I don't think Java is dying. It has more competition, sure, so it's not going to be some sort of monolithic entity.
It's also not the easiest language to learn compared to some and that means a lot of people may pass over it. So as more people get into programming they may go else where.
Java has done well and will continue as it's gets itself sorted out on the J2EE side which is a bit weak as there are far too many options and some require writing extra code just to get things to work together.
I did provide my biggest gripe about it. It's not that I can't find things. I can find everything I want in Sharepoint.
It's the fact it could be done much better and while the option should be there to customise it, the defaults should be better too. If I want to completely modify something and start writing huge chunks of code then I might as well get a free option that may even be initially lacking things because it's at least free so the cost is only in time not time and money.
More so when Sharepoint doesn't exactly output the best HTML or have the best CSS. Again, that can be tolerated if the only cost in sorting things is time or even if it's just money but when it costs time and money then it's not worth it, imo. IN fact I'm told it's not exactly that nice to customise.
I think you'll find a lot of people will agree the navigation is lacking. You might be able to steer a car with cats tied to your hands but that doesn't mean it's ideal and that more or less sums up my opinion of the navigation.
There is simply no reason someone should have to do two clicks to view all the documents in a workspace when the first click says documents....not top 10 documents or silly like that and it's certainly not that intuitive to move between workspaces.
Microsoft has always had poor interface design. Even when they copy others (mac) they manage to do it their own way which is not as good.
I think that is why Microsoft continues to fail when it comes to online products. This is the internet. They can't just block out the competition so easily. Even with making Live Search the default for IE7 they're still below google and Yahoo. When you have have bad UI design and a wealth of competition you can't win and that's been MS' story online. Sharepoint suffers this as well and it's quite expensive.
It's ok as a document management system but for that kinda of money I expect more than something that thinks it's cute to mimic File explorer. If I want to navigate my files that way, I could get a shared drive and just tell people to map it to their system.
I work in a company with hundreds of people and the company is very pro-MS with a lot of technologies yet I've still yet to meet one person that likes using it within the company. So whether my reason would be down to fanboyism or not, that is hardly the case with most other users I've talked to.
The biggest problem with it is that it doesn't seem to want you to find anything. The GUI is a mess and it requires too many clicks to get all the files to show under your section.
It also doesn't help it's not visually appealing and, while being functional in Firefox, it's best used under IE...big surprise there.
Like I want to have my data all in one place being secured by those buffoons.
Besides, I've been using Rsync.net for ages and have access to all the data I want access to from anywhere and there are no issues with it if I choose to use in on a non-MS Operating System.
Yes but something that suits the customer also suits the viewers of the site (if you want to actually help their brand) so in the end everyone should win.
That is true but the government allows them to do perfect the art form of screwing customers more than any other government aside, of course, from the most corrupt governments.
It's usually the inexperienced or bad web designers that let their company's marketing people come up with all the ideas and implement them like a robot whether they are good or bad. Or they're an inexperienced freelancer who just learned how to use Flash so he blows his wad with Flash everywhere until he's bored with it.
It's the good designers who take business rules and use cases and their knowledge of what works on the web and comes up with something to suit everyone.
Works can't compete against Open Office without ads. I can't believe anyone would be happy to have an ad based version.
And why would a company want to risk alienating customers with placing ads in a computer they just bought?
Having said that, the amount of BS pre-built computers have on them anyway and the fact consumers seem to enjoy getting half of the performance out of their machine they should get because of that leads me to believe customers won't care and would enjoy taking it up the back side from MS.
This is no surprise. On the subject of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray battle Gates said it doesn't matter because everything will move online soon.
The subscription model is shit. It's bad enough software companies get away with writing up EULAs that basically say everything will always be your fault and you can't even read it until you buy and open the software. But if you disagree and try to return it then you're labeled a thief. The whole software model is set up around fucking the consumer over and this just takes it one step further.
Why can't people realise this and start standing up for their rights rather than be a bunch of terrorist fearing sheep?
The problem is that the web requires more effort than TV to accommodate the blind. They're a small minority so people don't want to work on it and considering how much richer the web is going to get that software will have to be more advanced which means more expensive.
The fact is that magazines don't have to accommodate the blind and it's due to the cost and silliness of such a thing unlike TV where you just pay someone to sign language or describe what's happening on the screen.
I also think the problem is the responsibility of the handicap software developer and not the web developer. Any web developer that does his job decently will provide a site that should be pretty usable anyway and he should have to stop himself from using a bit of flash that might have text in it because a blind person might miss out.
