For the last 51 years I have been living in the USA and one thing I notice is that from the American people's POV, no matter what country you are from, either your "one of us" (American) or "one of them" (non-American).
Gee, you *almost* have a point. So close...
The analogy would be the same if folks in the USA viewed people as "one of us" (British) or "one of them" (non-British).
What makes the QC POV so odd (or sad, perhaps) is they are not French, any more than people in the USA are British; they just speak the same language as folks in France.
Yeah, once we get SVG browser support we can look forward to SVG banner ads.
Ah, but wouldn't SVG banner ads be susceptible to user-defined CSS files, just as HTML files are today? SVG ads would allow more interdiction by users to filter content.
The web is planet wide. Not every company on the planet is obligated to do planet wide business to participate.
Besides, the Web is pull-based, not push-based. You don't launch your browser and suddenly find random web pages being sent to you; you have to deliberatly request the pages. (Yeah, yeah, I'm sure there are exceptions to this.)
I don't quite get, then, why making a page available across the Internet somehow obligates you to satisfy everyone who might possibly decide to request your page.
Toshiba used to make really good laptops, but their newer ones you'll hear aren't meeting the same standards.
Sorry to hear this. I have a Portege 3480, a nice, ultra-slim that has stood up well over the last three years.
With the add-on battery it runs for about 7 hours and weighs roughly 5 pounds. I recently discovered that upgrading the hard drive is a breeze, and did, at one time, have it set up for dual boot with Win2k and Redhat 7. Even got my Lucent wifi card running under linux.
When I was shopping for my laptop the choice came down to IBM or Toshiba; I think I went with Tosh because IBM couldn't ship me a unit in time for a trip overseas.
If someone can think of a better system for navigating the internet
RSS aggregators.
Not for browsing all sites, all the time, but well suited (better suited, in fact) for browsing web logs and slashboards, as well as grabbing assorted web-based data feeds sent as RSS (stock info, product prices, weather, CVS changelogs, etc.)
It moves one away from the conventional browser "one whole page at a time" viewpoint.
Really? Any links for us, or are we to just take your word for this?
Do you live in a cave? Which one are you objecting too? [/snip]
Just as I thought. No links, just your opinion. Thanks anyway.
Re:Turning into Java?
on
PHP 5 Beta 1
·
· Score: 1
That it's considered a "scripting" language makes no difference in how it handles visibility, interfaces, or any of the other things they are adding which python and ruby both lack.
Um, I can't speak about Python, but I didn't see anyhting on that PHP OO page that you can't already do in Ruby.
For what it's worth, interfaces are useful in statically typed languages such as Java, but there is no need for them in Ruby.
In any case it's an apples and oranges comparison. PHP and Ruby encourage different programming mindsets, so harping on particlar features misses the forest for the trees.
American workers are also more stressed, shorter lived, more irate, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to murder someone else, less fulfilled, and more likely to trade their humanity for The Company than their German and British counterparts.
Really? Any links for us, or are we to just take your word for this?
I have to code in many ways to the lowest common denominator...
I see this phrase a lot, and nine times out of ten, the writer should be saying, "the higest common factor."
You're likely coding for the *most* features supported by all of the browsers, i.e., the largest set of supported HTML features. For example , the lowest common denomintor would be something like HTML 1 or 2; the highest common factor is likely HTML 3.2
Sun was forever touting themselves as "the dot in dot-com", and we know what happend to all those dot-com companies. Perhaps they should have been more careful to what they hitched their wagon.
They are a *convicted* monopolist. The opening of the protocols is part of the *verdict*. Ponder this quote
[snip/]
Wow, a quote from a rival company expressing dismay. I'm shocked. How about this quote:
Asked by The Washington Post to review the license terms, several software licensing experts said that although the terms often are within the realm of general industry practice, they are aggressive and should be approached with caution.
Basically, all the article says is that some of MSFT's competitors are unhappy with the licensing terms. Big surprise. However, the terms may in fact be permissable under the law.
One unusual provision, however, allows Microsoft to license some of the code -- known as communication protocols -- to outside companies on "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" terms.
Note that it doesn't say "for free", or "at a price a competitor happens to prefer."
BTW, if Microsoft really could, as some here suggest, charge *anything* they wanted (because, you know, they are a *convicted* monopolist), then they are fools for charging $100,000 instead of $1,000,000 or more.
Netflix at least has a fighting chance, Netscape didn't.
Hard, though, to have sympathy for a company that nicknamed their product "Mosaic Killer", AKA Mozilla.
Microsoft may have fscked a number of companies, but anyone entering a market where people are already giving away their product should not be surprised when somebody else comes in and gives away their product.
Proprietary \Pro*pri"e*ta*ry\, a. [L. proprietarius.]
Belonging, or pertaining, to a proprietor; considered as
property; owned; as, proprietary medicine.
For example, despite a variety of implementations, Java(tm) is a proprietary language; though Sun currently grants others certain rights in its use, Sun is still the sole owner.
It is entirely possible to own a format and still grant others the right to know the details of that format. Now, whether one should be concerned about getting locked into the Oo format is another matter.
There is in fact a difference between property and information. Property is inherenty scarce. There is a limit on how many people can enter that theater. Even when the theater is mostly empty each person who enters the theater does generates a cost on the owner, however slight it may be.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, you *almost* have a point. So close ...
