The problem with web applications is not just broken browsers. The problem is the environment itself. Nowadays with the right language and libraries, it's not even that hard to store state on the server. But you're still dealing with a very dumb client, which can display a few types of pre-made widgets, dump the state of those widgets back to you, and maybe use an overwrought scripting language to manipulate those widgets. People want portable web apps that do all sorts of things the web environment was never designed to do.
Let's face it: the web is not a great place to build a usable GUI. It's a downright terrible place, in fact.
If you used a credit card, then when the purchase came in DOA you could have called them up and asked them to dispute payment on the product. That way the reseller has every incentive to work with you, either to give you your money back or to give you a product that works.
What, exactly, was the mission that required the B-2 to begin with? Delivering nuclear weapons to Moscow? Our missiles, including "first-strike safe" submarine-launched missiles, could do that just fine. Attacking factories in the Soviet Union during a protracted conventional war? Cruise missiles could do that much more cheaply, and again could be launched by submarines or even B-52s. Besides, a WWII-style attack on a nation's industrial base would (in the era of AA missiles) be impractical without nuclear weapons.
No, the only use for a stealth bomber was to make a decapitating strike on Soviet leadership without warning. In other words, to destabilize the world by making each side aware that the US was capable of a successful first strike. That's hardly a goal worth the billions of dollars each bomber costs.
Not at all--the "window" for a project is longer than ever. Drones have been in development for decades. Weapons are becoming more and more complicated, and the development cycles are getting longer. Not only that, but weapons are being used for longer and longer. The B-29 was developed, used, and retired in the span of a decade. The B-52 is still in use today, half a century after the first aircraft entered service. The Abrams M-1 is still the tank to beat, and AFAIK there are no replacement plans on the horizon. Everything seems to point to development being more important so that the weapon can stay in use for longer.
The Comanche was designed to provide quick, stealthy recon in the hills of central Europe. With the Soviet threat gone, it became a project without a cause. It survived as a development project so long that it was overtaken by drones. If it had not been for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Comanche might have been in service in the 90's, before the drones were up to the task.
They're all in Cooker, because the Mandrake community is focused on 10.0 right now. Believe it or not, a KDE upgrade can break a lot of things in a distro. I'd rather the Mandrake KDE people worked on getting it right for the next version than on backporting it to a version that doesn't need it.
But the power was never in the parliament anyway, which is why the reformers boycotted the elections and the conservatives won in a landslide. The power is in the hands of the Guardian Council, which are the ones that brought matters to a head by banning hundreds of reformist MPs from standing for reelection.
I'm not sure... there are two cases here. First, SCO thinks in good faith that it owns IP in Linux. In that case, I think it's pretty hard to sue them. Second, they know there is none. Then they're saying "we give you a license for $(FOO)", and they happen to know that FOO is empty or undefined, and they hope you think it's not.
What are you going to do, drop it on someone? Shotgun shells aren't particularly dangerous unless fired out of a shotgun--and a shotgun isn't massless. You might as well just drop a 1 lb rock on the target. Depending on the altitude and terminal velocity of the object, you might hurt someone. Then again, the more (downwards) velocity you want it to have, the higher you have to drop it from, and thus the less likely you are to hit your target. I suppose you could try dive-bombing to increase your accuracy, but this is starting to get quite complicated and require real skill.
An $8.9m script? For that price, it better contain the answers to all the toughest philosophical mysteries of the universe. Oh, and maybe some frontal nudity, a car chase, and no more than one "fuck" if it's PG-13?
It's certainly not a crime, but I think that any child that ages from 10 to 12 years old within the span of one Sunday afternoon would arouse some suspicion!
Yeah, because sometime that week they'll be old enough to drink.
The SSN has your name, a (theoretically) unique number, and your signature. It doesn't make a very good identification card. If you tried to use it at the airport, they'd laugh at you.
Uh, if the US Supreme Court says asking for ID without cause violates the US Constitution, then it will have effectively nullified the California state law.
Also, all the car chases you see on TV end in the death or capture of the criminal... they never show anyone getting away.
Well, to be fair to the TV stations they do show many of those car chases live. But consider that in order for them to show a car chase, there has to be a news station helicopter watching it. That pretty much means the chase is happening in a city, where the police force has its own helicopter and plenty of other resources to chase down cars successfully. In other words, by the time a news helicopter makes it to a chase, the police have already committed to finishing it.
If the officer says "not worth my trouble" or "not worth endangering the public" and never attempts the chase, it doesn't get on TV. So especially out in less urban areas, there are much fewer successful chases per chase attempt. (It takes longer for backup to get there, and there's less likely to be a helicopter available to track the chased car if he gets out of sight of the police cars. These are also the chases you never see on TV--not because of some conspiracy, but because there are simply no news helicopters to film them.
They were playing games with the inspectors... and then the US Congress voted to authorize a war, and suddenly Iraq couldn't invite the inspectors back in fast enough. But the Bush administration had no interest in working inspections, so they had the CIA send the inspectors on wild goose chases. (The charitable version is that the CIA simply had no fucking clue.) And when the inspectors did find something (a few missiles that had been modified beyond the UN-approved range limits), the Bush administration didn't admit that it showed inspections to be working--they said it showed that the inspectors were insufficient! Because they actually were doing their job and getting results!
