And even if he didn't need the funding (he did pretty well with the grassroots stuff) and didn't care what the Democrat Party leadership said, he's still face pressure. Democrats would either a) stick with Obama and lose funds and seats to the Republicans b) Abandon Obama to keep their funds/seats. In either case, he'd be facing a more hostile Congress. This would mean less promised change would get enacted (even if he honestly planned to do everything, there's only so much you can do with a hostile Congress). As he wouldn't have changed things as much as he promised, he'd face a tougher challenge during reelection (thus needing Entertainment bucks more thus more likely to cave in).
Now that's what I call Uber Geekery. Instead of the tiring work of brushing your teeth, you get minty fresh breath by hacking the smell of the bacteria in your mouth.
This is where the "few cosmetic 'feel good' changes" come into play. The bulk taping fell under one of many things people didn't like about Bush. The cosmetic change was made of voting for the Democrat Presidential candidate (who promised change) instead the Republican Presidential candidate (who seemed too closely aligned with Bush). I do sincerely hope that Obama brings real change to Washington, but, even if he's serious about it, it's going to be tough to do. More likely, he'll make some tough changes which politicians will spin as "bad for the US" and then we'll elect a Republican "for change." Then a Democrat. Then a Republican and so on. Bouncing between the two parties is a purely cosmetic change that makes people feel as if something's been accomplished when nothing really has been.
Alternatively, it might break down silently and insidiously. You could have corrupt individuals who have so much power that they are able to keep their corrupt activities under wraps (whether via bribes, threats, or other methods). The system would operate for years in a state where the lay people think it is safe but a few people know otherwise yet are either silenced, in on the scheme, or regarded as kooks. Perhaps eventually one of the corrupt individuals will be inept as well and have the corruption exposed, but by then the most likely scenario is that he would just be replaced. At most a few cosmetic "feel good" changes would be made and the system would go back to running as before. Corrupt but outwardly safe-looking.
I can see what you mean, but it's entirely possible for a child to be disruptive and the issue not be autism.
My son (age 5) began this school year very disruptive. He couldn't sit still, he was hitting kids, crying for no reason, etc. We got him tested but was told he didn't have autism. Then we did some research and came upon the solution. He has allergies and was taking Singular. They completely cleared up his allergies but we had noticed some personality changes. Those changes slowly got worse until we had a little monster on our hands. Our doctor ordered him off the Singular and within 2 weeks he was back to our normal son. We've heard anecdotal evidence of other parents in the same situation (include one mother of a 5 year old whose story at first I thought my wife wrote until I saw the name). Yes, this is anecdotal evidence and not a proper scientific study, but it was quite clear to us what caused it. Using the "computer keeps crashing" analogy you gave, it would be like having your computer keep crashing, uninstalling a piece of software, and then having the system running fine. You might not know 100% for sure that that software caused the crashes, but it's quite likely that it did.
At one point, we were worried that our child had Austism-like symptoms. We took him to a doctor that specialized in that sort of thing. At the end of his tests, he drew a line. He pointed to the right side of the line. "This is Austism." Then he moved to the middle of the line. "This is Asberger's." (A kind of "mild autism.") Then he pointed a little to the left of that. "This is where your son is." In other words, he was on the spectrum but not enough to be diagnosed with Asberger's and definitely not enough to be diagnosed with Autism.
Now, my son exhibits a lot of things that I did as a child. I was never diagnosed with anything, but I think that's more because we're better able to identify the whole spectrum now than we were 25 years ago.
Five is nothing for the immune system. Do you know how many diseases your daughter is exposed to just one a routine trip to the store?
