Well, the whole thing was intended as a quick (and admittedly lame) joke, but...
You really should declare a document type here.
Yes, I should, but I don't know of any browser with a user base > 500 people that will choke on that ommission.
You have set a background colour without setting
contrasting text colours. This is going to make life very difficult for people who have set their default text colour to white, light grey, yellow, etc. You didn't take that into account, did you?
Yes, I did take it into account. Then I ignored it because you can't make everything perect for everybody in ANY sort of publishing.
You've used arbitrary pixel widths for your tables. This can cause unecessary problems for users with lower resolution displays (e.g. WebTV) or who have chosen to use small-windowed browsers. It also defeats one of HTML's main features by forcing one layout across multiple configurations and users.
That "main feature" has evolved into a major problem for developers. The large variety of different sorts of information presented through a web browser make it far too complicated for HTML to just be a mark-up language anymore. Layout is necessary, as evidenced by the growing number of layout tools in the HTML spec. Pages should target the lowest reasonable common denominator, which in this case is a 600 pixel browser window.
why not use table header () tags to designate your row headers (and use more descriptive headers too). While you're at it, consider using the caption, header, and footer elements.
Because while a nice theory, in practice this almost always results in obfuscated and overly-tagged code.
You've failed to provide alternative text for non-sighted and non-inline-image-displaying brower users.
I considered that a good thing. Do you really want a verbal description of that picture?
You should really also include width and height attributes so as to help the browser place the image.
Doesn't that defeat your whole argument about HTML being strictly for mark-up? Isn't that forcing layout?
HTML authors should consider *all* of the media on which their document can be viewed, not just the display of a graphical browser.
Uh, why? HTML is a lousy format for printed work and shouldn't be used that way.
there's a lot more to good HTML markup than just throwing tags around
HTML is a subset of SGML, and should never be seriously considered for the type of markup you imply. Sorry, I think you were looking for the XML story and got lost.
But you're attacking me on issues I never raised. The parent of this entire discussion asked why nobody ever complains about bloat in KDE. Yes, you can get it to run on many *nix flavors, and yes you can eliminate much of that bloat. But Why is there so much bloat in the standard install in the first place, and how come nobody ever complains about it? Is it immune from bloat criticism just because it's targeted at the free OS crowd? If so then that's hypocritical.
I'm glad you decided to completely ignore my last paragraph. Let me rephrase my comment for you:
If the standard installation of a GUI desktop environment is as full of bloat as the competition that you rail against, then what exactly is the point of it?
I have an old P200 with 128M and a 2M video card. It ran NT just fine, with minimal tweaking. I installed Mandrake with KDE on this same box and it took me DAYS to get it running at anything close to acceptable speeds. So let me ask one more time: What's the point?
Yeah, that's something nobody talks about around here. A standard installation of KDE includes enough bloatware and eye candy to make it virtually unusable on anything with less than 64M and an 8M video card.
And don't pipe up with the "but I can customize it for my needs" crap. Any GUI can be stripped down if you want. That's not the point.
...a way to patch these holes automatically. Maybe they could develop a scripting language that could be run through an email client and then just mail the patch to everyone for auto-execution.
(He) created an environmentally safe fly pesticide and invented a sugar substitute that enable diabetics to eat all the sweets they want
"Every time he opens his mouth about Mars, he makes a fool of himself,"
It is sad when a person such as Gil Levin devotes so much energy on something that can only meet failure. Obviously he's a bright guy, capable of doing things that have a meaningful impact on society. Yet, he has obsessed for a 1/4 century on something that is at best a pipe dream.
What is it about so many scientists that drives them to absurd interests when there are other, more immediate problems right here that need to be dealt with? Life on Mars is just like cold fusion - a great idea that will never be proven.
It's almost like many of these brilliant scientist are in fact just idiot savants. They do one or two great things, then devolve into utter silliness. Tesla set the example in more ways than one, I think...
Re:Crippled for a reason
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
Go ahead, keep abusing the moderation privledges. I've still got lots of karma left.
Can you get this thing to run WAP? (Site is/.ed, so I can't tell). The idea of any sort of immersive VR is really problematic and largely useless when it comes to wearables, but augemented reality is something to be very excited about. However, augmented reality really needs net access to work.
Genetic crippling is not done for the purpose of profits. It is done to ensure that some biological mutation doesn't get out of hand and destroy an ecosystem (like, say, kudzu).
Also, there are huge safety concerns with genetically modified food. Maybe we should make sure this stuff isn't going to kill millions before we unload tons of it on a third world country?
We need to slow way down with our adoption of these food products. There have been far too many disasters unleashed by our arrogance already.