If you want to say we had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, look at the potential humanitarian benefits. As Bush points out whenever the WMD question comes up, Saddam Hussein's regime was brutal and unjust. There's an argument to be made there. I'm not sure I agree with it--a war of liberation needs a lot more backing to be widely seen as legitimate--but there was certainly an argument there that I would have listened to, had the administration made that argument before the war.
They didn't, and instead gave some crap that no one really believed either then or now (outside of US conservatives anyway). Thus, our whole foreign policy has been utterly discredited, no one believes us, and our army is too stretched to deal with (say) North Korea.
Yes, but... it's not just that Bush is stupid. It's that in his administration, politics rules over everything else. Policy exists only so far as it serves politics, and never the other way around. There are plenty of intelligent people in the administration, but they put politics above policy, above science, above the welfare of the country, and so on. It's ugly, but politically it seems to work.
A ten year term? Are you crazy? A 10 year term would mean that when someone like Bush gets "elected", he has 9 years to do whatever the fuck he wants to the country, and 1 year to do things that will get him reelected.
And they also funded SCO after it was clear what such funding would go towards. Sun has at best a mixed record of support for free software. I don't know enough about the Java situation to comment, but I do know that Sun continues to invest heavily in Solaris and (as they see it) free software is a direct threat to that investment.
I disagree with 90% of what you say, but I do think you hit on one point well: C++ is too big of a language to use when teaching the concepts of programming. But then, so is Java: you shouldn't have to teach OO before you teach about variables, conditionals, and loops. I think the best way to teach programming is to start with a scripting language that has a simple syntax. I personally would try Python. (Because I'm more comfortable with Perl, I almost never use Python myself, but think how easy it would be to teach someone to program in Python compared to C++.)
Re:On the subject of language
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
No, he really meant "duplicitous". Take this excerpt on for loops:
The first for loop was written for Unix, and therefore all for loops belong to the SCO Group.
The US has veto power only in the Security Council. In the General Assembly and elsewhere, which is where most of the work of the UN gets done, the US has just one normal vote. The US may have vetoed some SC resolutions on Israel, but there have been dozens of GA resolutions on which it cast a futile and ineffectual "no" vote.
If you've seen a US magazine stand lately, you'll know this is pretty much par for the course. Everyone is doing the lists thing these days. It's easier than writing a real article and sells better because it requires less of an attention span from the reader. (Instead of reading a big chunk of text, the reader can read a paragraph or two at a time.)
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with web applications is not just broken browsers. The problem is the environment itself. Nowadays with the right language and libraries, it's not even that hard to store state on the server. But you're still dealing with a very dumb client, which can display a few types of pre-made widgets, dump the state of those widgets back to you, and maybe use an overwrought scripting language to manipulate those widgets. People want portable web apps that do all sorts of things the web environment was never designed to do.
Let's face it: the web is not a great place to build a usable GUI. It's a downright terrible place, in fact.
Yeah but then MS trolls could call Linux users child molestors.
If you used a credit card, then when the purchase came in DOA you could have called them up and asked them to dispute payment on the product. That way the reseller has every incentive to work with you, either to give you your money back or to give you a product that works.
What, exactly, was the mission that required the B-2 to begin with? Delivering nuclear weapons to Moscow? Our missiles, including "first-strike safe" submarine-launched missiles, could do that just fine. Attacking factories in the Soviet Union during a protracted conventional war? Cruise missiles could do that much more cheaply, and again could be launched by submarines or even B-52s. Besides, a WWII-style attack on a nation's industrial base would (in the era of AA missiles) be impractical without nuclear weapons.
No, the only use for a stealth bomber was to make a decapitating strike on Soviet leadership without warning. In other words, to destabilize the world by making each side aware that the US was capable of a successful first strike. That's hardly a goal worth the billions of dollars each bomber costs.
Not at all--the "window" for a project is longer than ever. Drones have been in development for decades. Weapons are becoming more and more complicated, and the development cycles are getting longer. Not only that, but weapons are being used for longer and longer. The B-29 was developed, used, and retired in the span of a decade. The B-52 is still in use today, half a century after the first aircraft entered service. The Abrams M-1 is still the tank to beat, and AFAIK there are no replacement plans on the horizon. Everything seems to point to development being more important so that the weapon can stay in use for longer.
The Comanche was designed to provide quick, stealthy recon in the hills of central Europe. With the Soviet threat gone, it became a project without a cause. It survived as a development project so long that it was overtaken by drones. If it had not been for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Comanche might have been in service in the 90's, before the drones were up to the task.
They're all in Cooker, because the Mandrake community is focused on 10.0 right now. Believe it or not, a KDE upgrade can break a lot of things in a distro. I'd rather the Mandrake KDE people worked on getting it right for the next version than on backporting it to a version that doesn't need it.
pseudo- -- a prefix meaning fake
sudo -- a useful utility that lets you execute commands as a different user
But the power was never in the parliament anyway, which is why the reformers boycotted the elections and the conservatives won in a landslide. The power is in the hands of the Guardian Council, which are the ones that brought matters to a head by banning hundreds of reformist MPs from standing for reelection.
