You forget that they had already reached an agreement to stay clear of each other's business arena. Then Apple Computer started selling music and Apple Corp considered that a breach of contract.
That's different from those aforementioned cases wherein the two companies never had an agreement.
Less than 60% of people use IE 6. That means about two in five people will not be able to use this stupid service.
Um, no. Did you even RTFWP?
"Why so high Firefox figures?
W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers."
Why not just always post a coral link? At what point, after years of melting the webservers of the small and anonymous, does it cease to be amusing and begin to just be irresponsible journalism?
Just some hypotheticals I've always wondered about here.
I used to work at Wired, and the ways in which these types of stories come to light are highly suspect. In this case, somebody probably has a friend who used to play Everquest and now plays World of Warcraft. The author finds out that half of this guy's Everquest guild migrated to WoW, and suddenly we have a feature-length article about how walls between virtual worlds are bound to dissolve.
Yet another reason I stopped reading the mag. Their neato factor is in slow decline, and their relevance is long dead. Too bad, because in the beginning it was a great rag.
The premise of HBHG is too similar to the DVC to be happenstance. But if you ask me the real insult is that Dan Brown uses one of the last names of one of the authors of HBHG (Richard Leigh) as the first name of one of his characters (Sir Leigh Teabing). Makes it seem like an explicit nod to the original, or the middle finger, depending upon your point of view.
I respectfully disagree with the topic post. It was a perfect success for me.
I went to video.google.com, typed in Paris Hilton, and 5 seconds later I was watching a video of her in a skin-tight suit washing herself down with soapy water.
I *have* fixed what's there. At least in my own installations.
But this was not at all a trivial tweak -- it involved some architectural changes with repercussions throughout the entire library and all dependent libraries. And when it comes to making such massive seismic changes to an open-source component, it not so easy as just rolling in the new changes... everybody who relies upon that component needs to buy in on the value of the changes and agree to absorb the cost of migration. Which, frankly, is a difficult thing to champion as a "casual" contributor and in my opinion is the onus of the code owner/author to initiate. YMMV.
But it's unfortunate that the preferred Ruby AJAX design pattern still includes prototype.js, because that library as written is fundamentally dangerous. It's written in a fashion which demonstrates that the author is very adept with JavaScript and functional programming in general; but it also does some unpardonably cute tricks in extending core objects, thereby changing the overall JavaScript environment and making the core AJAX library not play nicely with others. (And if ever there was an environment where you need to have good manners and not piss in the pool, it's the browser + JavaScript environment.)
The sad thing is that there's nothing about the functionality of prototype.js which requires all that object and syntax wizardry to function correctly. It could easily be re-written to be perfectly safe. But at this point, the bell has been rung; other libs such as Rico now rely on those same insidious tricks, and 1.0 is out the door.
The biggest problem with today's GPL is its unspoken aim towards extending the world of free software. Using GPL'ed software in a commercial package is akin to accepting that you may one day be forced to open all of your code that even touches upon the GPL'ed code, should a court decision one day come down which resolves some of the legally ambiguous wording in the GPL.
If the mission of GPL (and the even more prickly LGPL) is to extend the world of open source using a "code-tainting" model, then so be it. But this just means that for any commercial ventures, I will only use more leniently licensed code such as Apache and CC. And because of this, when I open source my own code it will also be under of these other more reasonable licenses.
If you want to give existing players the chance to try out every profession in the game before deciding, then you need to give them 10 re-specs, not nine. The first 9 re-specs would be used to try out each profession, and the 10th would be used to switch back to the one you liked best.
(Otherwise you can only try out 8 of them before making your final choice, right?:)
3. Also, video probably assumes the purchase of a newer (video) iPod, since I doubt many people are downloading these to watch on their computer/tv.
My first purchases from iTunes were this past week, when I bought some episodes of Lost. Slow day at work, no iPod, just my 21" monitor and my headphones. Thanks, Apple, problem solved.
What does this say? It says that videos are more appealing for purchase than music for some people. And it says that full-screen Quicktime on a 21" monitor is a fine substitute for an iPod with a 2-inch screen.
