God I love to be lectured on the values of a low-paying career from someone who rode a high economy to a position of financial security.
But Seriously. All this find-a-job-you-love crap is total crap. Yes, whack ass hours suck, but that's a matter of working conditions, not field. No matter how much you love your job, you'll hate ridiculous hours (after a while at least). And if you don't, you're sick and you need help.
Find a job you're good at, prefereably so good at that you can command the respect of being allowed to work reasonable hours.
So, mostly out of fear, Adobe buys its main competitor and now must shoehorn the company into its unfortunate not-invented-here corporate culture. (This aspect of Adobe is another story in itself.)
I must say that I'm shocked, utterly shocked, that an established (read has been) company would buy out its competition, and have difficulty incorperating the bought company into its not-invented-here culture. This is truly an unprecendented level of corperate miscaulculation and audacity!
If i buy soy-chocolate without wanting milk in it (which i do as vegan) and it tastes like chocolate -- then its choclate, isn't it?
The fact that you think that soy-chocolate tases like chocolate is irrelevant. Even if you can't believe its not butter, that does not mean you can call it butter (on the label, what you do on your spare time is your problem). Nor can you market cookies made from butter-flavored styrofoam as butter cookies. Chocolate is the same thing, at least in places where quality chocolate can be had.
BTW: what does this mean? If a story declines you that or declines to answer the percentages then they're not worth your money
This seems pretty obvious. It's hard to convince people to fix what isn't broken, and lately regular users are finding their computers more than adequate. The best way to sell them new software is first to break their old system:
Nearly all of the "original" Longhorn technologies are going to be made available for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. There will still be some technologies unique to Longhorn, namely, the "Fundamentals." [ technologies that will improve Windows performance, security and reliability ]
So, you get developers to push the technology onto xp machines, watch the users get frustrated with the backported versions, and watch the money roll in when they upgrade to the working version.
Come to think of it. TFA seems to think that random number generators being able to "sense" comming catastrophe is proof of a human global consciousness. It would seem to be much more likely to be proof of a global random-number-generator consciousness. And as you point out, it may not be a friendly one.
This poster is clearly off his meds. Apart from the erratic, almost ingenious spelling, poster has taken a new leap in the tinfoil hat category, and fashioned one that will fit over the whole nation--or at least the FoxNews headquarters in New York.
If this paranoid theory might make sense today, I think we may remember at time (back when Kyoto was being drafted) when the whole world didn't actually hate the US. In fact, some people have suggested that Kyoto, and the failure of the US to sign the same, was the turining point in US-everyone relations. Now, it's possible that Kyoto was actually a worldwide conspiracy (at the highest levels) to make America look bad. An international set-up, if you will. But I think it's a lot more likely (as other have noted) that if the US faced tougher restrictions than other countries it was becuase the US was producing the most pollution.
The new regulations would increase the barriers to entry for the fossel fuel industries, which would drive down competition, which would allow them to reap more profits
I hate to break it to you, but the oil industry is a small cartel with complete control over a (very valuable) fixed resource. Any (rational) new producer that enters the market will continue the same pricing, because their supply is finite, and the demand (in the long run) is infinite. If you think that competition will ever happen in the oil industry, well, that's almost as crazy as thinking that anyone's ever heard of Brookland AR
As for this: Ironically, countries like US today tend to be moving away from an industrial production based economey that uses heavy environmental resources to an information based service one that tends to be more efficient. Kyoto would do allot to help dying industrial rellics lock in high prices to live a little longer, but nothing to promote such a service based economy or the environment.
This point begs several questions. First, if the US' economy is so efficient, why is it also among the worst polluters? Second, when the whole world transitions to an "information based services economy," who will be maufacturing the computers, power-plants, and fancy deskchairs we will need to provide these services? Who will be growing all of the beans and chickens that we need to fill our burritos? Who, for god's sake, is going to build the video cameras that capture our porn? Industry is not going away, and if we want the world (as we know it) to survive, the rich countries of the world need to take steps to find a way to do it without destroying the environment. That will take work, and it will take money, but it is not impossible.
The fact of the matter is that the US didn't sign Kyoto because the administration is bent-over, cheeks spread wide, for big-business, and it doesn't want it any other way.
If I ever have kids that grow up to have a "wonderful high school experience," I will be very, very disappointed in them. I would want to raise children that I can respect in my old age.
All right I understand, a lot of you/kids don't like the XML. But look at it this way, XML is exactly as dumb as you think it is, you just don't realize how dumb everything else you do is.
