Slashback: Eldred, Cruise, SOAP 181
And then we saw the sharks. a9db0 writes "Part II of Doc Searl's travelogue recounting his experiences on the Geek Cruise has been posted here by the fine folks over at the Linux Journal"
In an earlier report from Geek Cruise, Linus predicted 2.6 by June 2003. If you liked the list of features being considered for 2.6, you can thank puriots0 for "the list of what's been included in time for the feature freeze for Linux 2.6", as found at kernelnewbies.org.
Peel back your eyelids and let these images flood your brain. strredwolf writes "I think we had half the story when Cartoon Network said they were going to remove Zoids and G Gundam in their Toonami block. It was more like remove Zoids, move G Gundam to Midnight Run with GI Joe, put HeMan and Transformers on full weekdays, and double up on DB and DBZ. The website and broadcast prove it now. (This report was done while watching to Toonami live.)"
And Stalke writes "Recently, rumours about Stargate SG1 7th season included it both being renewed as well as speculation that it might be cancelled. MGM and Scifi put those rumours to rest today by officially announcing a 7th season. It will begin filming next year with a full 22 episodes ordered. No word about Daniel Jackson returning though :("
Cracking down on alien fraudsters. yep writes "Administrators of the alien-hunting distributed computing experiment SETI@home have announced they will crack down on cheats who rort statistics on computing power lent to the project. The announcement follows a united protest from the chief contributors. SETI@home director David Anderson announced SETI@home would do its best to investigate users returning suspiciously high amounts of work and delete their accounts if it uncovered solid evidence of cheating."
Sure they're not. tiltowait writes "The Hartford Courant article "The FBI Has Bugged Our Public Libraries" has been retracted (this was mentioned here - but the older article has been removed). Even if the retraction can be trusted, this doesn't change the fact that the FBI can still bug libraries as freely as the CIA can assasinate with impunity, or that more McCarthyism is on the way."
This story retracts the claims of bugging made in the previous one. Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial.
Cleaning up the future for SOAP. Makarand writes "A major hurdle in finalizing the SOAP 1.2 specification has been removed. Both Epicentric, a subsidiary of Vignette, and WebMethods, which makes integration software, had said in earlier statements that they may have patents that cover the technology used in the SOAP 1.2 specification which would have made SOAP 1.2 non royalty-free hindering approval by W3C. Epicentric has now amended its earlier statement saying they no longer believe they hold any such patents, and even if they did, they are interested in making them available on a royalty-free basis. WebMethods has made no comments yet."
Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? (Score:5, Funny)
Just a thought, though, not a sermon
Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? (Score:3, Informative)
If their site DOES get Slashdotted...
The 144KB (*ahem* KiB) PDF is also here [mrhostbot.com].
Why is this marked troll? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this marked troll? (Score:2)
Most likely the KiB thing - some people are advocating the usage of kibibyte in place of kilobyte. Unfortunately, they're not too tactful about it and frequently resort to some sort of appeal to authority to justify themselves.
Re:Why is this marked troll? (Score:2)
Actually, they're both 1024. The views of IEEE notwithstanding, setting KB to 1000 runs counter to decades of usage.
Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? (Score:2, Funny)
Karma: n. A thing on
Re:Direct link to a 50 page PDF file? (Score:3, Informative)
(If you're like me, you find it highly annoying reading a PDF file of pure text, double-spaced with line numbers.)
SciFi (Score:3, Interesting)
Yea? I remeber when SciFi and Jim Henson annouced more seasons of Farscape and full seasons ordered.
Re:SciFi (Score:1, Funny)
When dead people say stuff, you damn well listen!
FBI Conspiracy Theory (Score:5, Funny)
It all makes sense folks. The truth is out there.
Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
No, you are "out there".
Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
I mean why not just keep an eye on the internet traffic for the whole library, I'm sure they all get their service from some place fairly standard and traceable.
They most likely tap network at some point where they can watch whole library system with one sniffer.
just my 2 cents
Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
Umm, where does Kevin Bacon [virginia.edu] fit in?
Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
Unfortunately, hollywood always screws the little guy, so he doesn't get the recognition he so deserves.
Re:FBI Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
Leave it to Neal Stephenson to write a story about Japanese gold when what's really interesting is a story about Japanese aluminum.
Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats (Score:1)
Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats (Score:4, Interesting)
One obvious solution -- distributing a work unit only once to each team -- comes to mind, but without being on the team I can't comment as to relevant practical concerns.
Better yet... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd imagine they have some sort of rejection method right now (in case someone tries to upload /dev/random), but I don't know how much overhead this would involve.
Re:Better yet... (Score:2)
Re:Better yet... (Score:2)
Re:Better yet... (Score:2)
Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats (Score:5, Informative)
These cheats aren't diluting the validity of the results, only getting credit for huge quantities of work units. (Though one could argue that they are disrupting things by chewing up bandwidth) Credit is one of the reasons that folks volunteer to do SETI@Home, so this could also cause people to loose interest and drop out if not corrected.
Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats (Score:2)
Except that they are still subverting the validation system. So if they've got flaky hardware and their results are slightly wrong because of it, they'll be passing on those corrupted results to a number of other people who will provide incorrect confirmation.
Re:Vulernability of SETI@home to cheats (Score:3, Informative)
That is PRECISELY what that they are said to be abusing. One machine completes 99% of a work unit, that unit is then passed on to a hundred other machines. They each complete the last 1% and all hand in correct units. The cross-check program verifies that they all agree and flags them all as valid, they all get credit.
The good news it that this does not currupt any of the results. The bad news is that the "work done" figures are hosed and that worthless data is burning up bandwidth and processor time on the central servers.
-
Library (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Library (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt they would run anything on the computers themselves using a program or a keylogger, mainly because it is too much work and ALOT of people would have to know about. I mean, we have 176 public computers and around 200 staff computers throughout all our branches they would have to bug. And to do that they would have to involve at least 3 people PLUS the student techs who administer the machines and work in the labs. I would doubt they would bother with it, considering the work to log 500 some machines. Doesn't seem worth their time.
Instead, and much more likely, they would track the people's book browsing habits. Our library uses a third-party system called IRIS (innovative research something something) to handle our online card catalog, which happens to be our only card catalog. Now things become more interesting. Since all queries (seaching for books, journals, etc, etc) are tracked by IP and logged automatically by the IRIS machine in the first place - to see interests in books and what we can keep or send to storage, not part of some grand conspiracy - all the FBI would have to do is ask for the logs. Then, assuming they know which computer the suspect was at, match the IP's with the queries. Also if they wanted stuff like book checkout records, etc, etc, they could just grab it from the IRIS machine. Basically, this would be relatively easy for them and only 1-2 people who have to know. And, even better, the general public would be oblivious. You could also set up the database to only report certain queries for books, and the like. I mean the infrastructure is there, all they have to do is turn it on/customize it to what they need.
The only way you could find out about it is if you had access to the IRIS machine. And, sorry guys, that ain't going to happen unless you work there. So don't go to your local library looking for key loggers you aren't going to find any. Now, personally, I am a lowly student computer tech so I have absolutely no say in this but it is somewhat scary to think of.
Also, they could just deploy packet sniffers, etc, etc on the LAN.
Re:Library (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got it backwards.
The FBI isn't interested in finding out what queries have been made by dangerous suspects. What the FBI will be doing is looking for dangerous queries (people pulling out copies of "Catcher in the Rye" for example), and thus locating their next suspect.
So be careful about your book borrowing habits. Rather than borrowing books, buy them. Buy books from stores using only cash. Only buy one book per transaction. Buy your books from different stores. Never visit the same store twice in a row.
And remember - trust no-one.
No matter what a stripper tells you (Score:4, Funny)
Why couldn't I go on the cruise? (Score:5, Funny)
Free cruises are a matter of the vacationers' freedom to sail to, study, change and improve cities all across the globe. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the cruise:
- The freedom to ride on any ship, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the ship works, and adapt it to your vacationing needs (freedom 1).
