get rid of them.
Actually, no, its equivalent to as single level of folders, not heirarchical levels. That is a real shortcoming, I would agree. I can see a couple ways of providing similar functionality while basically following the gmail idiom (such as adopting an optional heirarchical view that would treat a message with multiple tags as being in a kind of 'subfolder' that could be accessed by different paths: if you clicked one tag you get anything with just that tag, and a list of tags that any messages with that also had, if you clicked on one of them, you'd get the messages with both tags.)
And I agree, the excessively "friendly" from display and the lack of sorting flexibility are disappointing. Also, given the tagging idiom, I'd like the ability to create smarter pattern-matching rules, so that you could automatically create tags for every sender in a set form (say "From foo" where foo is the actual sender identification), and automatically tag every incoming message with the appropriate automatically created tag.
Online apps are being developed with a lot of advantages over locally running applications, however only one of them can't be duplicated in a conventional application--network file storage of your files.
Assuming you have access to a network location to do the storage, its fairly trivial to have network storage of files from a desktop application. What you lack, typically, is guaranteed software with which to access that store from just about any standard browser, which ias the real advantage of online applications.
I find I still prefer the folder mentality, as compared to Gmails "everything in one spot and search" philosophy.
Google's tags are functionally no different than traditional folders except that a message can simultaneously be in more than one "folder" simultaneously. If you prefer a "folder" arrangement to search, Gmail works quite well.
I'm not defending DCI Group. The question here is not whether DCI Group is evil (which they are), but whether Google is manifestly planning to do evil through a third party by hiring DCI Group.
The last paragraph of the article...Microsoft and Apple and all the big-time education-computerizing reformers of the MIT Media Lab are failing, miserably. For all of their high-flown education initiatives (like the "$100 laptop"), they seem bent on providing information consumption devices, not tools that teach creative thinking and technological mastery...
Programming (I'm assuming we are all clear that we are talking about *good* programming) involves being able to determine the best algorith or pattern, knowing the differences between functional an OO, scoping, and so on.
Yeah, but all of that is stuff you learn after (and it can safely be fairly long after, except in very informal terms) you start learning programming in the more general sense (writing a program and making it run); and old-school BASIC is farther from a good programming (or even good scripting) language than either VBA or JavaScript, so I wouldn't reject those two as teaching tools on the grounds you are (I don't think JavaScript is accessible enough, of Excel VBA interesting enough, to be ideal for teaching elementary students. As I've stated elsewhere, I think Logo descendants and REBOL, among others, are good choices.)
I started with BASIC. You have no idea how hard it was for me to grasp the idea of C.
I started with BASIC. I had no trouble grasping, still in my elementary years, Logo, Pascal, DOS Batch programming, or Forth. When I got to C, I had no trouble there. OO programming (Object Pascal, C++, and Objective-C, which I ran into all pretty close together) took me longer to take to really well, though.
When you're set into thinking of a program as a really long thread of lines with the occasional gosub that does little more than "menial tasks", when you're accustomed to global variables and other nonsense that is taught to you through true BASIC, then your step to sophisticated languages is a very far leap.
Well, yeah, if your taught that the right way to program is the worst possible BASIC program, its a big paradigm shift from that to structured programming.
OTOH, if you are taught to modularize in BASIC, its not a great big leap, and you actually appreciate the features of structured languages when you encounter them.
I think its more a matter of how you are taught than what language, though of course certain bad habits are impossible in some languages (and certain good practices also.)
For kids today, if it doesn't render a credible 3D world, play music(not ^G), and generally act as a complete Multimedia experience no one is impressed anymore.
Heck, for kids of my day, back in the 1980s, if it didn't play music and provide some kind of multimedia experience, lots of people weren't impressed. Two of the most popular things among my fellow TI-99/4A BASIC-using elementary-school classmates were animated sprite graphics and sound/music programming (which the -99/4A did far beyond the "bell" level.)
So, yeah, kids today expect more. If the people teaching them kept up, I don't think this would be much of a problem: modern descendants of BASIC and Logo that provide exist whose graphics and multimedia capacity has kept up with modern demands seem to be available.
