Slashdot Mirror

What you do not seem to understand is that Dell did not provide any timeline yet receives the best possible marks. Apple provided a timeline that illustrates its work on reducing the amount of PVC, and stated they are actively working to completely eliminate PVC use (as opposed to Dell's, "We'll take a look at our options maybe once a year, if we think we need to."

In a project, I discover a product I have been engineering cannot be manufactured without some technological advancements that would reduce its cost or negative environmental effects and increase its performance. If my boss asks for a timeline of my current project's progress and I come back to him with, "It'll be done in 2009. Maybe. If someone else has already got something like it. I'll take a look for something like it once a year until then, if I think I need to," what I would be providing him would not be a timeline. No, a timeline looks a lot more like that pretty little graphic on the Apple site showing when they phased out PVC use in packaging and in most product parts. The one with the arrow extending to the future, illustrating that while currently available technology limits what chemicals can be eliminated without "compromising product performance", "lowering product health" or (assumedly undesirable) "environmental impacts" (quotes Dell); Apple is actively researching ways to completely eliminate PVC. It's true that they did not publish an arbitrary date, claiming the world's problems would be solved by that date, but doing so would be no more a timeline than the Patriot Act is a solution for terrorism.

The reason complete elimination of PVC use isn't shown on Apple's timeline is that it hasn't happened yet and cannot be accurately predicted as it is limited by the availability of technology. You may consider it odd that a display of historical events wouldn't show something that hasn't happened, yet it happens all the time. Right now I'm looking at a history textbook that doesn't show the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-D was christened in relation to the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-B was christened. In fact, it seems to sort of trail off after the second world war. What a useless timeline.

In spite of being unable to foretell future events with any more reliability than Dell, Apple makes a sterling effort to describe what they have done to eliminate PVC use (timeline material), and even go so far as to present this information in a timeline, which Dell doesn't. Dell tells us little about what it's done and tells us it will yet do less, yet Dell gets best points for having such a plan to eliminate PVC use.

Perhaps I should compile a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in their market position for not publicly (and within 3 clicks of a crackhead's mouse) publishing the date on which they would achieve total market dominance? Or a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in customer satisfaction for not publicly publishing the date on which they will achieve 100% customer satisfaction? Either report would be equally useful to that which Greenpeace is presenting, and without much effort more detailed and accurate.

Once again, Greenpeace's report is flawed. Most of Greenpeace's efforts are flawed. This report is no exception.

Unlike yourself, I do not believe Greenpeace are especially concerned about smearing Apple. Like yourself, they compile all their "reports" with uniform knack for misinformation. Apple just happens to be one of four companies bearing the brunt of their ineptitude for this particular report.

I can't be assed continuing this debate with you. Too much time would be wasted explaining that chickens aren't mongeese, tomatoes aren't potatoes, and random dates pulled out of

What you do not seem to understand is that Dell did not provide any timeline yet receives the best possible marks. Apple provided a timeline that illustrates its work on reducing the amount of PVC, and stated they are actively working to completely eliminate PVC use (as opposed to Dell's, "We'll take a look at our options maybe once a year, if we think we need to."

In a project, I discover a product I have been engineering cannot be manufactured without some technological advancements that would reduce its cost or negative environmental effects and increase its performance. If my boss asks for a timeline of my current project's progress and I come back to him with, "It'll be done in 2009. Maybe. If someone else has already got something like it. I'll take a look for something like it once a year until then, if I think I need to," what I would be providing him would not be a timeline. No, a timeline looks a lot more like that pretty little graphic on the Apple site showing when they phased out PVC use in packaging and in most product parts. The one with the arrow extending to the future, illustrating that while currently available technology limits what chemicals can be eliminated without "compromising product performance", "lowering product health" or (assumedly undesirable) "environmental impacts" (quotes Dell); Apple is actively researching ways to completely eliminate PVC. It's true that they did not publish an arbitrary date, claiming the world's problems would be solved by that date, but doing so would be no more a timeline than the Patriot Act is a solution for terrorism.

