1. Java is slow just to piss off people who worry that any scroll speed short of "the Flash on Steroids" is too slow. People who do real work and don't just run benchmarks all day don't notice.
2. They're not upset; that's the sound of Java developers rolling around in the large piles of money they make writing software that people actually use.
3. Because it's easier to nitpick the best product than it is to find all of the memory leaks and bad pointer refs in the C++ code written by l33t hax0rs.
4. Yes; if you can amuse your inferiors at no cost to yourself, why not bring some joy into their sad lives?
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I find virtually ALL CGI unwatchable. The Pixar films are fine (story and art). Final Fantasy was amazing art with one of the worst stories ever put to film. But everything else? Blah. Give me the 4 frame/second Hanna-Barbara stuff from the 60s and 70s instead.
No, that would be France, where 18% of the country just voted for the reincarnation of Mussolini. The other 81% of the country aren't fascists, they're just trying to round up Jews to throw into ovens.
Ah, got home, ran numbers on my iBook 600MHz over a 46Kbps dial-up connection.
Loading this story (with 390-something articles showing, nested) with IE 5.1.4 and OmniWeb 4.1b4. IE took 3 minutes, 5seconds. OmniWeb took 58 seconds. Same page, same computer, I even ran OmniWeb second, so if there were more posts, it was OmniWeb that had to suck it up. It was still more than 3 times faster.
I haven't run the tests in months, and I don't have a Mac with me right now, so I can't run tests myself. But sometime earlier this year or late last year, I tried a slashdot page in IE and several other browsers (iCab, Mozilla, maybe Opera; I forget) on an iMac 400DV running OS 9. This was on a DSL connection, and I could tell (by watching the blinking lights on the DSL modem) when network traffic ceased and rendering began. IE was orders of magnitude slower during the rendering phase. Note that OS X didn't even enter into it.
Maybe IE is generating a more accurate view of the pages; IIRC, iCab doesn't properly indent Slashdot discussions, making it worthless for viewing nested discussions. I'm pretty sure that Mozilla does the Right Thing in OS 9 and Mozilla and OmniWeb do the Right Thin in OS X.
Which reminds me: did you view nested or threaded during your test? I was viewing nested.
Which browser are you using? IE for the Mac (under OS 9 and OS X) has problems with complicated tables; it will take minutes (yes, minutes) to render moderately sized Slashot pages. OmniWeb, Opera, iCab, Chimera, all return the same page in seconds.
The problem is in the Tasmin rendering engine used by IE for Mac. But blaming Apple seemed to be the easiest thing for them to do.
There are certainly performance problems in OS X's UI, but let's give blame where blame is due.
My iMac draws 170W max, less than 90W in standby, less than 35W asleep. My iBook draws 45W max, 18W in standby, less than 5W asleep. The iBook is actually faster than the iMac, too...
Thing is, using drugs DOES help fund terrorists. Colombian, Peruvian, and Mexican terrorists are basically funded by US drug consumption, while the Taliban and Al Qeida were funded by heroin use in Europe (particularly England). (To be fair to our "friends" the Saudis, they still fund the Taliban and Al Qeida, too. I just think Osama et. al. liked the irony of making money to destroy the West by poisoning the West via drug use).
Think Prohibition. It was better for August Busch to be supplying America with alcohol than it was for Al Capone. We may have more drunks, but we have fewer Valentine Day Massacres. And the government certainly collects more in taxes from sales of Bud than they did from sales of whatever hooch Capone was peddling.
If the government officially sanctions the sale of Coke, Heroin, Pot, PCP, Crystal, LSD, X, whatever, it would make a forture for the government in tax revenues. Heck, if drug companies could make and sell recreational drugs, the cost of the pills that actually help people would drop like a rock. Cancer drugs subsided by crack. I like the idea.
True; America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the largest number of prisoners. This is mostly due to the War on Drugs, which is putting people in jail for non-violent (and non-property) crimes. Stats on worldwide incarceration rates are available at http://www.prisonstudies.org/
However, "Police State" usually connotes that people are imprisoned for beliefs, not actions. The US isn't considered a police state (except by a fringe population) because its OK in the US to advocate smoking pot, but it is illegal to actually perform the action.
Personally, as a non-drug user, I think all drug laws should be repealed. Get rid of DUI and simply punish people for reckless driving. If you still feel the need to punish people extra for using drugs, increase penalties for crimes committed under the influence, whether it's vandalism or reckless driving or murder.
You need a serious history lesson, and I don't feel like giving it right now. You also need to define what you mean by "Globalization." You seem to think it's the same as "Gunboat diplomacy" and "colonialization." It's neither. In many ways, it's the opposite.