That said, there are good reasons for spacing out the vaccines. Case in point: Both my sons have had febrile seizures due to fevers during which they stopped breathing. The youngest didn't start breathing again on his own without rescue breaths administered by my mother in law. (These were the scariest moments of my life. Just typing it out now it triggering fear and anxiety. Nothing's worse than seeing your little baby lying lifeless and gray.) Once you've had one febrile seizure, you're at a heightened risk for more (up until age 6 or so). Some vaccines can cause fevers. Any time our kids get vaccines we need to watch them like hawks. If there are more than one possible fever causing vaccine, it's better to separate them out than to put them together and increase the seizure risk. This is different from the anti-vaccine folks, though, as it is just slightly modifying the schedule to suit a particular case, not skipping vaccines entirely.
When dealing with Creationists (which IDers are really), remember that there are two groups:
1. Young Earth Creationists. These folks think that the world is about 6,000 years old. Any fossils found, they claim, don't come from creatures but were placed there by God to test us. If you don't believe the evidence in front of you, then you've passed the test. Personally, I would hope that, any God there might be wouldn't be so messed up as to give us intelligence, and then place evidence in front of us that "leads us astray" if we use our intelligence on it.
2. "Old Earth" Creationists. These creationists will admit that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years old. They'll admit that fossils are the remains of ancient creatures. However, they won't admit that one creature can turn into another one. To them, Neanderthal man was created by God as Neanderthal man and killed off as Neanderthal man. He didn't evolve from anything nor did he evolve into anything. To them, all species are set in stone. They can pop into being or fade away, but they can't change into something else. Of course, this ignores all evidence like whale transition fossils or the moths of Europe during the Industrial era. Still, these creationists are experts at ignoring evidence. They're not as overt about it as the Young Earthers. They don't make claims of a Trickster God. Instead, they simply claim that the evidence doesn't exist. They repeat it over and over no matter how many times their arguments are shot down.
People might not know the details of the electoral college, but they get the general concept. My state (New York) invariably votes Democrat. I've heard from many Republican friends/family that they feel that their vote really doesn't matter. After all, New York's just going to toss its Electoral Votes in favor of the Democrat candidate anyway. This helps to breed apathy which further works to keep people away from the polls.
IMO, a good compromise would be to proportionally divide each state's electoral votes based on that state's popular vote. Currently, New York gets 31 Electoral Votes. If the Democrat candidate gets 75% of the vote and the Republican gets 25%, the Democrat would get 23 votes and the Republican would get 8.
Actually, the scary thing to me about those quotes is the attitude of "Well, I had to keep an eye on my kids before but thanks to Webshield I can just dump them on the Internet and ignore what they're doing! Thanks for being a substitute parent for me Webshield! Parenting is too hard for me to do."
Seriously, filters are a great tool for individuals to apply, but they aren't perfect. They'll inevitably block some good things and let some bad things through. (Specifically what depends on your definition of "good" and "bad.") Just because you stick a filter on your Internet connection doesn't mean you're freed from parenting responsibilities. You should still monitor what your kids do online and (even more importantly) talk with them about what they're doing. Let them know what's safe to do online and what isn't. Teach them how to handle getting unwanted content or interaction (porn pop-ups or some creep on Facebook trying to "friend" them). If you do your job right, then you won't need filters. Your kids will steer themselves clear of the bad things, towards the good things, and will know how to react when/if they accidentally encounter something bad. Even the best filter is no replacement for good parenting.
Darwin wasn't utterly and completely right first time out of the bag. So what? His discoveries have been validated, refined, added-to, improved in ways he could never have predicted. Again, so what?
The problem is one of different ways of thinking. For a Creationist, they want to know the "whole truth." They believe they have it by pointing to their bible and saying "God did it." That's their "100% true, never to be disproved or revised truth." There's a certainty there that I'm guessing comforts them. No matter how scary the world seems, at least they know that God said the divine equivalent of "Abracadabra" and the world came into being.
