Your post is really annoying. Did you mean to be so obnoxious? And +5, Insightful. Come on, php isn't popular with slashdotters but whatever one calls reverse fanboyism it isn't cool either.
No, features that make web development "dead simple" are those that actually do something to make web development simpler...
Absolutely. And PHP does it. That's why it's so popular. There may be even more that can be done but if no popular language is doing it already that argument is kind of pointless.
You contradict yourself.
No he doesn't. You might not like scripting / dynamic languages but taking the best (or a good stab at taking the best) of scripting, C and perl can actually make some things more straight-forward. Need a regular expression? Used to function calls rather can syntactical regex? Need perl regex? preg_match.
Patently false. PHP has no dependency on Apache now, it originally used CGI, and continues to support CGI, FastCGI, and operation as a module in web servers other than Apache (such as IIS). The CGI startup overhead problem has many solutions, such as FastCGI, AJP, proxying, etc.
Patently missing the point. PHP and Apache go together so well it created the LAMP mindshare space.
But "not in-process" does not imply the use of CGI, and it does not imply the use of any system with long loading times. Furthermore, "in-process" is potentially insecure and can be less reliable - as all code runs in the same process.
Who cares? His point is startup cost which is generally higher for forks vs modules and you're just plain going to get more scalability compared to the traditional perl cgi forking method. Hence mod_perl.
Give me a break. You can dislike anything you want but why do you even bother when you don't have all the facts.
I've long been enamored with and have long wanted to emigrate to New Zealand and, in spite of this story, I'm still interested in getting down there.
I have a lot of web resources about emigrating but I can't for the life of me figure out how to move there and be sure I'll have a job when I get there (I'm a developer / sysadmin). I don't see a lot of tech jobs so I have no confidence about initiating a process to move there.
If you're from New Zealand, what is the best chance of success for emigrating?
I've been investigating project management solutions at work and there are some real high quality open source solutions, but they all lack everything that goes before the work breakdown phase.
What about the requirements engineering phase? You can largely make your own solution for the gathering, but the structuring of requirements (to be later turned into tasks) is something all of the packages miss.
There are certainly requirements engineering solutions out there. I have a list of two dozen or so I'll need to review. But nothing really catches my eye.
You're already +5, Interesting or I'd wish I had mod points...
The link you provide is an impressive tablet. It's price point is great too for what you're getting. Why can't we find that in the neighbourhood tech store??
Ah, looks like KDE4 which I'm waiting until some distro gets that really polished. Can't say much about it.
You're right the context menu is a little weird. Is there a hover-over message for the icon? Maybe all those items make sense related to the icon?
I will say KDE3.5 has been great. While 4 reminds me of vista, 3 reminds me of Win2000 / XP classic UI. Productive, efficient, and KDE provides so many customization options (which I do use on many windows).
What's wrong with KDE? I've used it for over a decade and every time I try something else I start missing all the little things that allow me to make my KDE desktop mine.
I'm actually installing ubuntu w/gnome on another desktop as I write this. I dread finally having to move but kde4 hasn't be tailored by the distributions well enough yet for my liking.
I love KDE, what's not to like? From my perspective, I think I'm on one exterme of the power user spectrum so I find gnome doesn't cut it for me.
I don't think you understand what hurdles you have to go through to open previously closed code in an enterprise. There are so many IP traps they're afraid of.
Just look at all the excuses nvidia spews for not opening their linux drivers.
A lot of people are saying OpenDNS is faster, but I just don't see it. I've been using opendns for a year or two now because my isp does there own hijacking. OpenDNS is randomly slow for me. I've been using Google's dns on all my favourite places and haven't had a hitch and domains I know regularly have problems on opendns show up with no hesitation at all. I'm loving this. And no search/ads pages on missing domains like opendns has is a super bonus.
Most people don't know it but:
- Rogers does deep packet inspection and throttling
- they transparently proxy all html and can insert an advertisement in any page they wish (when you're near the banwidth limit you'll get notices embedded in your completely unrelated websites they you're at 75% or 90% of the limit).
- they hijack dns and put up those horrific search engine + ads pages
Thumbs up to google.
But, I will curse rogers even more when they find out and start redirecting dns requests back to their own servers.
Evil, evil companies.
Think about the 80s generation growing up with computers and especially their experience with IBM Model M Clicky keyboards (still available here and here!).
So many people already feel so sentimental of our clicky keyboards that we're buying them up on ebay and stock piling a couple "just in case".
So, yeah, you better believe 20, 30, 40 years from now people will look at certain iconic computer products and think real nostalgically about them. They already do and like a good wine age makes them only more desirable.