- The freedom to redistribute free cruise passes so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to improve the cruise, and release your improvements to the event coordinator, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? (Score:2, Insightful)
and it makes you a STOWAWAY, which is WORSE.
Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? (Score:2)
Re:Why couldn't I go on the cruise? (Score:2)
Patents on SOAP? (Score:4, Funny)
You are a jealous bully (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't you get bullied when you were in school? Didn't you have enough of that?
To better understand your comment, I'll rephrase it thusly:
"RMS is funny, and I don't understand him. He says things that cause me to think. He says things that threaten my livelihood. He speaks out where I am afraid to. He is confident in his ideas.
Kick kick kick. I cannot deal with him. Kick Kick Kick.
I am small and by kicking RMS I can be big."
Myself, I wish I could understand and phrase an argument as clearly and succinctly as RMS. I wish I could code as well as RMS. I wish I had made a contribution to my profession 1/1000th as important as either emacs, gcc, or GNU. I wish I had the balls to speak as freely as RMS. I wish I wasn't as enamored of money as I am, maybe then I could follow my dreams of activism, and I thank RMS for following his. I thank RMS for his contributions to our profession and to society, and for making arguments that cause me much grief when I think about them.
Re:You are a jealous bully (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You are a jealous bully (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You are a jealous bully (Score:2)
Does it change the fact that for 15+ years Mr. Stallman lived in his office at MIT? Does it change the fact that his hygenic preferences (and lack thereof) are well documented? No, it does not. Does it particularly matter? In the realm of "Free Software", no it does not. In the sphere of "social acceptability" (which you may or may not ascribe to. I personally have a "eh, fuck it" attitude), yes it does. When you can't preach your point without grossing out the audience because you smell like ass, what's the point? Stallman is a relic of the "hippies" that so many of us make fun of. You know the type, they still exist in pockets around the country. They don't bathe, shower, work, or whatever, generally live a care-free life, many are well educated, their "priorities" seem to be off-kilter with the rest of the world, and personally, that's what makes them fun. I don't particularly care for hippies (the lazy fucking bastards), but I don't particularly mind them, either. They don't harm me.
RMS has some very controversial views about things. This opens him up for attack, and he apparently has a very thick skin for most things, except for his little pet peeves (such as GNU/Linux). So fucking what? He can defend himself and doesn't need you or anyone else to do it for him. He gets picked on, sure, but does it really matter to him? Do you think he goes home and cries himself to sleep because of what some little prick on
Henry Ford is revered as one of the modern progenitors of modern industrialism. Not much is mentioned about his pro-Nazi sympathies, his dictatorial aims of his own company (the Ford Smile, anyone?), etc. RMS will go down in history not for his uncleanliness (that's an ad-hominem attack), but for his work with the FSF and GNU, regardless of what anyone says. Today it's cruel, but humorous in that, well, it's true. And when he's dead he'll stink for other reasons other than his hygiene. Who cares? I certainly don't.
If you idolize him, put your fucking code where your mouth is and shut the hell up.
Re:You are a jealous bully (Score:3)
I have often defended Stallman not because he needs it, but because he is one of the most sincere people I can think of. In this cynical society it is very hard to be sincere, and it always opens you up to criticism. But I hate cynicism, and I strive to be more sincere myself. I defend him because that sincerity is something I aspire to.
I don't like the term "geek" -- somewhere along the line it lost its meaning, because too many idiots took that term for themselves as though it was something cool. It cannot ever be cool to be a geek -- they are opposites. A real geek -- not just a socially awkward person -- has a passion that is not diluted for social ends. I am offended when that passion is ridiculed. And usually that ridicule comes from people who are mediocre and self-centered. But I respond because coolness can be infectious -- or at least the aspiration of cool. I hope only that someone will see how empty that path is.
Re:You are a jealous bully (Score:2)
It's nice to call the kettle black sometimes, and it might make a few people around think about it a little harder. However, when it comes right down to it, it's still an internet message board with almost zero bearing in real life (does
I have no idea where this is going. Take it light.