I do not believe this ABMnet of yours is comparable... It's a DEFINED niche product with centralization...GNUtella simply is not.
First, it's not centralized anymore than Gnutella is. The client is virtually identical. Second, Gnutella was intended to be a niche product. It was written for mp3's and "oh yeah, you can trade other stuff with it, too, I guess". Based on the report it is very arguable that all the non-mp3 trading is what is bogging down the network.
From your first post: GNUtella may be an interesting idea, but it's nothing more than a hack.
There is a strong implication in your statement, reinforced elsewhere, that because Gnutella can't be everything for everybody it is useless and should be discarded. I have given you one concrete example of a use that fills a very real need, at least as far as users are concerned. Not only does it make one certain type of file sharing much easier, it also substantially increases efficiency by decreasing redundancy on already over-loaded news servers.
So, you're partly right. Gnutella isn't, and can't be, everything for everybody. It's not supposed to replace http, ftp, etc. It's simply a better means for one type of file transfer.
Why spend hours wandering acres of mall space looking for something when you can go right to the specialty store that has what you need? Or, to use another analogy, why throw away the allen wrenches just because most people use screws?
I still don't see anything wrong with splintering protocols if they serve genuine needs, and Gnutella is quickly and admirably growing into roles that it is suitable for.
Splitting into subnetworks is both infeasible and undesirable.
Splitting into subnetworks is not only feasable and desirable, it has already been done in at least one case that I know of (and use).
There is a thriving and growing subnet known as ABMnet, which is a spin-off of binary newsgroups. People primarily trade missing individual posts that don't show up on their individual servers rather than entire binaries. In other words, if you're just missing Something.R23 you now stand a very good chance of finding it on ABMnet instead of filling up the newsgroup with repost requests.
The S/N ratio is very low because all users are there for one small purpose. You don't have to deal with 8,000 "Britney Spears Topless" searches, and by being a small niche network it promotes a sense of community which encourages more file sharing.
There is no network admin, no physical location, no centralization. In short, it's a ragtag and volatile collection of different IP addresses.
Hmm. Sounds just like the greater internet as a whole, but evolving at a faster rate. So, why exactly is this bad? Are you an old mainframe guy who still hasn't gotten over the idea of individuals having power?
As for your assertion that this is just for "warez/mp3/porn", well, those three things, specifically porn, drive the vast majority of all network traffic now. What else is there that would encourage such large-scale sharing of files? This is reality. Deal with it.
Your troll was pretty good. Unfortunately, I don't think you were intentionally trolling.
As far as I can tell, the only reason AOL is hated so much is because some people still resent the day AOL dumped a boat-load of newbies onto the net. First, this has always smacked of petty elitism. Second, how many of you posting anti-AOL flames had even entered puberty when this happened, let alone used the internet?
What AOL does is offer hassle-free net access to people who don't have the time or training to otherwise use online services. Why is this a bad thing?
Slashdot: Firmly in favor of access for everybody (unless we need to feel superior to someone and beat up on a reasonably decent corporation that day).
The screen grab posted shows the ungodly hour of 2:13AM. Can we really trust code that was finalized at this time of day? What kinds of mistakes have slipped in due to sleep deprivation?
I'd have to agree. The parent deserved the + mod far more than I did. Probably some 1/4 wit browsing at +2.
Re:Promising Eloquence, Flawed Conclusions
on
Hacking The City
·
· Score: 4
It's 18,000 years of human development hard. And we haven't even laid down a solid framework yet.
We've got lots of solid framework to go by, some of it dating back to the Greeks and beyond. Problem is we're not very good at understanding it, and even worse at practicing what we do understand.
What's funnier is the idea that somehow just by being a geek you are automatically qualified to solve any and all problems that you choose.
According to the article this guy moved to SF after spending most of his adolesence coding, only to spend the next 6 years doing more coding. So, by virtue of Netscape's former success, he is now uniquely able to not only understand, but also solve very large scale urban sociological problems.
I can't wait until geeks start branching out into areas other than urban planning. Just think of how successful Linus will be when he decides to tackle AIDS. I hear Alan Cox has a really workable plan for a Mid-East peace agreement, too.
And these folks don't even have a website of their own that we can look at? Ha!
I love this, too:
Whitelaw demonstrates steganography - the art of concealing text within more text
And all this time I thought steganography was much more complicated, and much more useful, than that. It's too bad I can't hide raw data in an audio file like I thought I could...
I approached 3D design in school with what can only be called fanaticism, learning every tool I could, hogging the high-end workstations night and day. It never made me a better designer, and it NEVER saved me ANY time.