I'm not sure... there are two cases here. First, SCO thinks in good faith that it owns IP in Linux. In that case, I think it's pretty hard to sue them. Second, they know there is none. Then they're saying "we give you a license for $(FOO)", and they happen to know that FOO is empty or undefined, and they hope you think it's not.
You mean both of them?
What are you going to do, drop it on someone? Shotgun shells aren't particularly dangerous unless fired out of a shotgun--and a shotgun isn't massless. You might as well just drop a 1 lb rock on the target. Depending on the altitude and terminal velocity of the object, you might hurt someone. Then again, the more (downwards) velocity you want it to have, the higher you have to drop it from, and thus the less likely you are to hit your target. I suppose you could try dive-bombing to increase your accuracy, but this is starting to get quite complicated and require real skill.
An $8.9m script? For that price, it better contain the answers to all the toughest philosophical mysteries of the universe. Oh, and maybe some frontal nudity, a car chase, and no more than one "fuck" if it's PG-13?
Yeah, because sometime that week they'll be old enough to drink.
The SSN has your name, a (theoretically) unique number, and your signature. It doesn't make a very good identification card. If you tried to use it at the airport, they'd laugh at you.
Uh, if the US Supreme Court says asking for ID without cause violates the US Constitution, then it will have effectively nullified the California state law.
Well, to be fair to the TV stations they do show many of those car chases live. But consider that in order for them to show a car chase, there has to be a news station helicopter watching it. That pretty much means the chase is happening in a city, where the police force has its own helicopter and plenty of other resources to chase down cars successfully. In other words, by the time a news helicopter makes it to a chase, the police have already committed to finishing it.
If the officer says "not worth my trouble" or "not worth endangering the public" and never attempts the chase, it doesn't get on TV. So especially out in less urban areas, there are much fewer successful chases per chase attempt. (It takes longer for backup to get there, and there's less likely to be a helicopter available to track the chased car if he gets out of sight of the police cars. These are also the chases you never see on TV--not because of some conspiracy, but because there are simply no news helicopters to film them.
They were playing games with the inspectors... and then the US Congress voted to authorize a war, and suddenly Iraq couldn't invite the inspectors back in fast enough. But the Bush administration had no interest in working inspections, so they had the CIA send the inspectors on wild goose chases. (The charitable version is that the CIA simply had no fucking clue.) And when the inspectors did find something (a few missiles that had been modified beyond the UN-approved range limits), the Bush administration didn't admit that it showed inspections to be working--they said it showed that the inspectors were insufficient! Because they actually were doing their job and getting results!
If you want to say we had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, look at the potential humanitarian benefits. As Bush points out whenever the WMD question comes up, Saddam Hussein's regime was brutal and unjust. There's an argument to be made there. I'm not sure I agree with it--a war of liberation needs a lot more backing to be widely seen as legitimate--but there was certainly an argument there that I would have listened to, had the administration made that argument before the war.
They didn't, and instead gave some crap that no one really believed either then or now (outside of US conservatives anyway). Thus, our whole foreign policy has been utterly discredited, no one believes us, and our army is too stretched to deal with (say) North Korea.
Yes, but... it's not just that Bush is stupid. It's that in his administration, politics rules over everything else. Policy exists only so far as it serves politics, and never the other way around. There are plenty of intelligent people in the administration, but they put politics above policy, above science, above the welfare of the country, and so on. It's ugly, but politically it seems to work.
A ten year term? Are you crazy? A 10 year term would mean that when someone like Bush gets "elected", he has 9 years to do whatever the fuck he wants to the country, and 1 year to do things that will get him reelected.
And they also funded SCO after it was clear what such funding would go towards. Sun has at best a mixed record of support for free software. I don't know enough about the Java situation to comment, but I do know that Sun continues to invest heavily in Solaris and (as they see it) free software is a direct threat to that investment.
I disagree with 90% of what you say, but I do think you hit on one point well: C++ is too big of a language to use when teaching the concepts of programming. But then, so is Java: you shouldn't have to teach OO before you teach about variables, conditionals, and loops. I think the best way to teach programming is to start with a scripting language that has a simple syntax. I personally would try Python. (Because I'm more comfortable with Perl, I almost never use Python myself, but think how easy it would be to teach someone to program in Python compared to C++.)
No, he really meant "duplicitous". Take this excerpt on for loops:
The US has veto power only in the Security Council. In the General Assembly and elsewhere, which is where most of the work of the UN gets done, the US has just one normal vote. The US may have vetoed some SC resolutions on Israel, but there have been dozens of GA resolutions on which it cast a futile and ineffectual "no" vote.
If you've seen a US magazine stand lately, you'll know this is pretty much par for the course. Everyone is doing the lists thing these days. It's easier than writing a real article and sells better because it requires less of an attention span from the reader. (Instead of reading a big chunk of text, the reader can read a paragraph or two at a time.)