Science, on the other hand, doesn't (usually) deal in absolutes. Darwin's theories were on the right track, but got many things wrong. Scientists who followed him were able to test his theories and modify them until The Theory of Evolution better matched the facts. There is still a debate about some things, but it's about the fine points. Obligatory car reference: It's like arguing whether leather or fabric seats are better while agreeing on which car to buy. The car is decided upon, it's just a couple of minor details that are up in the air. As more testing is done (via fossil record, observed with bacteria, etc.) these finer points will be hashed out and The Theory of Evolution will change. Scientists are constantly making theories better by building upon what came before.
For Creationists, however, Science's "building on what came before" equals Science constantly admitting they were wrong. In their eyes, Scientists come up with one theory, realize they were wrong and so come up with another theory. They ignore the fact that these theories build upon each other and only see the situation as Scientists blindly guessing over and over. Then they trot out their "100% true and never to be disproved" theory of "Divine Abracadabra." Scientists are portrayed as bumbling fools, constantly ignoring the truth in front of them while True Believers are exulted as being so smart to believe in Divine Abracadabra.
Scientists, meanwhile, shake their heads at Creationists using "God Did It" as the reason for everything because, to the scientist, the search for truth is the exciting part. They genuinely enjoy figuring out every nook and cranny of how the universe works. To them, repeating the same "Abracadabra solution" for everything is just a cop-out. It's two completely different world views.
(For the record, I'm in the Scientist camp but I've been personally witness to many creationists talk about how bad science is because they keep bring up wrong theory after wrong theory when the truth is just to say that God Did It.)
Friend gets new car. You're in town on other matters but meet your friend at a local bar/restaurant/whatever. Your friend says "Come check out my new car." You go outside and see it. Then you notice that you're running late and hug your friend goodbye. While doing so, a hair falls off of your head and onto your friend's shoulder. You leave. Your friend gets back into their car and turns on the AC (or heat depending on the weather) and the hair blows over to the passenger seat. Friend is murdered, police find your hair and question you. You say you were never in their car but witnesses say they saw you two talking and saw you two head out together. Your DNA is found in the car (from the hair). Another witness reports seeing you heading somewhere in a hurry. Doesn't look too good for you now as the police slap on the handcuffs.
Step 1: They pass this law. Perhaps they "forget" to destroy the DNA samples. Perhaps they do destroy it. Step 2: They complain about the "destruction" requirement impeding law enforcement. A high profile case is brought up where keeping the DNA evidence would have helped solve the case quicker. (Bonus points if they can claim a life would have been saved.) Step 3: The law will be amended to allow police to keep the samples for as long as they deem it needed.
It seems to be a popular method of getting 1984-style laws passed. Pass an innocuous sounding law backed by a rallying cry ("Think of the Children!" "Protect against Terrorism!"). Now, expand that law as quietly as possible until it matches your original intent.
Well, if Jack Thompson has taught us anything, it's that video games promote violence. So if Syria, Iran, or the Taliban got their hands on video games, they would become violent.
(I will not proceed to remove my tongue from my cheek.)
Except I hold the patent for "Apparatus and method for targeting and destroying holders of overly broad BS patents with cruise missiles." I've also put in for "Apparatus and method for hitting holders of overly broad BS patents with flying shoes."
So? Most everything nowadays is going to be client-server. Sure, you can author a document completely locally, but much of your real work is going to involve sending data to someone or getting data from someone. The alternative is a client application that pulls data from a server. You can't get rid of the server nowadays. As for wasting the power of the CPU/GPU, most apps nowadays wouldn't tax even a mid-to-low range CPU/GPU. We're at the point that the hardware has far outstripped the software. Doing something in a "low CPU/GPU demand" setting doesn't mean we're wasting power. It means we're being low-impact on the system. Finally, yes, security vulnerabilities exist in networked applications. Here's the thing, though, they exist in local client applications also. And it's a lot easier to patch one web application than it is to roll out 100 or more client updates.