The driving realization behind globalization is simple: trade makes everyone rich. The more efficiently things are manufactured, with as little transportation of the intermediate raw materials (shipping costs predominate in the cost of most items), the lower the prices could be, and the greater profit for the sellers. If workers in one place are willing to take less money for the same work, and they provide the same quality of work, why wouldn't you want to employ those cheaper laborers? The reason people take "sweatshop" wages in third world countries is that they beat the hell out of any other wages that are available.
The only way to get better wages in third world countries is to develop a middle class that has a stable source of income (no hoarding of funds in case the crop fails), has a stable and free government (no worries about being shot for praying or saying the wrong thing), and has a basically capitalist system (I have control over the capital that I earn, minus taxes).
Back to globalization and overseas workers. If your overseas workers create a lower quality product that hurts your company in the marketplace, then you'll lose sales. If you get the same (or higher, as in the case of software that has been outsourced to India) quality, you can make higher profits at the same price, or undercut your competition and make the same profit at the lower price. The poor people overseas get more money than they'd ever had a chance to before. The consumers get lower-priced goods. The companies get higher profits. Everyone wins. Yay capitalism. The only "losers" are those who are unwilling to either take advantage of lower costs, are unable to reposition themselves (such as many family farms becoming "organic" farms that charge more for produce without pesticides), or those who are unskilled in anything but what they are currently doing (rust belt auto workers and steel workers). The first two groups should be left to fend for themselves, but governments should step in to educate (or pay to educate) workers who need retraining.
My suspicion is that most of those who are leading the complaints about globalization are those who stand to lose the most from it: unions for semi-skilled laborers, farmers who don't want to lose their subsidies, Marxists who hate being proved wrong yet again, and non-governmental organizations that are afraid of being unimportant when the poor people in third world countries stop being poor and needing them.
Who the fuck is talking about dumping money in the hands of warlords? I'm talking about the exact opposite, you nitwit. I take MY money and use it how I see fit. I buy the things I want and I invest my money in whatever enterprise I want. No centralization. It turns out that everyone working in their own economic self-interest tends to work out pretty well (with the exceptions I mentioned earlier).
Socialism is the centralization of capital, so it can be dolled out by those who know better. This doesn't tend to work too well. This is why socialist countries tend to have high unemployment and low rates of economic growth.
Someone always brings up Sweeden when they talk about Socialism. Reminds me of a story. Milton Freedman, the conservative economist was talking to a more liberal economist. The liberal economist said that in Sweeden there was no poverty. Freedman responded, "In America, there's no poverty among Sweedes, either."
The meaning of the anecdote is that cultures that have a strong work ethic and a cultural history of sticking together (which certainly describes the Sweedes; can't survive the winter by slacking off, and helping out your neighbor is a good deed that will come back to you sometime in the future).
Cultures that have high rates of corruption do not value hard work (easier to steal or bribe your way up) and don't value helping out your neighbor (what's in it for me?). There's also little chance for advancement, unless you know someone who knows someone. Having a society that is meritocracy gives a chance for people to succeed. A democratic, capitalist system provides the best meritocracy. There's no formal proof, just 5000 years of human history. The liberal (in the classic sense, not in the modern, corrupted sense) democracies of the world are the richest countries. Conspiracy? Or is it common sense?
And I don't see how warlords raping your wife have anything to do with anything. Anarchists are the ones who oppose globalization AND having a government that protects its citizens. Libertarians, and heck, even Randians, belive in a police force and rule of law. It's the inbreds burning McDonald's to the ground as part of their "protests" who don't believe in any law except mob rule.
Ayn Rand was a crackpot (her followers have certainly turned her into a cult figure). Adam Smith was a visionary.
slashdot is a forum for anti-capitalistic viewpoints.
That's because the average/. reader is barely past puberty, and has his idiot head filled with nonsense from people who are economic illiterates.
IMHO, passing grades in courses in logic, statistics, and econ should be required before anyone graduates high school. If you want to fix problems, you have to know how to THINK about the problems first.
These anti-globalization idijts don't know math, don't know econ and are proud of it. Then half of them get jobs teaching children and perpetuate the cycle. Sheesh.
You just made up all of the numbers in your post. What kind of cogent argument is that?
Everyone is ALWAYS working to make someone you never met rich. It's what Adam Smith called "The Invisible Hand." It turns out that, most of the time, if everyone looks after their own interests, everyone benefits. There are cases where regulation is needed (primarily in regulating usage of common resources, whether they are fields for grazing livestock or radio waves or water or air), but the system works amazingly well, considering that it involves no central co-ordination.
The fact that I can buy stuff cheaper at Meglomart than I can buy them from Mom and Pop means that I have more money to spend on more things. The people who lose are the ones who can't sell something at a competitive price or who are now making something that's obsolete.
