I think the problem is not so much that web applications are inherently less modular or adaptable than native applications as it is that there are an abundance of web programmers who believe that a framework is a substitute for the ability to design an application. It's still a young field and there is a very low barrier to entry.
People without experience, or who can't learn the lessons of their experience as in your example, are just as capable of writing terrible and unmaintainable native applications.
I expect there is, but it has fuck all to do with utility billing. It's actually about laws that try to influence the way people live their lives, like excessive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, or car seat legislation, or cycle helmets: that sort of thing. I'd have mentioned prohibition but I don't think we ever had that here.
I was under the impression that Great Britain employed prohibition to much the same extent the government does here in the US.
Or have you adopted sensible decriminalization policies like Portugal?
jQuery and the DOM have no place in a book on javascript.
jQuery? No, certainly not. DOM? Of course it has a place. The vast majority of people using javascript are doing DOM manipulation of some sort, and it would be a gross oversight not to include at least an explanation of it, if not a comprehensive reference.
More junior developers are usually surprised when they show me a site that works great in Firefox or Safari, but breaks in IE, and the first thing I do is change it enough to break identically in the working browsers.
But then suddenly the fix is easy, obvious and universal.
In most of my web development work it's always been the client that sets the standard. There have been some clients that have said "Support IE6 and beyond" (/cringe) and others that have more reasonable standards, e.g. IE7+, Firefox 3.5+, Chrome 9+
I've never felt that IE7 was substantially better than IE6.
The addition of transparent PNG support and a few more CSS selectors is great, but it's got almost all of the same rendering bugs that IE6 does.
That must be why we haven't heard him say a single damn word about it. At all. Because he's just holding his tongue, so he can wield the veto power, yeah?
It's actually worse than holding his tongue. He has come out in support of the renewal and accused the short list of senators opposed to it of threatening national security.
Fundamentally, the problem in that case is that the state's sales tax is too high, and thus puts the brick and mortar business at a competitive disadvantage. But for some reason it always seems to get portrayed as Amazon having some sort of unfair advantage. If the state is unhappy that its businesses are at a disadvantage due to high sales tax, the direct solution within their power is to simply lower their sales tax.
That isn't the problem, or at least certainly not the whole problem.
They want the money and they have no ability to effectively collect it from the person whom the courts regard as obliged to pay it: the customer.
The way the US does everything at the state level, with so many states, and every state doing its own thing, just truly results in anarchy...
Nothing about the way the several governments of the United States of America levy and collect taxes is anything at all like anarchy.
Calling the varieties of tax policies in the states of a federal republic "anarchy" is like calling the ascension of an absolute monarch based on his divine bloodline "democracy".
I had a roommate back in the waning years of SG1 who was really into that and Atlantis. I couldn't really get into SG1 (it wasn't bad. Ben Browder and Claudia Black just made me wish I was watching Farscape), but I enjoyed Atlantis.
...also two Detroit senators make sure no one else can import cars to the US without crossing a high ass bar. Its cheaper to buy a senator than to build a better business model.
I dislike politicians as much as anybody, but seriously?
You know you can go into any hardware store and get metric automotive tools, right? They're not even any more expensive.
I can't wait til this becomes a nationwide practice so that all civilians can feel safe knowing that the terrorists and criminals are being actively monitored and will never ever harm us again.
We can only hope this is as successful as the drug war. All of the violence may have been tragic, but it was worth it to live in a world where no one ever smokes weed.
Like it or not, a lot of people have very real issues with evolution (I am not one of them), and those issues can extend to causing problems for those willing to teach their kids.
... a teacher shouldnt have to put up with hate mail or threats or harrassment any more than the rest of us. By forcing them to teach it, you are forcing them to open themselves up to attack.
I agree, they shouldn't have to put up with that. Maybe you should stop doing it.
Supercars are statistical outliers. If they're using those cars to cheat mpg fuel efficiency requirements, it's so they can avoid raising the mileage of ordinary cars like the Passat. If you're an environmentalist or a peak oil weirdo and you're worried about supercars, you're wasting your time.
I want to live in a world where *everything* that makes me uncomfortable or might cause pain or conflict is excised from history.... No more racial resentment, no more ethnic conflicts, no more religious wars. We get along, we always got along, end of story.