The reason complete elimination of PVC use isn't shown on Apple's timeline is that it hasn't happened yet and cannot be accurately predicted as it is limited by the availability of technology. You may consider it odd that a display of historical events wouldn't show something that hasn't happened, yet it happens all the time. Right now I'm looking at a history textbook that doesn't show the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-D was christened in relation to the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-B was christened. In fact, it seems to sort of trail off after the second world war. What a useless timeline.

In spite of being unable to foretell future events with any more reliability than Dell, Apple makes a sterling effort to describe what they have done to eliminate PVC use (timeline material), and even go so far as to present this information in a timeline, which Dell doesn't. Dell tells us little about what it's done and tells us it will yet do less, yet Dell gets best points for having such a plan to eliminate PVC use.

Perhaps I should compile a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in their market position for not publicly (and within 3 clicks of a crackhead's mouse) publishing the date on which they would achieve total market dominance? Or a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in customer satisfaction for not publicly publishing the date on which they will achieve 100% customer satisfaction? Either report would be equally useful to that which Greenpeace is presenting, and without much effort more detailed and accurate.

Once again, Greenpeace's report is flawed. Most of Greenpeace's efforts are flawed. This report is no exception.

Unlike yourself, I do not believe Greenpeace are especially concerned about smearing Apple. Like yourself, they compile all their "reports" with uniform knack for misinformation. Apple just happens to be one of four companies bearing the brunt of their ineptitude for this particular report.

I can't be assed continuing this debate with you. Too much time would be wasted explaining that chickens aren't mongeese, tomatoes aren't potatoes, and random dates pulled out of

What you do not seem to understand is that Dell did not provide any timeline yet receives the best possible marks. Apple provided a timeline that illustrates its work on reducing the amount of PVC, and stated they are actively working to completely eliminate PVC use (as opposed to Dell's, "We'll take a look at our options maybe once a year, if we think we need to."

In a project, I discover a product I have been engineering cannot be manufactured without some technological advancements that would reduce its cost or negative environmental effects and increase its performance. If my boss asks for a timeline of my current project's progress and I come back to him with, "It'll be done in 2009. Maybe. If someone else has already got something like it. I'll take a look for something like it once a year until then, if I think I need to," what I would be providing him would not be a timeline. No, a timeline looks a lot more like that pretty little graphic on the Apple site showing when they phased out PVC use in packaging and in most product parts. The one with the arrow extending to the future, illustrating that while currently available technology limits what chemicals can be eliminated without "compromising product performance", "lowering product health" or (assumedly undesirable) "environmental impacts" (quotes Dell); Apple is actively researching ways to completely eliminate PVC. It's true that they did not publish an arbitrary date, claiming the world's problems would be solved by that date, but doing so would be no more a timeline than the Patriot Act is a solution for terrorism.

The reason complete elimination of PVC use isn't shown on Apple's timeline is that it hasn't happened yet and cannot be accurately predicted as it is limited by the availability of technology. You may consider it odd that a display of historical events wouldn't show something that hasn't happened, yet it happens all the time. Right now I'm looking at a history textbook that doesn't show the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-D was christened in relation to the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-B was christened. In fact, it seems to sort of trail off after the second world war. What a useless timeline.

In spite of being unable to foretell future events with any more reliability than Dell, Apple makes a sterling effort to describe what they have done to eliminate PVC use (timeline material), and even go so far as to present this information in a timeline, which Dell doesn't. Dell tells us little about what it's done and tells us it will yet do less, yet Dell gets best points for having such a plan to eliminate PVC use.

Perhaps I should compile a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in their market position for not publicly (and within 3 clicks of a crackhead's mouse) publishing the date on which they would achieve total market dominance? Or a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in customer satisfaction for not publicly publishing the date on which they will achieve 100% customer satisfaction? Either report would be equally useful to that which Greenpeace is presenting, and without much effort more detailed and accurate.

Once again, Greenpeace's report is flawed. Most of Greenpeace's efforts are flawed. This report is no exception.

Unlike yourself, I do not believe Greenpeace are especially concerned about smearing Apple. Like yourself, they compile all their "reports" with uniform knack for misinformation. Apple just happens to be one of four companies bearing the brunt of their ineptitude for this particular report.

