When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth.
No it mustn't. Whatever remains must just be possible - which isn't the same thing as "the truth" at all!
Since you know "no accent" is impossible, but "no foreign accent" is possible, then why assume the impossible and ridicule it, rather than taking the reasonable reading of it where "foreign" is assumed?
Because "no accent" is what was said, not "no foreign accent". If we're not discussing what's actually written, why not why not assume it meant "no Russian accent"?
Foreign developers who are as good as you or better than you will not do your job for a fraction of the cost. They would simply migrate to a place where they get paid well for their work.
That's ok in theory, but it assumes that they can migrate - and if there's no shortage of programmers there, because all the work's been outsourced to where they come from, they probably won't get a visa.
That doesn't explain how you can speak Russian with no accent. It's impossible to speak any language without an accent. It doesn't matter what language you're speaking, the only people who think you haven't got an accent are the ones who speak with the same accent.
Although they don't really exist any more, i've never forgiven Compaq (the worst computer manufacturer in the world) for buying up and killing off DEC (Digital Equipment Corp - at that time, the best computer manufacturer in the world).
My main complaint about laptops is their short lifespan.
I've never had one last longer than 3 years[......]
My first notebook - a Digital HiNote, bought in 1995 - lasted me for about 9 years, and then was passed on to my brother who used it as a router for a year or two more. Admittedly, only having 12MB RAM, it wasn't up to running a lot of the resource intensive GUI software that was around towards the end of its life. It ran Linux from the outset.
My second notebook, an IBM Thinkpad, was secondhand when i bought it and it was about 7 years old by the time i passed it on to my nephew.
I can't figure out from that article why they would have been worse off with representation.
Er... I didn't even read the article really, before i linked to it! But i did follow the case while it was going. Apart from anything else, they would have been much worse off financially because they would have had to pay a vast amount for representation over what was the longest running trial in English history. If they'd been represented, it probably would have become financially impossible to continue with it for that long.
But there was also a definite PR benefit from being unrepresented and standing up to the might of a multi-national corporation. And, ultimately, the case was a total fiasco for McDonalds - even though they initially "won" most of it.
Really? Cool beans! But doesn't anyone who represent themselves have a fool for a client?;)
Not necessarily. Sometimes it's massively advantageous to represent yourself. A very good example is the so-called "McLibel" case, where Helen Steel and Dave Morris defended themselves against a libel action by McDonalds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_Restaurants_v._Morris_%26_Steel. They would have come out of it much worse off (financially and legally, probably) if they'd had representation.
We're lucky here in Australia - or at least in the states that i know about - because we have small claims (or equivalent) tribunals. The rules of evidence don't apply and the parties aren't necessarily allowed representation by a lawyer (particularly if the other party can argue convincingly that it would disadvantage them - which shouldn't be too hard).
In all courts, however, the judge (or equivalent) has an obligation to assist anyone who's representing themselves.
And of course HTML is not always HTML... neither is JavaScript (browser variations).
That's not true. There are a tiny handful of things that require some sort of workaround for IE6. But, apart from that, if you structure your html properly it will work in all browsers. Javascript is remarkably standard across browsers (again with a tiny handful of exceptions).
It's the DOM implementation that varies from browser to browser - but even that's not a massive obstacle in most cases, so long as you know what you're doing.
It's true... the web has set computing back 30 years.
Ha ha! You clearly weren't programming 30 years ago! I was - in assembly language - and i can assure you that even the crappiest web app is way way ahead of what was happening 30 years ago!
I don't agree that it's really hard. If i were to judge from the vast sea of complaints about it, rather than my own experience, i would think it was hard.
But i suspect that most people who find web development hard are approaching it in the wrong way. If they stopped being so preoccupied with how hard it is and focussed on finding ways to make it work as smoothly as possible, they might find it's not so hard at all.
When it is hard is when you have to fix up someone else's sloppy work.
One thing that helps is writing a CSS style sheet that wipes the browser default styles and then allows you to start from a common base. But people shouldn't have to do that and add one more file to request. Imo, browsers shouldn't apply any styling.
Yeah, but they do, so there's no point getting frustrated with it, cos it ain't going to change. The fix is as simple as adding a few lines to the top of your stylesheet - there's no need for having another file to request.
Worse, different environments behave in slightly different ways, meaning that a piece of code that worked in Safari might not work in IE. (Okay, WILL not work. Happy?)
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not remarkable that some (actually very few) things don't work across different environments - what is remarkable is that so much of it does work across browsers. And, as in everything in life, there's always a way to do what you want to do - so long as you're smart enough to find it.
Even for excellent software developers, web development is difficult. It's not the concepts that are difficult, per se, but rather the jumble of half-backed hacks that make up ever layer of the web stack.
You have a choice - either do a good job with the tools available (which is possible and there are lots of examples around the web), or do a poor job while you whinge and moan about what's stopping you from doing a good job.
As they old saying goes, bad craftsmen have a tendency to blame their tools.
Actually, having done some web development, I'd like to see some actual refutation of the parent post instead of just some implied snarkiness that the poster must be an idiot because you disagree with him.
It's pretty difficult to refute something that's just a bunch of opinions without any supporting examples or evidence. All you can really do is reply "that's not true" to each one. I've done quite a bit of web development over the years and, mostly, i think they're not really true. However, i believe it's the poster's genuine opinions, rather than a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
AC's working for Cisco now???
