What programs do this? I've never, ever seen a webbrowser that automatically installs stuff. At least not until you specifically specify for that site only (like MS Updates, or Station.Sony.com)
They didn't say it automatically INSTALLS the software. Just that the download is automatically started. A site could do this with a popup to a URL pointing directly at an.exe or.zip file. Most browsers will recognize this as something to be downloaded, not viewed in the browser, and you'll get a file Save As... prompt.
Re:Why there will never be a time machine
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 2
I have much more faith in the possibility that a time machine is impossible to construct than the possibility that all time travelers in the future will be so careful that no one will notice them.
What if time machines can only go forward in time?
You can only go forward...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 2
I always thought eventually time travel will be possible, except you can only go forward in time. Otherwise we'd have seen a machine sent back from the future already.
Come to think of it, we're traveling forward through time right now, so maybe I'm not as smart as you look.
Remind me not to post while drunk. (Apparantly you will have to travel through time to do that now.)
One of the "questions and answers" claims that when purchasing a tube-type (CRT) monitor, "any CRT will do".
I won't bother being graceful here. That's a bunch of crap.
You're right. Try quoting their full statement next time:
"Almost any CRT will do." And then you click on that statement, and they provide more information about what they mean. "Virtually any CRT monitor on the market today will provide a stable, acceptable image for most applications."
"As soon as the thirty-sixth came, I would change rolls, put the exposed roll in a canister, enter its number on a log sheet, take the next one out of the cooler, and insert it. I got to where I could do all that in less than a minute, while steering with my kneecap."
At least he wasn't driving some dangerous vehicle while performing these stunts, like a Ford Explorer!
On his first try, he drove a Porsche and "didn't do enough research," he says. On his next trip, in a high-slung Ford Explorer, he traveled on old highways, mostly U.S. 30, 40 and 50.
DVD, as acceptable as it is, is standard definition tech, not HD. Most consumers would rather have 3-4 DVD-quality over-the-air channels than 1 HighDef one.
I don't really understand how your statement is a response to mine, but I'll respond nonetheless.
1. Where is your data that shows 'most consumers' feel this way?
2. What makes you think any of these stations could fill 3-4 sub-stations with DVD quality material when they can barely do so on one channel?
3. Most of the HD content being broadcast is what I would call "DVD-quality," because they are making the transfers from film. Programs like The Sopranos, NYPD Blue, CSI, etc. all look like DVD material on the HD channels. And for those that say "but film has better resolution than HD!" all I can tell you is to compare an HD transfer of a film to a broadcast done in 1080i HD. There is no comparison, the all-HD broadcast is LIFELIKE. I feel like I'm staring through a window and watching something outside my house. I haven't seen a film that looks like that yet. (It'll be interesting to see an HD broadcast of the HD-taped Star Wars 2.)
Much like radio, I'd expect a crappy low quality show with crisp clear high definition ads coming your way before anything else.
Obviously you don't have HDTV, then.
I get way more HDTV content than I thought I would when I bought the TV. (Mostly because I love watching DVD's.)
CBS does a lot of stuff in HD, ABC does most of their good shows in HD (like NYPD Blue). HBO does a lot of HD, especially movies. Sopranos is in HD. Six Feet Under isn't HD, but it is digital quality and looks much better than analog. PBS has a lot of 1080i HD content that is unbelievable! FOX/NBC still suck as far as HD content goes, though.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but I have yet to see even a single advertisement in HD! They're all regular resolution 4:3 ads...
Typical day at Slashdot, just like when you look see one story bitching about DVD encryption, DMCA and DeCSS followed by the next story about the latest geek-targeted DVD release (from AOL-Time-Warner or Sony) that everyone here has just gotta go out and buy.
Realize that 'michael' posted the last story, and CmdrTaco posted this one.
This is the perfect time to consider furthering *analog* technologies.
The way things are headed, all media will soon be distributed in digital form, and include the inevitable DRM and DMCA hooks. We need to stop fighting a losing battle, and start working on analog technologies.
...
This is definitely pushing the world towards a retro, Mad Max type of existance.
Except instead of going to analog, we're just going to break whatever stupid digital encryption they come up with.
However for a tech writer to talk about Linux by calling it, "the renegade operating system that many techies worship.", is beyone my comprehension
Windows on the Desktop: 95+% MacOS on the Desktop: 3-4% Linux on the Desktop: 1-2%
Believe it or not, people in general, and expecially those reading the WSJ, are not working with servers, where Linux is making inroads. So yes, it is most definitely a "renegade operating system that many techies worship."
If you don't like Sharp's PDA fine, but don't knock an OS because you didn't like one experience with it.
He didn't! He said, "as for Linux, I have nothing against it."