I can't be assed continuing this debate with you. Too much time would be wasted explaining that chickens aren't mongeese, tomatoes aren't potatoes, and random dates pulled out of

What you do not seem to understand is that Dell did not provide any timeline yet receives the best possible marks. Apple provided a timeline that illustrates its work on reducing the amount of PVC, and stated they are actively working to completely eliminate PVC use (as opposed to Dell's, "We'll take a look at our options maybe once a year, if we think we need to."

In a project, I discover a product I have been engineering cannot be manufactured without some technological advancements that would reduce its cost or negative environmental effects and increase its performance. If my boss asks for a timeline of my current project's progress and I come back to him with, "It'll be done in 2009. Maybe. If someone else has already got something like it. I'll take a look for something like it once a year until then, if I think I need to," what I would be providing him would not be a timeline. No, a timeline looks a lot more like that pretty little graphic on the Apple site showing when they phased out PVC use in packaging and in most product parts. The one with the arrow extending to the future, illustrating that while currently available technology limits what chemicals can be eliminated without "compromising product performance", "lowering product health" or (assumedly undesirable) "environmental impacts" (quotes Dell); Apple is actively researching ways to completely eliminate PVC. It's true that they did not publish an arbitrary date, claiming the world's problems would be solved by that date, but doing so would be no more a timeline than the Patriot Act is a solution for terrorism.

The reason complete elimination of PVC use isn't shown on Apple's timeline is that it hasn't happened yet and cannot be accurately predicted as it is limited by the availability of technology. You may consider it odd that a display of historical events wouldn't show something that hasn't happened, yet it happens all the time. Right now I'm looking at a history textbook that doesn't show the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-D was christened in relation to the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-B was christened. In fact, it seems to sort of trail off after the second world war. What a useless timeline.

In spite of being unable to foretell future events with any more reliability than Dell, Apple makes a sterling effort to describe what they have done to eliminate PVC use (timeline material), and even go so far as to present this information in a timeline, which Dell doesn't. Dell tells us little about what it's done and tells us it will yet do less, yet Dell gets best points for having such a plan to eliminate PVC use.

Perhaps I should compile a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in their market position for not publicly (and within 3 clicks of a crackhead's mouse) publishing the date on which they would achieve total market dominance? Or a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in customer satisfaction for not publicly publishing the date on which they will achieve 100% customer satisfaction? Either report would be equally useful to that which Greenpeace is presenting, and without much effort more detailed and accurate.

Once again, Greenpeace's report is flawed. Most of Greenpeace's efforts are flawed. This report is no exception.

Unlike yourself, I do not believe Greenpeace are especially concerned about smearing Apple. Like yourself, they compile all their "reports" with uniform knack for misinformation. Apple just happens to be one of four companies bearing the brunt of their ineptitude for this particular report.

I can't be assed continuing this debate with you. Too much time would be wasted explaining that chickens aren't mongeese, tomatoes aren't potatoes, and random dates pulled out of

The Wii controller just isn't 'innovative'

I'm curious to what dictionary you got your definition of 'innovative' out of...

(innovative = characterized by, tending to, or introducing innovations, yeay for recursive definitions)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/innovations
Main Entry: innovation
Pronunciation: "i-n&-'vA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

Seems to me this controller fits that definition to a T. What I don't find innovative is simply increasing resolution or texture depth or triangles per second. It's not *new* it's just an improvement, like going from a 20" TV to a 32" TV.

It might not be an innovation that works, or appeals to the entire crowd, but you can't have a success without some failures. (Virtual Boy...ugg) Personally, I'm excited by it. I don't need a new console to play games with a control pad; I've got emulators and a Gravis. I don't need spiffy shiny console games, I can get a new system with an X1950 for that.

However, this is a bonifide innovation, and it might actually be fun.

n.

      1.
                  1. Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
                  2. An instance of this: a person with multiple chemical addictions.
      2.
                  1. The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.
                  2. An instance of this: had an addiction for fast cars.

1 : the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2 : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

"self-flagellating each other"?

Hate to play Vocabulary Nazi, but I think you meant "fellating each other", not flagellate, although I'm not sure.