Re:You are a jealous bully (Score:2)
ISPs and e-mail disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, having read this, Ashcroft's Ashellians will require licenses on mail servers....
Re:ISPs and e-mail disclosure (Score:3, Informative)
FBI, Libraries, and You (Score:4, Funny)
My point here is - I've never known movies to be wrong.
Re:FBI, Libraries, and You (Score:2)
If that were true, I'd have been visited by now (Score:3, Interesting)
A new low... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see... the FBI says the report wasn't true, the city librarian says the report wasn't true, the reporter says the report wasn't true, and the reporter's two anonymous sources say the story wasn't true. And the delusional /. editor's response? "Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial."
Un-fucking-believable.
Re:A new low... (Score:3, Insightful)
The dear editor's point was that a retraction of a story about espionage is at least as likely to be caused by pressure as by error, and probably more so since there could be serious consequences to making up such a story, so it's not something one enters into lightly.
It's called plausible deniability.
Re:A new low... (Score:2)
1 spread paranoia
2 steal underpants
3
4 profit
Re:A new low... (Score:4, Insightful)
"There's a gag order. When the FBI uses a court order or a subpoena to gain access to library computers or a list of the names of people who have borrowed certain books, librarians can't tell anyone - not even other librarians or you. They face a stiff federal penalty if they do."
It's one of the lovely provisions of the USAPATRIOT Act. If patriotism means locking up librarians then I'm no patriot. Blowing up a handfull of buildings isn't going to destroy America, but gutting the constitution can.
-
Re:A new low... (Score:2)
Re:A new low... (Score:2)
Re:A new low... (Score:2)
How about these? [rcfp.org] Here is the current advice [rcfp.org] on the subject of whether a reporter should offer confidentiality to a source. The US Supremes ruled in 1999 that there is no 1st Amendment guarantee to reporters offering confidentiality and tossed it to each state to decide on their own. A reporter should consult with her local publisher for their policy before guaranteeing confidentiality.
Re:A new low... (Score:2)
[ob political rant] ya know, Ashcroft and GW have done a very nice job of diminishing what few civil liberties that we've got left. Before 9/11, how many times a month did you hear the word terrorism. Now, how many times do you hear it? Drugs? Terrorism. Violence? Terrorism. Someone not wiping their ass right? Terrorism. [/ob rant and apology to moderators]
The next thing you know, they'll be looking at our web site traffic to determine if we're terrorists.
Re:A new low... (Score:2)
I hadn't heard that. What the hell do they do if you don't HAVE a drivers licence or non-driver ID? Does the USAPATRIOT Act make it illegal to get a bank account without an official ID???
-
WHATEVER YOU GAY, G-MAN! (Score:2)
Re:A new low... (Score:3, Insightful)
The FBI is not above threatening to put people in jail over these issues.
For me, the FBI needs to go beyond just saying it wasn't true.
No I don't think this is a huge conspiecy, or that the FBI is out to get me, but they have a pretty abusive history, so I take everything they say with a lump of salt.
Re:A new low... (Score:2)
I don't say it's the most likely possibility, but I think it's naive and bordering on stupid to presume it's impossible.
the FBI has ways of making you believe (Score:4, Funny)
This story retracts the claims of bugging made in the previous one. Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial.
Early tomorrow morning, around 4:30am, you will receive some surprise guests at your door, and after they let themselves in, you will learn exactly what your incentive is.
Hint: save yourself a lot of trouble and have your computers unplugged and boxed up.
By tomorrow afternoon, I predict you too will retract your statement.
A Friend
Live in fear (Score:3, Insightful)
You diminish the tragedy of McCarthy with your excited little exaggerations.
As for the CIA capping terrorists:
"..hey man, nice shot!" - Filter
Until It's You (Score:5, Insightful)
"..hey man, nice shot!" - Filter
Read this [csmonitor.com], particularly the part about the three peasants.
