If M$ has left a hole that allows them to install OS components without user consent (presumably even if the user has limited permissions on the box), then there's probably a big gaping security hole there...uh oh, maybe I've said too much...don't want to get a visit from the DMCA police...forget everything I've just said.
step two: arrest all the technologically elite for violations of the DMCA
step three: plea bargain the charges down to probation and lots of community service.
step four: complete said community service switching non-profits away from M$ products (note: with M$'s new pricing policy, all workplace environments are now considered non-profit)
Did anyone else get a M$ ad in the "hoists the black flag" article? Here I was reading about how Microsoft's monopolistic practices were making the world a horrible place and right in the center of the page is an ad touting Office XP's "Features you need, when you need them"
I find it rather humorous that you can't use microsoft software to create a webpage that disparages the company, but you can use their copyrighted promotional material (I am assuming M$ has copyrighted it's advertisments) on a site that does just that.
sorry for the yet another "yeah, I agree with him" post...heh
it always amazes me how the media just doesn't get it. back in napster's heyday, you heard the media say things like, "record sales are at an all-time high, despite the success of napster." now you hear them saying things like, "despite the successful shutdown of napster by the record companies, sales have dropped."
is it really that hard to see that there was a cause-effect relationship there?
This guy is not too keen on standards...If he can call his product a CD, then he's probably talking about a proprietary mp3 format (of course you'll need windows media player to use the file, but hey, those linux guys are the %1 that pirates cds anyways).
Re:Some advice to cut down on the runnin around.
on
Nimda To Strike Again
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's not going to matter what o/s it is if someone can write a virus, root kit, whatever for it.
From the OpenBSD website: "Four years without a remote hole in the default install!"
Now, with the resources that M$ has, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to say the same. The simple fact is that they've determined that they can make the public believe that they are not at fault, so it is more cost effective to add another "feature" to the os. If general motors didn't put airbags into their cars so that they could put in extra cup holders, would they be at fault? After all, it is the other car that actually caused the fatalities, right?
If a kid decided to tag (spray paint) one of your windows. Now, a normal window could just have the paint washed off, no big deal. But these particular windows, because of a feature that prevents them from getting dirty, shattered under the weight of the paint. So, do you blame the kid? Definitely, he did something malicious that caused damage. But you also need to blame the person who makes (the) Windows.
This is a no brainer in the physical world. If a company makes a product that is defective, they are liable for damage caused by their faulty product. In the virtual world, software makers have been able to side step this obligation by hiring lawyers and politicians (our old friend the EULA).
So, to use another physical analogy...where do you lock up your valuables? Do you take them to the glass bank and put them in a glass box (made of Windows(TM))? No, you take them to the bank and put them in a safe deposit box. If you want something to be safe in the virtual world, don't use windows. Use openBSD or some other product where the creators actually thought about security.
To me, the above email reads: I tried to skimp on costs for something important and now I got burned and it's going to end up costing me a lot more money. You get what you pay for.
Don't forget The Offspring...Someone searched Napster (back when people were using it) and found out that they were the #1 pirated band. They loved it. They even sold Napster t-shirts on their website until napster asked them to stop. They understood that if you produce a quality product, people will buy it.
<confused_media>
Yet somehow, *despite* all the piracy, their album sold more copies than anyone thought it would and all their concerts sold out.
</confused_media>
I have a friend who has horrible credit. He got this horrible credit bacause of a $40 charge that he disputes. The company that feels he owes them money, marked it on his credit report. So now, he cashes his paycheck twice a month and puts the cash in a safe he bought (for more than $40). He has chosen to give up the conveniences of the modern non-cash system for his principles (he's right about the $40 charge...but I won't go into that here). Without cash, he would be forced to concede his argument.
The more important point here is that cash always gives you an alternative way to live your life. With the relative ease that a company can destroy your credit rating, imagine the abuses that would occur if you *had to comply* everytime someone said you owed them something.
Because of this malicious act, there are probably thousands or possibly millions of people who have been duped into thinking that John Ashcroft is an intelligent person with a sense of humor. We can only be thankful that he did not attribute any profound statement to president Bush.
Yes John, when the government proposes compromising freedom for security, i do have a knee jerk response. See, it's because the government is, in essence, asking me to trust it to use such legislation for the purposes that it was intended. Well, as the old saying goes, trust is earned.
