nocipher

Google is trying to index as much of the web as possible so that it can provide a better service, attract more customers, and make more money from its advertisements. Therefore, the use of a program that scans the web and accesses documents which Google does not have permission to view makes Google responsible for routinely and intentionaly breaking the law.

Also, that your tool cannot filter content particularly well does not mean you get a free pass. It means you were negligent.

...or at least that is one way to interpret the law. The law is bad. You can't just say it's illegal when its illegal. It should be as cut-and-dry as possible (e.g. killing someone is always illegal, even when it is an accident a la accidental manslaughter).

I think the bigger issue is that trespassing is usually handled with a warning and, if it does go to court, is usually a misdemeanor or a low-grade felony. For this, it seems that accessing a server that you do not have permission to use is seen as much more serious than merely trespassing.

I can't see an argument that supports that position. Certainly, if you do anything to vandalize or disrupt the server, then you have crossed a line and should be prosecuted. Anything less should be handled more reasonably.

I distinctly recall wishing for macros in Java a few months ago while working on an Android project -- so much boiler plate for doing so little. I came to the realization that Java uses XML augmented libraries so much simply because Java boilerplate is such a pain to write. It's often easier to build a mini-language on top of XML and use Java to parse and compile it than it is to write the equivalent Java code. I think that alone says something about the efficacy of Java and the benefit of using a language with a more malleable AST.

The latter is more interesting: does one need to be capable of suffering a loss of an object in order to share it? Does access have to have a bandwidth limit for sharing to be reasonable? An interesting example are ebooks at libraries. My university offers a number of these. They are not able to be stolen like regular books and they have no limit on simultaneous borrowers. Even if there were some artificially imposed limit, what purpose would it serve? Do extra restrictions on use make a product more valuable? Does it create more profit for content creators?

Even arguing that borrowing is temporary seems a poor argument at best. Most people only play games or watch movies a small number of times and then rarely pick them up again. And, even so, there is nothing stopping borrowing again.

If the library paradigm is okay, why is the downloading content paradigm not okay?

The situation with assigned writing is the same. Some will elegantly write many droll, boring statements and back them up with some personal anecdotes or stories they came across while doing research. Those will stand out against the poorly written droll, boring statements. They'll get higher scores.

The few that break the mold and do something completely unexpected will definitely stand out. If they can back up their originality with half decent ability, they'll stand out even more than the "standard excellence". Those people will definitely get an A.

The conclusion is sound. If you beat the expectations people have of you, good things will likely happen.

Diablo was always about the exploration and the loot hunt. That was the game. Diablo 3 is a deviation. The loot hunt kept you playing. It let you set defined goals: "I want to obtain a perfect Skin of the Vipermagi and then use the quest reward to socket it with a perfect topaz." D3 does not let you do that. You don't set item goals, you set achievement goals: "I want to beat inferno."

I'm sure a lot of people will prefer this, but the effect is much different. In particular, without the excitement of the item hunt, there is no reason to keep playing after you complete the game a few times; No surprises.

That is a false dichotomy. The goal of math education is to "learn processes" to "solve problems". You can't skip the processes and jump straight to solving. Before you can pick a proper algorithm, you have to already know a few -- that's the learning processes part in programming. This holds for any skill you choose to learn; before you can do something well, you have to be able to do it in the first place.

Probability does use some tools from combinatorics and vice versa, but the two subjects have vastly different goals.

Textbooks are fantastic, though. They are written to be self contained and will start at the beginning (usually with an introduction to fundamental subjects such as set theory). If you're serious about learning math, they are the way to go.

On the other hand, all of my programming horror stories and terrible hacks have been written in PHP. I remember having to use an older version of PHP that failed to support closures when it was needed in some legacy code. The code was passing functions as arguments, but because the functions were not bound in the local scope, there were issues with namespace collisions. I had to resort to global variables for a situation that should not have needed it because rewriting everything properly required a non-trivial refactoring that I did not have the time to complete. Granted, this has been addressed in more recent versions of PHP, but there are always old versions floating around where "gotcha's" like this show up.

More recently, I ran into an issue porting PHP 5 code across different linux distributions where, for some strange reason, libraries on the include path failed to be found. Debugging something like that is ridiculously frustrating. Problems like this are bound to show up with any technology you use frequently, but my work involves using many languages and technologies and, of them, PHP is the only one that leads to these sorts of problems with such regularity.

In retrospect, I should have set up a source control repository and left the programming team a little better than I found it. Hindsight is 20-20.

This is one the most pointed comments I've heard about copyright litigation and wanton take-down notices.

Lots of people are going to jump all over Blizzard for it, but this move was entirely predictable and makes sense. What do you gain by playing offline: less restrictions and less gameplay. While some people will disagree with me, it is akin to asking for an offline component to WoW or EVE: there's technically a game left, but without other people there's much less fun and enjoyment.

The article explains that the "innate" reason is simply that, biologically speaking, men are more expendable. A few men and many women can create a large population more quickly than many men and only a few women. Applying risk equally possibly results in a substantially reduced population, while leaving risk mostly to males allows more to be accomplished without strongly affecting population numbers. Great rewards provided for those who succeed in a risky endeavor merely supports the accomplishment of those objectives. I'm not sure where you find fault with this argument.

The premise is undeniable and the only conclusion that is on even possibly shaky grounds is that societies would act to preserve their population, hence leaving men responsible for risky activities. To suggest otherwise does seem "ridiculous," though I'd love to hear someone who disagrees with that and why one would believe otherwise.