And "self-Xing each other" is pretty much an oxymoron for any X.

If you're going to be vulgar, get it right! :)

Well, if I were an American...

...which you have no indication that oPless is...

...on an American site

Websites on the World-Wide Web are international in nature. The hint's in the name.

I'd consult the dictionary that is the standard in America, Webster, which uses spelled.

Liar - it lists spelt as a past participle of "spell".

I'm interested - when I was at school, there was a kid that took great delight in appearing as stupid as possible. I always thought that it was because he knew he wasn't very bright and believed it was the only way he could stand out from the crowd. Is this what you are doing?

Main Entry: sarcasm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
synonym see WIT

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sarcasm

(And if THAT isn't enough, notice the 'o' and the 'e' were swapped in the same spot...)

1 a : the agreement of things with one another b : a particular similarity c : a relation between sets in which each member of one set is associated with one or more members of the other

"To the more advanced user, the proxy server can become a tool for malicious intent as this article, delivering an anecdote with the termination of an employee, so poignantly details.""

The part about the firing was short and rather matter-of-fact. Where, exactly, was the poignancy?

In the words of a famous Spaniard, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

Oh, I see, this is all a misunderstanding. You aren't cold-calling, you are calling people who specified they'd like to be contacted about your candidate. Why didn't you say so? I thought you were just annoying random people who registered to vote. I apologize for thinking you were the scum of the earth.

I believe they were using the term "antisocial" as its second definition in the dictionary:

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=antisocia l

2 : hostile or harmful to organized society; especially : being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm

The term anti-social is a little confusing. It can mean "averse to the society of others" or "hostile or harmful to organized society; especially : being or marked by behavior deviating sharply from the social norm".

... But his [Mann's] contention is that this spirit of the system is separable from the manner of teaching itself. And here American teachers can learn much.

The Prussian schoolmaster, he [Mann] discovered, combined complete mastery of subject matter with superb pedagogical finesse. They taught from "the head," never relying on a textbook. Beginning not with abstract theories -- neither principles, rules, nor axioms -- but with objects and phenomena familiar to each child, these master teachers encompassed elements of reading, spelling, writing, grammar, drawing, and general information into every lesson. Students in the Prussian schools, unhampered by the artificial formalisms of rote memorization, enjoyed learning; the liked their teachers and held them in high esteem. The teachers rarely used physical punishment; they secured discipline through the affection and respect -- even awe -- the students had for them. The Prussian schoolmaster was the complete authority; children unquestionably accepted and believed what he said.

Horace Mann dreamed of making American teachers as authroitative as their Prussian counterparts. ... (Perkinson pg. 77. Italics in original, bold my emphasis)

Sorry, I'm not usually a grammer or spelling nazi, but I think the word you wanted may be "umbrage"... see: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=umbrage - meaning No. 4.

I certainly won't contest your assessment of Dvorak's opinions. But a columnist does fit into the "Merriam-Webster" definition of 'journalist'; it's not just 'reporters'. And one may certainly be employed as a journalist whilst being a poor one. Obviously, eh?

Sorry, but that's not the proper use of begs the question. You mean "raises the question."

- beg the question 1 : to pass over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled 2 : to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response <the quarterback's injury begs the question of who will start in his place>

In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. ... More recently, "begs the question" has been used as a synonym for "invites the question" or "raises the question", or to indicate that "the question really ought to be addressed".

but if yahoo started advertising as a 'google engine' it wouldn't matter much would it? only one company gets traffic from going to google.com

According to Merriam-Webster:

face up
Function: intransitive verb
: to confront or deal directly with someone or something previously avoided -- usually used with to "faced up to my fears"

It seems to me that it has a meaning very similar to "fess up" and makes perfect sense.

Nonsense! There is nothing wrong linking linking as often as Wikipedia does

dithyrambic = enthusiastic.

"Word of the day" toilet paper?

from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/posthumously:
2 : published after the death of the author
3 : following or occurring after death

And the spread is spelled hummus

-dave

Yes, but there are more definitions: Google.com, Answers.com, Wiktionary. Particularly "Any one of various liquids for drinking, usually excluding water"/"A liquid to be consumed, usually excluding water; a drink".