Since it's the topic of conversation, let's take programming languages. Now, I know you're all saying "why write in xml when I can write in (insert something here, for example parent's reference to "english"). Sureley, there's no one here, of all places, who thinks that english (a la Pascal, etc.) is a good markup language (oops I mean syntax) for a program. Even a language like C, that embraces non-textual delimiters, still has its issues. As I'm sure a many former tcl programmer (or, for arument's sake current tcl programmer) will agree with me when I say that keywords are preposterous. (note to lisp programmers: special forms are very special keywords).
In the end, wouldn't programming within a framework where structural elements of the language can be differentiated from naming constructs be a good idea?
You say that XML is so simple it's not structure, but this is only because you think that structure is easy. What happens when I want to mix structure with truly unstructured data (or even with other structures)? The fact of the matter is that extracting structured data like the loop represented by "for i in $*;do echo $i;done" from an otherwise unstructiured source (say this posting) is next to imposible -- Note here I've made it "easy" for you by using quotes, but even that doesn't tell you much, since I accidentally quoted the word easy as well.
Of course, XML is not needed for this endeavor. As I mentioned, tcl (a thing near and dear to my perverse heart) is an example of an compact and elegant language expression. It smounts to what you might call good markup (Mind you, no one uses it). But herein lies the heart of understanding XML. It's not that we need it; I mean, it's not actually good for anything. It's just that, as a common denominator, it is pretty good (a hell of a lot better than bare ASCII), for doing just about anything at all.
So, in the case of a language, you could write a parser that balances case with esac, or you could get one of IBM's code-monkeys to do it for you, which do you prefer? Me, I've always wanted a monkey.
Then, once you've got your XML-based language, you can let it play with other xml documents. For example, if you are the one-in-a-million programmer who thinks that documentation is a good thing, you could add marked up documentation to your program without resorting to arcane @incantations in your comments.
Listen, I'm not saying that XML programming languages are a brilliant idea (it's probably a bit wordy to make a lot of programmers happy). And, of couse, I didn't bother to RTFA, since XML-based programming languages have been around for a while. But, saying XML is dumb is really missing the point (by which I mean, that's the whole point)
And even where there is overcapicity, it is mostly in the urban areas, put in place for business, not single family homes. Good luck getting dark fiber in the 'burbs, let alone the sticks
This is not a problem since no one in their right mind would live in the suburbs. [You might be eaten by a republican]
Stop using bad DTDs. There seems to be a DTD style in which you avoid using attributes and instead add a whole lot of tags containing text. Any element with a content type of CDATA should be an attribute on its parent, which improves the readability of documents and lets you use ID/IDREF to automatically check stuff. Once you get rid of the complete cruft, it's not nearly so bad.
Not to nitpick, but attributes != elements. (hint: one of them is ordered, and repeatable). As far as ID/IDREF goes, key/keyref in XMLSchema replicates this for arbitrary markup. Use of attributes, in some instances is rather crufty precisely because they need to be handleed anampohically to elements.
A new XML could make all close tags ". The > could be dropped from empty tags, too.
You're design decision, not mine. Some might think that if you're going to have a verbose format like xml, you might as well throw in a few sanity checks as well, since they're almost free by comparison.
Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Like Hello Kitty, XML has one thing going for it -- ubiquity. If, like me, you're a proponent, you need to understand this, embrace it. Once you've repeated the words enough, you will come to a blissful realization. It doesn't matter how "bad" xml performance is, the only thing that matters is that it be useful for everyone. This means that it should be useful for config files for simple programs/scripts. It should be useful for people who want to build (by hand) a little web-service to serve up their mp3 collection, or to multi-billion dollar companies that want to run online acutions. If XML can be this broad-based, then so can the tooling that is used to manipulate it. That's good news for big companies who want to save money, and script hackers who just want to save time, good for us all. Anything that fractures xml's ubiquity undermines the technology itself, and should be avoided. Binary XML falls into this category.
Now as for performance, my personal opinion is that its way to early to start running around creating binary standards. XML itself has been around a while, but the higher-level standards are still evoloving (web services, xml schema, etc). Most of the current tooling around xml is currently written to demonstrate standards compliance. When we really start to see performance-oriented solutions, and they still suck, then everyone can start rioting.
I think they're trying to show that (their) games are so good that you will want to play them to the exclusion of hygiene. They don't need to show how cool you will look playing them, since no one will be looking.