His main evidence is the increase in the number of characters to be found in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy compared to the original "Star Wars" trilogy. The other main evidence is the development of a sub-genre of films he calls "mind-benders" typified by Kaufman works like "Being John Malkovich".
No. "The Lord of the Rings" is complex because it was a trilogy of books first. Almost 2000 pages of complexity, compared to the flimsy "she's your sister Luke" of Star Wars. Blech. Star Wars by comparison is like the O.C. in space, give me a break.
And if "Being John Malkovich" is in a sub-genre of films called mind-benders, you would have to be very ignorant of the history of movies not to at least in part attribute the history of the genre to Hitchcock.
Absolutely. I worked for the World Health Organization in Geneva during the summer of 1996, and I had a conversation at a party with one of the world's leading vaccine specialists for AIDS. He related to me just how hard it was for vaccine research to get funding -- all the money goes into treatment. Prevention is bad for the stock price, when treatment can bring in 50 to 100,000 times the cost of a preventative shot. (Yes, that's 10 to the 5th times.)
The next stage of civilization will include different laws for each industry instead of our current blanket of "capitalism must be perfect because we won the Cold War" laws. For industries which could potentially get into a life-costing conflict of interest between well-meaning and cold cash, they will be run more like public universities than high-tech startups. They will have tax-exemption, public funding, strict oversight, cushy tenured posts, and maybe even smokin' hot cheerleaders will nice taddies. And they will be beholden to enhance the general populace as their highest priority.
Even if you didn't buy it for Linux, you should still let id know how much we appreciate their effort.
Personally, I've never played a game on Linux and have zero plans to do so in the next ten years. But I do love the idea of a triopoly of software platforms instead of a monopoly. So I'm willing to call up/write a software vendor in favor of Linux even if I never use it.
JavaScript first arrived in Netscape 2. In that browser most of the core language was in place, making it one of the first ever prototype-based OO languages to go from concept to reality.
But in Netscape 2, there were not very many hooks from JavaScript back into the HTML. You had a document object and a window object of course, but beyond that about the only "DHTML" you could do was mostly restricted to manipulating form values and popping open new windows. Useful, to be sure, but that was about it.
In Netscape 3 they added the document.images array, and that began the whole image-swapping madness that got everyone hooked on JavaScript, for better or worse.
And then in NS4/MSIE4 they added the competing, incompatible DOMs that got us into the hell years of DHTML. DHTML as a term arrived with the version 4 browsers.
Give JavaScript some credit for surviving its own history... the language has been through some very rough years, only to now finally get some credit for being a powerful web tool.
Safari is Satan's browser, as far as I'm concerned. It's hell to develop DHTML for once you get past intermediate DHTML and into more advanced stuff.
I see nothing good about this browser:
It is bound to OS version (like MSIE on Windows) so if you want to do comprehensive QA testing on all versions you need a dedicated box running now-obsolete OS's just to test.
Its "performance" optimization have resulted in some DHTML oddities surrounding when and how things get loaded on the page which differ greatly from MSIE, Mozilla, ECMA and W3C.
It has the most god-awful script error messaging system I've seen since Netscape 2. Not joking about this, it's literally as bad as Netscape 2 in this area, just ten years newer.
And for fuck's sake, why does the world need yet another browser? Why not just re-skin Mozilla and be done with it?
At work I refer to this piece of shit as "Satan's Browser" and everybody knows what I'm talking about. Go ahead and flame me if you want, but if you defend this thing, you're either bought and paid for by the Apple propaganda machine or you're not a client-side developer and don't know the pain I'm talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
You forget that they had already reached an agreement to stay clear of each other's business arena. Then Apple Computer started selling music and Apple Corp considered that a breach of contract.
That's different from those aforementioned cases wherein the two companies never had an agreement.
Less than 60% of people use IE 6. That means about two in five people will not be able to use this stupid service.
Um, no. Did you even RTFWP?
Why not just always post a coral link? At what point, after years of melting the webservers of the small and anonymous, does it cease to be amusing and begin to just be irresponsible journalism?
Just some hypotheticals I've always wondered about here.
Me pot, you kettle, black.
At what point would you say that "un-nature" has been introduced into the process?
