I think the exact opposite. The internet is a global thing, and countries are only relevant if the services of a particular domain are targeted solely at one country.
I think.mil,.gov and.edu should be moved to.us, because these are implicitly US-only (I can't find the New Zealand government websites on nz.gov, it's at.gov.nz)
But.com,.net, and.org are international domains.
There is no _problem_ with DNS. It may be getting slightly less useful than it once was, but it's still a million times better than its predecessors: telephone numbers (Semi-random string of digits), and street addresses (Semi-random string of digits, followed by semi-random street name).
I see no reason there shouldn't be hundreds of TLDs, but if there aren't, it's not the end of the world. As.com gets more and more saturated,.com itself will naturally split into subdomains, run by whoever owns the domain, and competing amongst themselves by price and services (It's already happening, really). These subdomains may not be as prestigious as straight.coms, but they will do the job, and as more of them appear, they will gain acceptance.
We didn't have many loops or complex code structures in our code, the places where the optimizer can be most helpful.
It was referring to the PHP code, but presumably all the pages did the same thing. And in this context, I say of course Cold Fusion wins. Simple pages which are mostly HTML, with a tiny bit of database code in them are CF's strength.
For anything remotely complex, like for example a Slashdot type site, Cold Fusion is an absolute nightmare. I mostly work with PHP these days (It's not perfect, but I think version 4 is really picking up, and by version 5 or 6 it should have smoothed out most of its wrinkles, such as the lack of a single DB API as the article mentions), and I shudder at the thought that I may have to go back and maintain some of that CF code that I wrote a year or so ago.
There's also my CF pet peeve - because there are no code blocks per se, loops are just a pair of tags, and anything within those tags is looped over, INCLUDING SPACES, which are output directly to the browser. You look at the output generated by a CF page with loops in it, you'll see lots and lots of extra whitespace. I think there are options to suppress it, but it just smells of bad design to me.
I dunno, maybe it's because I inherited some bad code, but I hate Cold Fusion with a passion you can only dream of.
OpenSRS is meant to be be more of a wholesaler. IIRC you have to have 25 domains to go with them. You can, of course, go with one of their resellers, but I could never find a list of OpenSRS resellers, so never knew who was reputable and trustworthy, and who wasn't.
God, it really pisses me off searching for hours and hours at the internic whois page trying to find a domain that isn't taken (I always thought I must be horribly unoriginal for so many of my ideas to be taken). The worst thing is that none of these domains ever seem to have a web site on them (Okay, the web isn't the 'net, but it's a fairly good indicator that a domain is actually in use. I wonder if anyone knows the ratio of registered domains to domains which are actually used)
The only thing that keeps me going is the mantra: 'there is always a better domain'. If all my lamest ideas hadn't been rejected, I would never have had to think of something better.
Unusually for me, these pictures seem to actually make sense. Most of the time it seems like anyone can put a dog turd in a fishbowl and call it art, but I found these pictures to be oddly thought provoking.
Maybe they're shopping at a nearby 7-11 because they can't afford a car to go where the food is cheaper.
I remember a scene in a Terry Pratchett novel where the rich woman could afford to buy good boots which lasted her 10 years, but the poor guy could only buy cheap boots which wore out after a year, and in the long run meant that the poor guy spent more on boots than the rich woman.
I don't see how being desensitised to 'killing' things you know aren't real, and have no emotions, and feel no pain can possibly be the same as being desensitised to hurting and killing real people.
That's why I always supported the taking and storing of blood samples from lots of individuals of endangered species.
The other problem, even if we have their genes on file, we won't have their memes. Their learned behaviours which are normally passed on from parent to child will be lost, and will somehow have to be guessed at and taught via puppets the way they do with some animals in captivity today.
Ideally we would prevent extinctions in the first place, of course, but there's no harm in having contingency plans.
Chewing gum? I believe the ban is on chewing gum in public; and it was done because the people were spending millions every year (the government was) cleaning up black sticky gum residue off of rail terminals, temples, monuments, etc...
So ban the crime (depositing gum in a public place), not the harmless activity that leads to the crime. I have great problems with banning things which are not in themselves harmful.
As for caning, I kind of agree with you. I think prison is probably far more 'cruel and unusual' than corporal punishment. Prison's main purpose seems to be to allow us to forget that criminals exist. Its only real advantage is that it's easy to let someone out if it turns out they didn't do the crime - it's kinda harder to unwhip or unkill someone.
Will this reduce the percieved sexiness of Titanium, thus causing Intel to call their next processor the iLuminium? (Or possibly iLuminum in the same universe that Titanium is spelled Titanum;-)
Is Apple as much about user interfaces as it once was?
