The format is <major build>.<minor build>.[ <version> [.<patch> [.<level> [b [.<tree>]]]]]
pre-alpha: A good deal of the base code runs. It's full of bugs.
alpha: The base code is fairly stable. Let's get the rest of the modules working.
beta: Code freeze. The software is stable. The modules work. Let's find the bugs.
release candidate: Customers can peek, familiarise themselves and file bug reports.
dogfood: We're rolling it out internally to find the rest of the bugs.
release to manufacturing: We're done. Future bugs and enhancements to be done in patches.
So what's the difference between "Beta" and "release", when the Beta was a "public Beta release"
Who gives a shit? A "public beta" is called a "Release Candidate".
In the "blog" Sony paid for (and condoned) is the following:
don't just wear it - pwn it!!1!
<pictures snipped>
step 1: download the iron-on patterns sheet
step 2: print
step 3: cut out pieces you want on your t
step 3: iron on
step 4: wear it like u mean it
No terms. No requirements. No restrictions. No demands. No disclaimers. Anyone who understands "pwn it!!1!" can easily claim that Sony paid a company to expressly promote and authorise the free use of any and all trademarked symbols, none of which display a trademark symbol in the PDFs, for their own purposes regardless of what they might be. That is pwnage.
If the court finds that the student was not in the care of the school, well, I think it pretty much ends there as there is absolutely no way the court will allow the school to censor otherwise protected speech, nonsensical or not, made on a student's own time.
In this case the Appellate Court has already found that the student was illegally censored.
I hope the SCOTUS finds that the student was under the care of the school
The student sure as hell doesn't. The Appellate Court found that Tinker applies to the case which implies that Frederick was under school supervision while exercising his speech. The same decision ruled out the Hazelwood (actually referenced as "Kuhlmeier") decision:
[6] We therefore hold that Frederick's punishment for displaying his banner is best reviewed under Tinker, rather than Fraser or Kuhlmeier. Tinker requires that, to censor or punish student speech, the school must show a reasonable concern about the likelihood of substantial disruption to its educational
mission. Appellees conceded that the speech in this case was censored only because it conflicted with the school's "mission"
Kuhlmeier is unlikely to be tested because it's only applicable to school-sponsored activities. Since the students were free to go and were unsupervised, it would be hard to argue that Frederick's sign could be seen as school-sponsored, certainly less so than the Coke-fight which broke among other students. Starr may argue that by letting the students out with the intention that they attend the parade, school sponsorship could be implied, but again the Appellate Court has already stated that this event was non-curricular; it couldn't even fall under the brad scope of "social studies".
That's a questionable finding because the Court wrote:
Frederick's banner, by comparison, was displayed outside the classroom, across the street from the school, during a non-curricular activity that was only partially supervised by school officials. It most certainly did not interfere with the school's basic educational mission.
"Non-curricular activity": this wasn't a field trip or anything designed to educate the students in any way.
"Only partially supervised": specifically, the only groups supervised were those in gym class and those taking part in the activity as school representatives in school-sponsored rôles (cheerleading, band). The rest of the students were unsupervised and, as also stated in the opinion, some got bored and went home. However, those who left never faced any disciplinary action for this truancy. Why? Because they weren't in school anymore. They weren't supervised. They were free to go.
More importantly, the Appellate Court found that Frederick did have First Amendment rights and that they were knowingly and intentionally violated, which is why the case was overturned and remanded. It's against this position that Starr is fighting.
Why is the man who got all the TV "news" stations to talk about blowjobs every night for two years fighting against Free Speech? That's like Fred Phelps fighting to get "In God We Trust" removed from all US money (based on Luke 16:13 and 14:33).
In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64 (1964), we held that even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will his expression was protected by the First Amendment:
"Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth." Id., at 73.
Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.
And, as we stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978):
"[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for sup pressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that con sequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas." Id., at 745-746.
See also Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 592 (1969) ("It is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers").
It was an 8:0 decision written by Rehnquist, and agreed to by Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is hardly "fighting words" which could lead to an incitement to public disorder so how the hell does Starr think he can attack this?
Since many -- if not most -- districts with electronic voting devices have disposed of their older, non-electronic systems, there's no available back-up mechanism other than paper and pencil, something unlikely to be accepted due to impracticality. There's hardly the time and even less impetus to print the millions of machine-readable absentee ballots necessary.
Given that, by law, voting is anonymous and private and necessarily leaves the voter alone with the device, what can be done to minimise the risk of machine tampering?
For one, most corporations don't just go downloading updates as soon as they're release and IE is a special case. $MegaCorp has software which relies on the browser as a platform. Since IE7 isn't backwards-compatible with IE6 when it comes to Java and ActiveX, $OurBigApp can't run on it. We're working on patches but until they're released companies with thousands of seats are stuck using IE6. Considering that IE7 was fast-tracked for release we didn't even have time to build patches to send to QA by release.