He doesn't like the PDA. You chose to infer that he therefore does not like Linux. In fact, he made a point of saying that if you do like Linux, you might want to get it anyway, even though it's not great in the PDA-sense.
Re:Perl isn't unreadable - some Perl programs are
on
Exegesis 4 Out
·
· Score: 2
Of course real programming languages are strongly typed anyway, so you really don't need to carry the type along encoded in the variable name.
So the language that powers the web is not a real language? And the only thing that separates a real language from a fake language is strong typing? Hmmm...
Your interpreter/compiler should tell you that you have a poorly typed program.
Was it watching me type it? Oh, you mean my interpreter/compiler should tell me I have loosely-typed language.
I don't need a compiler to tell me that, I already know it, that's what makes Perl cool.
I thought that one of the key features of Mozilla was "Chrome" which would allow a web site to modify the look and feel of the browser to fit the web site.
Actually I think it just allows the easy installation of a new skin. I don't think Mozilla lets a website just replace your chosen skin with whatever the site wants.
And if it did, I predict a new distribution of Mozilla!
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee...
Re:Perl isn't unreadable - some Perl programs are
on
Exegesis 4 Out
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
For instance, in Java "String foo;" and in perl "$foo". Now, later in the code, if I see "$foo" in my perl code, I know immediatly that I'm dealing with a scalar, or %foo is a hash, whereas in most other languages I have to either remember the variable declarations or go back and find the variable declaration in the file.
Wrong. In Perl, $foo could be:
- A scalar string - A reference to ANY TYPE OF VARIABLE, subroutine, filehandle, etc. - A filehandle - etc...
So the symbols don't really help as much in readability as you claim. All they do is give you three namespaces for three basic variables (scalar, array, hash). So if you want three variables called foo, you don't have to say scalar_foo, array_foo, hash_foo, you just say $foo, @foo, %foo.
Don't get me wrong, I love Perl and don't have a problem reading it (because I know it already). But these symbols are what make Perl hard to read.
Also, I think alot the supposed unreadability of perl has to do with regex.
Yes, that is why I included it in my list of things that make perl hard to read.;-)
I don't think perl is really any more difficult to read than other languages.
That's just not true. You can't see it because you know Perl already. If you know how to read/write only one language, English, you would have a very hard time learning Chinese when compared to learning Spanish.
Perl has a vastly different alphabet than most common languages (C/C++/Java/Basic/Python/etc).
The only downside I can see is what happens when you've using some software and the developer stops developing it....your software passes its expiry date...no updates are available... what then?
What then is that you realize what a horrible fucking idea this is in the first place.
Re:Perl isn't unreadable - some Perl programs are
on
Exegesis 4 Out
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
But Perl is not UNREADABLE. It's just HARD TO READ. Like learning a language that doesn't use a latin-based alphabet if that's what you're used to.
I left out something important -- a complex Perl script is HARD TO READ if you don't know Perl. However, Perl is not hard to LEARN. You can write a perl program without learning all the complex syntax rules very easily. The same cannot really be said for languages like C/C++ and Java, where you have to learn more about the language before you can even get something to compile.
Re:Perl isn't unreadable - some Perl programs are
on
Exegesis 4 Out
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You're assuming that the people who complain about Perl are talking about the script as a whole. I think they are talking about the language syntax.
I think the idea that 'Perl Is Hard To Read' comes from the heavy use of symbols to change the meaning of code, especially $variables, %variables, @variables, *variables, \$variables, \%variables, \@variables, \*variables, $$variables, %$variables, @$variables, and *$variables.
Now add filehandle names and assorted tricks, subroutines and references to subroutines and subroutine references stored in variables, anonymous arrays and hashes, and regular expres/si/on/s.
But Perl is not UNREADABLE. It's just HARD TO READ. Like learning a language that doesn't use a latin-based alphabet if that's what you're used to.
Re:Our double standards...
on
KDE 3.0 is Out
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is like saying that Napster shouldn't have let the cat out of the bag on mp3 sharing until the music industry had time to react. Tit-for-tat, be consistent.
No, it's not anywhere close. Slashdot could wait a few hours for the mirrors to get the files and for the KDE team to ACTUALLY ANNOUNCE THE RELEASE. No harm would come by waiting.
Conversely, the same argument cannot be made for your flawed Napster analogy.
Sure, this corrects people who are off-key, but what about those of us who intentionally change notes or tempo? I don't want to have my choices vetoed by vocoder.
Slashdot Mirror
What programs do this? I've never, ever seen a webbrowser that automatically installs stuff. At least not until you specifically specify for that site only (like MS Updates, or Station.Sony.com)
.exe or .zip file. Most browsers will recognize this as something to be downloaded, not viewed in the browser, and you'll get a file Save As... prompt.
