Speaking as a programmer, I'd ask him what exactly he expected me to do with the piece of paper. But then perhaps I've been spoilt; while I can (of course) do HTML, CSS, etc, we have people dedicated to that sort of thing. Just as you wouldn't want me admining live servers (although I *can*), you don't want me (or any other programmer) creating the HTML from scratch.
HTML mockups, whether hand-coded or bastardised together in something like Dreamweaver, are too much like hard work. I've also found that if you email them, or put them up on a site for users to look at, people forget that these are mockups and bitch about the things that don't work yet.
On my current project, we had an interface developer create an HTML "demonstrator" - essentially, a non-functioning HTML mockup of the site. You could click through a single, typical use case, and it showed you how things would look.
The client loved it - it really gave them a feel for how it would look, how it would work, etc. It also gave them a powerful tool to get buy-in from their sponsors and other stakeholders, who had been somewhat sceptical at first.
However, it was a lot of work. Also, some people did expect rather too much of it, expecting some dynamic stuff (such as sorting of search results) to work. Yes, we could have mocked it up, but the amount of work involved would quickly have become unmanagable. One particular person on the client team was also an absolute stickler for realism of the data, yet refused to provide representative samples (real data couldn't be used, as it's classified); this burnt more time than was necessary.
On the other hand, when it came time to actually build the site, the HTML was already done. All that remained was to tidy it up a bit, slice it up into templates and integrate it with the code.
All in all, it was a useful exercise both for us and for the client, but it was also a time consuming and at times painful one. It's definitely not something I'd recommend for every project.
Heh - an acceptable set of features at a price I can afford without blinking, or an excellent set of features (many of which I'll probably never use in that environment) at a price I can't really afford.
I'd love a media PC; right now, I can neither afford it nor justify the cost. Being the sole wage earner for a family of three is expensive.
they won't get anything out of them other than the typical office-worker knowledge, which isn't very deep or useful
It might not be very deep, but it's pretty bloody useful for someone who is or will be a typical office worker. Not everyone is destined to be an IT geek; not everyone needs to know how computers work to that level of detail.
Sure, I was hacking Z80 assembler at that age on my ZX Spectrum, but that's not for everyone. Those that want to experiment will find a way to; those that don't shouldn't be pushed into it.
How so? We use Eclipse at my company, and unless I missed something, I don't recall it forcing me to do anything. I essentially use it as a glorified text editor with built-in debugger & CVS support.
I believe that was the OP's point - it wasn't RAID's fault that the data was toasted, it was this guy's fault for believing that RAID could do something that it can't.
And hiding their browsing history is a major modus operandi for them to continue their behavior.
You need a special browser for that? You can't just tell IE, FF or Opera to clear out its cache, history, etc when you finish? You can't just configure FF to do it automatically?
You can't just create yourself a user account and not tell your spouse the password?
Besides which, they're clearly doing it now; I don't see that a new browser that makes it a little bit easier is going to change anything.
I'm asking whether or not building such tools is the most excellent way to conduct ourselves.
As opposed to what? Trying to force our own moral standards on those around us?
If you really are concerned about all these poor, helpless men who are ruining their lives and their relationships, set up a helpline/counselling service, or donate to an existing one. This browser is largely irrelevant.
I've not used IE7, but I did use FF2b1, and it too was unsuably slow. I appreciate that optimisations haven't been put in place, it's compiled with debug symbols, etc, but it was slow enough (on a 3GHz P4 with 2gig of RAM) that I simply couldn't use it.
Well, I'm in the UK so I can't vouch for your bulbs, but I have personally had CFL bulbs last far in excess of 2 years - there's one in my house right now that's been there since I bought it, about 6 years ago, and it's still going strong.
which has never been shown to be harmful or addictive
On the contrary, there have been a good many studies that have shown just that; the problem is that there have also been a lot of studies that have shown the opposite. About the best you can say is that the jury is still out on the matter.
If you have 2GB of memory, you likely have an equally compensating-for-something hard drive
I have 2gig of RAM, and do indeed have a compensating-for-something hard drive - it's compensating for the fact that in my previous machine I was forever running out of space. As it is, I have 500GB worth of disk space, of which a little over half is used. If I maintain usage at this rate, it'll be full by about Feb next year...