We all know it sucks ass to blind. You have to live with it and realise you can't have everything perfectly packaged in some sort of blind man's alternative.
That is all well in good but if a handful of kids can get something (even if it is shit) then imagine what the parents could get if they actually pulled together and demanded those sort of things.
I'm more than happy to admit a lot of the problem lies with the parents as well as the individual.
But this constant finger pointing at the businesses (who, funnily enough, have the most money) is a load of BS. Yet people demand they do something about it.
Well they don't have time to wait for high schoolers to graduate high school and uni. So they import people.
If parents are happy that poor countries have a superior education system than they do then their kids will never be any better. That's their fault and in fact I think you'll find a lot of things are the fault of parents. They're mostly incompetent these days.
But the individual still has to want to do something and from my experience, the presence of a math class doesn't all of the sudden make girls want to be math geeks.
Your lady loses a lot of points for saying a Paris Hilton is inspiration for anything.
Microsoft can't pull out. Europe has excellent ties to upcoming nations. If they pulled out and Europe went Open Source or went with Apple then they risk China, India and other nations which huge populations doing the same.
America may think it's the centre of the universe but it's not and it's going to find that out quickly when the bottom of their economy falls out completely in the near future.
It's not like the US doesn't have double standards when it comes to international copyright and business protection. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on and I doubt the US would get any sympathy from other countries excepy maybe America Jr. (Canada).
The tech sector is the *least* racist sector ever. We're importing Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc to fill these jobs. Do they honestly think they don't want to give the jobs to local blacks or women?
No, you'll find women and blacks look up to their heroes like fiddy cent and Paris Hilton and aspire to have money but not do things like programming classes or taking trig and or Calc in high school. Women much rather marry an older man with money than work 12 hours a day in front of a computer.
They don't want to work for it, they obviously rather sit around and play video games and listen to rap so they won't work in the industry and the industry will end up importing other minorities who aren't so lazy.
Because I pointed out you should have a TV Licence already according to the authority and then stating my opinion that I think the iPlayer is the first step in BBC moving into web broadcasting so there is no debate as to whether computers count towards a TV licence?
I never said the current iPlayer is the reason for computer-only people needing a TV licence.
Ofcom wants to tax ISPs, ISPs want the BBC to pay up for bandwidth and it's quite reasonable to assume the BBC never meant for the iPlayer to simply be an archive of shows. All this points to the consumer getting screwed and I personally think it'll end up with us paying a significantly higher TV licence.
I originally stated "So if you do have a computer you still need to pay out." which means your computer not iPlayer.
The fact is I rarely touch my TV so if I thought selling it off would also mean I could ditch the TV licence then I would.
However, my computer, like anyone else's can access the live TV broadcasts on news.bbc.co.uk which include BBC News 24 or are you claiming that access to the same exact thing on TV as it happens is some how not a live TV broadcast?
So yes you should have a TV licence for your computer technically. Not because of the iplayer but the iPlayer will pushed in that direction because, imo, normal TV will be phased out anyway.
The article also states:
"With the BBC streaming more than 50 hours of World Cup football to UK internet users, the TV Licensing Authority says it is poised to target businesses that break the rules."
or this bit:
"Is this just about the World Cup?
No. The TV Licensing Authority says you need a licence to watch any TV station broadcasting within the UK on your computer."
So no it doesn't mean simply a TV card. Are you trying to tell me that live streams of the world cup or Prime Minister's questions or BBC New 24 is some how different to other streaming video?
All computers are capable of receiving what the TV Licencing authority classes as TV signals. The first quoted bit was virtually the first bit of the article. I'm not sure how you could miss it.
The article points out that if you watch something that appears on the TV, whether or not it's through a TV card then you need a licence.
This comes down to the whole argument of proving that someone actually watches the content that requires a TV Licence and since, like a TV you have the ability to watch the streams live then they'll count it. I would bet on that.
But as well I think iplayer will end up getting classed a new channel even if it only has repeats they'd article it's like all those "+1" channels.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Java is dying. It has more competition, sure, so it's not going to be some sort of monolithic entity.
It's also not the easiest language to learn compared to some and that means a lot of people may pass over it. So as more people get into programming they may go else where.
Java has done well and will continue as it's gets itself sorted out on the J2EE side which is a bit weak as there are far too many options and some require writing extra code just to get things to work together.
I did provide my biggest gripe about it. It's not that I can't find things. I can find everything I want in Sharepoint.