For me it isn't even about the luxury of having a top to my dresser. Any 37" CRT I try to put in my toaster-oven sized appartment will physically prevent people from walking around it (let alone getting far enough away to see it). I know, It's the price I pay to be an urban east-coast liberal elitist, but there you go. My point is, flatness is not just about looks. Until I shell out for a flat panel, I'm stuck with my rediculously poor mini tv. So please, everyone, do whatever you can to drive down the price of LCD screens.
I really wonder if people will be willing to think of new Commodore-branded gadgets as "new" or if they'll instead be expecting them to be old "retro" computers like those joysticks companies are selling that come pre-loaded with a bunch of old games.
Don't you suppose this is their angle? Not just retro gaming though. I expect thay're trying to target a market that is increasingly fashion-based rather than capability-based (MP3 players and the like), and they're hoping to create a retro-chic brand for personal devices (think puma for electronics).
There you have it, many think it was a retarded/deformed member of an already discovered species, not evidence of a "race of hobbits".
Actually, some believe that. In particular, several researchers whose various theories would be upset by the discovery, and who had not examined the skull in question at the time Science published the refuting article. Now that the evidence is safely in the hands of one of the findings detractors (who even science calls a "small but vocal group"), he has locked it away and won't let anyone look at it.
You're part right. Red Hat is playing the Microsoft here. IBM did create a monster in handing their OS over to RedHat. Now IBM needs a certification board (to back the service/support promises they need to make to stay in business). Unfortunately, their strategic partners refused to sign on to the LCC, so they're stuck with this private partnership.
OTOH, not that many of the actual contibuters (besides IBM and RH employees) to the linux platform will be running RH (let alone RHEL). As suppliers of the technology (and stubborn ones at that at that) they will exert a fair amount of pressure on RH to keep RHEL in line with the rest of the community.
Finally, based on IBM's pattern of behavior towards open standards in general, look for them to push this outward into a proper standards body (mind you, after it has already gelled).
I don't get this, I personally think windmills are pretty cool looking. I'm not saying that I want to pave national parks with windmills, but I don't see how a nice, sleek, modern windmill is having a negative impact on land that is already dotted with peoples ugly homes, grain silos, electric lines, highways...
And on the noise thing, while I was traveling in Denmark a few years ago, back before windmills were at all common in the states, I spend a lot of time trying to check out some windmills (again, I think they're nifty). I never managed to get anywhere near enough to hear them.
Slashdot Mirror
God I love to be lectured on the values of a low-paying career from someone who rode a high economy to a position of financial security.
But Seriously. All this find-a-job-you-love crap is total crap. Yes, whack ass hours suck, but that's a matter of working conditions, not field. No matter how much you love your job, you'll hate ridiculous hours (after a while at least). And if you don't, you're sick and you need help.
Find a job you're good at, prefereably so good at that you can command the respect of being allowed to work reasonable hours.
So, mostly out of fear, Adobe buys its main competitor and now must shoehorn the company into its unfortunate not-invented-here corporate culture. (This aspect of Adobe is another story in itself.)
I must say that I'm shocked, utterly shocked, that an established (read has been) company would buy out its competition, and have difficulty incorperating the bought company into its not-invented-here culture. This is truly an unprecendented level of corperate miscaulculation and audacity!
If i buy soy-chocolate without wanting milk in it (which i do as vegan) and it tastes like chocolate -- then its choclate, isn't it?
The fact that you think that soy-chocolate tases like chocolate is irrelevant. Even if you can't believe its not butter, that does not mean you can call it butter (on the label, what you do on your spare time is your problem). Nor can you market cookies made from butter-flavored styrofoam as butter cookies. Chocolate is the same thing, at least in places where quality chocolate can be had.
BTW:
what does this mean?
If a story declines you that or declines to answer the percentages then they're not worth your money
This seems pretty obvious. It's hard to convince people to fix what isn't broken, and lately regular users are finding their computers more than adequate. The best way to sell them new software is first to break their old system:
Nearly all of the "original" Longhorn technologies are going to be made available for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. There will still be some technologies unique to Longhorn, namely, the "Fundamentals." [ technologies that will improve Windows performance, security and reliability ]
So, you get developers to push the technology onto xp machines, watch the users get frustrated with the backported versions, and watch the money roll in when they upgrade to the working version.
Come to think of it. TFA seems to think that random number generators being able to "sense" comming catastrophe is proof of a human global consciousness. It would seem to be much more likely to be proof of a global random-number-generator consciousness. And as you point out, it may not be a friendly one.