I don't think we've had really, really exciting, efficient and productive president in my entire lifetime, sadly.
This got me thinking about a really decent truism about democracy.
The US, nor any other democracy, has ever had a really exciting, efficient and productive president/government anywhere, anytime: Because that wouldn't be democracy anymore. That would be totalitarian or a dictatorship.
The best governments are boring. In Ontario, Canada, we're living through probably the most boring provincial government ever. If it wasn't for some scandals in other departments, his government would be doing nothing but introducing petty, near useless laws. And people like that. He's not affecting the average person in any major way. People want their government to do their job and not bother them. If they do that, they'll stay in power forever.
The Chretien federal government of the 90s/00s was largely like that until scandals hit.
I don't like conservate parties, per se, namely because they're not at all conservative and, in reality, quite destructive, but the principle of minimizing government, in so far as that means getting out of the tax payer's way, I'm all for that.
But, anyway, what you say about an exciting, efficient, production president got me thinking about totalitarian regimes where "the trains run on time." We think we want an exciting, efficient, productive government, but we don't. And when it actually comes...we know we don't want that because it no longer looks like a democracy.
I was hoping the Bush haters would go away now that it's apparent that Obama is almost precisely as useless as Bush was. I'm disappointed to see that's not happening.
This is a tremendous testament to just how bad Bush was.
I wasn't being miserly, I was just telling people the truth of what they're doing and comparing it to how they treat windows.
Of course windows will always appear better because you always give it preferential treatment.
My main desktop is linux. I have a windows laptop for a little bit of side-work and another windows desktop just for gaming. I'm cool with both.
But these endless questions and how best to run linux on ridiculously old hardware will only _obviously_ fall short of satisfaction. Worse, what happens is you build a little machine, find out it's useless, and never really get into it. It was only when I gave linux a bit of respect that I saw just how good it is.
Who stores or processes time in tenths of a second? Milleseconds, microseconds, but tenths of a second? I think somebody got their source information wrong or the designers of the system were really on something special.
This is something I've thought about for ten years. When people try out linux, or when techies try out linux, it's always on a spare machine which is inevitably worse for specs than their windows box. Inevitably they never fully make the switch.
So many years ago I decided I would treat linux well and give it the preferred hardware. Guess what, I was much more satisfied having a great system rather than something hobbling along. The user experience was obviously a total notch up and so you get a better impression of linux because it can then do so much more.
My opinion on this particular story is that it's completely bogus to think you'll approach something you'll make significant use of with the specs we see given. When you see a garbage system, hobbling along, ask yourself, what did I actually expect to come out of this? Something almost as good as my dual-core windows desktop? Come on.
Just try it. Give linux your windows hardware and put windows on your worse, spare hardware. See how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot. Not so fun anymore.
Now, perhaps something constructive. Why bother with this old machine when you can dumpster dive for better *easily* or you could buy a sheeva plug for $99?
That song sounds really, really impressive at 32kbps based on what I remember of streaming 64kbps back a few years ago (they sounded like bad am radio).
At 3x-6x space spaving, I am really impressed. My entire collection could fit on a small flash ipod device.
Rejection of the "I take what I want" attitude that pervades our society is in no way immoral. Quite the contrary, the people who think that just because they don't like the price or don't want to spend the money that they can have somebody else's time and effort anyway is immoral.
What more do we expect from society where there is no ultimate meter stick?
You and the parent hit quite close to something I've long thought about things that are against our legal code but one portion of society thinks it ok to break and another not: What more do you expect from people?
You can drill down the reasons right to the end but when it comes right down to it there's no overriding reason that will convince that individual that they shouldn't break the legal code. This goes for everyone, even those who think they would follow the legal code completely. Unless you believe in something actually final, for example the Christian God who laid out our big laws, you will not wholly and completely be convinced of those big laws.
There's no innate human law that one man would let another man decide the rules that he should live by. But he might submit to one with the authority to make those laws. It can be argued that no man has that authority, but for the one who believes in the actuality of God, it can not be argued.
When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws. - G.K. Chesterton
So I tried it out and, hey, I was pleasantly surprised. I wish they played more complex music so I could better tell if it really does match up but, without a comparison, I must say it's above satisfactory from what I'm hearing.
My entire 15gb music collection is in ogg barring a few hundred meg of mp3s so I'm definitely put back a little that a 48kbps stream sounds nearly as good as my 160kbps...