The debate we're currently having is about the meaning of words "right" and "privilege", not whether people deserve any particular rights or privileges. In that context, constructing a grammatically incorrect use of the words in question does not actually address my point.
However, I will attempt to address the argument I think you're trying to make.
Rights are inherently inalienable. Privileges are subject to the whims of those that grant them.
If rights can be given and taken away, what separates rights from privileges? Practical example: Is it just and proper that a person in the US or Western Europe can criticize his government and a person in China may not?
My government does a lot of things that I don't agree with. That concept of rights is dangerously flawed, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
If social services become human rights when a society is prosperous enough to provide them, do they then cease to be human rights when that society goes into decline?
Rights can be granted. Not all rights are inalienable.
I disagree. If it's not inalienable, what makes it a right? If your government has the power to grant and revoke "rights", then you have no rights at all.
I love the idea of a world where everyone has access to great health care. However, I find the idea of a world where our rights are subject to the whims of the establishment to be horrifying, and I think it demeans the whole concept of rights to suggest that privileges are rights merely because we want them applied to everyone.
There are human needs far more important than health care, like food and shelter, that are currently not being universally met despite public and private efforts to provide them. So what does the concept of "rights" even mean in that case when people clearly don't have those things?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem is not so much that web applications are inherently less modular or adaptable than native applications as it is that there are an abundance of web programmers who believe that a framework is a substitute for the ability to design an application. It's still a young field and there is a very low barrier to entry.
People without experience, or who can't learn the lessons of their experience as in your example, are just as capable of writing terrible and unmaintainable native applications.
You can't add quality to a web app.
Can't?
Many web apps today are of poor quality, and there are some inherent disadvantages to the medium, but I find that statement dubious.
I expect there is, but it has fuck all to do with utility billing. It's actually about laws that try to influence the way people live their lives, like excessive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, or car seat legislation, or cycle helmets: that sort of thing. I'd have mentioned prohibition but I don't think we ever had that here.
I was under the impression that Great Britain employed prohibition to much the same extent the government does here in the US.
Or have you adopted sensible decriminalization policies like Portugal?
How many Netflix subscribers actually use the PC version? Given how few PCs are connected to TV-sized monitors...
I can't answer that question, but, anecdotally, I do. Also, I have a PC hooked up to my living room TV for Netflix and gaming.
Right off the top of my head, I can think of at least 2 other people who have PCs hooked up to TVs or projectors they use for Netflix.
I would be surprised if the number was as low as you imply, though I'm sure the majority on are on consoles or Roku type devices.
jQuery and the DOM have no place in a book on javascript.
jQuery? No, certainly not. DOM? Of course it has a place. The vast majority of people using javascript are doing DOM manipulation of some sort, and it would be a gross oversight not to include at least an explanation of it, if not a comprehensive reference.
More junior developers are usually surprised when they show me a site that works great in Firefox or Safari, but breaks in IE, and the first thing I do is change it enough to break identically in the working browsers.
But then suddenly the fix is easy, obvious and universal.
In most of my web development work it's always been the client that sets the standard. There have been some clients that have said "Support IE6 and beyond" (/cringe) and others that have more reasonable standards, e.g. IE7+, Firefox 3.5+, Chrome 9+
I've never felt that IE7 was substantially better than IE6.
The addition of transparent PNG support and a few more CSS selectors is great, but it's got almost all of the same rendering bugs that IE6 does.
That must be why we haven't heard him say a single damn word about it. At all. Because he's just holding his tongue, so he can wield the veto power, yeah?
It's actually worse than holding his tongue. He has come out in support of the renewal and accused the short list of senators opposed to it of threatening national security.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/obama-administration-says-rand-paul-risking-national-security-by-delaying-patriot-act.html
Fundamentally, the problem in that case is that the state's sales tax is too high, and thus puts the brick and mortar business at a competitive disadvantage. But for some reason it always seems to get portrayed as Amazon having some sort of unfair advantage. If the state is unhappy that its businesses are at a disadvantage due to high sales tax, the direct solution within their power is to simply lower their sales tax.
That isn't the problem, or at least certainly not the whole problem.
