Sure it did! China now has favored-nation trading status.
Oh, wait, you meant it didn't work out well for the *protesters*.
Re:On correct use of apostrophes
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 1
Well, I've read that this is a matter of choice (though you need to pick one and be consistent). But, check out Strunk and White: http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1, who say to add the extra 's'.
I did not say that the Web is filled with "free, almost-instant, accurate help".
Correct. But no one claimed you said that.
... you can either figure out the problem is yourself or suffer through it, which, at 03:17, are basically the same choices you have with commercial software and expensive support agreements.
That's not been my experience with expensive tech support. True, middle-of-the-night support is weaker than in the daytime, but I will still get a more accurate answer, and sooner, than I would from the Internet.
I will also have an SLA, which you don't get from hack-it-yourself applications.
On the other hand, if you are willing to use the World-Wide Web, you can go to google.com, type in a few keywords and go straight to some page with the answer.
That is such crap. More often than not, if I have a non-trivial problem, and I search google, I find about 10 hits, each one either repeating my problem or a response saying, 'Gee maybe it's [something I already tried and it didn't work]'
The idea that the web is filled with free, almost-instant, accurate help is bullshit. Yes, there is a great deal of good stuff, and yes many people put in many unpaid hours to help others, but I'd *never* bet on getting critical application support from the Internet.
OSS applications will move lightyears ahead the minute the developers show some respect for the users by providing honest-to-god documentation that doesn't suck.
Sure, but the article's top paragraph has the book title linking to Amazon.com. Is the boycott over, or is that link there so people can check out the reviews on Amazon, then buy the book from someone else (as I do)?
If at all possible, try to teach the course using something like Smalltalk or Ruby., i.e., an OO language where everything really *is* an object.
Using C or C++ will let procedural programming thinking creep in. Using Java will frustrate people when, as they starting thinking in objects, find they can't call, say myInteger.abs() but instead have to start using procedural library calls like Math.abs(myInteger).
I have the book, and it's a good overview for getting started, but, covering so many apps, fails to provide enough detail. Plus, it does not offer enough help for when you can't get even basic sound running right.
If people need to be sysadmins or recompile kernals to do music on Linux, it just won't happen.
Encapsulation, Inheritance, and Polymorhism have been part of the language since its creation. What makes in "not-really" OO?
Can you subclass *any* object, including int and String? No?
Is everything a object? No?
Can I ask an Integer object for its absolute value? No, I need to pass data to a procudure in a utility class. That's OO?
Java provides "Encapsulation, Inheritance, and Polymorhism "[sic] for almost-but-not-all of the language. So it's some sort of hybrid that allows OO techniques in some cases, but not others. There's more to an OO language than allowing some degree of encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism in selected cases. Hence, almost, but not quite.
J2EE notwithstanding, Java byte code is a set of instructions for a JVM; the JVM in turn issues commands to the particular platform it's on. Sounds an awful lot like a scripting language to me.
only language even more OO than Java is smalltalk [...]
And you call me uneducated. Here's a clue, no charge.
Java gui support is slower than your typical native gui support, it doesn't make Java technology is a whole flawed.
True; the almost-but-not-really-OO quality of Java(tm) is what REALLY snuffs it.
The S-L-O-W UI stuff is just added sucktitude.
Today's young 'uns should be learning real languages, such as C for procedural programming, Smalltalk for OO, and Lisp for functional programming. Then, if the job market is still looking for people who can write scripts for virtual machines, go learn Java(tm).
By the way, did you know that Perl, Tcl/tk, and Awk can be Written Once, and Run Anywhere(tm)? I wonder if Sun knows this? I hope they sue the pants of those bastards for stealing the idea from Java(tm).
a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor
Emphasis mine.
Rights, as in the right to free speech, are not granted; they exist independant of anyone's recognition of them. Privileges, as in your right to hear me sing "Anarchy in the UK", depend on the agreement of other parties (in this case, me). Those other parties, though, have the overriding right (in the first sense) to revoke this consent.
Many so-called rights are really privileges granted by the state by the use of force against one group to benefit another, such as a "right" to welfare, or a corporation's "right" to limited liability.
One of the basic precepts of the libertarian philosphy is adherance to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
Well, actually, no. Where did you get this idea? Some libertarians believe those documents express a relatively good framework for an acceptable government, but they hardly define the minimalist government espoused by people like David Nolan or Murray Rothbard.
And if those names don't ring a bell, then you shouldn't be making statements about "basic precepts of the libertarian philosphy."
Bullshit. Office saves as bloated HTML. It throws in namespace-qualified elements so that it looks all XML-like, but deep down it's bastardized HTML. Not all elements are properly closed or nested, and many attributes aren't quoted.
Sure, you can save it out and load it back into Word, but so what? You can't save it and load it into an XML editor.