From the looks of the reviews, they seem to be forgetting many of the fundamental principles of user interface design - Fitz's Law, muscle-memory, and user testing - and replacing them with things that merely seem like good ideas at the time.
I think the Dock, in particular, has failed user testing. I've not heard a single positive reaction to it. Maybe it can be fixed, but only if Apple reacts quickly, and _tests_ their ideas on people while physically watching them use the system (Public beta feedback forms are too indirect, and often people don't even realise what the things that are slowing them down are).
The dock does not take advantage of the pinning effect that the edge of the screen has on the mouse. The fact that things like this have not been noticed by Apple seem to indicate that they either are not testing enough, or they just don't care any more (Why design a great user interface, when Windows with its merely good user interface is so successful, and Linux/X with its bad user interface is gaining ground?).
OSX seems to have a lot of good ideas, some of which work well in practice, others of which don't. There's still a way to go until final release, but is there any evidence that Apple is willing to abandon their good ideas when they're found to be not so good in practice?
I think the moral of this, and other posts on this article is pretty clear - there was no revolution where some guy 'invented' the computer, it was all a series of evolutions.
Determining who created the first computer is like determining who was the first human. It simply depends on how widely you cast your net.
Those giants you're standing on the shoulders of are awfully tall. Which is not to diminish the achievements of the people involved.
If corporations are entities with rights under the law, perhaps we should start charging corporations which deliberately cause other corporations to die with murder.
Instead of treating corporations less like real people, perhaps we should be treating them _more_ like real people.
In society, we have various rules developed over thousands of years to keep our activities within certain parameters which make society run smoothly.
By comparison, business is still in the primordial slime. There is little regard for the welfare of the overall market, and each individual company becomes a mindless beast concerned only with its own welfare and survival.
We cannot blame Microsoft for using the tactics which work in this Lord of the Flies environment, any more than we can blame the shark for evolving its razor-sharp teeth, but that does not mean that we should allow the shark to prey on swimmers unchecked.
It's long been said that companies viewed from a distance can almost be seen as a life form in their own right. It's time to start holding that life form to the same rules the rest of us abide by. Or, if they're just dumb beasts, we should treat them like beasts, and shoot the rabid dog when it becomes dangerous.
But what should the penalty for corporate murder be?
Perhaps the problem is just psychological. With so much bad experience in the past, any new MS 'Standard' will be greeted with skepticism, and a feeling of 'Oh no, what's _this_ one going to break?'
Maybe TNEF is fine, but it's always a worry when someone unilaterally creates a new standard and inserts it into a domain where interoperability is of prime importance. A little consultation would at least be polite, and may ultimately result in a better standard.
Myself, I always favoured simple translation of *bold* and _italics_, because despite what some people say, stuff like that _is_ content, and can change the meaning of text significantly.
A new Batman movie doesn't necessarily have to continue the series, because they can go back to the original source material - the comics.
It's an interesting question - if they completely rejig the style (As opposed to Joel Schumaker's tactic of taking Tim Burton's style and adding neon lights), is it the same series? After all, there were a couple of Adam West Batman movies in the '60s, so it's not like Tim Burton's Batman was really the first Batman movie.
The other advantage of starting over is that you can effectively disregard the killing of the best villains.
I always liked the Batman cartoon, which was based on the style of the first movie, but went off in its own direction. Particularly great was Mark Hamill's voice acting as the Joker. Better than Jaaaaaaaack any day.
That's why I don't understand why people complain about advocacy sites promoting polls. If the advocacy sites are doing their jobs, then the poll will be mentioned on every relevant site.
Given the complete unreliability of online polls, why the hell not use them as a tool to promote your favourite OS? It's not like you're perverting the otherwise correct statistics. They're wrong whether you stuff the ballot or not.
I just don't understand how boiled sweet residue could be the second most common element after corn flakes. In my experience boiled sweets do not tend to generate crumbs...
In marketing, the absolute best thing you can do is be first. Everything else you can do is compensating for not being first. If you can't be first in an existing category, invent a new category you can be first in.
Occasionally 'better' beats out 'first', but it's the exception.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Office 2000 still has a few features that don't have the prefix 'active' or 'intelli', or the suffix '-X'.
In Office 2001, you will be able to ActiveWrite your IntelliReports, and format them with Format-X.
Am I the only one who has reverted to using plain text files for almost everything? So much for progress.
I think the exact opposite. The internet is a global thing, and countries are only relevant if the services of a particular domain are targeted solely at one country.
.mil, .gov and .edu should be moved to .us, because these are implicitly US-only (I can't find the New Zealand government websites on nz.gov, it's at .gov.nz)
.com, .net, and .org are international domains.