2. Web UIs are a mess.
With modern JavaScript toolkits like jQuery or Prototype, you can add real-time interactivity to web applications fairly easily. No, it isn't the right approach every time, but it can be a very powerful tool for many different applications. As for consistent UI's, that's a problem for the developers. A developer (whether Web or Client) can choose to make their application conform to standard interface approaches or choose to ignore it. I remember, at the last company I worked for, having to endure Lotus Notes. That client application seemed to have been designed by someone who thought: "Let's take every Windows application convention and toss them out."
3. Browser technologies are too limiting.
No language is all things to all people. Still, JavaScript can be a very powerful tool, especially when combined with server-side processing and AJAX. I've developed many interactive applications without having to resort to Flash, Quicktime, or Silverlight.
4. The big vendors call the shots.
You could say the same about the Operating System running behind your Client application. Let's face it, for most companies this will be Windows. This means you're at Microsoft's whim. If Microsoft wants Windows 7 to kill off some functionality that your application relies on, then you're out of luck. And while I'll admit to a lack of knowledge on this next point, I'm guessing that making your application to run on Linux and Windows is more involved than making your website look decent in FireFox and Internet Explorer.
5. Should every employee have a browser?
We are a web-connected world. There's no going back. This doesn't mean that employees should have free reign to the entire Internet, of course. My company has a web filter in place. Everyone is allowed access to our employee Intranet (and some other sites) while some "non-work" sites (porn, gambling, YouTube, etc) are blocked. In fact, if you are dealing with Windows (as per the previous point), then every employee already has Internet Explorer. Even if you block everything outside of the firewall, it shouldn't be hard to allow access to intranet.yourcompany.com.
Ah, that's nothing. Pac-man (*munch* *munch*) taught me to (*munch* *munch*) eat any old thing I find (*munch* *munch*) lying around except a ghost. And, if I (*munch* *munch*) see a ghost, special (*munch* *munch*) glowing "food" will help save me (*munch* *munch*) from them. (*munch* *munch*)
Two minutes between comments? I've gotten messages telling me to slow down because it's been four or five minutes between my comments. I guess my typing speed it just too quick. The Slashdot effect is well known for turning servers into piles of goo. If Slashdot were to allow posters to make multiple comments without any delay, would Slashdot's servers turn to goo?
By the way, is this irony? As I try to post this message, I get: "Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment."
Sorry, Slashdot for typing too quickly. I......w...i...l...l......t...r...y......t...o......s...l...o...w......i...t......d...o...w...n......s...o...m...e....
Dirty Industry Secret
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Years back when everyone in the mainstream were trotting out how many Mhz/Ghz their processors ran and how their Latest And Greatest system was *soooo* much better, I insisted that the computer industry had a dirty little secret. The mid to low end computers would work just fine for 90% of users out there. Computer makers didn't want people knowing this and instead hoped that they would be convinced to upgrade every 2 or 3 years. Eventually, though, people learned that they were able to read their e-mail, browse the web, and work on documents without buying a system with a bleeding edge processor and maxed out specs. This seems like the continuation of the secret's collapse. People are realizing that not only don't they need to buy a system with a blazing fast processor just to send out e-mail, but they don't need to buy 10 different servers when one powerful (but possibly still not bleeding edge) server an run 10 virtual server instances.
I googled my name and my site came up #4 in the listing. There were a lot of other people with my name, though. Years back, I didn't see any reason not to use my real name while online. Perhaps I was naive or perhaps it was a simpler online time. Either way, circumstances have changed. I don't want to go about "killing off" my accounts on various sites (like Slashdot) and starting over, but any new sites I sign into I want connected to a username that isn't my real name. It's one reason why I decided to start my new blog under a pseudonym. (No, I'm not posting the pseudonym here. That would link my pseudonym and my real name up in Google listings.)