Why do folks still buy copies of Shakespeare's plays
Personally, it's because reading it on my monitor utterly sucks compared to reading it in book form, and to have the book, I must buy it. Until we have ebook readers that I find acceptable, that isn't going to change, for me at least.
The situaiton is entirely different for music; there, I couldn't care less about its physical manifestation, as it sounds identical to my ears.
None of which has anything to do with the original claim that DX10 and Office will likely only work in the upper-end versions of Vista, which is an utterly ridiculous idea, as lack of those two would almost completely kill the crippled versions. Corporates wouldn't buy them as Office wouldn't work, and home users wouldn't buy them as games and multimedia wouldn't work.
"Can't" or "shouldn't"? I bought an OEM copy of XP Pro a couple of years ago, and it installed and runs just fine after a complete upgrade to the machine - the only things that are original are the monitor and the case.
Unfortunately, the only downloads I see on that site are for videos of the engine in action. I also note that they quote speeds of 20FPS on a virtual CPU running at 36GHz... Add to that the fact that the site hasn't been updated since mid-2005, and I'd say it's dead.
You can in fact replace Explorer as the desktop shell. There are a few companies that sell such replacements, and a couple of people/groups produce free (and Free) ones. I believe that there is also a version of Windows (planned?) that does not run with a GUI by default.
Since when is not supporting a given operating system discrimination?
No-one has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to support any given OS. It sucks for users of that OS, but that's life. If you disagree with a company's stand on this matter, let them know - politely - and consider not doing business with them. But don't try to turn this into some grand moral outrage, because it really isn't.
Depending on the circumstances, stabbing or cutting yourself may see you commited to psychiatric care in a hospital against your will - the medical equivalent, in a way, of being jailed.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as a programmer, I'd ask him what exactly he expected me to do with the piece of paper. But then perhaps I've been spoilt; while I can (of course) do HTML, CSS, etc, we have people dedicated to that sort of thing. Just as you wouldn't want me admining live servers (although I *can*), you don't want me (or any other programmer) creating the HTML from scratch.
Well, I moved off Linux and on to Windows 3 years ago, and you're one more useless Linux troll to ignore.
HTML mockups, whether hand-coded or bastardised together in something like Dreamweaver, are too much like hard work. I've also found that if you email them, or put them up on a site for users to look at, people forget that these are mockups and bitch about the things that don't work yet.
On my current project, we had an interface developer create an HTML "demonstrator" - essentially, a non-functioning HTML mockup of the site. You could click through a single, typical use case, and it showed you how things would look.
The client loved it - it really gave them a feel for how it would look, how it would work, etc. It also gave them a powerful tool to get buy-in from their sponsors and other stakeholders, who had been somewhat sceptical at first.
However, it was a lot of work. Also, some people did expect rather too much of it, expecting some dynamic stuff (such as sorting of search results) to work. Yes, we could have mocked it up, but the amount of work involved would quickly have become unmanagable. One particular person on the client team was also an absolute stickler for realism of the data, yet refused to provide representative samples (real data couldn't be used, as it's classified); this burnt more time than was necessary.
On the other hand, when it came time to actually build the site, the HTML was already done. All that remained was to tidy it up a bit, slice it up into templates and integrate it with the code.
All in all, it was a useful exercise both for us and for the client, but it was also a time consuming and at times painful one. It's definitely not something I'd recommend for every project.
Heh - an acceptable set of features at a price I can afford without blinking, or an excellent set of features (many of which I'll probably never use in that environment) at a price I can't really afford.
I'd love a media PC; right now, I can neither afford it nor justify the cost. Being the sole wage earner for a family of three is expensive.
In my bitter, bitter experience, they can all speak - generally at very great length...
they won't get anything out of them other than the typical office-worker knowledge, which isn't very deep or useful
It might not be very deep, but it's pretty bloody useful for someone who is or will be a typical office worker. Not everyone is destined to be an IT geek; not everyone needs to know how computers work to that level of detail.
Sure, I was hacking Z80 assembler at that age on my ZX Spectrum, but that's not for everyone. Those that want to experiment will find a way to; those that don't shouldn't be pushed into it.