To quote Beck, "I've got a funny feeling they've got plastic in the afterlife."
For some applications, an Ajax page could provide the same level of interactivity as ActiveX.
...except that Ajax in MSIE 5-6 is implemented as an ActiveX control. Whump.
Exactly right.
I used to work at Wired, and the ways in which these types of stories come to light are highly suspect. In this case, somebody probably has a friend who used to play Everquest and now plays World of Warcraft. The author finds out that half of this guy's Everquest guild migrated to WoW, and suddenly we have a feature-length article about how walls between virtual worlds are bound to dissolve.
Yet another reason I stopped reading the mag. Their neato factor is in slow decline, and their relevance is long dead. Too bad, because in the beginning it was a great rag.
Actually, the authors of HNHG *did* invent the junk they published. It was published as fact but was really mostly just a bunch of concoctions.
:)
Interpreting where the law falls on borrowing from fiction which claims to be fact is way outside my skills sweet spot.
The premise of HBHG is too similar to the DVC to be happenstance. But if you ask me the real insult is that Dan Brown uses one of the last names of one of the authors of HBHG (Richard Leigh) as the first name of one of his characters (Sir Leigh Teabing). Makes it seem like an explicit nod to the original, or the middle finger, depending upon your point of view.
Ever hear of in-game weddings?
What does marriage have to do with sex? I take it from the tone of your post that you, sir, have never been married. ;)
I respectfully disagree with the topic post. It was a perfect success for me.
I went to video.google.com, typed in Paris Hilton, and 5 seconds later I was watching a video of her in a skin-tight suit washing herself down with soapy water.
What's not to like about that?
If history serves, no changes are in the offing.
Really. I've seen many things lately which indicate the contrary.
http://www.baychi.org/calendar/files/harris2005121 3/harris20051213.pdf
I *have* fixed what's there. At least in my own installations.
But this was not at all a trivial tweak -- it involved some architectural changes with repercussions throughout the entire library and all dependent libraries. And when it comes to making such massive seismic changes to an open-source component, it not so easy as just rolling in the new changes... everybody who relies upon that component needs to buy in on the value of the changes and agree to absorb the cost of migration. Which, frankly, is a difficult thing to champion as a "casual" contributor and in my opinion is the onus of the code owner/author to initiate. YMMV.
Pedantically noted. ;) Thanks for the correction.
It's great that Ruby is 1.0.
But it's unfortunate that the preferred Ruby AJAX design pattern still includes prototype.js, because that library as written is fundamentally dangerous. It's written in a fashion which demonstrates that the author is very adept with JavaScript and functional programming in general; but it also does some unpardonably cute tricks in extending core objects, thereby changing the overall JavaScript environment and making the core AJAX library not play nicely with others. (And if ever there was an environment where you need to have good manners and not piss in the pool, it's the browser + JavaScript environment.)
The sad thing is that there's nothing about the functionality of prototype.js which requires all that object and syntax wizardry to function correctly. It could easily be re-written to be perfectly safe. But at this point, the bell has been rung; other libs such as Rico now rely on those same insidious tricks, and 1.0 is out the door.
Sigh. So close, so close.
The biggest problem with today's GPL is its unspoken aim towards extending the world of free software. Using GPL'ed software in a commercial package is akin to accepting that you may one day be forced to open all of your code that even touches upon the GPL'ed code, should a court decision one day come down which resolves some of the legally ambiguous wording in the GPL.
If the mission of GPL (and the even more prickly LGPL) is to extend the world of open source using a "code-tainting" model, then so be it. But this just means that for any commercial ventures, I will only use more leniently licensed code such as Apache and CC. And because of this, when I open source my own code it will also be under of these other more reasonable licenses.
Not really a question, but a comment.
:)
If you want to give existing players the chance to try out every profession in the game before deciding, then you need to give them 10 re-specs, not nine. The first 9 re-specs would be used to try out each profession, and the 10th would be used to switch back to the one you liked best.
(Otherwise you can only try out 8 of them before making your final choice, right?
So you're really going to be bummed when the resulting product is called GOO.ogle?
