> It's laughable to say that Deep Fritz is the > strongest computer programme - Deep Blue (that > defeated Kasparov) evaluated 200 million positions > per second compared to Deep Fritz's 3-4 million. > Deep Blue was running on an IBM-made > supercomputer. Fritz isn't.
Um.
1) Deep Fritz is software. Deep Blue is hardware. Therefore, even if Deep Blue were better than Deep Fritz, Deep Fritz would still be the better *program*. Howver: 2) Deep Fritz beat Deep Blue. Oh, and: 3) Deep Fritz runs on differing hardware. Therefore, it does not have a guaranteed position analysis rate. Also, 4) Position Analysis is about as important to chess playing prowess as megahertz is to computer speed: it's one of a set of interlinked and useless-when-seperated metrics which shouldn't be being used by people who don't understand tree culling, look forwards, et cetera.
Also, Deep Fritz holds the world's computer chess playing title, so regardless, it/is/ the world's strongest piece of chess software. I believe, not sure, that it took the title from Blender.
Please look into what you attempt to correct, on the off chance that the people who brought it to your attention know more about it than you do.
"...Some scientists even see the day when trees and grasses will be used to mine metals and minerals without disturbing the soil." That demonstrates why some people calling themselves 'scientists' should stick to their fields. Sucking up miniscule amounts of metals with plants would only deplete the 'crustal abundance' of minerals within the narrow range of plant roots, and the average American requires over 45,000 pounds of newly-mined minerals every year. I work in the mineral industry, and I am a scientist. This smells like a grant proposal that got by someone. Suckers!
It might help to realize that we pretty much don't go more than a few hundred feet deep for anything other than oil and natural gas, that those are pumped out via shafts, and that the rare cases like coal where we do go underground don't really do much beyond the superficial layer anyway.
Some trees have roots that can go hundreds of feet into the soil. With enough time, growth will not only address more territory than mining (you have to leave a *lot* of stuff in place so that the ceiling doesn't collapse), but not damage the environment, and successfully reach more metal than we would have anyway.
Note that right now, the most common method for getting aluminum is to cart soil (bauxite) to a factory, elecrolyze the interesting bits out, and dump. Trees would be better, more efficient, and less damaging to the ecosystems involved.
The thing that surprises me is that nobody's addressed the amount of time this will take. It's not going to be an all-at-once process like mining; you'll get some fraction of the content each time frame, which will dwindle.
> 1) what does the Arsenic turn into (chemically > speaking). Does the plant change the chemical > bonding? I think that most aresnic is stored as > sodium arsenate (I could be wrong) if it changes > it to something more managable, it would be much > better than if it simply concentrates it. HOWEVER, > concentrating it is, by itself, an incredible step > forward. Period.
Yep. Um, the arsenic might get converted into another arsenic compound, but that's not going to help a whole lot: arsenic pretty much sucks no matter what you mix it with.
> 2) is it possible to seed these as "suicide" > plants, EG: plants that produce no pollen or > seeds?
Well, sure, induce trisomy to a chromosome, such as is done for seedless grapes/watermelons/etc with hormone supplements. However, no significant amount of arsenic would spread with the pollen, so what's the point?
> What I would like to know is how they plan to > get the base minerals, considering soils have > tyically minimal mineralization and the elements > tend to be in very low concentrations.
In many city areas, contaminants verge on the same concentrations as rarer nutrients such as molybdenum and manganese in the soil. Plants have developed special soil-straining tools called "roots" to get said nutrients from said soil.
> I would think that this would only work for rare > earth elements and the like, not so good for base > metals.
Because obviously, rare earth elements are more common, easier to soak up, and generally more pleasant to hold a dinner party for than base metals, with their arrogant behavior and snide remarks.
> Also, some plants already concentrate arsenic in > their seeds. (It's been a while since I heard this, > but I seem to recall it's either apples or > apricots.)
Apples, apricots, cherries, peaches, and in fact most fruits with a "stone" style seed (yes, I realize that doesn't include apples.)
This was a common way to get poison in the elder days. Yay, the useful things you learn from Dungeons and Dragons.;)
> Honestly, what schmuck would pay Microsoft for > security??
Any large corporation which wishes to be in a position to sue someone for breach of contract down the road when their firewall starts spitting out badly spelled half baked political agendas, one expects.
> > That new handgun you purchased is a fine one; > > however, we are going to have to charge extra > > for the safety mechanism. > > No need. I already have a fully-functional brain.
Which will be especially useful when you: 1) Have a kid rummaging through the drawer you thought was secret 2) Drop the weapon for any reason 3) Get handed the weapon by a friend who (arguably rightfully) expects a safety mechanism 4) have any other unexpected situation
See, any object which is specifically made for killing really ought to have some mechanisms to prevent it from being used unintentionally, because lots of people who insist they don't need such things find out that in fact they or their loved ones do every year. It's not a mistake that you want thrown in your face, I'm sure you'll find, if you're one of the unlucky few dozen which has their arrogance stripped from them *daily*.
But your fully-functioning brain already told you that.
> There are no more than two that are even remotely > popular (and the popularity of Netscape/Mozilla is > falling by the day). The other ones are largely > irrelevant.