.com gets more and more saturated, .com itself will naturally split into subdomains, run by whoever owns the domain, and competing amongst themselves by price and services (It's already happening, really). These subdomains may not be as prestigious as straight .coms, but they will do the job, and as more of them appear, they will gain acceptance.
I think
But
There is no _problem_ with DNS. It may be getting slightly less useful than it once was, but it's still a million times better than its predecessors: telephone numbers (Semi-random string of digits), and street addresses (Semi-random string of digits, followed by semi-random street name).
I see no reason there shouldn't be hundreds of TLDs, but if there aren't, it's not the end of the world. As
Why should you have to spoil your ballot in order to vote none of the above? It should be legitimate option just like all the other ones.
At the bottom of the article it says this:
It was referring to the PHP code, but presumably all the pages did the same thing. And in this context, I say of course Cold Fusion wins. Simple pages which are mostly HTML, with a tiny bit of database code in them are CF's strength.
For anything remotely complex, like for example a Slashdot type site, Cold Fusion is an absolute nightmare. I mostly work with PHP these days (It's not perfect, but I think version 4 is really picking up, and by version 5 or 6 it should have smoothed out most of its wrinkles, such as the lack of a single DB API as the article mentions), and I shudder at the thought that I may have to go back and maintain some of that CF code that I wrote a year or so ago.
There's also my CF pet peeve - because there are no code blocks per se, loops are just a pair of tags, and anything within those tags is looped over, INCLUDING SPACES, which are output directly to the browser. You look at the output generated by a CF page with loops in it, you'll see lots and lots of extra whitespace. I think there are options to suppress it, but it just smells of bad design to me.
I dunno, maybe it's because I inherited some bad code, but I hate Cold Fusion with a passion you can only dream of.
OpenSRS is meant to be be more of a wholesaler. IIRC you have to have 25 domains to go with them. You can, of course, go with one of their resellers, but I could never find a list of OpenSRS resellers, so never knew who was reputable and trustworthy, and who wasn't.
God, it really pisses me off searching for hours and hours at the internic whois page trying to find a domain that isn't taken (I always thought I must be horribly unoriginal for so many of my ideas to be taken). The worst thing is that none of these domains ever seem to have a web site on them (Okay, the web isn't the 'net, but it's a fairly good indicator that a domain is actually in use. I wonder if anyone knows the ratio of registered domains to domains which are actually used)
The only thing that keeps me going is the mantra: 'there is always a better domain'. If all my lamest ideas hadn't been rejected, I would never have had to think of something better.
May as well give it a try ;-)
(Left to right, top to bottom)
First row:
Sound of Music
Martin Luther King Asassination
(?)
(?)
Elian Gonzales being taken by troops
Second Row:
Children fleeing napalm attack in Viet Nam
OJ Crime Scene (?)
(?)
Lee Harvey Oswald gets shot
12 Angry Men (Movie)
Third Row:
LA Riots
Rodney King Beating
(?)
Japan Subway gassing (?)
Unabomber arrest (?)
Fourth Row:
(?)
Columbine Massacre
Tienenmen Square
(?)
(?)
Unusually for me, these pictures seem to actually make sense. Most of the time it seems like anyone can put a dog turd in a fishbowl and call it art, but I found these pictures to be oddly thought provoking.
Maybe they're shopping at a nearby 7-11 because they can't afford a car to go where the food is cheaper.
I remember a scene in a Terry Pratchett novel where the rich woman could afford to buy good boots which lasted her 10 years, but the poor guy could only buy cheap boots which wore out after a year, and in the long run meant that the poor guy spent more on boots than the rich woman.
Sometimes it can be more expensive to be poor.
I don't see how being desensitised to 'killing' things you know aren't real, and have no emotions, and feel no pain can possibly be the same as being desensitised to hurting and killing real people.
That's why I always supported the taking and storing of blood samples from lots of individuals of endangered species.
The other problem, even if we have their genes on file, we won't have their memes. Their learned behaviours which are normally passed on from parent to child will be lost, and will somehow have to be guessed at and taught via puppets the way they do with some animals in captivity today.
Ideally we would prevent extinctions in the first place, of course, but there's no harm in having contingency plans.
So ban the crime (depositing gum in a public place), not the harmless activity that leads to the crime. I have great problems with banning things which are not in themselves harmful.
As for caning, I kind of agree with you. I think prison is probably far more 'cruel and unusual' than corporal punishment. Prison's main purpose seems to be to allow us to forget that criminals exist. Its only real advantage is that it's easy to let someone out if it turns out they didn't do the crime - it's kinda harder to unwhip or unkill someone.
