Destiny's Children
on
Coalescent
·
· Score: 4, Funny
If Destiny's Children is anything like its namesake, the worst of the three books will become disproportionately more popular than the other two, and will be mistaken as comedic and subsequently featured in an Austin Powers movie.
Finding Nemo was really fun and Kill Bill Vol.1 was very entertaining.
I can see why you'd pick those two movies... they're so similar. I love the scene in Finding Nemo where Nemo severs the heads of an entire school of fish.
As has already been pointed out, the facts point to this being another hoax.
Speak up, I can't hear you through the tinfoil headwear. And Darl here is complaining that it's interfering with his brainscanner, so he can't tell if you have unauthorized snippets of SCO code in your head.
So government oversight of casino machines is a good thing. Obviously, the solution to our diebold problems is casino oversight of our voting system. You know, ilke some 80-year-old lady can't read the text, so she's escorted to the back room to get some "assistance" by a guy named Tiny... and George Clooney will organize a team of eleven or twelve guys to steal 150,000,000 votes for his father's congress run.
I don't think per-site patches are any way to fix a site with bad HTML and JavaScript
No, the problem is not hotmail, it's that the "one browser window" idea that tabs were supposed to make possible is not possible with respect to javascript-created windows. That has nothing to do with standards conformance, since "tabs" in themselves are not part of any web standard. They're just an adaptation of the "window" model into a better organizational system.
a guy in a wheelchair who was sure I was making fun of him
Then he should really not be tought image processing on *nix.
Or about different MP3 encoders.
Re:What are you talking about?
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
Graph, not tree.
Actually, tree. Excluding things like element references, which are not explicitly defined by the XML spec, no XML element can be directly contained by more than one other element, and all elements can be hierarchically traced back to the root element.
As counterexample, explain to me how there could be a looping or disjointed XML document.
Re:The main issue with XML is performance
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
Part of the XML standard allows for data to be in any order
That's true, in that the XML standard says nothing about what content you should put in your elements... it simply specifies the syntax with which you create them. On the other hand, strict ordering is a supported part of XML. I mean, by your logic, a regular XHTML file could appear as follows (minus XML declaration, etc), and mean the same thing as the "correct" version:
Yes, if the definition of your specific type of XML file does not specify ordering, then you're pretty much boned when it comes to parsing... you'll potentially have to read in the whole thing. Then again, any half-decent data designer will presumably use strict ordering in the document definition unless there's a good reason to leave it unordered. And if there's a good reason to leave it unordered, then you would have been boned with a flat file anyway, since you obviously have a flexible enough structure that parsing your flat file would be just as (or more) complex.
Re:The main issue with XML is performance
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
read my minor disclaimer that followed that text
If, by that, you mean this disclaimer: "Not all XML files wind up being 3 times the size of their flatfile counterparts, but they are inherintly larger.", then you misinterpreted my criticism. I was pointing out that fixed files, which are not at all uncommon, have a major flaw in that data that are longer than the fixed field size cannot be stored (and are frequently truncated, of all things). XML does not have that problem.
> XML is standard
So are flat files, and all you need to know is what the fields are. And if you don't know what they are (and no data dictionary is provided) then you don't need to mess with the file.
> but how many extra bytes were spent on code to manage your particular flavor of data?
None, since it was hand typed to form an example with empirical data, which I have yet to see elsewhere in this article.... nothing but subjective opinions. In my experience, flat files don't require any more code than your typical XML parsers... as a matter of fact far less code to manage them, since they don't care about anything but a header file and some sort of delimiter. Simple stuff really.
Okay, think of this on the large scale. There are a million software developers out there, with a hundred projects during their careers that require a data format. Assuming that the developer gets more complicated projects over time, it's reasonable to assume that their later projects will require extensions to their home-grown format that make them incompatible with the earlier ones. (see: internationalization, encryption, multiplicity)
What you were saying about the data dictionary and stuff is relevant in terms of what's stored in the XML document, but does not address the issue of how complicated my life as a developer is as a result of a bajillion different answers to how that data is stored.