When I see federal anti-crack-house legislation being used to prosecute the organizer of a music festival, I shudder to think what they will be able to do with anti-terrorism laws (that's right, they're attempting to send a man from new orleans to jail for the rest of his life because he organized an event where there was likely to be drug use despite the large security presence looking for drugs!).
I do not advocate drug use...in fact I belive that it is one of the scourges of our society. But I fail to see how drug sniffing dogs walking around an airport will increase the safety of air travel (This was the case in many American airports this past week). I can see the headline now..."The terrorists had no guns, knives or weapons of any kind. They were able to quickly gain control of the airplane thanks to the two kilos of uncut heroin that they managed to sneak on board."
It's not that I don't advocate security measures. They are necessary. But there's more than one knee-jerk reaction happening here. The government reacts by passing any peice of legislation that "could have helped prevent this tragedy." We need to have a healthy debate about every security measure that we enact. We can't let the emotions of this past week cloud our judgement, resulting in the complete freedom of the justice dep't to do whatever they want.
</$0.02>
...computer science taught me that two wrongs don't make a right, but two rights make a wrong...
You seem to think that the government protecting its citizens from events like what happened is the most important thing. It's not (at least not to me). I would prefer that the government let me have my rights, and if that concession makes events like those that occured this past week posible, then so be it.
So...Mr President I wish to help, here are some possible solutions to the problem:
When events such as those that occured in the past week happen, greave, clean up and move on with life.
Remain truly neutral in world affairs, even to the detrement of U.S. business interests. People only think we're the devil because we act like it.
Think about the interests of the citizens of the country, not just those who can afford $50,000 campaign contributions and $500 a plate dinner party. Theoretically, we are the ones you're supposed to be serving.
Don't take away the best part of being an American. Let me have the civil liberties that were envisioned when this country was founded.
This country has almost 300,000,000 people. Even at the highest estimates for those killed in the recent acts of terrorism, it is less than 1 person in every 60,000. I'd rather take those odds, than have the government know every detail of my life. Every day, we all make decisions like this. Do we drive to work or take some form of transportation that does not endanger our lives to the extent that automobiles do. There are far more fatalities in this country from auto accidents involving excessive speed than there are from terrorism. Should we allow the government to install devices which signal law enforcement when the driver is speeding? It would almost certainly save lives. But we don't. We, as Americans, see that there is some intrensic value to freedom which is more important than living in a world with less risks. This vision is tested when we see an American icon fall as in the case of the wtc. But let's not forget what allowed it to rise in the first place. What if the government had told the developer that they couldn't build the wtc because it would take too long to evacuate?
</$0.02>
I started out using SuSE and Turbo Linux. I eventually moved to Red Hat because that's what all my friends knew. By using my friends as a resource, not only did I get another resource beyond online faqs and man pages, but I also had them checking up on me to make sure that I was learning about it. I use debian now, but my learning process was made that much easier by using what they used.
My advice is to use whatever distro your friends use. While you can definitely do it on your own, it just makes it easier to have that extra resource.
As long as politicians can continue to convince the populus that issues like this are the most important, they will continue to sell our rights to corporate interests in exchange for the campaign contributions which keep them in office.
It is absurd that something like this gets as much attention as it did. This wasn't a legal question of whether scientists are allowed to study stem cells. It was a study of whether tax dollars will fund it (will researchers share profits with the government when they discover a cure for some disease...hell no, they'll patent it and retire).
Meanwhile important issues like personal freedom v. corporate profit are ignored (outside of the/. community).
You won't see any discussion of Dmitri Sklyarov on Washington talk shows, the evening news, or the cover of the weekly newsmagazines.
There was one story on the evening news here in the S.F. area. They were covering the protests over his arrest. I believe their words were, "Skylarov was arrested by the F.B.I. for writing software that allows users to steal books in the Adobe EBook format"
That depends on your definition of revolutionary. If you mean "something that has never been done before," then yes, linux is revolutionary. But I believe revolutionary in the case was meant as "necessitating a reaction (providing there is one) by Microsoft"
Linux runs on every platform. Wow. That is a great achievement. How does that change Microsoft's strategy. Should they port windows to every OS. No. They are a for-profit software company. It needs to be profitable for MS to expend the effort to bring windows to a given Platform. When the time comes that millions of people are running apps on their wristwatch, you better believe that there'll be a WindowsWWE.