Now I co-own a successful design-build firm. I work in AutoCAD, 2D tools exclusively, and I sketch. I am fast, the clients have a full understanding of the spaces, and my construction documents convey exactly the information they need to.
I stay on top of 3D developments. I know 3DS-Max well, I can work in Lightwave, Rhino, Form*Z, etc., I can hand-code VRML, I can do photo-realistic rendering, and I can animate the shit out of a walk-through.
But I don't do any of this for actual work, because the current tools are not very good for design, and they are horrible at producing construction documents. And when you get down to it, those are the only two things that really matter in architecture; developing the design and producing the instructions necessary to make it a reality.
I believe in the future of 3D for architecture, but the present is a sick joke.
The whole idea of consumer 3D home design programs is dumb. As a matter of fact, the whole idea of 3D architectural design is 99% useless, and I do speak from experience. I have tried many 3D design packages for architecture, and they all suck. The only thing they are good for is generating a "Gee Whiz" from the client.
There are currently 3 different sorts of 3D packages out there. The first would be consumer products such as Broderbund's, which as you correctly mention is basically worthless. People spend hours generating these sickly looking, pastel colored models and then hand un-scaled and impossible to build floor plans to a builder. Then the builder says, "That's nice, but I need real plans, and it's going to cost you 2-5 grand for 'em."
The second ones are "complete" design packages like ArchiCAD and AutoCAD Architectural Desktop. They typically sell for something north of 5 thousand for a single seat license. These tools are absolutely unparalleled when it comes to spending far too long on something that seems to be working great until you try to generate either real working drawings or nice renderings. Then you discover that the package doesn't do either one very well, and you spend even more time fixing everything, often in another program.
The final visiualisation tools are "pure" 3d programs like Alias, 3D Studio Max, etc. These are wonderful for creating stunning looking pictures that can't be built for anything even close to a realistic budget. They also do not generate any sort of functional working drawings, so you still have to go to another program for drafting.
What DOES work for architectural CAD? 2D vector drawing tools combined with real, hands-on knowledge of actual construction practices and the ability to hand-sketch 1 & 2 point perspectives for the client. Everybody has been blathering about digital architecture for about 5 years now, making ridiculous claims about what it allows designers to do, and it is all a bunch of bullshit. Again, 2D CAD, hand drawing, real knowledge. These are what you need, and these are the only practical tools that actually work.
The siren call of 3D toys is strong, and no doubt eventually they will be able to do what people dream they should, but the current reality is not even close. My advice to anybody looking for some sort of miracle, Swiss Army CAD program is to instead spend the money on manual drafting tools and learn how to visualise in 3 dimensions. If you don't you are just wasting your time, because I absolutely guarantee any decent architect can create real plans and renderings that the client understands in far less time than some 3D jockey with an SGI.
Slashdot Mirror
You really should declare a document type here.
Yes, I should, but I don't know of any browser with a user base > 500 people that will choke on that ommission.
You have set a background colour without setting contrasting text colours. This is going to make life very difficult for people who have set their default text colour to white, light grey, yellow, etc. You didn't take that into account, did you?
Yes, I did take it into account. Then I ignored it because you can't make everything perect for everybody in ANY sort of publishing.
You've used arbitrary pixel widths for your tables. This can cause unecessary problems for users with lower resolution displays (e.g. WebTV) or who have chosen to use small-windowed browsers. It also defeats one of HTML's main features by forcing one layout across multiple configurations and users.
That "main feature" has evolved into a major problem for developers. The large variety of different sorts of information presented through a web browser make it far too complicated for HTML to just be a mark-up language anymore. Layout is necessary, as evidenced by the growing number of layout tools in the HTML spec. Pages should target the lowest reasonable common denominator, which in this case is a 600 pixel browser window.
why not use table header () tags to designate your row headers (and use more descriptive headers too). While you're at it, consider using the caption, header, and footer elements.
Because while a nice theory, in practice this almost always results in obfuscated and overly-tagged code.
You've failed to provide alternative text for non-sighted and non-inline-image-displaying brower users.
I considered that a good thing. Do you really want a verbal description of that picture?
You should really also include width and height attributes so as to help the browser place the image.
Doesn't that defeat your whole argument about HTML being strictly for mark-up? Isn't that forcing layout?
HTML authors should consider *all* of the media on which their document can be viewed, not just the display of a graphical browser.
Uh, why? HTML is a lousy format for printed work and shouldn't be used that way.
there's a lot more to good HTML markup than just throwing tags around
HTML is a subset of SGML, and should never be seriously considered for the type of markup you imply. Sorry, I think you were looking for the XML story and got lost.