Well, though Mozilla is losing a bit of ground, you're forgetting a whole lot of stuff. Even if we sidestep things like mobile browsers and console browsers, which have more marketshare than IT stat shills will admit (or generally even rank), you need to remember that AOL is preparing Mozilla as its primary browser, and that AOL alone accounts for almost 20% of web browsing on the planet.
So, if that doesn't scare the pants offa ya, lemme try stabbing at some of your claims instead.
> And as far as compliance, much more of the DOM is > implemented in IE than it is in Mozilla. I have > *several* non compliance issues open in Bugzilla > that haven't been addressed in nearly a year. > OTOH, I haven't stumbled across a part of the > DOM that IE is lacking in yet.
This is astonishingly incorrect. Any web developer (yes, I noted your sig, and also that page, and I'll say it again: any web developer) can tell you otherwise, but since you seem to be one of those i-believe-it-so-it's-true-screw-research types, try following this address:
http://devedge.netscape.com/toolbox/tools/2001/f ea ture-detection/
When you're done, when you start bitching that Netscape developed tests which don't follow standards, go look at the W3C standards. IE is the broken one, every step of IE gets closer to correct, and other browsers adhere to the W3C standards.
IE 5.5 supports 41% of DOM1, 35% of DOM2, 91% of DOM/HTML, 96% of DOM/CSS1, 36% of DOM/CSS2, and has a bunch of holes in DHTML that aren't addressed by that page.
Go try looking at that list in IE6; the numbers jump by about 10%, which is good. Then, cluestick, go try Mozilla.
> As far as bugs, I don't know what you're talking > about.
Of course you don't. You don't develop cross-browser, but to IE instead. Have a look at the menu at http://scoutchess.org/, and look at the selected menu item. Note how in Mozilla, Opera, Galeon, etc, that menu item is the same size as the rest, but how in IE it isn't. Note that the CSS specifies the exact same rule.
I've bumped into *dozens* of such bugs, personally. Maybe if you'd try opening your bad porn page in something than MSIE once in a while, you'd notice too.
Also, consider using the HTML validator. Your page is a mess.
> Depending on the numbers you read, 85-95% of all > surfers use IE.
My server sees about 70%, and I have a recurring userbase of about 20,000. You'll find that PC magazines tend to have PC userbases. Sony's website sees about 74%, and they seem like a pretty good metric to me. Anyone know how to get numbers from Google?
> For the vast majority of web site owners, > interoperability with the W3C spec is a moot > point.
Gee, that's funny. It seems to me that that's like saying that for the vast majority of car drivers, compliance with emissions is a moot point. That's because they're not making the cars. However, both IE and NS/AOL make bragging points about DOM support, et cetera.
You might want to try infusing your arguments witha bit of that "Logic" crap you keep hearing about when people reply to your nonsense.
> If IE decided to completely split fromt he W3C > spec tomorrow, whose specs are going to be > followed?
I suspect that if IE began to fail to correctly display google, altavista, yahoo, etc, completing only MSN and similar sites, MS would be in for almost as big a shock as you would be.
Or has it not yet occurred to you that M$ has taken similar opportunities in the past (Java) ? If they could own the web, they would. They haven't because they can't.
> Ok, maybe *somebody's* using every one, but a > handful of users does not a "standard" make.
This pretty much mocks itself, once you realize that you're tlaking about XML and HTTP.
> XSL? PNG?
XSL is pretty new, and is only intended for use when CSS isn't sufficient, as its page clearly states. However, I've used it a number of times; if the force is strong enough in you, it's a wonderfully powerful tool.
PNG is making headway faster than Flash did.
> Again, they can scream until they're blue in the > face, hold press conferences, protest, whatever, > but unless a large number of people want to > actually *use* those specs,
This is just silly. If the web page has PNGs on it and the browser knows how to render it, does the user need to want to use some spec? No, no more than anyone needed to want to use HTTP1.1 or JPEG or Flash. Most people don't even realize that there are real differences between GIF and JPEG. What's at issue is what the browsers support; the reason PNG/MNG aren't in wider use is that they're not reliably supported at the user end.
Oh, but that's changing; if you'd do your homework, you'd realize that both Moz and IE5 support PNG well. Well, IE 6 supports it well; IE 5 has problems with alpha channels. But still.
> they're about as worthwhile as the new "NineNine > SeXML" spec that I could write
Well, except that you're not the W3C and nobody listens to you. Or did you fail to note that even MS Office saves in XML now?
> > For Apple to become anything else WOULD be to > > shoot themselves in the foot. > > Exactly how has it hurt Microsoft to be a > software-only company?
Yeah, because when Apple started by inventing the InPort mouse, they really started taking a nose-dive. Ever since then, Apple hardware divisions like the Sidewinder Joystick group, the Natural Keyboard group, the optical and other mice and trackball divisions, and so forth have been incredibly lossy.
Oh, wait, that's Microsoft, and they're making bank.
> Do you REALLY think Microsoft would be dominant > today if they had come out with a proprietary > "Windows PC" that was completely closed?
Dunno. Ask Sony and Nintendo about their competition. Alternately, take a look at most WinCE devices, where expandability is limited to that little SD slot.