Furthermore, the general public is loathe to change. If Aunt Bea is used to her Internet being IE6, she sees little need to move to IE7 unless she absolutely has to -- basically when MS force it on her. Firefox is generally used by more tech-savvy people (and their friends and relatives) who are more likely to update for both features and security even though there's that huge regression hole in FF2.0.
Just because FF2.0 has had 2M downloads doesn't mean two million more people have dropped IE in favour of FF. In fact, the high number of downloads may show dissatisfaction with the earlier version and its memory leaks, whereas IE6 is "good enough". At the end of the day the only meaningful statistic is the tracking count. My blog gets hit by about 20% FF and 75% IE. YMMV.
You're an idiot and so is the mod who called you "Insightful". Read your own link:
They work well for sounds that are continuous, such as the hum of a refrigerator, but are rather ineffective against speech or other rapidly changing audio signals.
Noise cancellation requires hardware. Headphones use microphones to pick up the sounds which are then cancelled by phase-inversion. It gets vastly more complex when dealing with open spaces. This is nothing that software alone has a solution for.
RTFA a little closer. The car had RFID keys and shouldn't be able to start without the physical key being present, making theft considerably more difficult. While new in the US, such technology has been fairly common in Europe for over a decade. Even shitty Renault Twingos have that kind of protection, though not necessarily RFID. On a Twingo you can start the car but it'll die in three seconds if you don't press the button on the key which sends a signal to the computer to allow the car to run. RFIDs are passive and have enough range that direct action isn't required, unlike trying to start a shitty, 7-year-old Twingo.
You're correct on the second part though. Had the guy not been able to account for all keys, the insurance company would've rejected the claim due to negligence.
Either this is a very witty commentary on the original size of the device or the idiot editor doesn't know how to spell "ferrous". Smart money's on the latter.
You and others keep using real-world analogies such as wheelchair ramps and "giving someone a leg up" but the fact of the matter is there is no barrier whatsoever to a woman coding if she wants. None. Most FOSS code is written by people at home, in private. There is no gauntlet to walk; there are no stairs impeding a wheelchair; there is no glass ceiling. A coder is as good as the code he or she writes, period. Demanding special treatment is akin to saying, "I can't do this on my own. I can't compete on a level playing field," or so said my econ prof more than a decade ago. She had previously been a Sovet analyst with the CIA and was sick of everyone thinking she got her jobs through Affirmative Action.
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't", one might say, but there is, as I wrote before, no barrier to entry of any kind when it comes to women and coding. None. There are no school or college programming classes (in the Western world, anyway) which discourage women from joining. Quite the opposite, in fact. Schools try to recruit women into CS courses to keep certain government departments which mean well off their collective asses.
There is no real "old boy" network preventing women from getting their additions included in the next CVS. It doesn't exist. In the coding world, no one can see your genitalia... only your crappy commenting, piss-poor formatting style and your pathetic attempt to rewrite some library within every iteration of a badly structured loop.
The only time I look at the name of the coder of some piece of software I use is if it doesn't work and I need to find out who to write to.
How incredibly disingenuous of using ramps as an analogy as if ramps prevented non-disabled from entering a building. Discrimination is discrimination, sweetie. Either it's always wrong or it's OK.
Unlike almost every other feld in the world, programming is something anyone who wants to can. There are tons of free books and courses on-line as well as source code, with a whole new source repository opening.
There simply isn't the discrimination you so desperately wish to see in the field of programming, only an overall lack of interest in entering such a field by one sex. As a percentage there are a lot fewer women working as movers. Why not start working on getting the percentage up over there?
celardore is basically right. Women tend toward more social careers. Of course there are exceptions and there are women who choose fields which are more male-oriented by their nature (construction, military service) just as there are men who choose jobs traditionally held by women.
Unlike some other fields, women aren't being kept out of programming through any sort of imposed discrimination. Anyone can learn to program and anyone who writes good code can participate, especially in FOSS. I've known female coders for more than 20 years, from the COBOL whiz when I was a sysop at the Department of $US_DEPT to a few people in my department at $MegaCorp today. Yes, they're a minority, but only out of choice. No one is telling women not to code. Code doesn't have genitalia. As long as it works who gives a rat's ass whether code was written by a man or a woman or even by Hugo the Incredible Coding Marmoset?
Slashdot Mirror
The format is <major build>.<minor build>.[ <version> [ .<patch> [.<level> [b [.<tree>]]]]]
So what's the difference between "Beta" and "release", when the Beta was a "public Beta release" Who gives a shit? A "public beta" is called a "Release Candidate".
I wrote about the problem of "beta" software a couple months ago.
In this case the Appellate Court has already found that the student was illegally censored.