Slashdot Mirror
And even if he didn't need the funding (he did pretty well with the grassroots stuff) and didn't care what the Democrat Party leadership said, he's still face pressure. Democrats would either a) stick with Obama and lose funds and seats to the Republicans b) Abandon Obama to keep their funds/seats. In either case, he'd be facing a more hostile Congress. This would mean less promised change would get enacted (even if he honestly planned to do everything, there's only so much you can do with a hostile Congress). As he wouldn't have changed things as much as he promised, he'd face a tougher challenge during reelection (thus needing Entertainment bucks more thus more likely to cave in).
Now that's what I call Uber Geekery. Instead of the tiring work of brushing your teeth, you get minty fresh breath by hacking the smell of the bacteria in your mouth.
This is where the "few cosmetic 'feel good' changes" come into play. The bulk taping fell under one of many things people didn't like about Bush. The cosmetic change was made of voting for the Democrat Presidential candidate (who promised change) instead the Republican Presidential candidate (who seemed too closely aligned with Bush). I do sincerely hope that Obama brings real change to Washington, but, even if he's serious about it, it's going to be tough to do. More likely, he'll make some tough changes which politicians will spin as "bad for the US" and then we'll elect a Republican "for change." Then a Democrat. Then a Republican and so on. Bouncing between the two parties is a purely cosmetic change that makes people feel as if something's been accomplished when nothing really has been.
Alternatively, it might break down silently and insidiously. You could have corrupt individuals who have so much power that they are able to keep their corrupt activities under wraps (whether via bribes, threats, or other methods). The system would operate for years in a state where the lay people think it is safe but a few people know otherwise yet are either silenced, in on the scheme, or regarded as kooks. Perhaps eventually one of the corrupt individuals will be inept as well and have the corruption exposed, but by then the most likely scenario is that he would just be replaced. At most a few cosmetic "feel good" changes would be made and the system would go back to running as before. Corrupt but outwardly safe-looking.
No, it just means that we need to get Science to define Media. Then the circle will be complete.
My son (age 5) began this school year very disruptive. He couldn't sit still, he was hitting kids, crying for no reason, etc. We got him tested but was told he didn't have autism. Then we did some research and came upon the solution. He has allergies and was taking Singular. They completely cleared up his allergies but we had noticed some personality changes. Those changes slowly got worse until we had a little monster on our hands. Our doctor ordered him off the Singular and within 2 weeks he was back to our normal son. We've heard anecdotal evidence of other parents in the same situation (include one mother of a 5 year old whose story at first I thought my wife wrote until I saw the name). Yes, this is anecdotal evidence and not a proper scientific study, but it was quite clear to us what caused it. Using the "computer keeps crashing" analogy you gave, it would be like having your computer keep crashing, uninstalling a piece of software, and then having the system running fine. You might not know 100% for sure that that software caused the crashes, but it's quite likely that it did.
At one point, we were worried that our child had Austism-like symptoms. We took him to a doctor that specialized in that sort of thing. At the end of his tests, he drew a line. He pointed to the right side of the line. "This is Austism." Then he moved to the middle of the line. "This is Asberger's." (A kind of "mild autism.") Then he pointed a little to the left of that. "This is where your son is." In other words, he was on the spectrum but not enough to be diagnosed with Asberger's and definitely not enough to be diagnosed with Autism.
Now, my son exhibits a lot of things that I did as a child. I was never diagnosed with anything, but I think that's more because we're better able to identify the whole spectrum now than we were 25 years ago.
Five is nothing for the immune system. Do you know how many diseases your daughter is exposed to just one a routine trip to the store?
That said, there are good reasons for spacing out the vaccines. Case in point: Both my sons have had febrile seizures due to fevers during which they stopped breathing. The youngest didn't start breathing again on his own without rescue breaths administered by my mother in law. (These were the scariest moments of my life. Just typing it out now it triggering fear and anxiety. Nothing's worse than seeing your little baby lying lifeless and gray.) Once you've had one febrile seizure, you're at a heightened risk for more (up until age 6 or so). Some vaccines can cause fevers. Any time our kids get vaccines we need to watch them like hawks. If there are more than one possible fever causing vaccine, it's better to separate them out than to put them together and increase the seizure risk. This is different from the anti-vaccine folks, though, as it is just slightly modifying the schedule to suit a particular case, not skipping vaccines entirely.