Okay the song just switched, I'm beginning to hear some difficiencies. Something about the voices, the "unncceeeee" sound high end and the bass hits...it's a little off. Perhaps it's a case of diminishing returns. You get most of the value from 0-64kbps and all the rest of bandwidth is gravy, but not exactly necessary for listening enjoyment.
Anyway, pleasantly surprised. I wonder how 160kbps aac+ sounds?:)
You find misinformed, anti-scientific drivel enlightening? Why don't you read actual scientific literature instead of pseudoscientific nonsense? Educate yourself.
I'm guessing you didn't read it. Contrary to all your assumptions, the article linked is quite foundationally solid. In fact, it doesn't take much of a pro-creation stance at all.
You are indeed an idiot. Life was created without death, remember?
Let's act our age, shall we?
You bring up a great point about the original creation being "very good." Many suppose that to mean there was no death. Perhaps. According to Genesis 1, though, death is not mentioned in relation to being "very good." I'm not positive that an absence of death is a requirement for a creation to be considered good.
Until then, it's that awful made-up term "micro-evolution."
I hear that. A large part of my creation knowledge comes from that period of time when micro vs macro evolution was a big topic.
It was a good attempt to explain something that was only later (like, the last few years) refined by the creation scene. It basically, and logically should have originally, meant that we don't see examples of gaining information. These days it's about "information" in the genes and what is possible by recombinations through mutations.
When I say things like "reconfiguration" or "recombination" I'm really trying to express what is actually going on with "mutations" that cause changes which appear to be beneficial or not beneficial. I think a lot of people put some magic around the word "mutation" and put it at arms length so they don't have to worry about what is really going on.
I just think it's really important to see that all these examples of evolution have some issues, and that science, specific to each example and as a whole, doesn't need to be wholely, axially at odds with creation. Personally, I see all the mainstream science and I see how well it actually fits with the biblical creation.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post is really annoying. Did you mean to be so obnoxious? And +5, Insightful. Come on, php isn't popular with slashdotters but whatever one calls reverse fanboyism it isn't cool either.
No, features that make web development "dead simple" are those that actually do something to make web development simpler...
Absolutely. And PHP does it. That's why it's so popular. There may be even more that can be done but if no popular language is doing it already that argument is kind of pointless.
You contradict yourself.
No he doesn't. You might not like scripting / dynamic languages but taking the best (or a good stab at taking the best) of scripting, C and perl can actually make some things more straight-forward. Need a regular expression? Used to function calls rather can syntactical regex? Need perl regex? preg_match.
Patently false. PHP has no dependency on Apache now, it originally used CGI, and continues to support CGI, FastCGI, and operation as a module in web servers other than Apache (such as IIS). The CGI startup overhead problem has many solutions, such as FastCGI, AJP, proxying, etc.
Patently missing the point. PHP and Apache go together so well it created the LAMP mindshare space.
But "not in-process" does not imply the use of CGI, and it does not imply the use of any system with long loading times. Furthermore, "in-process" is potentially insecure and can be less reliable - as all code runs in the same process.
Who cares? His point is startup cost which is generally higher for forks vs modules and you're just plain going to get more scalability compared to the traditional perl cgi forking method. Hence mod_perl.
Give me a break. You can dislike anything you want but why do you even bother when you don't have all the facts.
+5, Insightful. Dear me...
I've long been enamored with and have long wanted to emigrate to New Zealand and, in spite of this story, I'm still interested in getting down there.
I have a lot of web resources about emigrating but I can't for the life of me figure out how to move there and be sure I'll have a job when I get there (I'm a developer / sysadmin). I don't see a lot of tech jobs so I have no confidence about initiating a process to move there.
If you're from New Zealand, what is the best chance of success for emigrating?
I've been investigating project management solutions at work and there are some real high quality open source solutions, but they all lack everything that goes before the work breakdown phase.
What about the requirements engineering phase? You can largely make your own solution for the gathering, but the structuring of requirements (to be later turned into tasks) is something all of the packages miss.
There are certainly requirements engineering solutions out there. I have a list of two dozen or so I'll need to review. But nothing really catches my eye.
What do you recommend, Slashdot?
Hear, Hear!
People "think" wikipedia isn't a credible or reliable source. I can only assume these people have never used it intensively.
You're already +5, Interesting or I'd wish I had mod points...
The link you provide is an impressive tablet. It's price point is great too for what you're getting. Why can't we find that in the neighbourhood tech store??
Ah, looks like KDE4 which I'm waiting until some distro gets that really polished. Can't say much about it.
You're right the context menu is a little weird. Is there a hover-over message for the icon? Maybe all those items make sense related to the icon?