Your opinion: The slashdot mods are a vast right wing conspiracy

>>putting words in my mouth and ideas in my head

Actually, it's a lot more fun, and just easier, to use your own words. You were the one referring to "redshifting" in mods that countered leftier-leaning posts. You are the one that doesn't like a debate that cites, for example, "only" my opinion, while actually typing sentences like this yourself: "despite being insightful or otherwise interesting, presumably because the mods 'didnt agree with it'." Nice mind reading there! How is it, given only the fact of the mod, that you're able to make presumptions about the basis for the mod? You're imagining/projecting behavior and thoughts without any basis for the conclusions you draw. Out of curiosity, do you draw the same conclusion when, say, an idealogically opposing perspective is modded down? You're unhappy about "redshift," but you probably only notice such mods because they are the abberation, and don't fit into your comfort zone. Just open your eyes and notice that the wide majority of opinions expressed on this board are lefter-leaning than not when the topic invites such positioning, and the wide majority of mods support those sentiments. Your choice of words, which you put in your own mouth, include referring to the mod system "broken" and allowing "partisan trolling" - but you only refer to that in the context of "redshift." Just what conclusion were you expecting readers to draw, other than that there is a particular orientation and mod pattern of which you approve (shifting away from "red"), and another of which disapprove. Who's partisan, now, exactly?

I did not call people who disagree with me fascists, I called people who censor me because they disagree with me fascists.

OK, so you've established that you do call people fascists, despite the word involved having nothing to do with open debate and communication in a forum such as this. I shouldn't be surprised that the very next word you so spectacularly get wrong is "censor." Since it's too much trouble for you to look it up on your own, just go ahead and read it now. See where you're going wrong on both counts? What's missing from your use of both words is the context of authority and force. Mods on slashdot don't have any more authority than you do. Rob Malda doesn't plow through comments as a government-like agent, shaping the presentation of the responding comments. It's the users - your peers - that do so. The same peers that routinely mod up and down across the entire idealogical spectrum, without any of the government-powered authority that's central to actual censorship. It's very telling that you consider peers empowered with the same authority you have to be "censors," but only when they disagree with you. When a neutral system like slashdot's mod engine is used to mark a "redshifted" comment down, do you call that left-leaning modder a fascist? By your standards, you should - but in terms of what the word actually means, that's just as absurd as your use of it against people who disagree with you.

Oh and was that another ad hominem attack?

No, it's called sarcasm. I'm guessing you're at least a little older than 12, but I'm pointing out - with apparently more subtlety than your radar can pick up on - that you are using ad hominem attacks by invoking inflammatory terms (like "fascism" and "censor"), knowing that you're using those terms incorrectly. Lack of nuance, and tantrum-like name calling with evil-sounding (and classically mis-applied) labels are hallmarks of immature discourse. By missing the point (which was a succinct identification of that behavior on your part through the use of a sarcastic observation), you're actually just reinforcing the truth of that observation. Reflexively grabbing at the term "ad hominem" just because thing

but then again only your opinion

Your opinion: The slashdot mods are a vast right wing conspiracy

My opinion: Weak posts deserve what they get, and even the largely left-leaning slashdot audience calls BS when they see a nonsensical comment or one that makes their philosophical camp look bad.

I'd say the mod system (including its meta-mechanism) work extremely well, considering the local demographic.

I don't consider you an authority on this at all

Since when does anyone need to be considered (especially by you!) an "expert" when simply pointing out that more speech is the cure for bad speech, and that members of a community forum disagreeing with you are not "fascists" (what are you, twelve?). Come back after you look up that word and realize that trotting it out in a lame attempt to shout down a opinion other than yours just makes you sound shrill and erodes your credibility.

Lame.

Webster's Dictionary

And I quote:

publicly
One entry found for publicly. ...
Variant(s): also publically

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rejigger

I think the first post on "ironic" had it right.

The paper clip bartering should have led to his happily every after, but in actuality the paperclip (or lack thereof) was his undoing.

irony3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result

"hide"
v. hid, (hd) hidden, (hdn) or hid hiding, hides
v. tr.
To prevent the disclosure or recognition of; conceal.