Will this reduce the percieved sexiness of Titanium, thus causing Intel to call their next processor the iLuminium? (Or possibly iLuminum in the same universe that Titanium is spelled Titanum ;-)
Is Apple as much about user interfaces as it once was?
From the looks of the reviews, they seem to be forgetting many of the fundamental principles of user interface design - Fitz's Law, muscle-memory, and user testing - and replacing them with things that merely seem like good ideas at the time.
I think the Dock, in particular, has failed user testing. I've not heard a single positive reaction to it. Maybe it can be fixed, but only if Apple reacts quickly, and _tests_ their ideas on people while physically watching them use the system (Public beta feedback forms are too indirect, and often people don't even realise what the things that are slowing them down are).
The dock does not take advantage of the pinning effect that the edge of the screen has on the mouse. The fact that things like this have not been noticed by Apple seem to indicate that they either are not testing enough, or they just don't care any more (Why design a great user interface, when Windows with its merely good user interface is so successful, and Linux/X with its bad user interface is gaining ground?).
OSX seems to have a lot of good ideas, some of which work well in practice, others of which don't. There's still a way to go until final release, but is there any evidence that Apple is willing to abandon their good ideas when they're found to be not so good in practice?
I think the moral of this, and other posts on this article is pretty clear - there was no revolution where some guy 'invented' the computer, it was all a series of evolutions.
Determining who created the first computer is like determining who was the first human. It simply depends on how widely you cast your net.
Those giants you're standing on the shoulders of are awfully tall. Which is not to diminish the achievements of the people involved.
All requests are sent to a central hub where a team of people paid $1.17 an hour press 'y' or 'n'. Previously approved sites could be cached as 'y'.
To avoid excessive RSI problems amongst the staff, a pair of large padded buttons would be provided which the user could punch, kick, or headbutt.
If corporations are entities with rights under the law, perhaps we should start charging corporations which deliberately cause other corporations to die with murder.
Instead of treating corporations less like real people, perhaps we should be treating them _more_ like real people.
In society, we have various rules developed over thousands of years to keep our activities within certain parameters which make society run smoothly.
By comparison, business is still in the primordial slime. There is little regard for the welfare of the overall market, and each individual company becomes a mindless beast concerned only with its own welfare and survival.
We cannot blame Microsoft for using the tactics which work in this Lord of the Flies environment, any more than we can blame the shark for evolving its razor-sharp teeth, but that does not mean that we should allow the shark to prey on swimmers unchecked.
It's long been said that companies viewed from a distance can almost be seen as a life form in their own right. It's time to start holding that life form to the same rules the rest of us abide by. Or, if they're just dumb beasts, we should treat them like beasts, and shoot the rabid dog when it becomes dangerous.
But what should the penalty for corporate murder be?
Perhaps the problem is just psychological. With so much bad experience in the past, any new MS 'Standard' will be greeted with skepticism, and a feeling of 'Oh no, what's _this_ one going to break?'
Maybe TNEF is fine, but it's always a worry when someone unilaterally creates a new standard and inserts it into a domain where interoperability is of prime importance. A little consultation would at least be polite, and may ultimately result in a better standard.
Myself, I always favoured simple translation of *bold* and _italics_, because despite what some people say, stuff like that _is_ content, and can change the meaning of text significantly.
A new Batman movie doesn't necessarily have to continue the series, because they can go back to the original source material - the comics.
It's an interesting question - if they completely rejig the style (As opposed to Joel Schumaker's tactic of taking Tim Burton's style and adding neon lights), is it the same series? After all, there were a couple of Adam West Batman movies in the '60s, so it's not like Tim Burton's Batman was really the first Batman movie.
The other advantage of starting over is that you can effectively disregard the killing of the best villains.
I always liked the Batman cartoon, which was based on the style of the first movie, but went off in its own direction. Particularly great was Mark Hamill's voice acting as the Joker. Better than Jaaaaaaaack any day.
No taxation without representation!
;-)
H1-B workers should be exempt from tax
That's why I don't understand why people complain about advocacy sites promoting polls. If the advocacy sites are doing their jobs, then the poll will be mentioned on every relevant site.
Given the complete unreliability of online polls, why the hell not use them as a tool to promote your favourite OS? It's not like you're perverting the otherwise correct statistics. They're wrong whether you stuff the ballot or not.
I just don't understand how boiled sweet residue could be the second most common element after corn flakes. In my experience boiled sweets do not tend to generate crumbs...
Yes. It's because they were first.
In marketing, the absolute best thing you can do is be first. Everything else you can do is compensating for not being first. If you can't be first in an existing category, invent a new category you can be first in.
Occasionally 'better' beats out 'first', but it's the exception.