> Yeah, and my lemonade stand is "profitable" > because I made a clear $5 profit. But so what? > Are you really impressed that Apple is able to > cut and chop expenses enough to bring home $32 > million on sales of 1.43 BILLION?
Where are you getting these numbers? I'm not an apple-ologist, but that seems too razor-thin; that sounds very badly remembered, in the most kind interpretation.
> The reason the clones "failed" is because Apple > didn't fully commit to the strategy.
The clones didn't fail, though. PowerMac computing was making mad skrilla before Apple pulled the plug. Perhaps you should know history before you tout "knowledge", son.
> And it didn't even fail! Total Macintosh market > share was CLIMBING.
[gong sound] In fact, the Mac's market share was dwindling; one of Apple's press releases about the decision to kill clones was that their marketroids felt that the name was being diluted and causing customer confusion on a platform which relied far more heavily on its name and uniformity.
Nice try, though.
> It was Apple's marketshare that was falling.
Waitaminute. In an era where the Macintosh was Apple's only whole computer product, the Macintosh's market share was climbing, but Apple's was dwindling?
It's time for you to start citing sources. Or, maybe pass the joint. That's got to be good weed.
> Apple could have gone two ways: a) accept that > hardware was going to be a break-even or low > profit proposition
Even though traditionally and through to today, hardware profits are a large chunk of operation profits...
> and make money from software,
Which Apple's platform is known for being traditionally comparatively weak in, and for which most major applications, such as the graphics and desktop publishing arenas, were developed by alternate companies...
> and b) forget hardware entirely and make money > from software.
Yah, 'cause really, iTunes is worth $400 to me.
> The bottom line here is software.
No, bottom lines usually involve looking at the requisite numbers. Where are yours, please? Can you name five major software packages that Apple sells to enough customers that it could make an operating profit of the caliber of their systems distribution unit?
Here's a hint: the OS X upgrade package ain't floating the whole boat, and pretty much everything else is free.
> That's where the money is, and that's why > Microsoft is dominant and Apple -- isn't.
Because obviously it has nothing to do with such familiar terms as the applications barrier to entry, something so obvious that even MS spin-doctors couldn't hide it, something well documented by multiple federal judges ( [sarcasm] known for their tech insightfulness [/sarcasm] ), and something which curiously shoots your above propositions out of the water.
What's still in the air is how exactly you think that Apple was able to compete with the software company hired to make the operating system for the then-and-now dominant hardware platform for, what, 20 years now? without knowing what they're doing, despite having far higher margins, a smaller user base, and people like you cluelessly talking shit on SlashDot every day.
I may hate Apple, but I hate pompous idiots more.
(No, I'm not pompous, I'm arrogant, get it right.)
> Are they still the university's resources when > they contract with me to provide a service for a > fee?
Yes. Take a look at the aforementioned contract. If it gives the university any leeway to pull the rug out from under you (and believe me, it will), you're screwed.
Welcome to reality. You used to get college as a last few years outside of it; guess that's gone.
> But they seem to ignore the fact that this means > nothing because most users have no ethics.
Oh, yeah, because obviously if you use windows, you regualrly kill children and steal from the blind.
"because most users don't share the view on software ethics that we do, in particular as regards one company" just doesn't have that ascerbic ring to it, though...
> > The sheer arrogance of the slashdot poster is > > unbelievable. Just listen to this:
Warning phrase #18 identified. Engaging.
> This story at New Scientist describes how, using > cell simulation in computers, evolution can be > simulated. How long until we can work out what > the DNA sequence for a Dragon should be I > wonder?
Here's a hint, Brainiac-5. Mythical creatures don't have DNA sequences. He could just as well have asked how long it would be until we'd worked out the DNA sequence for a city bus, Santa Claus, or an alien, but those would have made the joke significantly less funny.
And notably, the sheer arrogance of the slashdot poster (because obviously there's only one) is in fact quite believable, because unlike the dragon, there is quite a bit of recorded evidence of the slashdot poster. I believe in him/her and his/her arrogance. As well, I should annote, as yours. For that matter, as well as my own. Oh, and Tim's, from down the street.
Also, "sheer arrogance" itself is rather an arrogant thing to say. Ah, as is noting the arrogance of the phrase "sheer arrogance". So, while I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, I feel it important to display that I in fact revel in my arrogance, and therefore such accusations levelled at me will simply make my day.:)
You remind me of that guy who balked at the "moon is a ridiculous liberal myth" rape-post from the other day. Sit down and shut up until you grow a funny bone, or any other skeletal representation of humor.
> Or for those that are sadistic you can read > Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black > Hole Thermodynamics [amazon.com].
Why is it that people smart enough to handle space-time curvature effects on quantuum bogodynamics and so forth can never keep the difference between masochism and sadism straight in their heads?
Or is there some way in which my reading this positively head-thumping book is going to hurt someone else?
(stifles obvious joke about S/M, sex, and nerds never having any)
> > A = A XOR B > > B = A XOR B > > A = A XOR B > > My data structures professor showed us that on > > the first day of class. That got my respect. > > No wonder he's a teacher; only a teacher would > gloat at a "clever" stupid trick like that; in a > production environment, he'd be the first one to > be shot, 'cause such kind of "clever" code is > exactly why there are so many bugs in software > nowadays, 'cause not all programmers will "get > it".