What if someone were to turn around and declare you a terrorist?
Still finding it such a good idea?
CIA shoots... (Score:2)
Pretty scary for the folks on the ground, who have to worry maybe the CIA guy's got bad TV reception, or didn't sleep well last night.
the CIA can assasinate with impunity (Score:1)
Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity (Score:2)
Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity (Score:2)
Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity (Score:2)
MR. BOUCHER: As far as the events in Yemen, I have nothing for you on that.
QUESTION: But can you say that you are against targeted killings?
MR. BOUCHER: Our policy on targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context has not changed --
QUESTION: And in other contexts?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to speculate.
QUESTION: Well, so you have one rule for one conflict and another rule for another conflict?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say that -- if you look back at what we have said about targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context, you will find that the reasons we have given do not necessarily apply in other circumstances.
Re:the CIA can assasinate with impunity (Score:2)
As to "impunity", bullshit! We have SF on the ground in Yemen. The Predator can pretty much look in the window of the car and see who is inside. The "poor, inocents" inside were terrorist leaders.
BOOM! Score six for the good guys!
Yeah... Riigggghhhhhhtttt... (Score:3, Interesting)
Eldred's Question Time (Score:2)
I'm only a quarter of the way through the Eldred arguments, IANAL, insert disclaimer here, but it seems to me that many of the judges asking these questions just don't have an understanding of Eldred's arguments, yet are interrupting him with questions from all directions so as not to let him completely answer it.
That's just my take on it, but it just seems like they didn't buy his argument, and they're just being deliberately obtuse about it.
Re:Eldred's Question Time (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that they wanted to look at the two halves of his argument separately, while he kept referring to one as supporting the other. I think they wanted to see if either of them supported the claim individually, and I'd guess they were more interested in looking at the First Amendment issue. (As I understand it, going to the First Amendment for copyright issues isn't normally supported. They might have been looking for an easy out on that side...)
Further, based on their questions to Olson, they may have been so in favor of the Section 8 limitation argument that they didn't see the need to go any more down that path. (They gave him a *lot* of opportunities to describe the effective limits of the Copyright Clause, and he kept coming back to "Well, that's up to Congress." They didn't seem to like that answer, much.) Which, if true, is a good sign. And might mean that their questioning of Lessig was an attempt to see what help the First Amendment might give them.
It is a tricky problem for them: They don't like to overrule Congress, but also don't let Congress run wild with its own interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe we'll get lucky.
TSG
Re:Eldred's Question Time (Score:2)
Good post. (someone mod this guy up :) I finished reading the transcript and noticed that the Govt side of the arguments seemed to be a lot weaker than Lessig's. (Appeal to authority in the form of the EU, neglecting the fact that the EU changed its copyright terms to match the US, not the other way round, the argument that the previous extensions weren't challenged before, so of course they're correct, and so on)
I think that they wanted to look at the two halves of his argument separately, while he kept referring to one as supporting the other.
Yeah, I gathered that. I think Lessig realised that there was a fair amount of synergy in the parts of his argument, but I think it turned out passably, despite the questioning. He was right to have reserved a few minutes for the end, IMO. His summation really highlighted the holes in the opposition's arguments.
btw thanks for pointing out it's Lessig, not Eldred, doing the argument. I am teh suck.
Re:Eldred's Question Time (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, it's difficult to tell which way the Justices are leaning from the questions. They've done their homework and read all thr briefs. They know Lessig's argument. What they are doing in the questioning is testing the argument to find its weaknesses. The stronger the argument, the harder the questions.
When you get down to SG Olsen's questioning, you'll see how thoroughly they demolish his position. "Whatever limit Congress sets as long as its finite" is a non-starter. Later on the Justices joked about theatre boxes in England being leased for 900 years. It's finite in mathematical terms, but unlimited in practical terms.
The real question for the court is how too define appropriate limits to Congressional powers that give meaning to the phrase "limited times" without usurping the Congressional function of setting the limit. They don't want to be in a position of having to say x years is OK, but y years is too long. Lessig has offered them a meaningful place to put that limit. SG Olsem has not.