This poster is clearly off his meds. Apart from the erratic, almost ingenious spelling, poster has taken a new leap in the tinfoil hat category, and fashioned one that will fit over the whole nation--or at least the FoxNews headquarters in New York.
If this paranoid theory might make sense today, I think we may remember at time (back when Kyoto was being drafted) when the whole world didn't actually hate the US. In fact, some people have suggested that Kyoto, and the failure of the US to sign the same, was the turining point in US-everyone relations. Now, it's possible that Kyoto was actually a worldwide conspiracy (at the highest levels) to make America look bad. An international set-up, if you will. But I think it's a lot more likely (as other have noted) that if the US faced tougher restrictions than other countries it was becuase the US was producing the most pollution.
The new regulations would increase the barriers to entry for the fossel fuel industries, which would drive down competition, which would allow them to reap more profits
I hate to break it to you, but the oil industry is a small cartel with complete control over a (very valuable) fixed resource. Any (rational) new producer that enters the market will continue the same pricing, because their supply is finite, and the demand (in the long run) is infinite. If you think that competition will ever happen in the oil industry, well, that's almost as crazy as thinking that anyone's ever heard of Brookland AR
As for this:
Ironically, countries like US today tend to be moving away from an industrial production based economey that uses heavy environmental resources to an information based service one that tends to be more efficient. Kyoto would do allot to help dying industrial rellics lock in high prices to live a little longer, but nothing to promote such a service based economy or the environment.
This point begs several questions. First, if the US' economy is so efficient, why is it also among the worst polluters? Second, when the whole world transitions to an "information based services economy," who will be maufacturing the computers, power-plants, and fancy deskchairs we will need to provide these services? Who will be growing all of the beans and chickens that we need to fill our burritos? Who, for god's sake, is going to build the video cameras that capture our porn? Industry is not going away, and if we want the world (as we know it) to survive, the rich countries of the world need to take steps to find a way to do it without destroying the environment. That will take work, and it will take money, but it is not impossible.
The fact of the matter is that the US didn't sign Kyoto because the administration is bent-over, cheeks spread wide, for big-business, and it doesn't want it any other way.
If I ever have kids that grow up to have a "wonderful high school experience," I will be very, very disappointed in them. I would want to raise children that I can respect in my old age.
In general though, as a layout language to produce documents that look just how I want, it's a fucking nightmare.
Well this is your problem right here, you obvoiusly misunderstood how you wanted it to look. TeX is really good at fixing these problems for you.
All right I understand, a lot of you /kids don't like the XML. But look at it this way, XML is exactly as dumb as you think it is, you just don't realize how dumb everything else you do is.
;do echo $i ;done" from an otherwise unstructiured source (say this posting) is next to imposible -- Note here I've made it "easy" for you by using quotes, but even that doesn't tell you much, since I accidentally quoted the word easy as well.
Since it's the topic of conversation, let's take programming languages. Now, I know you're all saying "why write in xml when I can write in (insert something here, for example parent's reference to "english"). Sureley, there's no one here, of all places, who thinks that english (a la Pascal, etc.) is a good markup language (oops I mean syntax) for a program. Even a language like C, that embraces non-textual delimiters, still has its issues. As I'm sure a many former tcl programmer (or, for arument's sake current tcl programmer) will agree with me when I say that keywords are preposterous. (note to lisp programmers: special forms are very special keywords).
In the end, wouldn't programming within a framework where structural elements of the language can be differentiated from naming constructs be a good idea?
You say that XML is so simple it's not structure, but this is only because you think that structure is easy. What happens when I want to mix structure with truly unstructured data (or even with other structures)? The fact of the matter is that extracting structured data like the loop represented by "for i in $*
Of course, XML is not needed for this endeavor. As I mentioned, tcl (a thing near and dear to my perverse heart) is an example of an compact and elegant language expression. It smounts to what you might call good markup (Mind you, no one uses it). But herein lies the heart of understanding XML. It's not that we need it; I mean, it's not actually good for anything. It's just that, as a common denominator, it is pretty good (a hell of a lot better than bare ASCII), for doing just about anything at all.
So, in the case of a language, you could write a parser that balances case with esac, or you could get one of IBM's code-monkeys to do it for you, which do you prefer?
Me, I've always wanted a monkey.
Then, once you've got your XML-based language, you can let it play with other xml documents. For example, if you are the one-in-a-million programmer who thinks that documentation is a good thing, you could add marked up documentation to your program without resorting to arcane @incantations in your comments.
