I've seen studies that indicate that wealthier people tend to have more sex than poorer people. Its ridiculous to talk about genetic selection factors in the short term (a few hundred years of industrialization) anyway.
Not to really disagree, but this whole Evolutionary Biology angle is vastly overplayed in online discussions. Biology is not the reason you can't get laid.
Beleive it or not, women actually do make practical considerations about: - Is this guy going to be good in the sack? - Can he afford to take me out? - Is he going to turn into a deranged stalker?
And those sorts of rational considerations have a lot more immediate relevance than WE MAKE UM STRONG BABBY.
It's also worth noting that the self-described "nice guy" is generally not nice at all and is considered a creep.
Neither would I, but I just wanted to comment that it's highly unlikely OGG Thedora will be around in any substantial sense in 20 years. Yes it's 'open' and all, but its not widely used and will very likely be replaced at some point by some other OSS flavor of the week.
Actually it seems to generate all the HTML (not sure if that's what the grandparent meant by 'code'), including re-implementing standard browser widgets.
Just taking a glace at it, I agree that it would be difficult to integrate sproutcore with an exisitng web app, its really an entirely different approach.
I'm sure in some cases corps did use plain text, but Lotus cc:Mail was rich text, Lotus Notes was rich text, and Microsoft Mail was rich text. That covers about 80% of the pre-internet corporate mail market.
Also HTML mail has been around for about 15 years now, its clearly here to stay, so maybe you should get comfortable with that.
Pre roughly 1995, the corporate mail market was dominated mostly by IBM/Lotus with Microsoft and others having smaller shares. Most of these systems were not based on internet protocols so MIME and Base64 had no real relevance except at the gateway.
Who did it first is probably irrelevant, but the point is that rich-text corporate mail systems were long established at the time internet mail was still operating on the pre-Netscape plaintext mentality.
Email is text messaging...it wasn't originally meant to be marked up, it was to be read as simple plain text. That is of course untrue.
While you were typing out plaintext email on your student PINE terminal account, corporations were using mail systems that supported rich text and pictures and so on.
Yep:) The usenet providers that carry those big binaries are basically in the warez business, so they have no reason to cap their own pay-by-the-gigabyte customers.
I don't think technical merits have much to do with Usenet dying.I don't think technical merits have much to do with Usenet dying.
If Usenet had a method of moderating posts after the fact, it might be still alive. The average internet user nowdays has zero tolerance for usenet-style antics.
Not to mention the rest of Usenet's technical standards are completely archaic. Someone had a sig around here that said "7-bit hard-wrapped text is not a sign of intelligent life"
Before, they transfered all of the news articles Once, using internet bandwidth once, from their upstream new servers to their own.
Now, all of their users will be transferring news articles from the internet to them, each one taking their share of bandwidth from the internet pipes. That assumes they have more than one customer downloading the same binaries, which given the wasteland of usenet is frankly not all that likely.
Its not like most ISPs ever carried the heavy video/mp3 groups in the first place either.
What Google could do, and nobody else can (AFAICT) is provide accurate user targeting versus simply targeting sites. They know most of the search terms and they've got bugs everywhere on the internet.
While that might not give them a monopoly on the entire intenret ad market, they certainly do have a gigantic strategic advantage over any competitors.
But it really doesn't even matter to what extent Google controls this. For Microsoft's purposes, any other big players in the IT market will reduce the anti-trust regulatory pressure.
Since no one has any pricing or support window information about snow leopard, why do you think you can offer any advice on the topic and not look like an idiot?
Blaming the vendor really only works if you brought in an army of consultants first, and even then it reflects poorly on the management that brought them in.
As a practical matter, I've noticed that IT tends to congregate around their vendors, so you'll have a Microsoft group and a Novell group and a Unix group and so on. People in these groups usually realize that they need to defend their vendor at all costs or the other groups will steal their budgets. So there's very little practical impetus to blame the vendor unless everything's really gone to hell.
What vendors are really good for, politically, is stalling. "RedHat says this feature will be in the next version!", or "We've filed a bug!". But if you just downloaded it from the internet, you don't have this sort of cover.