In addition, you are correct that a parser for a specific flat file format probably takes less time to develop than a parser for XML. But the parsers for a hundred different flat file formats took far more (accumulated) time to develop, and require many times the developer brain real estate to understand them.
Have you seen MS's implementation of XML in ADO? It's horrible, and a bit like a flat file anyway. And it requires some pretty detailed XSL to make it readable... not like the typical XML most people would write out.
I'm sure your brain wasn't much more effective than a flat file when you were four years old either. Microsoft is still early in their widespread adoption of XML. Immaturity is inherent to any product's life cycle. XML parsers are also relatively slow at the moment. More immaturity. But both issues are addressed by the fact that, as the XML presence becomes more ubiquitous, the open-source XML implementations will get more eyes with creative ideas on how to performance-tune and optimize the parsers and transformers, and the proprietary implementations will have more market-share, and thus more money to throw at the same problem.
> but XML's simplicity and universality will make it so that the XML parsers will have more eyes.
That has nothing to do with speed, which is what this thread was about in the first place.
It has everything to do with speed, because more work and money spent, directly translates into a more efficient program.
Re:The main issue with XML is performance
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Doe, John 1234567 12/1/2001
took 31 bytes, while it's XML companion (using short, simple tags) took 96 bytes.
Uh huh. Now let me ask you, is that record space-delimited? Comma-delimited? Fixed-width [shudder]? If it's fixed width, and the first name is fixed at four characters, is the person's name "John" or "John-Paul"?
31 bytes for your record, and 96 for equivalent XML... but how many extra bytes were spent on code to manage your particular flavor of data? How much time was spent in development of that code? How does that time (and associated cost) compare to the extra millisecond/record required to transmit and process the XML data?
XML is standard. It can fit almost any type of data (though binary data is not currently the most effective thing in the world, but it can be incorporated). Since MS is integrating XML into all of their products, we won't have to worry about many people who don't have a good XML library installed on their systems. So instead of 50 programs with their own (limited and likely buggy) data formatting subsystems, we'll have 50 programs that each call one library on disk, in a standard, robust system with enough exposure to squash the show-stopping bugs.
XML will always be slower.
Depends on how you look at it. If the aforementioned widely-available XML parser gets enough of a beating, it will be optimized like you wouldn't believe. Yes, two data processors (one XML, one markupless) with equal amounts of work spent on them will perform in favor of the simpler format... but XML's simplicity and universality will make it so that the XML parsers will have more eyes.
The same philosophy is why the well known open-source programs (linux, apache, etc) are functional and stable as hell:
The planet's name was Path, but the primary purpose of the recolada was to eliminate the destructive properties of the descolada (not found on Path). The method by which it was created had the added benefit of allowing them to eliminate the OCD gene from the population of Path.
Oh, and normally I would have put a [SPOILER] tag before this, but this whole subthread spoils a great deal of that novel, so by the time someone reads this, the damage has been done.
Does it seem to anyone else like the GIA program is going to drown in its own chaff? I mean, if it's really supposed to be giving people "insider" information about the government, how are they going to confirm that any submission is true? Think of all the just-shy-of-slanderous commercials that air around election day... and that costs money. If people can anonymously, cheaply spread whatever "information" they want about their least favorite candidate, we'll never know whether anything we read is accurate.
... but a Toshiba Tecra P133 laptop. That sucker weighs a ton, but with all the metal between me and the processor, I don't need to worry about electromagnetic waves mutating my Boing Juniors. Then again, am I supposed to have second degree burns down there?
RPGs and FPSs are usually best in the realm of the PC.
All of the Final Fantasy games have been based primarily on a console. See also: Chrono Trigger/Cross,.hack, Dragon Warrior... in fact, pretty much every RPG.
Were you thinking of RTS (Warcraft, Starcraft, Command and Conquer, etc)?
Wow... at the time I write this, all the comments prior to this in the thread that have been moderated >= 3 were pro-windows. Looks like I accidentally went to bizarroslashdot.org today.