Likewise, the GPL is a radical concept. Developers around the world freely sharing code. Revolutionary? That's debatable. But from Microsoft's POV, its a non-issue. They are for profit. They don't share their code. The GPL doesn't affect them.
Remember. MS doesn't care about the developer-level market. Their bread and butter is the mainstream user (where pre-requisites are the ability to use a mouse, basic knowledge of how to store/retrieve files off a filesystem, etc). When Linux offers something revolutionary to the mainstream user, it might be revolutionary to MS.
The only thing I see that is revolutionary is a free ($$) OS. Microsoft has to be very careful not to price themselves out of the OS market (it would take a huge effort for that to happen anytime soon). But, like he said, BSD has been free for a long time.
All that said, I hate using windows. I only use it (in VMWare) for company mandated Outlook functions. I use linux whenever possible. I would consider myself a linux proponent. But it's uses are still speciallized, and it *isn't* truly revolutionary...yet;)
anyone harbor any lingering thoughts that AMD is a second-class citizen in the chipmaking world?
Every company that I've worked for...least for desktops. they just choose intel by default since it is a safe, no-brainer and no one really cares all that much (me for example...Would I prefer an Athlon, yes. Would I fight purchasing to get one, no.)
Until AMD can erode this mindset among those who purchase equipment for large companies, Intel will continue to be a class above the rest...no matter if their chips run faster or not.
I am tired of this Marxist bullshit that people constantly spout about capitalism being about greed.
Ummm...capitalism is about greed. Pure and simple. This can sound like a Marxist argument against capitalism, but only if you take greed to mean something negative.
Let me respond to your rant with what I believe are some misconceptions you have about my previous post:
1) I never said that Ben Franklin wasn't a capitalist. He helped to create the initial structure of the most capitalist state in history. However, he was also an inventor and a patriot. So, if you ask the question, "Who is more capitalistic?", Gates is the likely answer since he doesn't have any other facet to his personality like Franklin did.
2) You seem to be assume that I am advocating some sort of Marxist point of view (most likely because of my usage of the word greed). This couldn't be farther from the truth. I am not an advocate of socialist policies...I don't know what I would do if I couldn't place a phone call and have a pizza show up at my door 30 min later. Capitalism is great. It is just important to realize what fuels capitalism. For good or bad, it is self interest.
3) You seem to assume that I was talking about patent laws (ok...this is fair since that was the topic of the post I responded to). Actually, I was simply responding to the question, "Who's more American?" So maybe it is a stupid question to focus on, but hey...it's slashdot...this is where I come to talk about stupid stuff.
So who is more American, Ben Franklin or Bill Gates?
1) Bill Gates was born in the US, Franklin was not...Franklin was born a British Citizen.
2) The present tense of the verb to be is used, so Franklin technically *isn't* any more
3) Bill Gates represents what it is to be American pretty darn well. He is capitalistic and greedy. Franklin represents what it *was* to be American, idealistic and capable of creative thought.
So...maybe the question should have been phrased, "Who is more what we'd like to believe an American is?"
I would be very hesitant to base any enterprise solution on any of the current templating languages. There's just too much String manipulation happening at runtime.
Also, last time I checked (approx three months ago), these language were missing some very important features. For example, WebMacro has no for loop, only a foreach loop. This means that during runtime, you must recurse through the entire collection, not just the desired sub-collection.
There really isn't one good answer out there that seperates out view logic from application logic, but the eventual solution *will* be JSP (read: taglibs...struts is headed in the right direction, just down the wrong path)...JSP's are only messy if you have java code in them.
</$0.02>
Question is, we know that drugs and the artistic professions go hand in hand - what about drugs and the rational, engineering professions like Software Engineering?
I completely disagree that software engineering is not an artistic profession. There may be programmers out there who have very little chance to express their creativity, but at the heart of most developers, I believe that there is the urge to create and express themselves through code.
Software engineering may have more "rules" than many other artforms, but there are many recognized forms of art that also have strict rules. Haiku's have a defined sylabic layout, musicians have a defined set of chords that they use and Ballerinas have specific moves that they are taught early on in their education. Creating a program may be limited by the language you are forced to use to create it, or the end goal of its functionality, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of creativity in the process of creating it.