The analogy would be the same if folks in the USA viewed people as "one of us" (British) or "one of them" (non-British).
What makes the QC POV so odd (or sad, perhaps) is they are not French, any more than people in the USA are British; they just speak the same language as folks in France.
Yeah, once we get SVG browser support we can look forward to SVG banner ads.
Ah, but wouldn't SVG banner ads be susceptible to user-defined CSS files, just as HTML files are today? SVG ads would allow more interdiction by users to filter content.
Besides, the Web is pull-based, not push-based. You don't launch your browser and suddenly find random web pages being sent to you; you have to deliberatly request the pages. (Yeah, yeah, I'm sure there are exceptions to this.)
I don't quite get, then, why making a page available across the Internet somehow obligates you to satisfy everyone who might possibly decide to request your page.
Sorry to hear this. I have a Portege 3480, a nice, ultra-slim that has stood up well over the last three years.
With the add-on battery it runs for about 7 hours and weighs roughly 5 pounds. I recently discovered that upgrading the hard drive is a breeze, and did, at one time, have it set up for dual boot with Win2k and Redhat 7. Even got my Lucent wifi card running under linux.
When I was shopping for my laptop the choice came down to IBM or Toshiba; I think I went with Tosh because IBM couldn't ship me a unit in time for a trip overseas.
Language war! Language war!
I better play the trump card and end this now: Choose the *real* red pill
"Document it and they will come."
A good project is nothing without it...
Good point; somebody should document this.
RSS aggregators.
Not for browsing all sites, all the time, but well suited (better suited, in fact) for browsing web logs and slashboards, as well as grabbing assorted web-based data feeds sent as RSS (stock info, product prices, weather, CVS changelogs, etc.)
It moves one away from the conventional browser "one whole page at a time" viewpoint.
Do you live in a cave? Which one are you objecting too?
Just as I thought. No links, just your opinion. Thanks anyway.[/snip]
Um, I can't speak about Python, but I didn't see anyhting on that PHP OO page that you can't already do in Ruby.
For what it's worth, interfaces are useful in statically typed languages such as Java, but there is no need for them in Ruby.
In any case it's an apples and oranges comparison. PHP and Ruby encourage different programming mindsets, so harping on particlar features misses the forest for the trees.
Yes, but then you'ld have to ask us permission to use it.
.
.
.
:)
Really? Any links for us, or are we to just take your word for this?
I see this phrase a lot, and nine times out of ten, the writer should be saying, "the higest common factor."
You're likely coding for the *most* features supported by all of the browsers, i.e., the largest set of supported HTML features. For example , the lowest common denomintor would be something like HTML 1 or 2; the highest common factor is likely HTML 3.2
Please. That whole Register rant was an instance of googlewhining.
As others have pointed out, Google ranks tend to even out fairly quickly.
That's just your opinion.
"Oh, Java(tm) version 2.0 is out?"
"Er, well, no, it's really 1.2"
I think we're up to Java(tm) 4 or 5 now, right?
Yeah! Let's go fnd some capitalists and beat them up for making you buy all those CDs!
Those bastards and their creepy free markets!
I don't understand you. Does that mean I have to kill you?
Sun was forever touting themselves as "the dot in dot-com", and we know what happend to all those dot-com companies. Perhaps they should have been more careful to what they hitched their wagon.
[snip/]
Wow, a quote from a rival company expressing dismay. I'm shocked. How about this quote:
Asked by The Washington Post to review the license terms, several software licensing experts said that although the terms often are within the realm of general industry practice, they are aggressive and should be approached with caution.
Basically, all the article says is that some of MSFT's competitors are unhappy with the licensing terms. Big surprise. However, the terms may in fact be permissable under the law.
One unusual provision, however, allows Microsoft to license some of the code -- known as communication protocols -- to outside companies on "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" terms.
Note that it doesn't say "for free", or "at a price a competitor happens to prefer."
BTW, if Microsoft really could, as some here suggest, charge *anything* they wanted (because, you know, they are a *convicted* monopolist), then they are fools for charging $100,000 instead of $1,000,000 or more.
... to find the fruits of your labor?
What a grape idea! Orange you glad you thought of it?
.
.
.
Ok. Groan fest is over.
Hard, though, to have sympathy for a company that nicknamed their product "Mosaic Killer", AKA Mozilla.
Microsoft may have fscked a number of companies, but anyone entering a market where people are already giving away their product should not be surprised when somebody else comes in and gives away their product.
Um, no.
Proprietary \Pro*pri"e*ta*ry\, a. [L. proprietarius.] Belonging, or pertaining, to a proprietor; considered as property; owned; as, proprietary medicine.For example, despite a variety of implementations, Java(tm) is a proprietary language; though Sun currently grants others certain rights in its use, Sun is still the sole owner.
It is entirely possible to own a format and still grant others the right to know the details of that format. Now, whether one should be concerned about getting locked into the Oo format is another matter.
C'mon, get buzzy. The proper word is blogarithmic .
Sheesh.
A backronym, and not a really good explanation of Perl's reason for being. See here and here for a better background on Perl.
Thank you for the lucid presentation.