When dealing with Creationists (which IDers are really), remember that there are two groups:
1. Young Earth Creationists. These folks think that the world is about 6,000 years old. Any fossils found, they claim, don't come from creatures but were placed there by God to test us. If you don't believe the evidence in front of you, then you've passed the test. Personally, I would hope that, any God there might be wouldn't be so messed up as to give us intelligence, and then place evidence in front of us that "leads us astray" if we use our intelligence on it.
2. "Old Earth" Creationists. These creationists will admit that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years old. They'll admit that fossils are the remains of ancient creatures. However, they won't admit that one creature can turn into another one. To them, Neanderthal man was created by God as Neanderthal man and killed off as Neanderthal man. He didn't evolve from anything nor did he evolve into anything. To them, all species are set in stone. They can pop into being or fade away, but they can't change into something else. Of course, this ignores all evidence like whale transition fossils or the moths of Europe during the Industrial era. Still, these creationists are experts at ignoring evidence. They're not as overt about it as the Young Earthers. They don't make claims of a Trickster God. Instead, they simply claim that the evidence doesn't exist. They repeat it over and over no matter how many times their arguments are shot down.
People might not know the details of the electoral college, but they get the general concept. My state (New York) invariably votes Democrat. I've heard from many Republican friends/family that they feel that their vote really doesn't matter. After all, New York's just going to toss its Electoral Votes in favor of the Democrat candidate anyway. This helps to breed apathy which further works to keep people away from the polls.
IMO, a good compromise would be to proportionally divide each state's electoral votes based on that state's popular vote. Currently, New York gets 31 Electoral Votes. If the Democrat candidate gets 75% of the vote and the Republican gets 25%, the Democrat would get 23 votes and the Republican would get 8.
Actually, the scary thing to me about those quotes is the attitude of "Well, I had to keep an eye on my kids before but thanks to Webshield I can just dump them on the Internet and ignore what they're doing! Thanks for being a substitute parent for me Webshield! Parenting is too hard for me to do."
Seriously, filters are a great tool for individuals to apply, but they aren't perfect. They'll inevitably block some good things and let some bad things through. (Specifically what depends on your definition of "good" and "bad.") Just because you stick a filter on your Internet connection doesn't mean you're freed from parenting responsibilities. You should still monitor what your kids do online and (even more importantly) talk with them about what they're doing. Let them know what's safe to do online and what isn't. Teach them how to handle getting unwanted content or interaction (porn pop-ups or some creep on Facebook trying to "friend" them). If you do your job right, then you won't need filters. Your kids will steer themselves clear of the bad things, towards the good things, and will know how to react when/if they accidentally encounter something bad. Even the best filter is no replacement for good parenting.
The problem is one of different ways of thinking. For a Creationist, they want to know the "whole truth." They believe they have it by pointing to their bible and saying "God did it." That's their "100% true, never to be disproved or revised truth." There's a certainty there that I'm guessing comforts them. No matter how scary the world seems, at least they know that God said the divine equivalent of "Abracadabra" and the world came into being.
Science, on the other hand, doesn't (usually) deal in absolutes. Darwin's theories were on the right track, but got many things wrong. Scientists who followed him were able to test his theories and modify them until The Theory of Evolution better matched the facts. There is still a debate about some things, but it's about the fine points. Obligatory car reference: It's like arguing whether leather or fabric seats are better while agreeing on which car to buy. The car is decided upon, it's just a couple of minor details that are up in the air. As more testing is done (via fossil record, observed with bacteria, etc.) these finer points will be hashed out and The Theory of Evolution will change. Scientists are constantly making theories better by building upon what came before.