The only difference I see is that the world has found a practical use for the artistic expression of programmers. I would liken it to the police sketch artist...an artist being used to accomplish a practical goal. If that same sketch artist draws or paints outside of work, no one would hesitate to call him an artist (even though some might not call his police sketches art). How many of you have written programs outside of work just because you felt like it? Did you write them simply because you felt that the world needed them in some way, or was it partly because you enjoyed the process of creating them?
<$0.02>
"Hotline is a legitimate client-server application that pirates migrated to and took over"
It's nice to hear someone promenant on the industry side of the copyright wars who has figured out this distinction. The people who are responsable (and should be held accountable) are the people who share/download copyrighted materials. We shouldn't blame people who come up with interesting ideas that have legitimate uses just because people find ways to use the product/idea to do something illegal.
As someone who creates music in mp3 format (without the talent/connections/luck necessary to get a recording contract), I think Napster would be a wonderful way for me to share my music with the world...'cept it is flooded with illegal content making it impossible to find independant content like mine (not to mention the fact that it'll probably end up getting the service shut down).
I'm not making any moral statement on sharing copyrighted content...I don't condemn or approve of the actions of anyone doing it. But the world would be a lot cooler place, IMHO, if everybody understood the distinction that this guy does.
</$0.02>
Re:If you can't hack CS, don't be a programmer
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
Who would YOU pick for a programming job - resume A with the CIS degree, or resume B with the CS degree?
Ummm...maybe you're not familiar with the job market these days, but...
As someone who's work duties include, in addition to programming, interviewing potential engineering team members, I would extend generous offers to both candidates, and be lucky if even one of them called me back.
"How easy is it going to be for me to get a job?" and "How much will I be making?" are the wrong questions to be asking when choosing between CS and CIS. Your main concern should be what will make me a better programmer. This is an industry where performance is everything. When it comes time to promote someone, or determine the xmas bonuses, delivering quality code in a timely fashion is far more important than a college degree.
The majority of users who use pine as their mail client are: a) able to easily find work at a new employer and... b) likely to pursue that option if mandated to switch to Outlook.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else see the next Code Red/Nimda here?????
If M$ has left a hole that allows them to install OS components without user consent (presumably even if the user has limited permissions on the box), then there's probably a big gaping security hole there...uh oh, maybe I've said too much...don't want to get a visit from the DMCA police...forget everything I've just said.
Wow...the DMCA will completely backfire on M$
step one: pass DMCA (already done)
step two: arrest all the technologically elite for violations of the DMCA
step three: plea bargain the charges down to probation and lots of community service.
step four: complete said community service switching non-profits away from M$ products (note: with M$'s new pricing policy, all workplace environments are now considered non-profit)
Maybe the DMCA isn't that bad????
Did anyone else get a M$ ad in the "hoists the black flag" article? Here I was reading about how Microsoft's monopolistic practices were making the world a horrible place and right in the center of the page is an ad touting Office XP's "Features you need, when you need them"
I find it rather humorous that you can't use microsoft software to create a webpage that disparages the company, but you can use their copyrighted promotional material (I am assuming M$ has copyrighted it's advertisments) on a site that does just that.
sorry for the yet another "yeah, I agree with him" post...heh
it always amazes me how the media just doesn't get it. back in napster's heyday, you heard the media say things like, "record sales are at an all-time high, despite the success of napster." now you hear them saying things like, "despite the successful shutdown of napster by the record companies, sales have dropped."
is it really that hard to see that there was a cause-effect relationship there?
This guy is not too keen on standards...If he can call his product a CD, then he's probably talking about a proprietary mp3 format (of course you'll need windows media player to use the file, but hey, those linux guys are the %1 that pirates cds anyways).
It's not going to matter what o/s it is if someone can write a virus, root kit, whatever for it.
From the OpenBSD website: "Four years without a remote hole in the default install!"
Now, with the resources that M$ has, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to say the same. The simple fact is that they've determined that they can make the public believe that they are not at fault, so it is more cost effective to add another "feature" to the os. If general motors didn't put airbags into their cars so that they could put in extra cup holders, would they be at fault? After all, it is the other car that actually caused the fatalities, right?