A particularly cute example is SOAP (Microsoft's firewall-bypass protocol) It's going to be fun to watch people try to squeeze some performance out of a SOAP based system that tries to do something interactive.
SOAP is not strictly from MSFT, though they were part of a team of developers. There are W3C and IETF submissions to "standardize" it. And SOAP uses the the HTTP firewall-bypass protocol, like, oh, web pages and CGI scripts.
I agree that some people have bought into the worst parts of XML hype, but these tend to be the same ones who bought into the Java hype as well, so it has more to do with poor management skills than XML per se.
The main problem with the legalization of drugs is that the government of Colombia is under seige by drug lords. Any tacit bow to these drug lords would signal the end of the Colombian government as we know it.
What a bold claim! So, just like that, the drug lords would be able to overtake the Colobian gov't, simply because of a "tacit bow." Care to back this up?
The reason the USA is in Colombia fighting the narco-guerillas is to prop up a shitty but more-US-friendly government. The bullshit war on drugs is an excuse for the trampling of all sorts of civil liberties, both here and abroad.
Thanks for the pointer; I stand corrected. So Compaq, when they ship machines with *their* OS, can do what *they* like. Otherwise they have to follow the licensing agreements, and if they don't care for that, they are free to refuse to deal with MSFT. But of course they understand that it is to their economic advatage to play along. It just isn't as *convenient* as they would prefer.
You would appear far less moronic if your use of childish vulgarity was restricted to commenting on what the previous poster *actually* said, rather than your "I'm too full of self-righteous MS-loathing to read straight" interpretation.
No I haven't "lost control". No, its not going to be seen the same on every browser, but standards do exist for a reason. I can (should) at least trust that the browser they use isn't gonna screw with the content of my page.
What sort of standards do you mean? HTML is a recommendation from the W3C, which is (mostly) a consortia of private companies. You can trust all you want, but you really have no prior agreement over what the rendering agent will be, or what it will do to your HTML.
HTML is like a musical score. Just as a score is not the actual music one heres, HTML is not the actual page one sees. So, the Web is a world of "cover versions." Get used to it.
Someone else is making advertising money over MY content, and their advertising may or may not slander me and I have no way of knowing what it is unless I buy their service. That is something I can not allow.
Then either stop providing your HTML without a prior contractual usage agreement, or turn all your precious content into images or Flash or something, or get of the Web. I'm really sorry that the Web isn't what you would like it to be, but there it is. The HTML and the Web is *built* on one party transforming the work of another. Trust is nice but not guaranteed; people will transform HTML in ways that suit them, not you.
the difference little troll, is Mozilla is not asking anyone to pay money for the Mozilla-Logo Certified App program
So that means, Mr. Genius, that there is no chance the Moz folks would grab data they shouldn't? Becasue Mozilla has nothing to do with Netscape/AOL/Time-Warner, and even if it did, those guys are completly trustworthy. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it did! China now has favored-nation trading status.
Oh, wait, you meant it didn't work out well for the *protesters*.
Don't have the Chicago Manual handy ...
Correct. But no one claimed you said that.
That's not been my experience with expensive tech support. True, middle-of-the-night support is weaker than in the daytime, but I will still get a more accurate answer, and sooner, than I would from the Internet.
I will also have an SLA, which you don't get from hack-it-yourself applications.
That is such crap. More often than not, if I have a non-trivial problem, and I search google, I find about 10 hits, each one either repeating my problem or a response saying, 'Gee maybe it's [something I already tried and it didn't work]'
The idea that the web is filled with free, almost-instant, accurate help is bullshit. Yes, there is a great deal of good stuff, and yes many people put in many unpaid hours to help others, but I'd *never* bet on getting critical application support from the Internet.
OSS applications will move lightyears ahead the minute the developers show some respect for the users by providing honest-to-god documentation that doesn't suck.
When you lie under oath is when it becomes a bad thing. THAT was the issue, not the blowjob.
Sure, but the article's top paragraph has the book title linking to Amazon.com. Is the boycott over, or is that link there so people can check out the reviews on Amazon, then buy the book from someone else (as I do)?
Using C or C++ will let procedural programming thinking creep in. Using Java will frustrate people when, as they starting thinking in objects, find they can't call, say myInteger.abs() but instead have to start using procedural library calls like Math.abs(myInteger).
Try Ruby.
If people need to be sysadmins or recompile kernals to do music on Linux, it just won't happen.
And you are a coward.
Encapsulation, Inheritance, and Polymorhism have been part of the language since its creation. What makes in "not-really" OO?
Can you subclass *any* object, including int and String? No?
Is everything a object? No?
Can I ask an Integer object for its absolute value? No, I need to pass data to a procudure in a utility class. That's OO?