It's the fact it could be done much better and while the option should be there to customise it, the defaults should be better too. If I want to completely modify something and start writing huge chunks of code then I might as well get a free option that may even be initially lacking things because it's at least free so the cost is only in time not time and money.
More so when Sharepoint doesn't exactly output the best HTML or have the best CSS. Again, that can be tolerated if the only cost in sorting things is time or even if it's just money but when it costs time and money then it's not worth it, imo. IN fact I'm told it's not exactly that nice to customise.
I think you'll find a lot of people will agree the navigation is lacking. You might be able to steer a car with cats tied to your hands but that doesn't mean it's ideal and that more or less sums up my opinion of the navigation.
There is simply no reason someone should have to do two clicks to view all the documents in a workspace when the first click says documents....not top 10 documents or silly like that and it's certainly not that intuitive to move between workspaces.
Microsoft has always had poor interface design. Even when they copy others (mac) they manage to do it their own way which is not as good.
I think that is why Microsoft continues to fail when it comes to online products. This is the internet. They can't just block out the competition so easily. Even with making Live Search the default for IE7 they're still below google and Yahoo. When you have have bad UI design and a wealth of competition you can't win and that's been MS' story online. Sharepoint suffers this as well and it's quite expensive.
It's ok as a document management system but for that kinda of money I expect more than something that thinks it's cute to mimic File explorer. If I want to navigate my files that way, I could get a shared drive and just tell people to map it to their system.
I work in a company with hundreds of people and the company is very pro-MS with a lot of technologies yet I've still yet to meet one person that likes using it within the company. So whether my reason would be down to fanboyism or not, that is hardly the case with most other users I've talked to.
The biggest problem with it is that it doesn't seem to want you to find anything. The GUI is a mess and it requires too many clicks to get all the files to show under your section.
It also doesn't help it's not visually appealing and, while being functional in Firefox, it's best used under IE...big surprise there.
No Sharepoint isn't really the same and anyone forced to use Sharepoint will agree it's pretty shit.
Like I want to have my data all in one place being secured by those buffoons.
Besides, I've been using Rsync.net for ages and have access to all the data I want access to from anywhere and there are no issues with it if I choose to use in on a non-MS Operating System.
People should get it for free since they're clearly helping them ready vista for completion.
Mind you even for free I wouldn't taint my system with that crap. Ballmer is a tit.
Yes but something that suits the customer also suits the viewers of the site (if you want to actually help their brand) so in the end everyone should win.
That is true but the government allows them to do perfect the art form of screwing customers more than any other government aside, of course, from the most corrupt governments.
No, I've never found Dilbert to be funny. So this redesign is no big loss for me.
Wrong.
It's usually the inexperienced or bad web designers that let their company's marketing people come up with all the ideas and implement them like a robot whether they are good or bad. Or they're an inexperienced freelancer who just learned how to use Flash so he blows his wad with Flash everywhere until he's bored with it.
It's the good designers who take business rules and use cases and their knowledge of what works on the web and comes up with something to suit everyone.
A country like America with so many resources and so much wealth can't do what a little country like Japan can do?
Is it any wonder no one wants to buy American? Companies are just out to screw people rather than earning more money by giving them what they want.
Works can't compete against Open Office without ads. I can't believe anyone would be happy to have an ad based version.
And why would a company want to risk alienating customers with placing ads in a computer they just bought?
Having said that, the amount of BS pre-built computers have on them anyway and the fact consumers seem to enjoy getting half of the performance out of their machine they should get because of that leads me to believe customers won't care and would enjoy taking it up the back side from MS.
That is true but I can't afford an IBM X300 at the moment and it'll last me long enough for my bus ride so I'll be purchasing it.
This is no surprise. On the subject of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray battle Gates said it doesn't matter because everything will move online soon. The subscription model is shit. It's bad enough software companies get away with writing up EULAs that basically say everything will always be your fault and you can't even read it until you buy and open the software. But if you disagree and try to return it then you're labeled a thief. The whole software model is set up around fucking the consumer over and this just takes it one step further. Why can't people realise this and start standing up for their rights rather than be a bunch of terrorist fearing sheep?
I'd still rather have the Linux version with an extra 8 gig of memory.
The problem is that the web requires more effort than TV to accommodate the blind. They're a small minority so people don't want to work on it and considering how much richer the web is going to get that software will have to be more advanced which means more expensive.