Or, perhaps a better analogy would be:
If a kid decided to tag (spray paint) one of your windows. Now, a normal window could just have the paint washed off, no big deal. But these particular windows, because of a feature that prevents them from getting dirty, shattered under the weight of the paint. So, do you blame the kid? Definitely, he did something malicious that caused damage. But you also need to blame the person who makes (the) Windows.
This is a no brainer in the physical world. If a company makes a product that is defective, they are liable for damage caused by their faulty product. In the virtual world, software makers have been able to side step this obligation by hiring lawyers and politicians (our old friend the EULA).
So, to use another physical analogy...where do you lock up your valuables? Do you take them to the glass bank and put them in a glass box (made of Windows(TM))? No, you take them to the bank and put them in a safe deposit box. If you want something to be safe in the virtual world, don't use windows. Use openBSD or some other product where the creators actually thought about security.
To me, the above email reads: I tried to skimp on costs for something important and now I got burned and it's going to end up costing me a lot more money. You get what you pay for.
...and you thought only websites could be /.'d
Don't forget The Offspring...Someone searched Napster (back when people were using it) and found out that they were the #1 pirated band. They loved it. They even sold Napster t-shirts on their website until napster asked them to stop. They understood that if you produce a quality product, people will buy it.
<confused_media>
Yet somehow, *despite* all the piracy, their album sold more copies than anyone thought it would and all their concerts sold out.
</confused_media>
I have a friend who has horrible credit. He got this horrible credit bacause of a $40 charge that he disputes. The company that feels he owes them money, marked it on his credit report. So now, he cashes his paycheck twice a month and puts the cash in a safe he bought (for more than $40). He has chosen to give up the conveniences of the modern non-cash system for his principles (he's right about the $40 charge...but I won't go into that here). Without cash, he would be forced to concede his argument.
The more important point here is that cash always gives you an alternative way to live your life. With the relative ease that a company can destroy your credit rating, imagine the abuses that would occur if you *had to comply* everytime someone said you owed them something.
Because of this malicious act, there are probably thousands or possibly millions of people who have been duped into thinking that John Ashcroft is an intelligent person with a sense of humor. We can only be thankful that he did not attribute any profound statement to president Bush.
Yes John, when the government proposes compromising freedom for security, i do have a knee jerk response. See, it's because the government is, in essence, asking me to trust it to use such legislation for the purposes that it was intended. Well, as the old saying goes, trust is earned.
When I see federal anti-crack-house legislation being used to prosecute the organizer of a music festival, I shudder to think what they will be able to do with anti-terrorism laws (that's right, they're attempting to send a man from new orleans to jail for the rest of his life because he organized an event where there was likely to be drug use despite the large security presence looking for drugs!).
I do not advocate drug use...in fact I belive that it is one of the scourges of our society. But I fail to see how drug sniffing dogs walking around an airport will increase the safety of air travel (This was the case in many American airports this past week). I can see the headline now..."The terrorists had no guns, knives or weapons of any kind. They were able to quickly gain control of the airplane thanks to the two kilos of uncut heroin that they managed to sneak on board."
It's not that I don't advocate security measures. They are necessary. But there's more than one knee-jerk reaction happening here. The government reacts by passing any peice of legislation that "could have helped prevent this tragedy." We need to have a healthy debate about every security measure that we enact. We can't let the emotions of this past week cloud our judgement, resulting in the complete freedom of the justice dep't to do whatever they want.
</$0.02>
...computer science taught me that two wrongs don't make a right, but two rights make a wrong...
So...Mr President I wish to help, here are some possible solutions to the problem:
When events such as those that occured in the past week happen, greave, clean up and move on with life.
Remain truly neutral in world affairs, even to the detrement of U.S. business interests. People only think we're the devil because we act like it.
Think about the interests of the citizens of the country, not just those who can afford $50,000 campaign contributions and $500 a plate dinner party. Theoretically, we are the ones you're supposed to be serving.
Don't take away the best part of being an American. Let me have the civil liberties that were envisioned when this country was founded.