While you (and the people who modded you up) seem to have a tin-foil cap welded to your head, anyone who has a shred of common sense will realize that what passes for "corruption" in the US is piffle compared to what is common practice in the rest of the world. Look at what passes for "elections" in other countries. Look at how contracts for government services are awarded. Look how FREAKING PERMITS TO START A COMPANY are awarded. If you get outside of the US, Canada, and Western Europe, it's pretty damn hard (and with the Socialist governments in some of the EU countries, starting up a new company is pretty damn hard there, too; but that's incompetence, not corruption). Fantasizing about some imaginary link between Osama bin Laden and Bush, Sr. is nuts.
There are regular studies of rates of corruption in governments world-wide. The US comes out close to the top; not at the top, but pretty close.
There is a strong correlation between standard of living in a country and rates of corruption. The causation is likely on the side of the corruption, not on the low standard of living; countries that had low standards of living but little corruption (say, Hong Kong in the 1950's) raised their standards of living remarkably quickly.
And, hey, those presidential connections sure helped Enron get bailed out, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
-jon
Try that, Windows boys ;-)
-jon
2. They're not upset; that's the sound of Java developers rolling around in the large piles of money they make writing software that people actually use.
3. Because it's easier to nitpick the best product than it is to find all of the memory leaks and bad pointer refs in the C++ code written by l33t hax0rs.
4. Yes; if you can amuse your inferiors at no cost to yourself, why not bring some joy into their sad lives?
-jon
What are you using for web development?
-jon
Like I said, generation gap.
-jon
GI Joe, He-Man, Transformers...the plots might have been absurdly childish, but at least the art didn't make me cringe...
-jon
You gave your lunch money to the school bully, didn't you?
-jon
-jon
-jon
Loading this story (with 390-something articles showing, nested) with IE 5.1.4 and OmniWeb 4.1b4. IE took 3 minutes, 5seconds. OmniWeb took 58 seconds. Same page, same computer, I even ran OmniWeb second, so if there were more posts, it was OmniWeb that had to suck it up. It was still more than 3 times faster.
I'd say IE has the problem, not Mac OS X.
-jon
Maybe IE is generating a more accurate view of the pages; IIRC, iCab doesn't properly indent Slashdot discussions, making it worthless for viewing nested discussions. I'm pretty sure that Mozilla does the Right Thing in OS 9 and Mozilla and OmniWeb do the Right Thin in OS X.
Which reminds me: did you view nested or threaded during your test? I was viewing nested.
-jon
It's icky and against the entire point of the web, but c'est la vie. OmniWeb and Mozilla are getting closer every day...
-jon
The problem is in the Tasmin rendering engine used by IE for Mac. But blaming Apple seemed to be the easiest thing for them to do.
There are certainly performance problems in OS X's UI, but let's give blame where blame is due.
-jon
My iMac draws 170W max, less than 90W in standby, less than 35W asleep. My iBook draws 45W max, 18W in standby, less than 5W asleep. The iBook is actually faster than the iMac, too...
Remember, these numbers include the monitor.
-jon
Zero. California's power crisis was due to market manipulation by out of state power companies.
-jon
You mean like my iMac?
-jon
creationism == God.
Therefore, you're an idiot.
-jon
Think Prohibition. It was better for August Busch to be supplying America with alcohol than it was for Al Capone. We may have more drunks, but we have fewer Valentine Day Massacres. And the government certainly collects more in taxes from sales of Bud than they did from sales of whatever hooch Capone was peddling.
If the government officially sanctions the sale of Coke, Heroin, Pot, PCP, Crystal, LSD, X, whatever, it would make a forture for the government in tax revenues. Heck, if drug companies could make and sell recreational drugs, the cost of the pills that actually help people would drop like a rock. Cancer drugs subsided by crack. I like the idea.
-jon
However, "Police State" usually connotes that people are imprisoned for beliefs, not actions. The US isn't considered a police state (except by a fringe population) because its OK in the US to advocate smoking pot, but it is illegal to actually perform the action.
Personally, as a non-drug user, I think all drug laws should be repealed. Get rid of DUI and simply punish people for reckless driving. If you still feel the need to punish people extra for using drugs, increase penalties for crimes committed under the influence, whether it's vandalism or reckless driving or murder.
-jon
You need a serious history lesson, and I don't feel like giving it right now. You also need to define what you mean by "Globalization." You seem to think it's the same as "Gunboat diplomacy" and "colonialization." It's neither. In many ways, it's the opposite.
The driving realization behind globalization is simple: trade makes everyone rich. The more efficiently things are manufactured, with as little transportation of the intermediate raw materials (shipping costs predominate in the cost of most items), the lower the prices could be, and the greater profit for the sellers. If workers in one place are willing to take less money for the same work, and they provide the same quality of work, why wouldn't you want to employ those cheaper laborers? The reason people take "sweatshop" wages in third world countries is that they beat the hell out of any other wages that are available.