Michigan is a training ground for the US Marines. They need a new breed of soldier, who can root the gibson under battle pressure. You must breed them young, and deprive them of the rest of their childhood.
Better send them off to battle school to learn to fight off the bugger meanace, huh?
They're just trying to make money... don't pretend like its some noble form of meaningful expression. It's not.
What about a game like Deus Ex? I mean, it's not Shakespeare, but it definitely had something to say about the merging of high technology with existing society. It also had you sniping unsuspecting soldiers from the shadows.
Yeah, they were trying to make money off of the thrill of killing, but they also had a message. Maybe you don't see any value in the GTA series, or Doom, or Postal, but who are you to be the judge of what is "meaningful" and what is not?
Slashdot Mirror
If Destiny's Children is anything like its namesake, the worst of the three books will become disproportionately more popular than the other two, and will be mistaken as comedic and subsequently featured in an Austin Powers movie.
It's a trick! There is no "doesn't know what he's talking about" moderation! Karma whore! Karma whore! :)
Especially with the roasting chestnuts on an open fire he's got going in there. I'm not sure that was the best plan in the world.
I can see why you'd pick those two movies... they're so similar. I love the scene in Finding Nemo where Nemo severs the heads of an entire school of fish.
Nice try, Darl.
Speak up, I can't hear you through the tinfoil headwear. And Darl here is complaining that it's interfering with his brainscanner, so he can't tell if you have unauthorized snippets of SCO code in your head.
So government oversight of casino machines is a good thing. Obviously, the solution to our diebold problems is casino oversight of our voting system. You know, ilke some 80-year-old lady can't read the text, so she's escorted to the back room to get some "assistance" by a guy named Tiny... and George Clooney will organize a team of eleven or twelve guys to steal 150,000,000 votes for his father's congress run.
Sorry, I should've been more specific. Not that it's not possible, it's just not currently possible in Mozilla.
No, the problem is not hotmail, it's that the "one browser window" idea that tabs were supposed to make possible is not possible with respect to javascript-created windows. That has nothing to do with standards conformance, since "tabs" in themselves are not part of any web standard. They're just an adaptation of the "window" model into a better organizational system.
He's a friend of SCO! Burn him!
Then he should really not be tought image processing on *nix.
Or about different MP3 encoders.
Actually, tree. Excluding things like element references, which are not explicitly defined by the XML spec, no XML element can be directly contained by more than one other element, and all elements can be hierarchically traced back to the root element.
As counterexample, explain to me how there could be a looping or disjointed XML document.
That's true, in that the XML standard says nothing about what content you should put in your elements... it simply specifies the syntax with which you create them. On the other hand, strict ordering is a supported part of XML. I mean, by your logic, a regular XHTML file could appear as follows (minus XML declaration, etc), and mean the same thing as the "correct" version:
Yes, if the definition of your specific type of XML file does not specify ordering, then you're pretty much boned when it comes to parsing... you'll potentially have to read in the whole thing. Then again, any half-decent data designer will presumably use strict ordering in the document definition unless there's a good reason to leave it unordered. And if there's a good reason to leave it unordered, then you would have been boned with a flat file anyway, since you obviously have a flexible enough structure that parsing your flat file would be just as (or more) complex.
If, by that, you mean this disclaimer: "Not all XML files wind up being 3 times the size of their flatfile counterparts, but they are inherintly larger.", then you misinterpreted my criticism. I was pointing out that fixed files, which are not at all uncommon, have a major flaw in that data that are longer than the fixed field size cannot be stored (and are frequently truncated, of all things). XML does not have that problem.
Okay, think of this on the large scale. There are a million software developers out there, with a hundred projects during their careers that require a data format. Assuming that the developer gets more complicated projects over time, it's reasonable to assume that their later projects will require extensions to their home-grown format that make them incompatible with the earlier ones. (see: internationalization, encryption, multiplicity)
What you were saying about the data dictionary and stuff is relevant in terms of what's stored in the XML document, but does not address the issue of how complicated my life as a developer is as a result of a bajillion different answers to how that data is stored.