Java provides "Encapsulation, Inheritance, and Polymorhism "[sic] for almost-but-not-all of the language. So it's some sort of hybrid that allows OO techniques in some cases, but not others. There's more to an OO language than allowing some degree of encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism in selected cases. Hence, almost, but not quite.
J2EE notwithstanding, Java byte code is a set of instructions for a JVM; the JVM in turn issues commands to the particular platform it's on. Sounds an awful lot like a scripting language to me.
only language even more OO than Java is smalltalk [...]
And you call me uneducated. Here's a clue, no charge.
True; the almost-but-not-really-OO quality of Java(tm) is what REALLY snuffs it.
The S-L-O-W UI stuff is just added sucktitude.
Today's young 'uns should be learning real languages, such as C for procedural programming, Smalltalk for OO, and Lisp for functional programming. Then, if the job market is still looking for people who can write scripts for virtual machines, go learn Java(tm).
By the way, did you know that Perl, Tcl/tk, and Awk can be Written Once, and Run Anywhere(tm)? I wonder if Sun knows this? I hope they sue the pants of those bastards for stealing the idea from Java(tm).
Emphasis mine.
Rights, as in the right to free speech, are not granted; they exist independant of anyone's recognition of them. Privileges, as in your right to hear me sing "Anarchy in the UK", depend on the agreement of other parties (in this case, me). Those other parties, though, have the overriding right (in the first sense) to revoke this consent.
Many so-called rights are really privileges granted by the state by the use of force against one group to benefit another, such as a "right" to welfare, or a corporation's "right" to limited liability.
Well, actually, no. Where did you get this idea? Some libertarians believe those documents express a relatively good framework for an acceptable government, but they hardly define the minimalist government espoused by people like David Nolan or Murray Rothbard.
And if those names don't ring a bell, then you shouldn't be making statements about "basic precepts of the libertarian philosphy ."
Bullshit. Office saves as bloated HTML. It throws in namespace-qualified elements so that it looks all XML-like, but deep down it's bastardized HTML. Not all elements are properly closed or nested, and many attributes aren't quoted.
Sure, you can save it out and load it back into Word, but so what? You can't save it and load it into an XML editor.
They don't have any 'secret' license agreement, as they control both hardware and software. Yet somehow I can't see this happening.
Oh please. Sun has absolute final dictatorial say.
And please be sure to include the (tm) symbol when you use the Sun-owned Java(tm) trademark.
Is this because of the pirates?
:)
SOAP is not strictly from MSFT, though they were part of a team of developers. There are W3C and IETF submissions to "standardize" it. And SOAP uses the the HTTP firewall-bypass protocol, like, oh, web pages and CGI scripts.
I agree that some people have bought into the worst parts of XML hype, but these tend to be the same ones who bought into the Java hype as well, so it has more to do with poor management skills than XML per se.
What a bold claim! So, just like that, the drug lords would be able to overtake the Colobian gov't, simply because of a "tacit bow." Care to back this up?
The reason the USA is in Colombia fighting the narco-guerillas is to prop up a shitty but more-US-friendly government. The bullshit war on drugs is an excuse for the trampling of all sorts of civil liberties, both here and abroad.
Thanks for the pointer; I stand corrected. So Compaq, when they ship machines with *their* OS, can do what *they* like. Otherwise they have to follow the licensing agreements, and if they don't care for that, they are free to refuse to deal with MSFT. But of course they understand that it is to their economic advatage to play along. It just isn't as *convenient* as they would prefer.
You would appear far less moronic if your use of childish vulgarity was restricted to commenting on what the previous poster *actually* said, rather than your "I'm too full of self-righteous MS-loathing to read straight" interpretation.
So, you can shut the fuck up now. Idiot.
What sort of standards do you mean? HTML is a recommendation from the W3C, which is (mostly) a consortia of private companies. You can trust all you want, but you really have no prior agreement over what the rendering agent will be, or what it will do to your HTML.
HTML is like a musical score. Just as a score is not the actual music one heres, HTML is not the actual page one sees. So, the Web is a world of "cover versions." Get used to it.
Someone else is making advertising money over MY content, and their advertising may or may not slander me and I have no way of knowing what it is unless I buy their service. That is something I can not allow.
Then either stop providing your HTML without a prior contractual usage agreement, or turn all your precious content into images or Flash or something, or get of the Web. I'm really sorry that the Web isn't what you would like it to be, but there it is. The HTML and the Web is *built* on one party transforming the work of another. Trust is nice but not guaranteed; people will transform HTML in ways that suit them, not you.
Do you have two verifiable, concrete examples of this? Just curious about what "time and time again" means.
So that means, Mr. Genius, that there is no chance the Moz folks would grab data they shouldn't? Becasue Mozilla has nothing to do with Netscape/AOL/Time-Warner, and even if it did, those guys are completly trustworthy. Right?