They didn't say it automatically INSTALLS the software. Just that the download is automatically started. A site could do this with a popup to a URL pointing directly at an
I have much more faith in the possibility that a time machine is impossible to construct than the possibility that all time travelers in the future will be so careful that no one will notice them.
What if time machines can only go forward in time?
I always thought eventually time travel will be possible, except you can only go forward in time. Otherwise we'd have seen a machine sent back from the future already.
Come to think of it, we're traveling forward through time right now, so maybe I'm not as smart as you look.
Remind me not to post while drunk. (Apparantly you will have to travel through time to do that now.)
like asking for bloatware if you ask me. Like somebody once said, a tool should do one thing and do that one thing well.
Uhhh, just so you know, that person was a Unix person, and CNET is not filled with Unix people (and neither is most of the world).
That has to be the funniest bill I've ever read. The Kentucky legislature has quite a sense of humor!
What do you mean, "sense of humor?"
That bill is dead serious.
I want to be the founding member of the "Mile-low club"
Sorry, no can do.
It figures a fellow slashdotter doesn't understand the obvious reference to sexual conquest 20,000 leagues below sea level!
You need some serious hardware to reach that depth.
No pun intended?
One of the "questions and answers" claims that
when purchasing a tube-type (CRT) monitor, "any CRT will do".
I won't bother being graceful here. That's a bunch of crap.
You're right. Try quoting their full statement next time:
"Almost any CRT will do." And then you click on that statement, and they provide more information about what they mean. "Virtually any CRT monitor on the market today will provide a stable, acceptable image for most applications."
"As soon as the thirty-sixth came, I would change rolls, put the exposed roll in a canister, enter its number on a log sheet, take the next one out of the cooler, and insert it. I got to where I could do all that in less than a minute, while steering with my kneecap."
At least he wasn't driving some dangerous vehicle while performing these stunts, like a Ford Explorer!
On his first try, he drove a Porsche and "didn't do enough research," he says. On his next trip, in a high-slung Ford Explorer, he traveled on old highways, mostly U.S. 30, 40 and 50.
Doh?
The best part is the fact that he stopped every 36 miles to swap film rolls.
So that's who's still buying film.
I particularly like Triangle Magic, which has turned my $400 Handspring Prism into a magical white screen.
Alas, no triangles have appeared yet after waiting 5 minutes.
:-(
DVD, as acceptable as it is, is standard definition tech, not HD. Most consumers would rather have 3-4 DVD-quality over-the-air channels than 1 HighDef one.
I don't really understand how your statement is a response to mine, but I'll respond nonetheless.
1. Where is your data that shows 'most consumers' feel this way?
2. What makes you think any of these stations could fill 3-4 sub-stations with DVD quality material when they can barely do so on one channel?
3. Most of the HD content being broadcast is what I would call "DVD-quality," because they are making the transfers from film. Programs like The Sopranos, NYPD Blue, CSI, etc. all look like DVD material on the HD channels. And for those that say "but film has better resolution than HD!" all I can tell you is to compare an HD transfer of a film to a broadcast done in 1080i HD. There is no comparison, the all-HD broadcast is LIFELIKE. I feel like I'm staring through a window and watching something outside my house. I haven't seen a film that looks like that yet. (It'll be interesting to see an HD broadcast of the HD-taped Star Wars 2.)
Much like radio, I'd expect a crappy low quality show with crisp clear high definition ads coming your way before anything else.
Obviously you don't have HDTV, then.
I get way more HDTV content than I thought I would when I bought the TV. (Mostly because I love watching DVD's.)
CBS does a lot of stuff in HD, ABC does most of their good shows in HD (like NYPD Blue). HBO does a lot of HD, especially movies. Sopranos is in HD. Six Feet Under isn't HD, but it is digital quality and looks much better than analog. PBS has a lot of 1080i HD content that is unbelievable! FOX/NBC still suck as far as HD content goes, though.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but I have yet to see even a single advertisement in HD! They're all regular resolution 4:3 ads...
Typical day at Slashdot, just like when you look see one story bitching about DVD encryption, DMCA and DeCSS followed by the next story about the latest geek-targeted DVD release (from AOL-Time-Warner or Sony) that everyone here has just gotta go out and buy.
Realize that 'michael' posted the last story, and CmdrTaco posted this one.
FYI, these are two different people.
This is the perfect time to consider furthering *analog* technologies.
The way things are headed, all media will soon be distributed in digital form, and include the inevitable DRM and DMCA hooks. We need to stop fighting a losing battle, and start working on analog technologies.
...
This is definitely pushing the world towards a retro, Mad Max type of existance.
Except instead of going to analog, we're just going to break whatever stupid digital encryption they come up with.
I'll have my cake and eat it, too, thanks!