For Creationists, however, Science's "building on what came before" equals Science constantly admitting they were wrong. In their eyes, Scientists come up with one theory, realize they were wrong and so come up with another theory. They ignore the fact that these theories build upon each other and only see the situation as Scientists blindly guessing over and over. Then they trot out their "100% true and never to be disproved" theory of "Divine Abracadabra." Scientists are portrayed as bumbling fools, constantly ignoring the truth in front of them while True Believers are exulted as being so smart to believe in Divine Abracadabra.
Scientists, meanwhile, shake their heads at Creationists using "God Did It" as the reason for everything because, to the scientist, the search for truth is the exciting part. They genuinely enjoy figuring out every nook and cranny of how the universe works. To them, repeating the same "Abracadabra solution" for everything is just a cop-out. It's two completely different world views.
(For the record, I'm in the Scientist camp but I've been personally witness to many creationists talk about how bad science is because they keep bring up wrong theory after wrong theory when the truth is just to say that God Did It.)
Friend gets new car. You're in town on other matters but meet your friend at a local bar/restaurant/whatever. Your friend says "Come check out my new car." You go outside and see it. Then you notice that you're running late and hug your friend goodbye. While doing so, a hair falls off of your head and onto your friend's shoulder. You leave. Your friend gets back into their car and turns on the AC (or heat depending on the weather) and the hair blows over to the passenger seat. Friend is murdered, police find your hair and question you. You say you were never in their car but witnesses say they saw you two talking and saw you two head out together. Your DNA is found in the car (from the hair). Another witness reports seeing you heading somewhere in a hurry. Doesn't look too good for you now as the police slap on the handcuffs.
Here's how I see it playing out:
Step 1: They pass this law. Perhaps they "forget" to destroy the DNA samples. Perhaps they do destroy it.
Step 2: They complain about the "destruction" requirement impeding law enforcement. A high profile case is brought up where keeping the DNA evidence would have helped solve the case quicker. (Bonus points if they can claim a life would have been saved.)
Step 3: The law will be amended to allow police to keep the samples for as long as they deem it needed.
It seems to be a popular method of getting 1984-style laws passed. Pass an innocuous sounding law backed by a rallying cry ("Think of the Children!" "Protect against Terrorism!"). Now, expand that law as quietly as possible until it matches your original intent.
*BEGINS CHANNELING JACK THOMPSON*
This proves that watching Star Trek makes a person violent! We must ban all Star Trek in order to protect our children and our 7-11's.
*ENDS CHANNELING JACK THOMPSON*
And now, if you'll excuse me, I need to wash out my brain... with some hydrochloric acid.
Well, if Jack Thompson has taught us anything, it's that video games promote violence. So if Syria, Iran, or the Taliban got their hands on video games, they would become violent.
(I will not proceed to remove my tongue from my cheek.)
Except I hold the patent for "Apparatus and method for targeting and destroying holders of overly broad BS patents with cruise missiles." I've also put in for "Apparatus and method for hitting holders of overly broad BS patents with flying shoes."
And here I thought that gamma radiation only resulted in big green men that enjoyed smashing.
Here are his bulletpoints with counter-arguments:
1. It's client-server all over again.
So? Most everything nowadays is going to be client-server. Sure, you can author a document completely locally, but much of your real work is going to involve sending data to someone or getting data from someone. The alternative is a client application that pulls data from a server. You can't get rid of the server nowadays. As for wasting the power of the CPU/GPU, most apps nowadays wouldn't tax even a mid-to-low range CPU/GPU. We're at the point that the hardware has far outstripped the software. Doing something in a "low CPU/GPU demand" setting doesn't mean we're wasting power. It means we're being low-impact on the system. Finally, yes, security vulnerabilities exist in networked applications. Here's the thing, though, they exist in local client applications also. And it's a lot easier to patch one web application than it is to roll out 100 or more client updates.