Oh, malarky. The myth that teachers are those who cannot do will be dispelled the next time you try to teach something. It turns out to be quite a bit more difficult to explain a task you can do than to just do it, and you cannot explain something you cannot do.
However, I feel it important to note two things:
1) Nobody said that the teacher gloated. In fact, what the poster said was that *he* was impressed.
2) That's not particularly clever code. It's a neat idea, but the programmer which doesn't understand what that does on sight is not worth their paycheck.
That really reads like you read the comment from TPOP or a Scott Meyers book (actually, it matches my vague recollection of a Kernighan quote almost verbatim; there's a reason Ad Verecundiam is a fallacy, as it recalls the user's lack of comprehension; see Appendix A, first Koan, as regards Knight and the Lisp Machine.)
Whereas I am in agreement with the general sentiment that solid code which lacks the 5% performance boost for total obfuscation is a Good Thing, there is no question in my mind that the above is a simple, obvious, useful thing. Logic operations are usually the fastest operations on a chip, and I've yet to see a CPU that would complete three copies any faster than three logic ops; moreover, this saves on temporary variable space, which in turn saves time on allocation, etc.
The idea that the above is the source of bugs, rather than the failure to properly utilize the defense mechanisms of choice (things like data hiding, interfaces, and so forth), failure to sufficiently plan, test, and isolate code, and so forth is rankling to me. That's an ideal candidate for an inline swap function, and if you can't tell what a swap function with that code inside does, you really just shouldn't be a programmer.
And if you're not making that an inline function, you probably shouldn't be a C programmer.:)
> > Saying it will be defeated within 30 days. Any > > takers. Also, $25 saying it will be by a Russian. > > More like within 30 minutes. And it'll be a high > school kid.
I'll put $50 that it's fifteen minutes, that it's a Russian highschool kid, and that nobody can drag this joke any further.;)
> How can you patent a bot making tool, when any > decent programming language could be considered a > bot making tool. Hell, I could write a bot in PHP > if I were so sadistically inclined.
1) They are not patenting bot making tools. They are producing bot making tools. They are patenting bots which correspond via instant messenging services.
2) A programming language is different than a specific purpose toolkit in many ways. Consider writing a 3D game in C++ versus using OpenGL, Direct3D, or similar tools. Consider writing a production internet news service without a database server, a tcp/ip stack, or a template toolkit.
How the FUCK are you going to enforce a patent when prior art is both well-known and documented? Are these people retarded?
By getting lots of lawyers and swinging your wang at companies who don't have enough money to fight back. Knowingly swallowing a license to an invalid patent is usually quite a bit cheaper than fighting the patent.
Actually, it is. It's called Bust-a-move, and comes from '96 or so from the team that brought bubble bobble to light (actually, the game shares characters).
This means that Guillaume Cottenceau, who "designed" it, is a plagarist; that's a clear copy of Bust a Move '97, even down to the cute little creature shooting a shiny ball using a cannon that looks like it was made from a sextant.
Frozen-Bubble is plagirism like LTris and LBreakout2 [sourceforge.net] are plagirism. And Freeciv. And any other free game that takes a popular game and reproduces it for free...
Only if someone claims to be the game designer. Game design != game implementation. LTris had a good implementer, but the game designer was named Alexi.
This is important only to professional game designers, but nonetheless it is still galling. It would, I expect, be akin to an engineer's reaction if Dean Kamen had claimed to invent all parts within the Segway, rather than just the Segway itself - consider the Stirling engine, for example.
Game design is not trivial. Tetraminoes falling into a limited well with a difficult remove mechanism and ever-increasing speed is not an obvious design. I specifically named Guillame for a reason.
: But Basic spoiled me. I was never an : effective programmer since.
It's a shame you'd not heard of Dijkstra; he might have saved you, had you heard him say
It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
There were no better. I had the pleasure and privilege to meet and speak with him, albeit briefly, once; it's befuddling how much one man can change you in a ten minute chat.
Actually, it is. It's called Bust-a-move, and comes from '96 or so from the team that brought bubble bobble to light (actually, the game shares characters).
This means that Guillaume Cottenceau, who "designed" it, is a plagarist; that's a clear copy of Bust a Move '97, even down to the cute little creature shooting a shiny ball using a cannon that looks like it was made from a sextant.
I mean, remaking game functionality is one thing, but that's almost a carbon copy. Puff Daddy Software, Inc. would be embarrassed to release that.
Slashdot Mirror
> It's laughable to say that Deep Fritz is the
/is/ the world's strongest piece of chess software. I believe, not sure, that it took the title from Blender.
> strongest computer programme - Deep Blue (that
> defeated Kasparov) evaluated 200 million positions
> per second compared to Deep Fritz's 3-4 million.
> Deep Blue was running on an IBM-made
> supercomputer. Fritz isn't.
Um.