My first purchases from iTunes were this past week, when I bought some episodes of Lost. Slow day at work, no iPod, just my 21" monitor and my headphones. Thanks, Apple, problem solved.
What does this say? It says that videos are more appealing for purchase than music for some people. And it says that full-screen Quicktime on a 21" monitor is a fine substitute for an iPod with a 2-inch screen.
No. "The Lord of the Rings" is complex because it was a trilogy of books first. Almost 2000 pages of complexity, compared to the flimsy "she's your sister Luke" of Star Wars. Blech. Star Wars by comparison is like the O.C. in space, give me a break.
And if "Being John Malkovich" is in a sub-genre of films called mind-benders, you would have to be very ignorant of the history of movies not to at least in part attribute the history of the genre to Hitchcock.
Absolutely. I worked for the World Health Organization in Geneva during the summer of 1996, and I had a conversation at a party with one of the world's leading vaccine specialists for AIDS. He related to me just how hard it was for vaccine research to get funding -- all the money goes into treatment. Prevention is bad for the stock price, when treatment can bring in 50 to 100,000 times the cost of a preventative shot. (Yes, that's 10 to the 5th times.)
The next stage of civilization will include different laws for each industry instead of our current blanket of "capitalism must be perfect because we won the Cold War" laws. For industries which could potentially get into a life-costing conflict of interest between well-meaning and cold cash, they will be run more like public universities than high-tech startups. They will have tax-exemption, public funding, strict oversight, cushy tenured posts, and maybe even smokin' hot cheerleaders will nice taddies. And they will be beholden to enhance the general populace as their highest priority.
Even if you didn't buy it for Linux, you should still let id know how much we appreciate their effort.
Personally, I've never played a game on Linux and have zero plans to do so in the next ten years. But I do love the idea of a triopoly of software platforms instead of a monopoly. So I'm willing to call up/write a software vendor in favor of Linux even if I never use it.
JavaScript first arrived in Netscape 2. In that browser most of the core language was in place, making it one of the first ever prototype-based OO languages to go from concept to reality.
But in Netscape 2, there were not very many hooks from JavaScript back into the HTML. You had a document object and a window object of course, but beyond that about the only "DHTML" you could do was mostly restricted to manipulating form values and popping open new windows. Useful, to be sure, but that was about it.
In Netscape 3 they added the document.images array, and that began the whole image-swapping madness that got everyone hooked on JavaScript, for better or worse.
And then in NS4/MSIE4 they added the competing, incompatible DOMs that got us into the hell years of DHTML. DHTML as a term arrived with the version 4 browsers.
Give JavaScript some credit for surviving its own history... the language has been through some very rough years, only to now finally get some credit for being a powerful web tool.
How is this "a non-started argument if I just think a little creatively about it?"
Problem: I want to test my code against Safari 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 2.0.
Solution: I need 5 different machines (virtual or otherwise) to run five different browsers?
That's a shitty dilemma, isn't it? Somebody's underlying architectural problem becomes my QA problem.
Why does half the browser have to live in the OS libraries?
Why can't these same libraries be bundled up in developer releases so I can at least have five executables on one OS?
Safari is the new AOL of browsers. Feh.
Safari is Satan's browser, as far as I'm concerned. It's hell to develop DHTML for once you get past intermediate DHTML and into more advanced stuff.
I see nothing good about this browser:
- It is bound to OS version (like MSIE on Windows) so if you want to do comprehensive QA testing on all versions you need a dedicated box running now-obsolete OS's just to test.
- Its "performance" optimization have resulted in some DHTML oddities surrounding when and how things get loaded on the page which differ greatly from MSIE, Mozilla, ECMA and W3C.
- It has the most god-awful script error messaging system I've seen since Netscape 2. Not joking about this, it's literally as bad as Netscape 2 in this area, just ten years newer.
- And for fuck's sake, why does the world need yet another browser? Why not just re-skin Mozilla and be done with it?
At work I refer to this piece of shit as "Satan's Browser" and everybody knows what I'm talking about. Go ahead and flame me if you want, but if you defend this thing, you're either bought and paid for by the Apple propaganda machine or you're not a client-side developer and don't know the pain I'm talking about.