They want the money and they have no ability to effectively collect it from the person whom the courts regard as obliged to pay it: the customer.
The way the US does everything at the state level, with so many states, and every state doing its own thing, just truly results in anarchy...
Nothing about the way the several governments of the United States of America levy and collect taxes is anything at all like anarchy.
Calling the varieties of tax policies in the states of a federal republic "anarchy" is like calling the ascension of an absolute monarch based on his divine bloodline "democracy".
I had a roommate back in the waning years of SG1 who was really into that and Atlantis. I couldn't really get into SG1 (it wasn't bad. Ben Browder and Claudia Black just made me wish I was watching Farscape), but I enjoyed Atlantis.
...also two Detroit senators make sure no one else can import cars to the US without crossing a high ass bar. Its cheaper to buy a senator than to build a better business model.
I dislike politicians as much as anybody, but seriously?
You know you can go into any hardware store and get metric automotive tools, right? They're not even any more expensive.
I can't wait til this becomes a nationwide practice so that all civilians can feel safe knowing that the terrorists and criminals are being actively monitored and will never ever harm us again.
We can only hope this is as successful as the drug war. All of the violence may have been tragic, but it was worth it to live in a world where no one ever smokes weed.
I don't think it would work. I doubt that Summer Glau, while a she is right purdy lady, can pull off 17 anymore.
Now, I would love them to do another season or two, I just don't think a timeline that involves Wash and Book would work.
Like it or not, a lot of people have very real issues with evolution (I am not one of them), and those issues can extend to causing problems for those willing to teach their kids.
... a teacher shouldnt have to put up with hate mail or threats or harrassment any more than the rest of us. By forcing them to teach it, you are forcing them to open themselves up to attack.
I agree, they shouldn't have to put up with that. Maybe you should stop doing it.
Supercars are statistical outliers. If they're using those cars to cheat mpg fuel efficiency requirements, it's so they can avoid raising the mileage of ordinary cars like the Passat. If you're an environmentalist or a peak oil weirdo and you're worried about supercars, you're wasting your time.
My first car was a Mazda GLC with ~87HP.
Mine too. 1980. Station wagon. Rust colored. (Not rusty, rust colored.)
That terrible car has a special place in my heart.
yeah, this reeks of white busy body trying to help those poor black people who can't face history.
I suspect that's it's more about white busy bodies trying to help those poor white people who can't face history.
I want to live in a world where *everything* that makes me uncomfortable or might cause pain or conflict is excised from history. ... No more racial resentment, no more ethnic conflicts, no more religious wars. We get along, we always got along, end of story.
We have always been at peace with East Asia.
Government doesn't exist to protect the rights of citizens who are consuming over those who are producing.
This is absurd. The government should exist to serve only the needs of people.
So when you buy corporate stock, you cease to be a person deserving of rights?
According to people who have lived under anarchy; anarchy is not fun.
Like whom, for example?
The debate we're currently having is about the meaning of words "right" and "privilege", not whether people deserve any particular rights or privileges. In that context, constructing a grammatically incorrect use of the words in question does not actually address my point.
However, I will attempt to address the argument I think you're trying to make.
Rights are inherently inalienable. Privileges are subject to the whims of those that grant them.
If rights can be given and taken away, what separates rights from privileges? Practical example: Is it just and proper that a person in the US or Western Europe can criticize his government and a person in China may not?
My government does a lot of things that I don't agree with. That concept of rights is dangerously flawed, as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
If social services become human rights when a society is prosperous enough to provide them, do they then cease to be human rights when that society goes into decline?
Rights can be granted. Not all rights are inalienable.
I disagree. If it's not inalienable, what makes it a right? If your government has the power to grant and revoke "rights", then you have no rights at all.
I love the idea of a world where everyone has access to great health care. However, I find the idea of a world where our rights are subject to the whims of the establishment to be horrifying, and I think it demeans the whole concept of rights to suggest that privileges are rights merely because we want them applied to everyone.
There are human needs far more important than health care, like food and shelter, that are currently not being universally met despite public and private efforts to provide them. So what does the concept of "rights" even mean in that case when people clearly don't have those things?
If it's not a right here either, then please tell me, what is it here? What's the English word for it?
Privilege.
A privilege applied universally is still a privilege.