I totally and completely disagree. The issue is one of pedagogy--which language can kids learn at an early age?
Logo. Of which there are several modern implementations oriented toward pedagogy.
I was coding 1000 line programs in BASIC at age 8, and I wasn't alone in that. BASIC is an easy language to learn. Is it limited? Definitely. Would I prefer today to code in BASIC instead of the Perl, Matlab, and Fortran that I now use? No. But the author's point is about _learning_ to code. Perl isn't terribly easy to 'learn' nor are c or c++ or java, at least not to an 8yo.
I don't think being line oriented has a lot to do with that: having an "immediate" console environment and plain-language commands helps: I think, aside from Logo, REBOL would be fairly easy to teach young novices.
Any use that conflicts with the exclusive rights under copyright is presumptively not "fair use"; if you want to make the case that it is, you ought to show how it fits the definition of "fair use".
Why would it constitute "fair use"?
Humans design genetic algorithms and set the parameters as to what they can alter and what they are optimizing against (and all kinds of other parameters).
Human assumptions about use cases, and human software engineering, are not at all out of the picture where GAs are used.
Its pretty hypocritical not to considering the majority of slashdot users are against people developing IE only sites.
Since IE was the first example in the "Its far from complete", it seems quite clear that the standard for Discussion2 being "complete" includes IE functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
False. Indeed, their entire basis of the claim was that they were falsely labelled as spammers by Spamhaus, which is why they wanted Spamhaus ordered to pay damages and publicly apologize and admit that they weren't spamming.
So, no, they wouldn't have to be sending spam to have standing.
And because you can't extradite someone to face civil charges anyway.
Actually, NASA has a pretty big focus on more smaller cheaper and much cheaper probes, etc., so, yeah, a license for a commercial OS for each might make a difference. Though cutting costs doesn't just mean cutting licensing costs. The open source nature of Linux may make it easier for NASA to customize to their rather specialized application, whereas getting either similar source code rights to Windows or getting Microsoft to build them a customized version would have a substantial additional cost above the license cost.
"Good" and "bad" languages are highly subjective, not some kind of universal objective truth. If you like a language that clearly embraces any particular model of programming, PHPs kitchen-sink approach won't have much appeal.
For large projects, I'd think that approach would also make it very hard to maintain compared to languages with a "cleaner" design, but I'm more of a small-project hobbyist, so I don't really know how big of a difference it makes in practice.
Personally, I don't care what it used to be, I care what it is now. And, even if I did, I don't see how either course you describe is worse than the other. They are different development models, and depending on your needs the products will have very different advantages and disadvantages before they converge to both being relatively feature-complete and efficient, but generally neither is worse or better.
If you use it, and it works, and you have people that are more productive maintaining it than some other languages, it is, ipso facto, an "actual useful programming language".
Now, it might lack features that you would find ideal in a perfect world where everyone shared your background and tastes, but that doesn't stop it from being actually useful.
I've reconsidered. I still think you seem to be an insecure language and database elitist with a strong need to feel superior to everyone whose preferences differ from yours, and a deep resentment that your favored tools aren't always the most popular.
Yeah, Google does that just fine: you set your filters to apply the appropriate tags, and automatically archive the messages that the tags are applied to. Only the untagged stuff will be in your inbox.
So, wait, you are comparing a mail client with folders when you use filters to automatically direct mail out of the inbox and into the folders with Gmail when you don't use the available filter functionality that allows you to acehive exactly the same thing, with pretty much identical set up?
s/b, at the end, mostly expensive toys.
Well, alone, sure; of course, you could have a combination of remote file store and online app with a desktop app that provided the same functionality, with both the online app and the desktop have having a feature to store to the local location and synchronize the remote copy, where you'd get the benefits of a desktop app on minimizing network dependence, and the use-anywhere features of an online app, with all the benefits of remote storage.
The problem, of course, is the effort of maintaining common feel across an online and desktop app, and maintaining the two. Using (e.g.) Java for both might reduce that extra burden on the developer/provider.