She's also a dirty lesbian.
I dunno why that bothers you - even if she wasn't she wouldn't fancy you anyway!
It was a joke!
Which do you mean by Americans? North, Central or South?
It's pushing it to expect a non-american to know the difference.
It's pushing it to expect Americans to know *anything* about the other side of the world.
It's pushing to expect Americans to know there is another side of the world.
Never before have there been so many netizens in prison in countries such as China, Vietnam, and Iran for expressing their views freely online.
That's mainly because never before have there been so many "netizens". There's been repression in all of these countries for a very long time now.
When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth.
No it mustn't. Whatever remains must just be possible - which isn't the same thing as "the truth" at all!
Since you know "no accent" is impossible, but "no foreign accent" is possible, then why assume the impossible and ridicule it, rather than taking the reasonable reading of it where "foreign" is assumed?
Because "no accent" is what was said, not "no foreign accent". If we're not discussing what's actually written, why not why not assume it meant "no Russian accent"?
Foreign developers who are as good as you or better than you will not do your job for a fraction of the cost. They would simply migrate to a place where they get paid well for their work.
That's ok in theory, but it assumes that they can migrate - and if there's no shortage of programmers there, because all the work's been outsourced to where they come from, they probably won't get a visa.
That doesn't explain how you can speak Russian with no accent. It's impossible to speak any language without an accent. It doesn't matter what language you're speaking, the only people who think you haven't got an accent are the ones who speak with the same accent.
Although they don't really exist any more, i've never forgiven Compaq (the worst computer manufacturer in the world) for buying up and killing off DEC (Digital Equipment Corp - at that time, the best computer manufacturer in the world).
My main complaint about laptops is their short lifespan.
I've never had one last longer than 3 years[......]
My first notebook - a Digital HiNote, bought in 1995 - lasted me for about 9 years, and then was passed on to my brother who used it as a router for a year or two more. Admittedly, only having 12MB RAM, it wasn't up to running a lot of the resource intensive GUI software that was around towards the end of its life. It ran Linux from the outset.
My second notebook, an IBM Thinkpad, was secondhand when i bought it and it was about 7 years old by the time i passed it on to my nephew.
It was a PR disaster for McDonalds at the time.
Er... I didn't even read the article really, before i linked to it! But i did follow the case while it was going. Apart from anything else, they would have been much worse off financially because they would have had to pay a vast amount for representation over what was the longest running trial in English history. If they'd been represented, it probably would have become financially impossible to continue with it for that long.
But there was also a definite PR benefit from being unrepresented and standing up to the might of a multi-national corporation. And, ultimately, the case was a total fiasco for McDonalds - even though they initially "won" most of it.
The full story's here http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/story.html
Not necessarily. Sometimes it's massively advantageous to represent yourself. A very good example is the so-called "McLibel" case, where Helen Steel and Dave Morris defended themselves against a libel action by McDonalds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_Restaurants_v._Morris_%26_Steel. They would have come out of it much worse off (financially and legally, probably) if they'd had representation.
We're lucky here in Australia - or at least in the states that i know about - because we have small claims (or equivalent) tribunals. The rules of evidence don't apply and the parties aren't necessarily allowed representation by a lawyer (particularly if the other party can argue convincingly that it would disadvantage them - which shouldn't be too hard).
In all courts, however, the judge (or equivalent) has an obligation to assist anyone who's representing themselves.
That's not true. There are a tiny handful of things that require some sort of workaround for IE6. But, apart from that, if you structure your html properly it will work in all browsers. Javascript is remarkably standard across browsers (again with a tiny handful of exceptions).
It's the DOM implementation that varies from browser to browser - but even that's not a massive obstacle in most cases, so long as you know what you're doing.
Ha ha! You clearly weren't programming 30 years ago! I was - in assembly language - and i can assure you that even the crappiest web app is way way ahead of what was happening 30 years ago!
I don't agree that it's really hard. If i were to judge from the vast sea of complaints about it, rather than my own experience, i would think it was hard.
But i suspect that most people who find web development hard are approaching it in the wrong way. If they stopped being so preoccupied with how hard it is and focussed on finding ways to make it work as smoothly as possible, they might find it's not so hard at all.
When it is hard is when you have to fix up someone else's sloppy work.
Yeah, but they do, so there's no point getting frustrated with it, cos it ain't going to change. The fix is as simple as adding a few lines to the top of your stylesheet - there's no need for having another file to request.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not remarkable that some (actually very few) things don't work across different environments - what is remarkable is that so much of it does work across browsers. And, as in everything in life, there's always a way to do what you want to do - so long as you're smart enough to find it.
intuitiveness is in the eye of the beholder.
You have a choice - either do a good job with the tools available (which is possible and there are lots of examples around the web), or do a poor job while you whinge and moan about what's stopping you from doing a good job.
As they old saying goes, bad craftsmen have a tendency to blame their tools.
It's pretty difficult to refute something that's just a bunch of opinions without any supporting examples or evidence. All you can really do is reply "that's not true" to each one. I've done quite a bit of web development over the years and, mostly, i think they're not really true. However, i believe it's the poster's genuine opinions, rather than a troll.
not any more, you haven't!
Nah...
1) Join the union .......
2) Tell the boss to get fucked
3)
4) Profit
I hope you're not a programmer then!