I will say KDE3.5 has been great. While 4 reminds me of vista, 3 reminds me of Win2000 / XP classic UI. Productive, efficient, and KDE provides so many customization options (which I do use on many windows).
What's wrong with KDE? I've used it for over a decade and every time I try something else I start missing all the little things that allow me to make my KDE desktop mine.
I'm actually installing ubuntu w/gnome on another desktop as I write this. I dread finally having to move but kde4 hasn't be tailored by the distributions well enough yet for my liking.
I love KDE, what's not to like? From my perspective, I think I'm on one exterme of the power user spectrum so I find gnome doesn't cut it for me.
I don't think you understand what hurdles you have to go through to open previously closed code in an enterprise. There are so many IP traps they're afraid of.
Just look at all the excuses nvidia spews for not opening their linux drivers.
I don't know that good US people are any better than good Indian people,
That is all anyone considering outsourcing has to understand. Just that one little fact. Fast, cheap, good, pick any two.
A lot of people are saying OpenDNS is faster, but I just don't see it. I've been using opendns for a year or two now because my isp does there own hijacking. OpenDNS is randomly slow for me. I've been using Google's dns on all my favourite places and haven't had a hitch and domains I know regularly have problems on opendns show up with no hesitation at all. I'm loving this. And no search/ads pages on missing domains like opendns has is a super bonus.
Most people don't know it but: - Rogers does deep packet inspection and throttling - they transparently proxy all html and can insert an advertisement in any page they wish (when you're near the banwidth limit you'll get notices embedded in your completely unrelated websites they you're at 75% or 90% of the limit). - they hijack dns and put up those horrific search engine + ads pages Thumbs up to google. But, I will curse rogers even more when they find out and start redirecting dns requests back to their own servers. Evil, evil companies.
Think about the 80s generation growing up with computers and especially their experience with IBM Model M Clicky keyboards (still available here and here!).
So many people already feel so sentimental of our clicky keyboards that we're buying them up on ebay and stock piling a couple "just in case".
So, yeah, you better believe 20, 30, 40 years from now people will look at certain iconic computer products and think real nostalgically about them. They already do and like a good wine age makes them only more desirable.
I don't think we've had really, really exciting, efficient and productive president in my entire lifetime, sadly.
This got me thinking about a really decent truism about democracy.
The US, nor any other democracy, has ever had a really exciting, efficient and productive president/government anywhere, anytime: Because that wouldn't be democracy anymore. That would be totalitarian or a dictatorship.
The best governments are boring. In Ontario, Canada, we're living through probably the most boring provincial government ever. If it wasn't for some scandals in other departments, his government would be doing nothing but introducing petty, near useless laws. And people like that. He's not affecting the average person in any major way. People want their government to do their job and not bother them. If they do that, they'll stay in power forever.
The Chretien federal government of the 90s/00s was largely like that until scandals hit.
I don't like conservate parties, per se, namely because they're not at all conservative and, in reality, quite destructive, but the principle of minimizing government, in so far as that means getting out of the tax payer's way, I'm all for that.
But, anyway, what you say about an exciting, efficient, production president got me thinking about totalitarian regimes where "the trains run on time." We think we want an exciting, efficient, productive government, but we don't. And when it actually comes...we know we don't want that because it no longer looks like a democracy.
How is it possible that these things are known for such a long time and nobody cares?
That, my friend, is one of the biggest questions in all of history.
I was hoping the Bush haters would go away now that it's apparent that Obama is almost precisely as useless as Bush was. I'm disappointed to see that's not happening.
This is a tremendous testament to just how bad Bush was.
(Hint: Lighten up. ;))
I wasn't being miserly, I was just telling people the truth of what they're doing and comparing it to how they treat windows.
Of course windows will always appear better because you always give it preferential treatment.
My main desktop is linux. I have a windows laptop for a little bit of side-work and another windows desktop just for gaming. I'm cool with both.
But these endless questions and how best to run linux on ridiculously old hardware will only _obviously_ fall short of satisfaction. Worse, what happens is you build a little machine, find out it's useless, and never really get into it. It was only when I gave linux a bit of respect that I saw just how good it is.
It's like people expect something for nothing...
Who stores or processes time in tenths of a second? Milleseconds, microseconds, but tenths of a second? I think somebody got their source information wrong or the designers of the system were really on something special.
This is something I've thought about for ten years. When people try out linux, or when techies try out linux, it's always on a spare machine which is inevitably worse for specs than their windows box. Inevitably they never fully make the switch.