This country has almost 300,000,000 people. Even at the highest estimates for those killed in the recent acts of terrorism, it is less than 1 person in every 60,000. I'd rather take those odds, than have the government know every detail of my life. Every day, we all make decisions like this. Do we drive to work or take some form of transportation that does not endanger our lives to the extent that automobiles do. There are far more fatalities in this country from auto accidents involving excessive speed than there are from terrorism. Should we allow the government to install devices which signal law enforcement when the driver is speeding? It would almost certainly save lives. But we don't. We, as Americans, see that there is some intrensic value to freedom which is more important than living in a world with less risks. This vision is tested when we see an American icon fall as in the case of the wtc. But let's not forget what allowed it to rise in the first place. What if the government had told the developer that they couldn't build the wtc because it would take too long to evacuate?
</$0.02>
I started out using SuSE and Turbo Linux. I eventually moved to Red Hat because that's what all my friends knew. By using my friends as a resource, not only did I get another resource beyond online faqs and man pages, but I also had them checking up on me to make sure that I was learning about it. I use debian now, but my learning process was made that much easier by using what they used.
My advice is to use whatever distro your friends use. While you can definitely do it on your own, it just makes it easier to have that extra resource.
As long as politicians can continue to convince the populus that issues like this are the most important, they will continue to sell our rights to corporate interests in exchange for the campaign contributions which keep them in office.
/. community).
It is absurd that something like this gets as much attention as it did. This wasn't a legal question of whether scientists are allowed to study stem cells. It was a study of whether tax dollars will fund it (will researchers share profits with the government when they discover a cure for some disease...hell no, they'll patent it and retire).
Meanwhile important issues like personal freedom v. corporate profit are ignored (outside of the
You won't see any discussion of Dmitri Sklyarov on Washington talk shows, the evening news, or the cover of the weekly newsmagazines.
There was one story on the evening news here in the S.F. area. They were covering the protests over his arrest. I believe their words were, "Skylarov was arrested by the F.B.I. for writing software that allows users to steal books in the Adobe EBook format"
So much for an unbiased media...
That depends on your definition of revolutionary. If you mean "something that has never been done before," then yes, linux is revolutionary. But I believe revolutionary in the case was meant as "necessitating a reaction (providing there is one) by Microsoft"
;)
Linux runs on every platform. Wow. That is a great achievement. How does that change Microsoft's strategy. Should they port windows to every OS. No. They are a for-profit software company. It needs to be profitable for MS to expend the effort to bring windows to a given Platform. When the time comes that millions of people are running apps on their wristwatch, you better believe that there'll be a WindowsWWE.
Likewise, the GPL is a radical concept. Developers around the world freely sharing code. Revolutionary? That's debatable. But from Microsoft's POV, its a non-issue. They are for profit. They don't share their code. The GPL doesn't affect them.
Remember. MS doesn't care about the developer-level market. Their bread and butter is the mainstream user (where pre-requisites are the ability to use a mouse, basic knowledge of how to store/retrieve files off a filesystem, etc). When Linux offers something revolutionary to the mainstream user, it might be revolutionary to MS.
The only thing I see that is revolutionary is a free ($$) OS. Microsoft has to be very careful not to price themselves out of the OS market (it would take a huge effort for that to happen anytime soon). But, like he said, BSD has been free for a long time.
All that said, I hate using windows. I only use it (in VMWare) for company mandated Outlook functions. I use linux whenever possible. I would consider myself a linux proponent. But it's uses are still speciallized, and it *isn't* truly revolutionary...yet
anyone harbor any lingering thoughts that AMD is a second-class citizen in the chipmaking world?
Every company that I've worked for...least for desktops. they just choose intel by default since it is a safe, no-brainer and no one really cares all that much (me for example...Would I prefer an Athlon, yes. Would I fight purchasing to get one, no.)
Until AMD can erode this mindset among those who purchase equipment for large companies, Intel will continue to be a class above the rest...no matter if their chips run faster or not.
I am tired of this Marxist bullshit that people constantly spout about capitalism being about greed.
Ummm...capitalism is about greed. Pure and simple. This can sound like a Marxist argument against capitalism, but only if you take greed to mean something negative.
Let me respond to your rant with what I believe are some misconceptions you have about my previous post:
1) I never said that Ben Franklin wasn't a capitalist. He helped to create the initial structure of the most capitalist state in history. However, he was also an inventor and a patriot. So, if you ask the question, "Who is more capitalistic?", Gates is the likely answer since he doesn't have any other facet to his personality like Franklin did.