1) Deep Fritz is software. Deep Blue is hardware. Therefore, even if Deep Blue were better than Deep Fritz, Deep Fritz would still be the better *program*. Howver:
2) Deep Fritz beat Deep Blue. Oh, and:
3) Deep Fritz runs on differing hardware. Therefore, it does not have a guaranteed position analysis rate. Also,
4) Position Analysis is about as important to chess playing prowess as megahertz is to computer speed: it's one of a set of interlinked and useless-when-seperated metrics which shouldn't be being used by people who don't understand tree culling, look forwards, et cetera.
Also, Deep Fritz holds the world's computer chess playing title, so regardless, it
Please look into what you attempt to correct, on the off chance that the people who brought it to your attention know more about it than you do.
"...Some scientists even see the day when trees and grasses will be used to mine metals and minerals without disturbing the soil." That demonstrates why some people calling themselves 'scientists' should stick to their fields. Sucking up miniscule amounts of metals with plants would only deplete the 'crustal abundance' of minerals within the narrow range of plant roots, and the average American requires over 45,000 pounds of newly-mined minerals every year. I work in the mineral industry, and I am a scientist. This smells like a grant proposal that got by someone. Suckers!
It might help to realize that we pretty much don't go more than a few hundred feet deep for anything other than oil and natural gas, that those are pumped out via shafts, and that the rare cases like coal where we do go underground don't really do much beyond the superficial layer anyway.
Some trees have roots that can go hundreds of feet into the soil. With enough time, growth will not only address more territory than mining (you have to leave a *lot* of stuff in place so that the ceiling doesn't collapse), but not damage the environment, and successfully reach more metal than we would have anyway.
Note that right now, the most common method for getting aluminum is to cart soil (bauxite) to a factory, elecrolyze the interesting bits out, and dump. Trees would be better, more efficient, and less damaging to the ecosystems involved.
The thing that surprises me is that nobody's addressed the amount of time this will take. It's not going to be an all-at-once process like mining; you'll get some fraction of the content each time frame, which will dwindle.
And why no Nausicaa jokes?
> 1) what does the Arsenic turn into (chemically
> speaking). Does the plant change the chemical
> bonding? I think that most aresnic is stored as
> sodium arsenate (I could be wrong) if it changes
> it to something more managable, it would be much
> better than if it simply concentrates it. HOWEVER,
> concentrating it is, by itself, an incredible step
> forward. Period.
Yep. Um, the arsenic might get converted into another arsenic compound, but that's not going to help a whole lot: arsenic pretty much sucks no matter what you mix it with.
> 2) is it possible to seed these as "suicide"
> plants, EG: plants that produce no pollen or
> seeds?
Well, sure, induce trisomy to a chromosome, such as is done for seedless grapes/watermelons/etc with hormone supplements. However, no significant amount of arsenic would spread with the pollen, so what's the point?
> What I would like to know is how they plan to
> get the base minerals, considering soils have
> tyically minimal mineralization and the elements
> tend to be in very low concentrations.
In many city areas, contaminants verge on the same concentrations as rarer nutrients such as molybdenum and manganese in the soil. Plants have developed special soil-straining tools called "roots" to get said nutrients from said soil.
> I would think that this would only work for rare
> earth elements and the like, not so good for base
> metals.
Because obviously, rare earth elements are more common, easier to soak up, and generally more pleasant to hold a dinner party for than base metals, with their arrogant behavior and snide remarks.
Oh, did I note that I'm a base metal?
> MIT did not just think this up. On my desk I have
> Volume 1, Issue 1 (March, 1999) of the
> International Journal of Phytoremediation
As usual, science fiction has you beaten by decades. Niven spoke about this in the 1970s, but it probably goes back a ways earlier.
> Also, some plants already concentrate arsenic in
;)
> their seeds. (It's been a while since I heard this,
> but I seem to recall it's either apples or
> apricots.)
Apples, apricots, cherries, peaches, and in fact most fruits with a "stone" style seed (yes, I realize that doesn't include apples.)
This was a common way to get poison in the elder days. Yay, the useful things you learn from Dungeons and Dragons.
> for their OS and it is an unsecure piece of
> garbage!
Microsoft has security problems? That's unpossible!
I think your spellchecker may have been 0wn3d. Either that, or your painfully-obvious-observation remover. Who can tell?
> Honestly, what schmuck would pay Microsoft for
> security??
Any large corporation which wishes to be in a position to sue someone for breach of contract down the road when their firewall starts spitting out badly spelled half baked political agendas, one expects.
> > That new handgun you purchased is a fine one;
> > however, we are going to have to charge extra
> > for the safety mechanism.
>
> No need. I already have a fully-functional brain.
Which will be especially useful when you:
1) Have a kid rummaging through the drawer you thought was secret
2) Drop the weapon for any reason
3) Get handed the weapon by a friend who (arguably rightfully) expects a safety mechanism
4) have any other unexpected situation
See, any object which is specifically made for killing really ought to have some mechanisms to prevent it from being used unintentionally, because lots of people who insist they don't need such things find out that in fact they or their loved ones do every year. It's not a mistake that you want thrown in your face, I'm sure you'll find, if you're one of the unlucky few dozen which has their arrogance stripped from them *daily*.
But your fully-functioning brain already told you that.
> There are no more than two that are even remotely
f ea ture-detection/
> popular (and the popularity of Netscape/Mozilla is
> falling by the day). The other ones are largely
> irrelevant.