I would like to point out myself that I didn't close one tag properly before I get flamed for it :-/
<HEAD>
<TITLE>What's so difficult about HTML?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgcolor="FFFFFF">
<TABLE width="600">
<TR>
<TD><B>Column One</B></TD>
<TD><B>Column Two</B></TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>A Picture:</TD>
<TD><IMG src="../graphics/goatsex.jpg><TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>Link:</TD>
<TD><A HREF="http://www.goatse.cx/">Click Here!</A></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
But you're attacking me on issues I never raised. The parent of this entire discussion asked why nobody ever complains about bloat in KDE. Yes, you can get it to run on many *nix flavors, and yes you can eliminate much of that bloat. But Why is there so much bloat in the standard install in the first place, and how come nobody ever complains about it? Is it immune from bloat criticism just because it's targeted at the free OS crowd? If so then that's hypocritical.
If the standard installation of a GUI desktop environment is as full of bloat as the competition that you rail against, then what exactly is the point of it?
I have an old P200 with 128M and a 2M video card. It ran NT just fine, with minimal tweaking. I installed Mandrake with KDE on this same box and it took me DAYS to get it running at anything close to acceptable speeds. So let me ask one more time: What's the point?
And don't pipe up with the "but I can customize it for my needs" crap. Any GUI can be stripped down if you want. That's not the point.
...a way to patch these holes automatically. Maybe they could develop a scripting language that could be run through an email client and then just mail the patch to everyone for auto-execution.
Unpopular opinion != Troll
"Every time he opens his mouth about Mars, he makes a fool of himself,"
It is sad when a person such as Gil Levin devotes so much energy on something that can only meet failure. Obviously he's a bright guy, capable of doing things that have a meaningful impact on society. Yet, he has obsessed for a 1/4 century on something that is at best a pipe dream.
What is it about so many scientists that drives them to absurd interests when there are other, more immediate problems right here that need to be dealt with? Life on Mars is just like cold fusion - a great idea that will never be proven.
It's almost like many of these brilliant scientist are in fact just idiot savants. They do one or two great things, then devolve into utter silliness. Tesla set the example in more ways than one, I think...
Go ahead, keep abusing the moderation privledges. I've still got lots of karma left.
Can you get this thing to run WAP? (Site is
Also, there are huge safety concerns with genetically modified food. Maybe we should make sure this stuff isn't going to kill millions before we unload tons of it on a third world country?
We need to slow way down with our adoption of these food products. There have been far too many disasters unleashed by our arrogance already.
First, it's not centralized anymore than Gnutella is. The client is virtually identical. Second, Gnutella was intended to be a niche product. It was written for mp3's and "oh yeah, you can trade other stuff with it, too, I guess". Based on the report it is very arguable that all the non-mp3 trading is what is bogging down the network.
From your first post:
GNUtella may be an interesting idea, but it's nothing more than a hack.
There is a strong implication in your statement, reinforced elsewhere, that because Gnutella can't be everything for everybody it is useless and should be discarded. I have given you one concrete example of a use that fills a very real need, at least as far as users are concerned. Not only does it make one certain type of file sharing much easier, it also substantially increases efficiency by decreasing redundancy on already over-loaded news servers.
So, you're partly right. Gnutella isn't, and can't be, everything for everybody. It's not supposed to replace http, ftp, etc. It's simply a better means for one type of file transfer.
Why spend hours wandering acres of mall space looking for something when you can go right to the specialty store that has what you need? Or, to use another analogy, why throw away the allen wrenches just because most people use screws?
I still don't see anything wrong with splintering protocols if they serve genuine needs, and Gnutella is quickly and admirably growing into roles that it is suitable for.
Splitting into subnetworks is not only feasable and desirable, it has already been done in at least one case that I know of (and use).
There is a thriving and growing subnet known as ABMnet, which is a spin-off of binary newsgroups. People primarily trade missing individual posts that don't show up on their individual servers rather than entire binaries. In other words, if you're just missing Something.R23 you now stand a very good chance of finding it on ABMnet instead of filling up the newsgroup with repost requests.
The S/N ratio is very low because all users are there for one small purpose. You don't have to deal with 8,000 "Britney Spears Topless" searches, and by being a small niche network it promotes a sense of community which encourages more file sharing.
There is no network admin, no physical location, no centralization. In short, it's a ragtag and volatile collection of different IP addresses.
Hmm. Sounds just like the greater internet as a whole, but evolving at a faster rate. So, why exactly is this bad? Are you an old mainframe guy who still hasn't gotten over the idea of individuals having power?
As for your assertion that this is just for "warez/mp3/porn", well, those three things, specifically porn, drive the vast majority of all network traffic now. What else is there that would encourage such large-scale sharing of files? This is reality. Deal with it.