They are also concerned that the argument which defeats the CTEA defeats the 1976 act as well. Lessig's own brief distinguishes the two and the clerks know this if the Justices don't.
Reading the transcript gave me hope. Several of the Justices got the point that Lessig was making. There is a real liklihood of a positive outcome. Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Breyer are likely yesses. There's only one more needed.
It's a little more informative to read the transcript which was posted to the web a few weeks ago. Someone put in the names of the Justices which this official transcript lacks. Also read Lessig's blog. I think he has real reasons to feel confident.
Re:Eldred's Question Time (Score:2)
what a good slashback! (Score:4, Insightful)
no, I'm not kidding.
in all seriousness. good job
Geek Cruise? (Score:1, Redundant)
Correct capitalization. (Score:1, Informative)
It's "webMethods". Not "web methods". Not "WebMethods". Not "Webmethods".
Just "webMethods".
Thank you.
(And, no, I don't know anything about the patent)
Geek Cruise.. What?? (Score:1, Informative)
Here's the scoop. Geek Cruises Inc. is operated by Neil Bauman [newsforge.com] who is a OT6-level Scientologist. Not to mention that he has deep contacts with anti-semite Bobby Fischer.
The geek cruise format, from the time of leaving port is identical to that of the Freewinds OT5 training [scientology.org]. The early seminars and late "social activities" are designed to loosen your mind from its pinnings, allowing external suggestion to become much easier.
This isn't done to "brainwash you into loving Linux", that's already done and there's no need to be redundant. However, the point of the cruise is to open your mind to the possibility of joining their other cruises like Mindscape: Clear your mind in Alaska [geekcruises.com] and Celebrity Slam (this year featuring Nicholas Cage) [geekcruises.com]. These other cruises are specifically geared towards getting people hooked into Scientology. For whatever reason, it works a hell of a lot better than the weirdo movie they like to show to "IQ test takers" at their normal temples.
It's because the company Geek Cruises Inc does so many nice things for the geek community and provides really interesting cruises that Scientology likes it as a means of recruiting so much. Don't be fooled, please. If you are interested in Scientology, please visit their website and read up about it. Then visit Operation Clamback and read up about the things they don't want you to know.
Scientology is one of the most devious "religions" around. Don't be sucked in by promises of meeting geek celebrities or viewing beautiful scenery and stopping at exotic ports of call. It is all a scam. You may get what you pay for, but you will get much more that you simply don't want.
Troll. (Score:2)
How do you know Mr. Bauman is a Scientologist?
Where did you read when Freewinds leaves port?
Oh, yeah, and your links to geek cruises all fail.
My conclusion? Well written, but completely false.
When does the Eldred decision come? (Score:1)
SETI blocks computed: take out the brag factor (Score:2)
Publishing aggregate results is fine, but posting individual results begs people to find ways, sometimes malicious, to "get ahead".
Re:SETI blocks computed: take out the brag factor (Score:2)
Anyway publishing individuals' results is absolutely necessary because people want recognition and they're not going to go through the effort to install the client or screensaver or whatever unless you give them props - because there will always be SOMEONE who will give them credit for their CPU time.
Sure, some people really believe in giving their CPU time to a specific cause, those people will continue, they likely appreciate the accolades anyway, however. Meanwhile people who are doing it just for credit will either not bother or just not bother to update and add the software to new machines. People who both believe in the cause and like the credit will put less effort into it as well.
A Little Less DBZ Please... (Score:2)
Re:A Little Less DBZ Please... (Score:2)
Re:A Little Less DBZ Please... (Score:2)
They watch it anyway, cuz it looks k3w1!
It's obvious to me now that the South Park Pokemon Parody episode was a thinly veiled documentary expose' of the true intentions of the japanese media... the ossification of the american brain via mindless eye candy and useless occupation of american mental computational capacity with ridiculous and STOOPID games, thus breeding a home-grown brain drain, rendering us effectively a nation of self involved non threating masturbatory morons.