2) You seem to be assume that I am advocating some sort of Marxist point of view (most likely because of my usage of the word greed). This couldn't be farther from the truth. I am not an advocate of socialist policies...I don't know what I would do if I couldn't place a phone call and have a pizza show up at my door 30 min later. Capitalism is great. It is just important to realize what fuels capitalism. For good or bad, it is self interest.
3) You seem to assume that I was talking about patent laws (ok...this is fair since that was the topic of the post I responded to). Actually, I was simply responding to the question, "Who's more American?" So maybe it is a stupid question to focus on, but hey...it's slashdot...this is where I come to talk about stupid stuff.
So who is more American, Ben Franklin or Bill Gates?
1) Bill Gates was born in the US, Franklin was not...Franklin was born a British Citizen.
2) The present tense of the verb to be is used, so Franklin technically *isn't* any more
3) Bill Gates represents what it is to be American pretty darn well. He is capitalistic and greedy. Franklin represents what it *was* to be American, idealistic and capable of creative thought.
So...maybe the question should have been phrased, "Who is more what we'd like to believe an American is?"
I would be very hesitant to base any enterprise solution on any of the current templating languages. There's just too much String manipulation happening at runtime.
Also, last time I checked (approx three months ago), these language were missing some very important features. For example, WebMacro has no for loop, only a foreach loop. This means that during runtime, you must recurse through the entire collection, not just the desired sub-collection.
There really isn't one good answer out there that seperates out view logic from application logic, but the eventual solution *will* be JSP (read: taglibs...struts is headed in the right direction, just down the wrong path)...JSP's are only messy if you have java code in them.
</$0.02>
Question is, we know that drugs and the artistic professions go hand in hand - what about drugs and the rational, engineering professions like Software Engineering?
I completely disagree that software engineering is not an artistic profession. There may be programmers out there who have very little chance to express their creativity, but at the heart of most developers, I believe that there is the urge to create and express themselves through code.
Software engineering may have more "rules" than many other artforms, but there are many recognized forms of art that also have strict rules. Haiku's have a defined sylabic layout, musicians have a defined set of chords that they use and Ballerinas have specific moves that they are taught early on in their education. Creating a program may be limited by the language you are forced to use to create it, or the end goal of its functionality, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of creativity in the process of creating it.
The only difference I see is that the world has found a practical use for the artistic expression of programmers. I would liken it to the police sketch artist...an artist being used to accomplish a practical goal. If that same sketch artist draws or paints outside of work, no one would hesitate to call him an artist (even though some might not call his police sketches art). How many of you have written programs outside of work just because you felt like it? Did you write them simply because you felt that the world needed them in some way, or was it partly because you enjoyed the process of creating them?
<$0.02>
"Hotline is a legitimate client-server application that pirates migrated to and took over"
It's nice to hear someone promenant on the industry side of the copyright wars who has figured out this distinction. The people who are responsable (and should be held accountable) are the people who share/download copyrighted materials. We shouldn't blame people who come up with interesting ideas that have legitimate uses just because people find ways to use the product/idea to do something illegal.
As someone who creates music in mp3 format (without the talent/connections/luck necessary to get a recording contract), I think Napster would be a wonderful way for me to share my music with the world...'cept it is flooded with illegal content making it impossible to find independant content like mine (not to mention the fact that it'll probably end up getting the service shut down).
I'm not making any moral statement on sharing copyrighted content...I don't condemn or approve of the actions of anyone doing it. But the world would be a lot cooler place, IMHO, if everybody understood the distinction that this guy does.
</$0.02>
Who would YOU pick for a programming job - resume A with the CIS degree, or resume B with the CS degree?
Ummm...maybe you're not familiar with the job market these days, but...
As someone who's work duties include, in addition to programming, interviewing potential engineering team members, I would extend generous offers to both candidates, and be lucky if even one of them called me back.
"How easy is it going to be for me to get a job?" and "How much will I be making?" are the wrong questions to be asking when choosing between CS and CIS. Your main concern should be what will make me a better programmer. This is an industry where performance is everything. When it comes time to promote someone, or determine the xmas bonuses, delivering quality code in a timely fashion is far more important than a college degree.
The majority of users who use pine as their mail client are:
a) able to easily find work at a new employer
and...
b) likely to pursue that option if mandated to switch to Outlook.