In addition, you are correct that a parser for a specific flat file format probably takes less time to develop than a parser for XML. But the parsers for a hundred different flat file formats took far more (accumulated) time to develop, and require many times the developer brain real estate to understand them.
I'm sure your brain wasn't much more effective than a flat file when you were four years old either. Microsoft is still early in their widespread adoption of XML. Immaturity is inherent to any product's life cycle. XML parsers are also relatively slow at the moment. More immaturity. But both issues are addressed by the fact that, as the XML presence becomes more ubiquitous, the open-source XML implementations will get more eyes with creative ideas on how to performance-tune and optimize the parsers and transformers, and the proprietary implementations will have more market-share, and thus more money to throw at the same problem.
It has everything to do with speed, because more work and money spent, directly translates into a more efficient program.
Uh huh. Now let me ask you, is that record space-delimited? Comma-delimited? Fixed-width [shudder]? If it's fixed width, and the first name is fixed at four characters, is the person's name "John" or "John-Paul"?
31 bytes for your record, and 96 for equivalent XML... but how many extra bytes were spent on code to manage your particular flavor of data? How much time was spent in development of that code? How does that time (and associated cost) compare to the extra millisecond/record required to transmit and process the XML data?
XML is standard. It can fit almost any type of data (though binary data is not currently the most effective thing in the world, but it can be incorporated). Since MS is integrating XML into all of their products, we won't have to worry about many people who don't have a good XML library installed on their systems. So instead of 50 programs with their own (limited and likely buggy) data formatting subsystems, we'll have 50 programs that each call one library on disk, in a standard, robust system with enough exposure to squash the show-stopping bugs.
Depends on how you look at it. If the aforementioned widely-available XML parser gets enough of a beating, it will be optimized like you wouldn't believe. Yes, two data processors (one XML, one markupless) with equal amounts of work spent on them will perform in favor of the simpler format... but XML's simplicity and universality will make it so that the XML parsers will have more eyes.
The same philosophy is why the well known open-source programs (linux, apache, etc) are functional and stable as hell:
Wide use + Openness = Greatness.
You'd better make sure you don't output /dev/random to BeingJohnMalkovich.mpg... you're pretty likely to come up with the actual movie.
Oh, and normally I would have put a [SPOILER] tag before this, but this whole subthread spoils a great deal of that novel, so by the time someone reads this, the damage has been done.
Does it seem to anyone else like the GIA program is going to drown in its own chaff? I mean, if it's really supposed to be giving people "insider" information about the government, how are they going to confirm that any submission is true? Think of all the just-shy-of-slanderous commercials that air around election day... and that costs money. If people can anonymously, cheaply spread whatever "information" they want about their least favorite candidate, we'll never know whether anything we read is accurate.
... but a Toshiba Tecra P133 laptop. That sucker weighs a ton, but with all the metal between me and the processor, I don't need to worry about electromagnetic waves mutating my Boing Juniors. Then again, am I supposed to have second degree burns down there?
All of the Final Fantasy games have been based primarily on a console. See also: Chrono Trigger/Cross, .hack, Dragon Warrior... in fact, pretty much every RPG.
Were you thinking of RTS (Warcraft, Starcraft, Command and Conquer, etc)?
Wow... at the time I write this, all the comments prior to this in the thread that have been moderated >= 3 were pro-windows. Looks like I accidentally went to bizarroslashdot.org today.
Better send them off to battle school to learn to fight off the bugger meanace, huh?
All of a sudden, I don't feel so good...
What about a game like Deus Ex? I mean, it's not Shakespeare, but it definitely had something to say about the merging of high technology with existing society. It also had you sniping unsuspecting soldiers from the shadows.
Yeah, they were trying to make money off of the thrill of killing, but they also had a message. Maybe you don't see any value in the GTA series, or Doom, or Postal, but who are you to be the judge of what is "meaningful" and what is not?