It seems to be working. Sigh.
I guess the Seizure Robots were too subtle in their results..
Cancelled (Score:4, Funny)
'Simple' Object Access Protocol? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:'Simple' Object Access Protocol? (Score:2)
When a frustrated person on the list asked the same questions I'd been having, he was told there seemed to be an informal standard of using an Apache Axis namespace for XML now! I mean WTF? But that's only the beginning.
Where is objects-by-reference? Oh, I know, that'd be in the Microsoft .NET Remoting extensions. Why not in the standard itself? Because MS have been blocking it on the grounds of "added bloat". I'd say objects-by-reference are absolutely critical to any modern RPC protocol and it doesn't have to be complex either, but it's not in there. Simple Object Access Protocol my backside.
And then of course the patents. Considering we've been doing RPC for over a decade, and SOAP is merely RPC done in XML (and done worse) how in the lords name can there be patents on it? Prior art trips you up at the street corner there's so much. And WSDL? What a POS. That is a classic example of something that's been abstracted so much it's almost incomprehensible.
I used to quite like SOAP, but after trying to actually write stuff using it, I've decided it's (to borrow a phrase i saw in a newsgroups) "a dog turd served on a fine china plate". The W3C produce some good specs, but this isn't one of them. I, of course, blame Microsoft :)
Oh and BTW, XML-RPC doesn't have xml as a first class data type either. Dunno why. I might write my own rpc protocol at this rate.
Epicentric, a subsidiary of Vignette ... (Score:2)
Recently = approximately nine days ago.
Is that enough time to call something a subsidiary? :) (I wonder if the deal has even been completed yet. I know the paperwork has been signed, but things like that still tend to take time.)
CIA assassination? (Score:3, Insightful)
And not only that...it can assassinate US citizens [washingtonpost.com]. "Administration officials, intelligence operatives and military analysts...praised the CIA strikes as an innovative way to get the job done." You know that whole "pre-emptive strike" debate? Well it's over now. Everybody grab their sled because we're in for a nice ride down this slippery slope from moral highground! Weeeee!
Libraries and the FBI: A True Story (Score:2)
The short version is that she had been visited by some very "official" FBI agents, who informed her they had reason to beleive a patron was looking up "terrorist material" on the internet, and wouldn't she be so kind as to hand over her records and start watching said individual. My mom told them they'd need a warrant or subpoena, and she'd have to call the state's lawyers to see just where the PATRIOT act was these days.
Needless to say, the bitched and moaned that she wasn't a good citizen or patriot, and was quite possiblely negatively impacting the "War on Terror".
The truly ironic part is that most libraries, my mom's included, don't keep records around for any longer than absolutely necessary for just these reasons. Once you return a book, *poof* the record is gone. These sorts of requests have gone on for years. My mom has been asked to provided "lending histories" for suspects in murder trials, and other fun things. It amazes me that attorneys don't realize that by law (in some places) such records are not keep.
The Fed's should be required to obtain a warrant. Just like they had to when they wanted to tap the pay phone in my mom's library lobby. Libraries are a public resource, and should be treated accordingly.
Man, it really sounds like my mom's library is a hotbed of criminal activity huh?
INSIGHTFUL?!? (Score:4, Informative)
But, anyway, NOT insightful.
Perhaps not Earth Shattering But Insightful Enough (Score:2)
Oh, I think most nonpartisan observers (and of course those partisan observers in the anti-microsoft camp) already do blame the Bush administration for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
But there were nine states which did not settle, and which are perfectly entitled to persue an appeal against this ruling, and certainly should do so.
So the supreme court may well end up ruling on this case. The poster suspects it will do no good because of other apparent cases of corruption in other rulings by the supreme court (he doesn't cite any, but I suspect the election ruling of 2000 is one of those he had in mind, and on that one I'd have to agree).
Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so insightful... (Score:2)
Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? (Score:2)
Re:Can we trust the Supreme Court? (Score:2)