Yes, of course you can search that way. The question was about the visual interface.
What Google ads are relatively unobtrusive, Yahoo! ads are quite the opposite. Google ads interfere with the experience less.
No. Google's computers are seeing every bit of my mail in any case. It should bother me that Google enhances my experience by serving me unobtrusive ads for things I might actually be interested in rather than just a random selection weighted only by how much money advertisers have paid? Not only do Google's ads get in the way less, I've actually occasionally been interested enough to click on them.
Now, yes, that's a win for Google's advertisers and Google, because it means the advertising is working, and Google is more able to sell ads. But its also a win for me: if I'm going to have ads shoved at me in exchange for a free webmail service, I'd rather they be (1) not distracting, and (2) more likely to be interesting.
Plus, Google doesn't attach ads to my outgoing mail.
Well, yes. If we want to compare Yahoo!'s paid service to other paid email services, we can do that; but its pretty irrelevant to the comparison of Yahoo!'s free service to Google's free service.
Google's ads don't get in the way or bother me, so if Google had an ad-free paid service, I wouldn't even think about it unless it added some other big feature. I'm no fan of internet ads, but Google's are among the very few that don't make me want to get rid of them.
Actually, no, its equivalent to as single level of folders, not heirarchical levels. That is a real shortcoming, I would agree. I can see a couple ways of providing similar functionality while basically following the gmail idiom (such as adopting an optional heirarchical view that would treat a message with multiple tags as being in a kind of 'subfolder' that could be accessed by different paths: if you clicked one tag you get anything with just that tag, and a list of tags that any messages with that also had, if you clicked on one of them, you'd get the messages with both tags.) And I agree, the excessively "friendly" from display and the lack of sorting flexibility are disappointing. Also, given the tagging idiom, I'd like the ability to create smarter pattern-matching rules, so that you could automatically create tags for every sender in a set form (say "From foo" where foo is the actual sender identification), and automatically tag every incoming message with the appropriate automatically created tag.
I'm not defending DCI Group. The question here is not whether DCI Group is evil (which they are), but whether Google is manifestly planning to do evil through a third party by hiring DCI Group.
Entirely separate questions.
I started with BASIC. I had no trouble grasping, still in my elementary years, Logo, Pascal, DOS Batch programming, or Forth. When I got to C, I had no trouble there. OO programming (Object Pascal, C++, and Objective-C, which I ran into all pretty close together) took me longer to take to really well, though.
Well, yeah, if your taught that the right way to program is the worst possible BASIC program, its a big paradigm shift from that to structured programming.
OTOH, if you are taught to modularize in BASIC, its not a great big leap, and you actually appreciate the features of structured languages when you encounter them.
I think its more a matter of how you are taught than what language, though of course certain bad habits are impossible in some languages (and certain good practices also.)
Heck, for kids of my day, back in the 1980s, if it didn't play music and provide some kind of multimedia experience, lots of people weren't impressed. Two of the most popular things among my fellow TI-99/4A BASIC-using elementary-school classmates were animated sprite graphics and sound/music programming (which the -99/4A did far beyond the "bell" level.)
So, yeah, kids today expect more. If the people teaching them kept up, I don't think this would be much of a problem: modern descendants of BASIC and Logo that provide exist whose graphics and multimedia capacity has kept up with modern demands seem to be available.
Logo. Of which there are several modern implementations oriented toward pedagogy.
I don't think being line oriented has a lot to do with that: having an "immediate" console environment and plain-language commands helps: I think, aside from Logo, REBOL would be fairly easy to teach young novices.
Any use that conflicts with the exclusive rights under copyright is presumptively not "fair use"; if you want to make the case that it is, you ought to show how it fits the definition of "fair use". Why would it constitute "fair use"?
Humans design genetic algorithms and set the parameters as to what they can alter and what they are optimizing against (and all kinds of other parameters). Human assumptions about use cases, and human software engineering, are not at all out of the picture where GAs are used.