Well, though Mozilla is losing a bit of ground, you're forgetting a whole lot of stuff. Even if we sidestep things like mobile browsers and console browsers, which have more marketshare than IT stat shills will admit (or generally even rank), you need to remember that AOL is preparing Mozilla as its primary browser, and that AOL alone accounts for almost 20% of web browsing on the planet.
So, if that doesn't scare the pants offa ya, lemme try stabbing at some of your claims instead.
> And as far as compliance, much more of the DOM is
> implemented in IE than it is in Mozilla. I have
> *several* non compliance issues open in Bugzilla
> that haven't been addressed in nearly a year.
> OTOH, I haven't stumbled across a part of the
> DOM that IE is lacking in yet.
This is astonishingly incorrect. Any web developer (yes, I noted your sig, and also that page, and I'll say it again: any web developer) can tell you otherwise, but since you seem to be one of those i-believe-it-so-it's-true-screw-research types, try following this address:
http://devedge.netscape.com/toolbox/tools/2001/
When you're done, when you start bitching that Netscape developed tests which don't follow standards, go look at the W3C standards. IE is the broken one, every step of IE gets closer to correct, and other browsers adhere to the W3C standards.
IE 5.5 supports 41% of DOM1, 35% of DOM2, 91% of DOM/HTML, 96% of DOM/CSS1, 36% of DOM/CSS2, and has a bunch of holes in DHTML that aren't addressed by that page.
Go try looking at that list in IE6; the numbers jump by about 10%, which is good. Then, cluestick, go try Mozilla.
> As far as bugs, I don't know what you're talking
> about.
Of course you don't. You don't develop cross-browser, but to IE instead. Have a look at the menu at http://scoutchess.org/, and look at the selected menu item. Note how in Mozilla, Opera, Galeon, etc, that menu item is the same size as the rest, but how in IE it isn't. Note that the CSS specifies the exact same rule.
I've bumped into *dozens* of such bugs, personally. Maybe if you'd try opening your bad porn page in something than MSIE once in a while, you'd notice too.
Also, consider using the HTML validator. Your page is a mess.
> Depending on the numbers you read, 85-95% of all
> surfers use IE.
My server sees about 70%, and I have a recurring userbase of about 20,000. You'll find that PC magazines tend to have PC userbases. Sony's website sees about 74%, and they seem like a pretty good metric to me. Anyone know how to get numbers from Google?
> For the vast majority of web site owners,
> interoperability with the W3C spec is a moot
> point.
Gee, that's funny. It seems to me that that's like saying that for the vast majority of car drivers, compliance with emissions is a moot point. That's because they're not making the cars. However, both IE and NS/AOL make bragging points about DOM support, et cetera.
You might want to try infusing your arguments witha bit of that "Logic" crap you keep hearing about when people reply to your nonsense.
> If IE decided to completely split fromt he W3C
> spec tomorrow, whose specs are going to be
> followed?
I suspect that if IE began to fail to correctly display google, altavista, yahoo, etc, completing only MSN and similar sites, MS would be in for almost as big a shock as you would be.
Or has it not yet occurred to you that M$ has taken similar opportunities in the past (Java) ? If they could own the web, they would. They haven't because they can't.
> Ok, maybe *somebody's* using every one, but a
> handful of users does not a "standard" make.
This pretty much mocks itself, once you realize that you're tlaking about XML and HTTP.
> XSL? PNG?
XSL is pretty new, and is only intended for use when CSS isn't sufficient, as its page clearly states. However, I've used it a number of times; if the force is strong enough in you, it's a wonderfully powerful tool.
PNG is making headway faster than Flash did.
> Again, they can scream until they're blue in the
> face, hold press conferences, protest, whatever,
> but unless a large number of people want to
> actually *use* those specs,
This is just silly. If the web page has PNGs on it and the browser knows how to render it, does the user need to want to use some spec? No, no more than anyone needed to want to use HTTP1.1 or JPEG or Flash. Most people don't even realize that there are real differences between GIF and JPEG. What's at issue is what the browsers support; the reason PNG/MNG aren't in wider use is that they're not reliably supported at the user end.
Oh, but that's changing; if you'd do your homework, you'd realize that both Moz and IE5 support PNG well. Well, IE 6 supports it well; IE 5 has problems with alpha channels. But still.
> they're about as worthwhile as the new "NineNine
> SeXML" spec that I could write
Well, except that you're not the W3C and nobody listens to you. Or did you fail to note that even MS Office saves in XML now?
> > For Apple to become anything else WOULD be to
> > shoot themselves in the foot.
>
> Exactly how has it hurt Microsoft to be a
> software-only company?
Yeah, because when Apple started by inventing the InPort mouse, they really started taking a nose-dive. Ever since then, Apple hardware divisions like the Sidewinder Joystick group, the Natural Keyboard group, the optical and other mice and trackball divisions, and so forth have been incredibly lossy.
Oh, wait, that's Microsoft, and they're making bank.
> Do you REALLY think Microsoft would be dominant
> today if they had come out with a proprietary
> "Windows PC" that was completely closed?
Dunno. Ask Sony and Nintendo about their competition. Alternately, take a look at most WinCE devices, where expandability is limited to that little SD slot.