How about Grand Central and ZFS? Aren't those features? Likewise, would support for OpenCL and additional GPGPU support not count as a new feature? Grand Central, OpenCL, and GPGPU support would be useful for people running compute workstations. ZFS for people with servers or large arrays. "For the rest of us"? Hmm, probably never use any of it.
Finally, you wouldn't pay for a faster system? Isn't that the whole point of a CPU upgrade? Its extremely unlikely that this would provide anything close to a moore's law-style improvement in performance, or even anything most people would notice. Sounds like benchmarketing to me.
Your position in the reply chain makes it look as if you are defending this:
I think its insulting to only want to pay $20 for something which will provide current Intel machines with a refinement of OSX's technologies.
If that is not in fact your belief, then I apologize for strawmanning you, but when you jump into a pricing discussion claiming people don't understand exactly how awesome these narrow-market features are, then what else is the reader supposed to assume?
(And for the record, my gut instinct is free download or something along those lines. I don't think Apple will charge for it.)
What I do see is end users rightfully objecting that they should pay for narrow-market SDK/developer features that may or may not ever be useful to the end-user. The average Safari/iTunes/Word user has zero use for any of this stuff.
Of course, if Microsoft suggested that users should buy an upgrade to get the.NET 3.0 SDK, the internet would explode with universal outrage. Without the "Defend Everything Apple Does Or Might Do" crowd, this would be a pretty boring discussion.
The historical example I was thinking of was how IBM escaped the Justice department by pointing at the burgeoning PC market. PCs were a great advancement, but IBM still monopolizes the mainframe segment to this day.
I'm not entirely surprised that so many people here are willing to accept a Google monopoly on the grounds that Microsoft was once convicted of being a monopolist in the OS market. Plus, if Google monopolizes internet advertising, it will just provide an excuse for Microsoft to escape anti-trust regulation in the OS/desktop market.
"Users are dumb", so let's make it even easier to rape dumb users! Yeah that makes perfect sense.
Even aside from the security aspects, Safari's UI behavior is just stupid. Users can sit there pounding on a "Download" link with absolutely zero visual confirmation that something is actually happening. Love to see where that's spelled out in Apple's HIG.
(Also forgot that this is the default behavior of Firefox (it can be turned off), and yes the social-engineering aspect is equally a problem there too.)
Slashdot Mirror
> Affluent, wealthy people reproduce less
I've seen studies that indicate that wealthier people tend to have more sex than poorer people. Its ridiculous to talk about genetic selection factors in the short term (a few hundred years of industrialization) anyway.
Not to really disagree, but this whole Evolutionary Biology angle is vastly overplayed in online discussions. Biology is not the reason you can't get laid.
Beleive it or not, women actually do make practical considerations about:
- Is this guy going to be good in the sack?
- Can he afford to take me out?
- Is he going to turn into a deranged stalker?
And those sorts of rational considerations have a lot more immediate relevance than WE MAKE UM STRONG BABBY.
It's also worth noting that the self-described "nice guy" is generally not nice at all and is considered a creep.
Neither would I, but I just wanted to comment that it's highly unlikely OGG Thedora will be around in any substantial sense in 20 years. Yes it's 'open' and all, but its not widely used and will very likely be replaced at some point by some other OSS flavor of the week.
And, since then, Safari for Windows came out.
Actually it seems to generate all the HTML (not sure if that's what the grandparent meant by 'code'), including re-implementing standard browser widgets.
Just taking a glace at it, I agree that it would be difficult to integrate sproutcore with an exisitng web app, its really an entirely different approach.
Actually if you look at the (very minimal) docs on sproutcore.com, it runs out of a Rails app server.
But otherwise it looks like a front-end toolkit, so its not clear to me how much it actually depends on RoR.
Very much doubt there's a magic bullet for multithreading. Future performance-sensitive apps might hit the market quicker with this though.
I'm sure in some cases corps did use plain text, but Lotus cc:Mail was rich text, Lotus Notes was rich text, and Microsoft Mail was rich text. That covers about 80% of the pre-internet corporate mail market.
Also HTML mail has been around for about 15 years now, its clearly here to stay, so maybe you should get comfortable with that.
Pre roughly 1995, the corporate mail market was dominated mostly by IBM/Lotus with Microsoft and others having smaller shares. Most of these systems were not based on internet protocols so MIME and Base64 had no real relevance except at the gateway.