2. Web UIs are a mess.
With modern JavaScript toolkits like jQuery or Prototype, you can add real-time interactivity to web applications fairly easily. No, it isn't the right approach every time, but it can be a very powerful tool for many different applications. As for consistent UI's, that's a problem for the developers. A developer (whether Web or Client) can choose to make their application conform to standard interface approaches or choose to ignore it. I remember, at the last company I worked for, having to endure Lotus Notes. That client application seemed to have been designed by someone who thought: "Let's take every Windows application convention and toss them out."
3. Browser technologies are too limiting.
No language is all things to all people. Still, JavaScript can be a very powerful tool, especially when combined with server-side processing and AJAX. I've developed many interactive applications without having to resort to Flash, Quicktime, or Silverlight.
4. The big vendors call the shots.
You could say the same about the Operating System running behind your Client application. Let's face it, for most companies this will be Windows. This means you're at Microsoft's whim. If Microsoft wants Windows 7 to kill off some functionality that your application relies on, then you're out of luck. And while I'll admit to a lack of knowledge on this next point, I'm guessing that making your application to run on Linux and Windows is more involved than making your website look decent in FireFox and Internet Explorer.
5. Should every employee have a browser?
We are a web-connected world. There's no going back. This doesn't mean that employees should have free reign to the entire Internet, of course. My company has a web filter in place. Everyone is allowed access to our employee Intranet (and some other sites) while some "non-work" sites (porn, gambling, YouTube, etc) are blocked. In fact, if you are dealing with Windows (as per the previous point), then every employee already has Internet Explorer. Even if you block everything outside of the firewall, it shouldn't be hard to allow access to intranet.yourcompany.com.
Ah, that's nothing. Pac-man (*munch* *munch*) taught me to (*munch* *munch*) eat any old thing I find (*munch* *munch*) lying around except a ghost. And, if I (*munch* *munch*) see a ghost, special (*munch* *munch*) glowing "food" will help save me (*munch* *munch*) from them. (*munch* *munch*)
Two minutes between comments? I've gotten messages telling me to slow down because it's been four or five minutes between my comments. I guess my typing speed it just too quick. The Slashdot effect is well known for turning servers into piles of goo. If Slashdot were to allow posters to make multiple comments without any delay, would Slashdot's servers turn to goo?
By the way, is this irony? As I try to post this message, I get: "Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment."
Sorry, Slashdot for typing too quickly. I......w...i...l...l......t...r...y......t...o......s...l...o...w......i...t......d...o...w...n......s...o...m...e....
Years back when everyone in the mainstream were trotting out how many Mhz/Ghz their processors ran and how their Latest And Greatest system was *soooo* much better, I insisted that the computer industry had a dirty little secret. The mid to low end computers would work just fine for 90% of users out there. Computer makers didn't want people knowing this and instead hoped that they would be convinced to upgrade every 2 or 3 years. Eventually, though, people learned that they were able to read their e-mail, browse the web, and work on documents without buying a system with a bleeding edge processor and maxed out specs. This seems like the continuation of the secret's collapse. People are realizing that not only don't they need to buy a system with a blazing fast processor just to send out e-mail, but they don't need to buy 10 different servers when one powerful (but possibly still not bleeding edge) server an run 10 virtual server instances.
...And, of course, I mistyped the "$1500" as "$500" thus ruining the joke completely. Darn you sleep-deprived brain!
$500 real dollars? That's an outrage! Professor, I'll sell you an elephant repelling rock for $1499 and 100 cents.
I googled my name and my site came up #4 in the listing. There were a lot of other people with my name, though. Years back, I didn't see any reason not to use my real name while online. Perhaps I was naive or perhaps it was a simpler online time. Either way, circumstances have changed. I don't want to go about "killing off" my accounts on various sites (like Slashdot) and starting over, but any new sites I sign into I want connected to a username that isn't my real name. It's one reason why I decided to start my new blog under a pseudonym. (No, I'm not posting the pseudonym here. That would link my pseudonym and my real name up in Google listings.)