However for a tech writer to talk about Linux by calling it, "the renegade operating system that many techies worship.", is beyone my comprehension
Windows on the Desktop: 95+%
MacOS on the Desktop: 3-4%
Linux on the Desktop: 1-2%
Believe it or not, people in general, and expecially those reading the WSJ, are not working with servers, where Linux is making inroads. So yes, it is most definitely a "renegade operating system that many techies worship."
If you don't like Sharp's PDA fine, but don't knock an OS because you didn't like one experience with it.
He didn't! He said, "as for Linux, I have nothing against it."
He doesn't like the PDA. You chose to infer that he therefore does not like Linux. In fact, he made a point of saying that if you do like Linux, you might want to get it anyway, even though it's not great in the PDA-sense.
Of course real programming languages are strongly typed anyway, so you really don't need to carry the type along encoded in the variable name.
So the language that powers the web is not a real language? And the only thing that separates a real language from a fake language is strong typing? Hmmm...
Your interpreter/compiler should tell you that you have a poorly typed program.
Was it watching me type it? Oh, you mean my interpreter/compiler should tell me I have loosely-typed language.
I don't need a compiler to tell me that, I already know it, that's what makes Perl cool.
I thought that one of the key features of Mozilla was "Chrome" which would allow a web site to modify the look and feel of the browser to fit the web site.
Actually I think it just allows the easy installation of a new skin. I don't think Mozilla lets a website just replace your chosen skin with whatever the site wants.
And if it did, I predict a new distribution of Mozilla!
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee...
For instance, in Java "String foo;" and in perl "$foo". Now, later in the code, if I see "$foo" in my perl code, I know immediatly that I'm dealing with a scalar, or %foo is a hash, whereas in most other languages I have to either remember the variable declarations or go back and find the variable declaration in the file.
;-)
Wrong. In Perl, $foo could be:
- A scalar string
- A reference to ANY TYPE OF VARIABLE, subroutine, filehandle, etc.
- A filehandle
- etc...
So the symbols don't really help as much in readability as you claim. All they do is give you three namespaces for three basic variables (scalar, array, hash). So if you want three variables called foo, you don't have to say scalar_foo, array_foo, hash_foo, you just say $foo, @foo, %foo.
Don't get me wrong, I love Perl and don't have a problem reading it (because I know it already). But these symbols are what make Perl hard to read.
Also, I think alot the supposed unreadability of perl has to do with regex.
Yes, that is why I included it in my list of things that make perl hard to read.
I don't think perl is really any more difficult to read than other languages.
That's just not true. You can't see it because you know Perl already. If you know how to read/write only one language, English, you would have a very hard time learning Chinese when compared to learning Spanish.
Perl has a vastly different alphabet than most common languages (C/C++/Java/Basic/Python/etc).
The only downside I can see is what happens when you've using some software and the developer stops developing it....your software passes its expiry date...no updates are available... what then?
What then is that you realize what a horrible fucking idea this is in the first place.
But Perl is not UNREADABLE. It's just HARD TO READ. Like learning a language that doesn't use a latin-based alphabet if that's what you're used to.
I left out something important -- a complex Perl script is HARD TO READ if you don't know Perl. However, Perl is not hard to LEARN. You can write a perl program without learning all the complex syntax rules very easily. The same cannot really be said for languages like C/C++ and Java, where you have to learn more about the language before you can even get something to compile.
You're assuming that the people who complain about Perl are talking about the script as a whole. I think they are talking about the language syntax.
I think the idea that 'Perl Is Hard To Read' comes from the heavy use of symbols to change the meaning of code, especially $variables, %variables, @variables, *variables, \$variables, \%variables, \@variables, \*variables, $$variables, %$variables, @$variables, and *$variables.
Now add filehandle names and assorted tricks, subroutines and references to subroutines and subroutine references stored in variables, anonymous arrays and hashes, and regular expres/si/on/s.
But Perl is not UNREADABLE. It's just HARD TO READ. Like learning a language that doesn't use a latin-based alphabet if that's what you're used to.
This is like saying that Napster shouldn't have let the cat out of the bag on mp3 sharing until the music industry had time to react. Tit-for-tat, be consistent.
No, it's not anywhere close. Slashdot could wait a few hours for the mirrors to get the files and for the KDE team to ACTUALLY ANNOUNCE THE RELEASE. No harm would come by waiting.
Conversely, the same argument cannot be made for your flawed Napster analogy.
Let the techies get to the stuff before it's announced, so the general public isn't locked out of the servers...
Hate to break it to you, but 'the general public' is not going to be downloading KDE!
probably more a function of me being 25 and having already found a style of music 4 or 5 years ago which I like - which is now disappearing
Crap-rock?
No...
Wuss-rock?
That's it!
Sure, this corrects people who are off-key, but what about those of us who intentionally change notes or tempo? I don't want to have my choices vetoed by vocoder.
Don't use vocoder.
Man, that was simple.