> Yeah, and my lemonade stand is "profitable"
> because I made a clear $5 profit. But so what?
> Are you really impressed that Apple is able to
> cut and chop expenses enough to bring home $32
> million on sales of 1.43 BILLION?
Where are you getting these numbers? I'm not an apple-ologist, but that seems too razor-thin; that sounds very badly remembered, in the most kind interpretation.
> The reason the clones "failed" is because Apple
> didn't fully commit to the strategy.
The clones didn't fail, though. PowerMac computing was making mad skrilla before Apple pulled the plug. Perhaps you should know history before you tout "knowledge", son.
> And it didn't even fail! Total Macintosh market
> share was CLIMBING.
[gong sound] In fact, the Mac's market share was dwindling; one of Apple's press releases about the decision to kill clones was that their marketroids felt that the name was being diluted and causing customer confusion on a platform which relied far more heavily on its name and uniformity.
Nice try, though.
> It was Apple's marketshare that was falling.
Waitaminute. In an era where the Macintosh was Apple's only whole computer product, the Macintosh's market share was climbing, but Apple's was dwindling?
It's time for you to start citing sources. Or, maybe pass the joint. That's got to be good weed.
> Apple could have gone two ways: a) accept that
> hardware was going to be a break-even or low
> profit proposition
Even though traditionally and through to today, hardware profits are a large chunk of operation profits...
> and make money from software,
Which Apple's platform is known for being traditionally comparatively weak in, and for which most major applications, such as the graphics and desktop publishing arenas, were developed by alternate companies...
> and b) forget hardware entirely and make money
> from software.
Yah, 'cause really, iTunes is worth $400 to me.
> The bottom line here is software.
No, bottom lines usually involve looking at the requisite numbers. Where are yours, please? Can you name five major software packages that Apple sells to enough customers that it could make an operating profit of the caliber of their systems distribution unit?
Here's a hint: the OS X upgrade package ain't floating the whole boat, and pretty much everything else is free.
> That's where the money is, and that's why
> Microsoft is dominant and Apple -- isn't.
Because obviously it has nothing to do with such familiar terms as the applications barrier to entry, something so obvious that even MS spin-doctors couldn't hide it, something well documented by multiple federal judges ( [sarcasm] known for their tech insightfulness [/sarcasm] ), and something which curiously shoots your above propositions out of the water.
What's still in the air is how exactly you think that Apple was able to compete with the software company hired to make the operating system for the then-and-now dominant hardware platform for, what, 20 years now? without knowing what they're doing, despite having far higher margins, a smaller user base, and people like you cluelessly talking shit on SlashDot every day.
I may hate Apple, but I hate pompous idiots more.
(No, I'm not pompous, I'm arrogant, get it right.)
> Are they still the university's resources when
> they contract with me to provide a service for a
> fee?
Yes. Take a look at the aforementioned contract. If it gives the university any leeway to pull the rug out from under you (and believe me, it will), you're screwed.
Welcome to reality. You used to get college as a last few years outside of it; guess that's gone.
> But they seem to ignore the fact that this means
> nothing because most users have no ethics.
Oh, yeah, because obviously if you use windows, you regualrly kill children and steal from the blind.
"because most users don't share the view on software ethics that we do, in particular as regards one company" just doesn't have that ascerbic ring to it, though...
> Only stupid people are more concerned with the
> fact that they were made to look bad than with
> the underlying truth
What? Where in choosing not to air a news story have you read that they're not fixing it?
Just because they don't want to make themselves look worse isn't an indication that they're stupid.
> > The sheer arrogance of the slashdot poster is
:)
> > unbelievable. Just listen to this:
Warning phrase #18 identified. Engaging.
> This story at New Scientist describes how, using
> cell simulation in computers, evolution can be
> simulated. How long until we can work out what
> the DNA sequence for a Dragon should be I
> wonder?
Here's a hint, Brainiac-5. Mythical creatures don't have DNA sequences. He could just as well have asked how long it would be until we'd worked out the DNA sequence for a city bus, Santa Claus, or an alien, but those would have made the joke significantly less funny.
And notably, the sheer arrogance of the slashdot poster (because obviously there's only one) is in fact quite believable, because unlike the dragon, there is quite a bit of recorded evidence of the slashdot poster. I believe in him/her and his/her arrogance. As well, I should annote, as yours. For that matter, as well as my own. Oh, and Tim's, from down the street.
Also, "sheer arrogance" itself is rather an arrogant thing to say. Ah, as is noting the arrogance of the phrase "sheer arrogance". So, while I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, I feel it important to display that I in fact revel in my arrogance, and therefore such accusations levelled at me will simply make my day.
You remind me of that guy who balked at the "moon is a ridiculous liberal myth" rape-post from the other day. Sit down and shut up until you grow a funny bone, or any other skeletal representation of humor.
> Or for those that are sadistic you can read
> Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black
> Hole Thermodynamics [amazon.com].
Why is it that people smart enough to handle space-time curvature effects on quantuum bogodynamics and so forth can never keep the difference between masochism and sadism straight in their heads?
Or is there some way in which my reading this positively head-thumping book is going to hurt someone else?