There's your problem. Use the adjective application of the word instead - it makes much more sense in this context.

George W. Bush has neither committed, nor ordered to have committed a single Act of Terror.

1. Terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

2. Bush took the U.S. to a pre-emptive war without the approval of Congress.

3. Shock and Awe was used to corce Iraqis into civil war.

What about "I am texting my friend."?

In that sentance, "am" is the verb, which is the present tense first singluar form of the verb "be".

http://m-w.com/dictionary/am

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/google

Main Entry: google
Pronunciation: 'gü-g&l
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): googled; googling /-g(&-) li[ng]/
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Google, trademark for a search engine
: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web

Specifically refers to the Google engine, and not searching in a generic sense. Even less a gray area.

to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat

"Furl it"? I've never heard of a website named "furl". And if someone told me to furl it, I'd ask them what they would like me to wrap, roll, or fold. It appears that "furl" is already a verb.

You should switch to spanish... almost no ambiguous spelling

Do you mean Noah Webster's spelling reform? http://www.m-w.com/info/spelling-reform.htm

Object orientated programming

Maybe I'm just elitist, but why would you make all of your objects face eastward? Oh, you meant object oriented programming.

The web is growing up, and page processors like PHP will fall out of use. WebObjects showed the way forward arbeit at a cost of $50,000 when it was 1st released, and now we have free alternatives like Jakarta/Struts and Ruby on Rails.

The web hasn't changed. It's still a stateless, every-page-for-itself environment. PHP isn't a "page processor", it's a pre-response request processor. A client sends an HTTP request (yes, the very same as the XmlHttpRequest JavaScript "object") to Apache (Apache HTTPD, to be specific). Apache uses PHP (as mod_php) to preprocess the request. Then Apache sends the response generated by PHP. That's why PHP (now) means "PHP Hypertext Preprocessor".

"Jakarta/Struts" is a framework (actually probably several frameworks) built in Java and uses the Tomcat engine to serve up servlets. Guess what... A client sends an HTTP request (all the URL's start with "http:" regardless of the port, so it's still HTTP) to Tomcat. Tomcat uses Java (and it's libraries and frameworks - like Struts) to preprocess the request. Then Tomcat sends the response generated by Java. I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

[JavaScript is] a great OO language, highly dynamic.

You have got to be kidding me. JavaScript is a prototyped language. You don't define objects so much as you lay out a template for one and implement a library that pretends to operate on this so-called "object". It's about as OO as old-school C. In C, you could define a struct and segregate off a header and implementation for it and call it an "object", but there was no enforcement other than internal constraints you imposed upon your own code. JavaScript is just about as strict.

It's possible to do some serious development in Javascript.

I've been wondering what was wrong with web design lately. I've also been wondering why everyone on /. bitches incessantly about the evils of "web apps". Now I know. I can tell you one thing for sure, though. It's possible to do some serious development in JavaScript... just turn it off. That's the best development JavaScript has seen in years.

I'm happy that the patterns for web development are finally moving closer to the 1980s.

Keep using JavaScript and you'll keep moving toward the 1980's. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue going forward.

Object orientated programming

Maybe I'm just elitist, but why would you make all of your objects face eastward? Oh, you meant object oriented programming.

The web is growing up, and page processors like PHP will fall out of use. WebObjects showed the way forward arbeit at a cost of $50,000 when it was 1st released, and now we have free alternatives like Jakarta/Struts and Ruby on Rails.

The web hasn't changed. It's still a stateless, every-page-for-itself environment. PHP isn't a "page processor", it's a pre-response request processor. A client sends an HTTP request (yes, the very same as the XmlHttpRequest JavaScript "object") to Apache (Apache HTTPD, to be specific). Apache uses PHP (as mod_php) to preprocess the request. Then Apache sends the response generated by PHP. That's why PHP (now) means "PHP Hypertext Preprocessor".