The fact is that magazines don't have to accommodate the blind and it's due to the cost and silliness of such a thing unlike TV where you just pay someone to sign language or describe what's happening on the screen.
I also think the problem is the responsibility of the handicap software developer and not the web developer. Any web developer that does his job decently will provide a site that should be pretty usable anyway and he should have to stop himself from using a bit of flash that might have text in it because a blind person might miss out.
We all know it sucks ass to blind. You have to live with it and realise you can't have everything perfectly packaged in some sort of blind man's alternative.
That is all well in good but if a handful of kids can get something (even if it is shit) then imagine what the parents could get if they actually pulled together and demanded those sort of things.
I'm more than happy to admit a lot of the problem lies with the parents as well as the individual.
But this constant finger pointing at the businesses (who, funnily enough, have the most money) is a load of BS. Yet people demand they do something about it.
Well they don't have time to wait for high schoolers to graduate high school and uni. So they import people.
If parents are happy that poor countries have a superior education system than they do then their kids will never be any better. That's their fault and in fact I think you'll find a lot of things are the fault of parents. They're mostly incompetent these days.
But the individual still has to want to do something and from my experience, the presence of a math class doesn't all of the sudden make girls want to be math geeks.
Your lady loses a lot of points for saying a Paris Hilton is inspiration for anything.
Microsoft can't pull out. Europe has excellent ties to upcoming nations. If they pulled out and Europe went Open Source or went with Apple then they risk China, India and other nations which huge populations doing the same.
America may think it's the centre of the universe but it's not and it's going to find that out quickly when the bottom of their economy falls out completely in the near future.
It's not like the US doesn't have double standards when it comes to international copyright and business protection. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on and I doubt the US would get any sympathy from other countries excepy maybe America Jr. (Canada).
The tech sector is the *least* racist sector ever. We're importing Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc to fill these jobs. Do they honestly think they don't want to give the jobs to local blacks or women?
No, you'll find women and blacks look up to their heroes like fiddy cent and Paris Hilton and aspire to have money but not do things like programming classes or taking trig and or Calc in high school. Women much rather marry an older man with money than work 12 hours a day in front of a computer.
They don't want to work for it, they obviously rather sit around and play video games and listen to rap so they won't work in the industry and the industry will end up importing other minorities who aren't so lazy.
How so?
Because I pointed out you should have a TV Licence already according to the authority and then stating my opinion that I think the iPlayer is the first step in BBC moving into web broadcasting so there is no debate as to whether computers count towards a TV licence?
I never said the current iPlayer is the reason for computer-only people needing a TV licence.
Ofcom wants to tax ISPs, ISPs want the BBC to pay up for bandwidth and it's quite reasonable to assume the BBC never meant for the iPlayer to simply be an archive of shows. All this points to the consumer getting screwed and I personally think it'll end up with us paying a significantly higher TV licence.
I originally stated "So if you do have a computer you still need to pay out." which means your computer not iPlayer.
The fact is I rarely touch my TV so if I thought selling it off would also mean I could ditch the TV licence then I would.
However, my computer, like anyone else's can access the live TV broadcasts on news.bbc.co.uk which include BBC News 24 or are you claiming that access to the same exact thing on TV as it happens is some how not a live TV broadcast?
So yes you should have a TV licence for your computer technically. Not because of the iplayer but the iPlayer will pushed in that direction because, imo, normal TV will be phased out anyway.
Did you even read the link or do you have poor comprehension?
The article also states:
"With the BBC streaming more than 50 hours of World Cup football to UK internet users, the TV Licensing Authority says it is poised to target businesses that break the rules."
or this bit:
"Is this just about the World Cup?
No. The TV Licensing Authority says you need a licence to watch any TV station broadcasting within the UK on your computer."
So no it doesn't mean simply a TV card. Are you trying to tell me that live streams of the world cup or Prime Minister's questions or BBC New 24 is some how different to other streaming video?
All computers are capable of receiving what the TV Licencing authority classes as TV signals. The first quoted bit was virtually the first bit of the article. I'm not sure how you could miss it.
While you might be able to fight and possible get out of it the fact is the BBC sees it another way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5081350.stm
The article points out that if you watch something that appears on the TV, whether or not it's through a TV card then you need a licence.
This comes down to the whole argument of proving that someone actually watches the content that requires a TV Licence and since, like a TV you have the ability to watch the streams live then they'll count it. I would bet on that.
But as well I think iplayer will end up getting classed a new channel even if it only has repeats they'd article it's like all those "+1" channels.