Your troll was pretty good. Unfortunately, I don't think you were intentionally trolling.
As far as I can tell, the only reason AOL is hated so much is because some people still resent the day AOL dumped a boat-load of newbies onto the net. First, this has always smacked of petty elitism. Second, how many of you posting anti-AOL flames had even entered puberty when this happened, let alone used the internet?
What AOL does is offer hassle-free net access to people who don't have the time or training to otherwise use online services. Why is this a bad thing?
Slashdot: Firmly in favor of access for everybody (unless we need to feel superior to someone and beat up on a reasonably decent corporation that day).
The screen grab posted shows the ungodly hour of 2:13AM. Can we really trust code that was finalized at this time of day? What kinds of mistakes have slipped in due to sleep deprivation?
I'd have to agree. The parent deserved the + mod far more than I did. Probably some 1/4 wit browsing at +2.
We've got lots of solid framework to go by, some of it dating back to the Greeks and beyond. Problem is we're not very good at understanding it, and even worse at practicing what we do understand.
According to the article this guy moved to SF after spending most of his adolesence coding, only to spend the next 6 years doing more coding. So, by virtue of Netscape's former success, he is now uniquely able to not only understand, but also solve very large scale urban sociological problems.
I can't wait until geeks start branching out into areas other than urban planning. Just think of how successful Linus will be when he decides to tackle AIDS. I hear Alan Cox has a really workable plan for a Mid-East peace agreement, too.
I love this, too:
Whitelaw demonstrates steganography - the art of concealing text within more text
And all this time I thought steganography was much more complicated, and much more useful, than that. It's too bad I can't hide raw data in an audio file like I thought I could...
I approached 3D design in school with what can only be called fanaticism, learning every tool I could, hogging the high-end workstations night and day. It never made me a better designer, and it NEVER saved me ANY time.
Now I co-own a successful design-build firm. I work in AutoCAD, 2D tools exclusively, and I sketch. I am fast, the clients have a full understanding of the spaces, and my construction documents convey exactly the information they need to.
I stay on top of 3D developments. I know 3DS-Max well, I can work in Lightwave, Rhino, Form*Z, etc., I can hand-code VRML, I can do photo-realistic rendering, and I can animate the shit out of a walk-through.
But I don't do any of this for actual work, because the current tools are not very good for design, and they are horrible at producing construction documents. And when you get down to it, those are the only two things that really matter in architecture; developing the design and producing the instructions necessary to make it a reality.
I believe in the future of 3D for architecture, but the present is a sick joke.
Not necessarily. Parody is fair use.
There are currently 3 different sorts of 3D packages out there. The first would be consumer products such as Broderbund's, which as you correctly mention is basically worthless. People spend hours generating these sickly looking, pastel colored models and then hand un-scaled and impossible to build floor plans to a builder. Then the builder says, "That's nice, but I need real plans, and it's going to cost you 2-5 grand for 'em."
The second ones are "complete" design packages like ArchiCAD and AutoCAD Architectural Desktop. They typically sell for something north of 5 thousand for a single seat license. These tools are absolutely unparalleled when it comes to spending far too long on something that seems to be working great until you try to generate either real working drawings or nice renderings. Then you discover that the package doesn't do either one very well, and you spend even more time fixing everything, often in another program.
The final visiualisation tools are "pure" 3d programs like Alias, 3D Studio Max, etc. These are wonderful for creating stunning looking pictures that can't be built for anything even close to a realistic budget. They also do not generate any sort of functional working drawings, so you still have to go to another program for drafting.
What DOES work for architectural CAD? 2D vector drawing tools combined with real, hands-on knowledge of actual construction practices and the ability to hand-sketch 1 & 2 point perspectives for the client. Everybody has been blathering about digital architecture for about 5 years now, making ridiculous claims about what it allows designers to do, and it is all a bunch of bullshit. Again, 2D CAD, hand drawing, real knowledge. These are what you need, and these are the only practical tools that actually work.
The siren call of 3D toys is strong, and no doubt eventually they will be able to do what people dream they should, but the current reality is not even close. My advice to anybody looking for some sort of miracle, Swiss Army CAD program is to instead spend the money on manual drafting tools and learn how to visualise in 3 dimensions. If you don't you are just wasting your time, because I absolutely guarantee any decent architect can create real plans and renderings that the client understands in far less time than some 3D jockey with an SGI.
This looks strongly like a press release for the Gartner Group
Nope. I've checked both here and AT&T's site (see below) for the actual releases and I can't find anything.
There is nothing even remotely close to this on AT&T's press release page