Who did it first is probably irrelevant, but the point is that rich-text corporate mail systems were long established at the time internet mail was still operating on the pre-Netscape plaintext mentality.
While you were typing out plaintext email on your student PINE terminal account, corporations were using mail systems that supported rich text and pictures and so on.
> I haven't used Usenet for a long time
:) The usenet providers that carry those big binaries are basically in the warez business, so they have no reason to cap their own pay-by-the-gigabyte customers.
Yep
I don't think technical merits have much to do with Usenet dying.I don't think technical merits have much to do with Usenet dying.
If Usenet had a method of moderating posts after the fact, it might be still alive. The average internet user nowdays has zero tolerance for usenet-style antics.
Not to mention the rest of Usenet's technical standards are completely archaic. Someone had a sig around here that said "7-bit hard-wrapped text is not a sign of intelligent life"
Now, all of their users will be transferring news articles from the internet to them, each one taking their share of bandwidth from the internet pipes. That assumes they have more than one customer downloading the same binaries, which given the wasteland of usenet is frankly not all that likely.
Its not like most ISPs ever carried the heavy video/mp3 groups in the first place either.
What Google could do, and nobody else can (AFAICT) is provide accurate user targeting versus simply targeting sites. They know most of the search terms and they've got bugs everywhere on the internet.
While that might not give them a monopoly on the entire intenret ad market, they certainly do have a gigantic strategic advantage over any competitors.
But it really doesn't even matter to what extent Google controls this. For Microsoft's purposes, any other big players in the IT market will reduce the anti-trust regulatory pressure.
Since no one has any pricing or support window information about snow leopard, why do you think you can offer any advice on the topic and not look like an idiot?
Blaming the vendor really only works if you brought in an army of consultants first, and even then it reflects poorly on the management that brought them in.
As a practical matter, I've noticed that IT tends to congregate around their vendors, so you'll have a Microsoft group and a Novell group and a Unix group and so on. People in these groups usually realize that they need to defend their vendor at all costs or the other groups will steal their budgets. So there's very little practical impetus to blame the vendor unless everything's really gone to hell.
What vendors are really good for, politically, is stalling. "RedHat says this feature will be in the next version!", or "We've filed a bug!". But if you just downloaded it from the internet, you don't have this sort of cover.
For what reason do you think that you would see performance boosts like that in anything except micro-benchmarks?
> What makes you think that anyone is going to force people to buy Snow Leopard?
I don't, and I'm not making any assumptions at all, but that's the general gist of this thread. And of course I run OS X.
Your position in the reply chain makes it look as if you are defending this:
I think its insulting to only want to pay $20 for something which will provide current Intel machines with a refinement of OSX's technologies.
If that is not in fact your belief, then I apologize for strawmanning you, but when you jump into a pricing discussion claiming people don't understand exactly how awesome these narrow-market features are, then what else is the reader supposed to assume?
(And for the record, my gut instinct is free download or something along those lines. I don't think Apple will charge for it.)
I don't see any "common failure to understand".
.NET 3.0 SDK, the internet would explode with universal outrage. Without the "Defend Everything Apple Does Or Might Do" crowd, this would be a pretty boring discussion.
What I do see is end users rightfully objecting that they should pay for narrow-market SDK/developer features that may or may not ever be useful to the end-user. The average Safari/iTunes/Word user has zero use for any of this stuff.
Of course, if Microsoft suggested that users should buy an upgrade to get the
The historical example I was thinking of was how IBM escaped the Justice department by pointing at the burgeoning PC market. PCs were a great advancement, but IBM still monopolizes the mainframe segment to this day.
Nah, I stripped my Firefox bare of extensions and it still was bloating up like crazy.
I really don't have a clue why this happens, but I blame YouTube. (And Firefox's dumb single-process design)
"Users are dumb", so let's make it even easier to rape dumb users! Yeah that makes perfect sense.
Even aside from the security aspects, Safari's UI behavior is just stupid. Users can sit there pounding on a "Download" link with absolutely zero visual confirmation that something is actually happening. Love to see where that's spelled out in Apple's HIG.
(Also forgot that this is the default behavior of Firefox (it can be turned off), and yes the social-engineering aspect is equally a problem there too.)