"Jakarta/Struts" is a framework (actually probably several frameworks) built in Java and uses the Tomcat engine to serve up servlets. Guess what... A client sends an HTTP request (all the URL's start with "http:" regardless of the port, so it's still HTTP) to Tomcat. Tomcat uses Java (and it's libraries and frameworks - like Struts) to preprocess the request. Then Tomcat sends the response generated by Java. I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

[JavaScript is] a great OO language, highly dynamic.

You have got to be kidding me. JavaScript is a prototyped language. You don't define objects so much as you lay out a template for one and implement a library that pretends to operate on this so-called "object". It's about as OO as old-school C. In C, you could define a struct and segregate off a header and implementation for it and call it an "object", but there was no enforcement other than internal constraints you imposed upon your own code. JavaScript is just about as strict.

It's possible to do some serious development in Javascript.

I've been wondering what was wrong with web design lately. I've also been wondering why everyone on /. bitches incessantly about the evils of "web apps". Now I know. I can tell you one thing for sure, though. It's possible to do some serious development in JavaScript... just turn it off. That's the best development JavaScript has seen in years.

I'm happy that the patterns for web development are finally moving closer to the 1980s.

Keep using JavaScript and you'll keep moving toward the 1980's. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue going forward.

uh...he spelled "post-humously" correctly. You just don't get his joke. Here is a definition: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=posthumou sly

* Upper eschelons (the suits)

echelons, from a French word meaning a rung on a ladder.

* Callatoral damage (software A that affects software B)

collateral, from a Latin phrase meaning "both sides".

* Debri (garbage collection not working right)

debris, from a French word meaning something that has broken apart.

* Fallout (when bleep happens and the blame game starts)

No, that's when bleep happens, Ron Perlman says something about how war never changes, and then one of the greatest games of all time starts.

* Upper eschelons (the suits)

echelons, from a French word meaning a rung on a ladder.

* Callatoral damage (software A that affects software B)

collateral, from a Latin phrase meaning "both sides".

* Debri (garbage collection not working right)

debris, from a French word meaning something that has broken apart.

* Fallout (when bleep happens and the blame game starts)

No, that's when bleep happens, Ron Perlman says something about how war never changes, and then one of the greatest games of all time starts.

* Upper eschelons (the suits)

echelons, from a French word meaning a rung on a ladder.

* Callatoral damage (software A that affects software B)

collateral, from a Latin phrase meaning "both sides".

* Debri (garbage collection not working right)

debris, from a French word meaning something that has broken apart.

* Fallout (when bleep happens and the blame game starts)

No, that's when bleep happens, Ron Perlman says something about how war never changes, and then one of the greatest games of all time starts.

BTW, he used it corectly.

Hmmm, is this a legitimate expansion of that acronym now?

I know it as "Sadism & Masochism".

Hmmm, is this a legitimate expansion of that acronym now?

I know it as "Sadism & Masochism".

Their name says it all. A geek is someone who bites the heads off of chickens. If you want someone who knows something, hire a nerd.

Their name says it all. A geek is someone who bites the heads off of chickens. If you want someone who knows something, hire a nerd.

and yet this writeup seems to focus very strongly on the straw man that private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships.

Expanding on ScentCone's point, a strawman argument is an argument imputed to the opposition, which is then the focus of the rebuttal.

If people are actually arguming that "private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships" then by definition it can't be a straw man.

Straw man isn't a label you can just apply willy-nilly to this argument and then use it to discard the argument; that's weak thinking.

But I find the true irony of your post is this:

The state also gives out medicare and a number of other social benefits to people.. maybe washington should be allowed to selectively deny us those benefits in the same way?

This actually is a strawman. The point of the athletic argument is the right of the athletes to voluntarily enter in to some sort of contract that has real effects. Medicare and other social benefits are not contracts, and are thus not comparable.

(And anybody in a rush to smack on the reply button and "correct" that statement had better be able to describe the difference between "a law granting benefits" and a "contract". There may be similarities, but there are significant differences which would need to be carefully addressed too.)

Of course, like most straw men, I believe you aren't actually trying to be disingenuous; I think you actually don't fully understand the argument in question or you'd realize your strawman point doesn't apply to the given arguments. So, is it any wonder that you are mystified at how anybody could argue for what you think they are arguing for?