So many years ago I decided I would treat linux well and give it the preferred hardware. Guess what, I was much more satisfied having a great system rather than something hobbling along. The user experience was obviously a total notch up and so you get a better impression of linux because it can then do so much more.
My opinion on this particular story is that it's completely bogus to think you'll approach something you'll make significant use of with the specs we see given. When you see a garbage system, hobbling along, ask yourself, what did I actually expect to come out of this? Something almost as good as my dual-core windows desktop? Come on.
Just try it. Give linux your windows hardware and put windows on your worse, spare hardware. See how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot. Not so fun anymore.
Now, perhaps something constructive. Why bother with this old machine when you can dumpster dive for better *easily* or you could buy a sheeva plug for $99?
IIRC, SeaMonkey is actually the rendering engine testing ground for Firefox.
..one next to a Cartridge World (ink, not ammo).
Aw come on, my first guess was a cartridge "games" stores. :D
Here's a song I can relate to at 32kbps:
HE-AAC+v2 (44100Hz Stereo@32kbps) 1.1 MB
http://teknoraver.net/software/mp4tools/Time.mp4
(http://teknoraver.net/software/mp4tools/)
That song sounds really, really impressive at 32kbps based on what I remember of streaming 64kbps back a few years ago (they sounded like bad am radio).
At 3x-6x space spaving, I am really impressed. My entire collection could fit on a small flash ipod device.
Rejection of the "I take what I want" attitude that pervades our society is in no way immoral. Quite the contrary, the people who think that just because they don't like the price or don't want to spend the money that they can have somebody else's time and effort anyway is immoral.
What more do we expect from society where there is no ultimate meter stick?
You and the parent hit quite close to something I've long thought about things that are against our legal code but one portion of society thinks it ok to break and another not: What more do you expect from people?
You can drill down the reasons right to the end but when it comes right down to it there's no overriding reason that will convince that individual that they shouldn't break the legal code. This goes for everyone, even those who think they would follow the legal code completely. Unless you believe in something actually final, for example the Christian God who laid out our big laws, you will not wholly and completely be convinced of those big laws.
There's no innate human law that one man would let another man decide the rules that he should live by. But he might submit to one with the authority to make those laws. It can be argued that no man has that authority, but for the one who believes in the actuality of God, it can not be argued.
When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws. - G.K. Chesterton
I was skeptical about your sig:
Yes 48k AAC+ sounds like 160k OGG. Try it: http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=520194 (WinAmp)
So I tried it out and, hey, I was pleasantly surprised. I wish they played more complex music so I could better tell if it really does match up but, without a comparison, I must say it's above satisfactory from what I'm hearing.
My entire 15gb music collection is in ogg barring a few hundred meg of mp3s so I'm definitely put back a little that a 48kbps stream sounds nearly as good as my 160kbps...
Okay the song just switched, I'm beginning to hear some difficiencies. Something about the voices, the "unncceeeee" sound high end and the bass hits...it's a little off. Perhaps it's a case of diminishing returns. You get most of the value from 0-64kbps and all the rest of bandwidth is gravy, but not exactly necessary for listening enjoyment.
Anyway, pleasantly surprised. I wonder how 160kbps aac+ sounds? :)
You find misinformed, anti-scientific drivel enlightening? Why don't you read actual scientific literature instead of pseudoscientific nonsense? Educate yourself.
I'm guessing you didn't read it. Contrary to all your assumptions, the article linked is quite foundationally solid. In fact, it doesn't take much of a pro-creation stance at all.
You are indeed an idiot. Life was created without death, remember?
Let's act our age, shall we?
You bring up a great point about the original creation being "very good." Many suppose that to mean there was no death. Perhaps. According to Genesis 1, though, death is not mentioned in relation to being "very good." I'm not positive that an absence of death is a requirement for a creation to be considered good.
Until then, it's that awful made-up term "micro-evolution."
I hear that. A large part of my creation knowledge comes from that period of time when micro vs macro evolution was a big topic.
It was a good attempt to explain something that was only later (like, the last few years) refined by the creation scene. It basically, and logically should have originally, meant that we don't see examples of gaining information. These days it's about "information" in the genes and what is possible by recombinations through mutations.
When I say things like "reconfiguration" or "recombination" I'm really trying to express what is actually going on with "mutations" that cause changes which appear to be beneficial or not beneficial. I think a lot of people put some magic around the word "mutation" and put it at arms length so they don't have to worry about what is really going on.
I just think it's really important to see that all these examples of evolution have some issues, and that science, specific to each example and as a whole, doesn't need to be wholely, axially at odds with creation. Personally, I see all the mainstream science and I see how well it actually fits with the biblical creation.