(stifles obvious joke about S/M, sex, and nerds never having any)
> is there really a need for the un-known step 2
> there?
Only if you want it to be a correct pop-culture reference.
Step 1, steal underwear. Etc. Watch more South Park.
> > A = A XOR B
:)
> > B = A XOR B
> > A = A XOR B
> > My data structures professor showed us that on
> > the first day of class. That got my respect.
>
> No wonder he's a teacher; only a teacher would
> gloat at a "clever" stupid trick like that; in a
> production environment, he'd be the first one to
> be shot, 'cause such kind of "clever" code is
> exactly why there are so many bugs in software
> nowadays, 'cause not all programmers will "get
> it".
Oh, malarky. The myth that teachers are those who cannot do will be dispelled the next time you try to teach something. It turns out to be quite a bit more difficult to explain a task you can do than to just do it, and you cannot explain something you cannot do.
However, I feel it important to note two things:
1) Nobody said that the teacher gloated. In fact, what the poster said was that *he* was impressed.
2) That's not particularly clever code. It's a neat idea, but the programmer which doesn't understand what that does on sight is not worth their paycheck.
That really reads like you read the comment from TPOP or a Scott Meyers book (actually, it matches my vague recollection of a Kernighan quote almost verbatim; there's a reason Ad Verecundiam is a fallacy, as it recalls the user's lack of comprehension; see Appendix A, first Koan, as regards Knight and the Lisp Machine.)
Whereas I am in agreement with the general sentiment that solid code which lacks the 5% performance boost for total obfuscation is a Good Thing, there is no question in my mind that the above is a simple, obvious, useful thing. Logic operations are usually the fastest operations on a chip, and I've yet to see a CPU that would complete three copies any faster than three logic ops; moreover, this saves on temporary variable space, which in turn saves time on allocation, etc.
The idea that the above is the source of bugs, rather than the failure to properly utilize the defense mechanisms of choice (things like data hiding, interfaces, and so forth), failure to sufficiently plan, test, and isolate code, and so forth is rankling to me. That's an ideal candidate for an inline swap function, and if you can't tell what a swap function with that code inside does, you really just shouldn't be a programmer.
And if you're not making that an inline function, you probably shouldn't be a C programmer.
> > Saying it will be defeated within 30 days. Any
;)
> > takers. Also, $25 saying it will be by a Russian.
>
> More like within 30 minutes. And it'll be a high
> school kid.
I'll put $50 that it's fifteen minutes, that it's a Russian highschool kid, and that nobody can drag this joke any further.
> How can you patent a bot making tool, when any
> decent programming language could be considered a
> bot making tool. Hell, I could write a bot in PHP
> if I were so sadistically inclined.
1) They are not patenting bot making tools. They are producing bot making tools. They are patenting bots which correspond via instant messenging services.
2) A programming language is different than a specific purpose toolkit in many ways. Consider writing a 3D game in C++ versus using OpenGL, Direct3D, or similar tools. Consider writing a production internet news service without a database server, a tcp/ip stack, or a template toolkit.
How the FUCK are you going to enforce a patent when prior art is both well-known and documented? Are these people retarded?
By getting lots of lawyers and swinging your wang at companies who don't have enough money to fight back. Knowingly swallowing a license to an invalid patent is usually quite a bit cheaper than fighting the patent.
Actually, it is. It's called Bust-a-move, and comes from '96 or so from the team that brought bubble bobble to light (actually, the game shares characters).
This means that Guillaume Cottenceau, who "designed" it, is a plagarist; that's a clear copy of Bust a Move '97, even down to the cute little creature shooting a shiny ball using a cannon that looks like it was made from a sextant.
Frozen-Bubble is plagirism like LTris and LBreakout2 [sourceforge.net] are plagirism. And Freeciv. And any other free game that takes a popular game and reproduces it for free...
Only if someone claims to be the game designer. Game design != game implementation. LTris had a good implementer, but the game designer was named Alexi.
This is important only to professional game designers, but nonetheless it is still galling. It would, I expect, be akin to an engineer's reaction if Dean Kamen had claimed to invent all parts within the Segway, rather than just the Segway itself - consider the Stirling engine, for example.
Game design is not trivial. Tetraminoes falling into a limited well with a difficult remove mechanism and ever-increasing speed is not an obvious design. I specifically named Guillame for a reason.
> That's great, but i'm still waiting for a
> flow-matic front-end
So get a Flobee.
: But Basic spoiled me. I was never an
: effective programmer since.
It's a shame you'd not heard of Dijkstra; he might have saved you, had you heard him say
It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
There were no better. I had the pleasure and privilege to meet and speak with him, albeit briefly, once; it's befuddling how much one man can change you in a ten minute chat.
Those who remember him mourn his loss.
> It might not be a classic, but...
Actually, it is. It's called Bust-a-move, and comes from '96 or so from the team that brought bubble bobble to light (actually, the game shares characters).
This means that Guillaume Cottenceau, who "designed" it, is a plagarist; that's a clear copy of Bust a Move '97, even down to the cute little creature shooting a shiny ball using a cannon that looks like it was made from a sextant.
I mean, remaking game functionality is one thing, but that's almost a carbon copy. Puff Daddy Software, Inc. would be embarrassed to release that.