I hope the SCOTUS finds that the student was under the care of the school
The student sure as hell doesn't. The Appellate Court found that Tinker applies to the case which implies that Frederick was under school supervision while exercising his speech. The same decision ruled out the Hazelwood (actually referenced as "Kuhlmeier") decision:
Kuhlmeier is unlikely to be tested because it's only applicable to school-sponsored activities. Since the students were free to go and were unsupervised, it would be hard to argue that Frederick's sign could be seen as school-sponsored, certainly less so than the Coke-fight which broke among other students. Starr may argue that by letting the students out with the intention that they attend the parade, school sponsorship could be implied, but again the Appellate Court has already stated that this event was non-curricular; it couldn't even fall under the brad scope of "social studies"."Only partially supervised": specifically, the only groups supervised were those in gym class and those taking part in the activity as school representatives in school-sponsored rôles (cheerleading, band). The rest of the students were unsupervised and, as also stated in the opinion, some got bored and went home. However, those who left never faced any disciplinary action for this truancy. Why? Because they weren't in school anymore. They weren't supervised. They were free to go.
More importantly, the Appellate Court found that Frederick did have First Amendment rights and that they were knowingly and intentionally violated, which is why the case was overturned and remanded. It's against this position that Starr is fighting.
Why is the man who got all the TV "news" stations to talk about blowjobs every night for two years fighting against Free Speech? That's like Fred Phelps fighting to get "In God We Trust" removed from all US money (based on Luke 16:13 and 14:33).
No. 86-1278
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
485 U.S. 46
Argued December 2, 1987, decided February 24, 1988 It was an 8:0 decision written by Rehnquist, and agreed to by Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" is hardly "fighting words" which could lead to an incitement to public disorder so how the hell does Starr think he can attack this?
That comment is more lucid and realistic than anything Diebold's said yet.
Given that, by law, voting is anonymous and private and necessarily leaves the voter alone with the device, what can be done to minimise the risk of machine tampering?
Furthermore, the general public is loathe to change. If Aunt Bea is used to her Internet being IE6, she sees little need to move to IE7 unless she absolutely has to -- basically when MS force it on her. Firefox is generally used by more tech-savvy people (and their friends and relatives) who are more likely to update for both features and security even though there's that huge regression hole in FF2.0.
Just because FF2.0 has had 2M downloads doesn't mean two million more people have dropped IE in favour of FF. In fact, the high number of downloads may show dissatisfaction with the earlier version and its memory leaks, whereas IE6 is "good enough". At the end of the day the only meaningful statistic is the tracking count. My blog gets hit by about 20% FF and 75% IE. YMMV.
They work well for sounds that are continuous, such as the hum of a refrigerator, but are rather ineffective against speech or other rapidly changing audio signals.
Noise cancellation requires hardware. Headphones use microphones to pick up the sounds which are then cancelled by phase-inversion. It gets vastly more complex when dealing with open spaces. This is nothing that software alone has a solution for.
If people here don't ever RTFAs, why should the editors bother? Obviously it's a slow Sunday.
"Editors", feel free to cut and paste.
You're correct on the second part though. Had the guy not been able to account for all keys, the insurance company would've rejected the claim due to negligence.
Either this is a very witty commentary on the original size of the device or the idiot editor doesn't know how to spell "ferrous". Smart money's on the latter.
How hard do you have to hit it before it starts singing A Bicycle Built for Two?
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't", one might say, but there is, as I wrote before, no barrier to entry of any kind when it comes to women and coding. None. There are no school or college programming classes (in the Western world, anyway) which discourage women from joining. Quite the opposite, in fact. Schools try to recruit women into CS courses to keep certain government departments which mean well off their collective asses.
There is no real "old boy" network preventing women from getting their additions included in the next CVS. It doesn't exist. In the coding world, no one can see your genitalia... only your crappy commenting, piss-poor formatting style and your pathetic attempt to rewrite some library within every iteration of a badly structured loop.
The only time I look at the name of the coder of some piece of software I use is if it doesn't work and I need to find out who to write to.
Unlike almost every other feld in the world, programming is something anyone who wants to can. There are tons of free books and courses on-line as well as source code, with a whole new source repository opening.
There simply isn't the discrimination you so desperately wish to see in the field of programming, only an overall lack of interest in entering such a field by one sex. As a percentage there are a lot fewer women working as movers. Why not start working on getting the percentage up over there?
Unlike some other fields, women aren't being kept out of programming through any sort of imposed discrimination. Anyone can learn to program and anyone who writes good code can participate, especially in FOSS. I've known female coders for more than 20 years, from the COBOL whiz when I was a sysop at the Department of $US_DEPT to a few people in my department at $MegaCorp today. Yes, they're a minority, but only out of choice. No one is telling women not to code. Code doesn't have genitalia. As long as it works who gives a rat's ass whether code was written by a man or a woman or even by Hugo the Incredible Coding Marmoset?