They force you into another's way of programming
How so? We use Eclipse at my company, and unless I missed something, I don't recall it forcing me to do anything. I essentially use it as a glorified text editor with built-in debugger & CVS support.
Compared to some IDEs I've used, that's practically free. From memory, the last version of JBuilder my company bought cost £1500 or so per seat.
Yes, $300 is a bit much for a hobbyist, but in the grand scheme of things, it's small change.
I believe that was the OP's point - it wasn't RAID's fault that the data was toasted, it was this guy's fault for believing that RAID could do something that it can't.
Speak for yourself; the UK hasn't implemented that particular crock of shit yet.
And hiding their browsing history is a major modus operandi for them to continue their behavior.
You need a special browser for that? You can't just tell IE, FF or Opera to clear out its cache, history, etc when you finish? You can't just configure FF to do it automatically?
You can't just create yourself a user account and not tell your spouse the password?
Besides which, they're clearly doing it now; I don't see that a new browser that makes it a little bit easier is going to change anything.
I'm asking whether or not building such tools is the most excellent way to conduct ourselves.
As opposed to what? Trying to force our own moral standards on those around us?
If you really are concerned about all these poor, helpless men who are ruining their lives and their relationships, set up a helpline/counselling service, or donate to an existing one. This browser is largely irrelevant.
I've not used IE7, but I did use FF2b1, and it too was unsuably slow. I appreciate that optimisations haven't been put in place, it's compiled with debug symbols, etc, but it was slow enough (on a 3GHz P4 with 2gig of RAM) that I simply couldn't use it.
For the version that's published in China, yes. For the version(s) published elsewhere, no.
Well, I'm in the UK so I can't vouch for your bulbs, but I have personally had CFL bulbs last far in excess of 2 years - there's one in my house right now that's been there since I bought it, about 6 years ago, and it's still going strong.
which has never been shown to be harmful or addictive
On the contrary, there have been a good many studies that have shown just that; the problem is that there have also been a lot of studies that have shown the opposite. About the best you can say is that the jury is still out on the matter.
If you have 2GB of memory, you likely have an equally compensating-for-something hard drive
I have 2gig of RAM, and do indeed have a compensating-for-something hard drive - it's compensating for the fact that in my previous machine I was forever running out of space. As it is, I have 500GB worth of disk space, of which a little over half is used. If I maintain usage at this rate, it'll be full by about Feb next year...
Why do folks still buy copies of Shakespeare's plays
Personally, it's because reading it on my monitor utterly sucks compared to reading it in book form, and to have the book, I must buy it. Until we have ebook readers that I find acceptable, that isn't going to change, for me at least.
The situaiton is entirely different for music; there, I couldn't care less about its physical manifestation, as it sounds identical to my ears.
Amazon was taking orders for Doom 3, Quake 4 and Half Life 2 about a year before they were released...
None of which has anything to do with the original claim that DX10 and Office will likely only work in the upper-end versions of Vista, which is an utterly ridiculous idea, as lack of those two would almost completely kill the crippled versions. Corporates wouldn't buy them as Office wouldn't work, and home users wouldn't buy them as games and multimedia wouldn't work.
"Can't" or "shouldn't"? I bought an OEM copy of XP Pro a couple of years ago, and it installed and runs just fine after a complete upgrade to the machine - the only things that are original are the monitor and the case.
Python is interpreted, not compiled. When you distribute a python app, you are distributing its source.
Unfortunately, the only downloads I see on that site are for videos of the engine in action. I also note that they quote speeds of 20FPS on a virtual CPU running at 36GHz... Add to that the fact that the site hasn't been updated since mid-2005, and I'd say it's dead.
You can in fact replace Explorer as the desktop shell. There are a few companies that sell such replacements, and a couple of people/groups produce free (and Free) ones. I believe that there is also a version of Windows (planned?) that does not run with a GUI by default.
Since when is not supporting a given operating system discrimination?
No-one has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to support any given OS. It sucks for users of that OS, but that's life. If you disagree with a company's stand on this matter, let them know - politely - and consider not doing business with them. But don't try to turn this into some grand moral outrage, because it really isn't.
Depending on the circumstances, stabbing or cutting yourself may see you commited to psychiatric care in a hospital against your will - the medical equivalent, in a way, of being jailed.