The only way to get better wages in third world countries is to develop a middle class that has a stable source of income (no hoarding of funds in case the crop fails), has a stable and free government (no worries about being shot for praying or saying the wrong thing), and has a basically capitalist system (I have control over the capital that I earn, minus taxes).
Back to globalization and overseas workers. If your overseas workers create a lower quality product that hurts your company in the marketplace, then you'll lose sales. If you get the same (or higher, as in the case of software that has been outsourced to India) quality, you can make higher profits at the same price, or undercut your competition and make the same profit at the lower price. The poor people overseas get more money than they'd ever had a chance to before. The consumers get lower-priced goods. The companies get higher profits. Everyone wins. Yay capitalism. The only "losers" are those who are unwilling to either take advantage of lower costs, are unable to reposition themselves (such as many family farms becoming "organic" farms that charge more for produce without pesticides), or those who are unskilled in anything but what they are currently doing (rust belt auto workers and steel workers). The first two groups should be left to fend for themselves, but governments should step in to educate (or pay to educate) workers who need retraining.
My suspicion is that most of those who are leading the complaints about globalization are those who stand to lose the most from it: unions for semi-skilled laborers, farmers who don't want to lose their subsidies, Marxists who hate being proved wrong yet again, and non-governmental organizations that are afraid of being unimportant when the poor people in third world countries stop being poor and needing them.
-jon
Socialism is the centralization of capital, so it can be dolled out by those who know better. This doesn't tend to work too well. This is why socialist countries tend to have high unemployment and low rates of economic growth.
Someone always brings up Sweeden when they talk about Socialism. Reminds me of a story. Milton Freedman, the conservative economist was talking to a more liberal economist. The liberal economist said that in Sweeden there was no poverty. Freedman responded, "In America, there's no poverty among Sweedes, either."
The meaning of the anecdote is that cultures that have a strong work ethic and a cultural history of sticking together (which certainly describes the Sweedes; can't survive the winter by slacking off, and helping out your neighbor is a good deed that will come back to you sometime in the future).
Cultures that have high rates of corruption do not value hard work (easier to steal or bribe your way up) and don't value helping out your neighbor (what's in it for me?). There's also little chance for advancement, unless you know someone who knows someone. Having a society that is meritocracy gives a chance for people to succeed. A democratic, capitalist system provides the best meritocracy. There's no formal proof, just 5000 years of human history. The liberal (in the classic sense, not in the modern, corrupted sense) democracies of the world are the richest countries. Conspiracy? Or is it common sense?
And I don't see how warlords raping your wife have anything to do with anything. Anarchists are the ones who oppose globalization AND having a government that protects its citizens. Libertarians, and heck, even Randians, belive in a police force and rule of law. It's the inbreds burning McDonald's to the ground as part of their "protests" who don't believe in any law except mob rule.
Ayn Rand was a crackpot (her followers have certainly turned her into a cult figure). Adam Smith was a visionary.
And KotH is hardly anti-capitalist.
-jon
Fact: the average slashdotter is male
Fact: the average slashdotter has not attended a high school that requires coursework in econ, statistics, or logic
Fact: the average school teacher in America is not qualified to teach the subjects they teach, especially in science and math
Fact: the average school teacher's political leanings are leftist.
Please dispute these facts with sources. Otherwise, you're just uncomfortable with the fact that I've nailed the truth.
And, yes, you're right. I've never seen a "differential" opinion.
-jon
That's because the average /. reader is barely past puberty, and has his idiot head filled with nonsense from people who are economic illiterates.
IMHO, passing grades in courses in logic, statistics, and econ should be required before anyone graduates high school. If you want to fix problems, you have to know how to THINK about the problems first.
These anti-globalization idijts don't know math, don't know econ and are proud of it. Then half of them get jobs teaching children and perpetuate the cycle. Sheesh.
-jon
Everyone is ALWAYS working to make someone you never met rich. It's what Adam Smith called "The Invisible Hand." It turns out that, most of the time, if everyone looks after their own interests, everyone benefits. There are cases where regulation is needed (primarily in regulating usage of common resources, whether they are fields for grazing livestock or radio waves or water or air), but the system works amazingly well, considering that it involves no central co-ordination.
The fact that I can buy stuff cheaper at Meglomart than I can buy them from Mom and Pop means that I have more money to spend on more things. The people who lose are the ones who can't sell something at a competitive price or who are now making something that's obsolete.
-jon
There are regular studies of rates of corruption in governments world-wide. The US comes out close to the top; not at the top, but pretty close.
There is a strong correlation between standard of living in a country and rates of corruption. The causation is likely on the side of the corruption, not on the low standard of living; countries that had low standards of living but little corruption (say, Hong Kong in the 1950's) raised their standards of living remarkably quickly.
And, hey, those presidential connections sure helped Enron get bailed out, huh?
-jon