Listen, I'm not saying that XML programming languages are a brilliant idea (it's probably a bit wordy to make a lot of programmers happy). And, of couse, I didn't bother to RTFA, since XML-based programming languages have been around for a while. But, saying XML is dumb is really missing the point (by which I mean, that's the whole point)
The goal, of course is that we can leverage this
And even where there is overcapicity, it is mostly in the urban areas, put in place for business, not single family homes. Good luck getting dark fiber in the 'burbs, let alone the sticks
This is not a problem since no one in their right mind would live in the suburbs. [You might be eaten by a republican]
Don't be ridiculous. The Obvious solution is Teleportation.
This ice-rich soil may be one of the few habitable environments on Mars where a biological system can survive.
Wouldn't it be more fun/interesting to check out the uninhabitable places that life could survive? Or maybe the habitable places it couldn't?
what about:
... --></column> ... --></column> ... --></column>
<column name='column 1' etc='some other stuff'>123 456 789 135 458 432 <!--
<column name='column 2' etc='some other stuff'>789 135 458 432 <!--
<column name='column 3' etc='some other stuff'>123 135 458 432 <!--
XMLSchema has support for list types.
see http://w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#ListDt
Now, DOM/SAX/etc have no useful/performant way to separate this data, but that's your fault for using DOM/SAX as an API.
Stop using bad DTDs. There seems to be a DTD style in which you avoid using attributes and instead add a whole lot of tags containing text. Any element with a content type of CDATA should be an attribute on its parent, which improves the readability of documents and lets you use ID/IDREF to automatically check stuff. Once you get rid of the complete cruft, it's not nearly so bad.
Not to nitpick, but attributes != elements. (hint: one of them is ordered, and repeatable). As far as ID/IDREF goes, key/keyref in XMLSchema replicates this for arbitrary markup. Use of attributes, in some instances is rather crufty precisely because they need to be handleed anampohically to elements.
A new XML could make all close tags ". The > could be dropped from empty tags, too.
You're design decision, not mine. Some might think that if you're going to have a verbose format like xml, you might as well throw in a few sanity checks as well, since they're almost free by comparison.
Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Like Hello Kitty, XML has one thing going for it -- ubiquity. If, like me, you're a proponent, you need to understand this, embrace it. Once you've repeated the words enough, you will come to a blissful realization. It doesn't matter how "bad" xml performance is, the only thing that matters is that it be useful for everyone. This means that it should be useful for config files for simple programs/scripts. It should be useful for people who want to build (by hand) a little web-service to serve up their mp3 collection, or to multi-billion dollar companies that want to run online acutions. If XML can be this broad-based, then so can the tooling that is used to manipulate it. That's good news for big companies who want to save money, and script hackers who just want to save time, good for us all. Anything that fractures xml's ubiquity undermines the technology itself, and should be avoided. Binary XML falls into this category.
Now as for performance, my personal opinion is that its way to early to start running around creating binary standards. XML itself has been around a while, but the higher-level standards are still evoloving (web services, xml schema, etc). Most of the current tooling around xml is currently written to demonstrate standards compliance. When we really start to see performance-oriented solutions, and they still suck, then everyone can start rioting.
I think they're trying to show that (their) games are so good that you will want to play them to the exclusion of hygiene. They don't need to show how cool you will look playing them, since no one will be looking.
For me it isn't even about the luxury of having a top to my dresser.
Any 37" CRT I try to put in my toaster-oven sized appartment will physically prevent people from walking around it (let alone getting far enough away to see it).
I know, It's the price I pay to be an urban east-coast liberal elitist, but there you go.
My point is, flatness is not just about looks. Until I shell out for a flat panel, I'm stuck with my rediculously poor mini tv.
So please, everyone, do whatever you can to drive down the price of LCD screens.
Frank Lloyd Wright has "Howard Roarke" compared to the slew of "Francons" and "Keatings" of the day.
Isn't that exactly the problem?
I really wonder if people will be willing to think of new Commodore-branded gadgets as "new" or if they'll instead be expecting them to be old "retro" computers like those joysticks companies are selling that come pre-loaded with a bunch of old games.
Don't you suppose this is their angle? Not just retro gaming though. I expect thay're trying to target a market that is increasingly fashion-based rather than capability-based (MP3 players and the like), and they're hoping to create a retro-chic brand for personal devices (think puma for electronics).
There you have it, many think it was a retarded/deformed member of an already discovered species, not evidence of a "race of hobbits".
Actually, some believe that. In particular, several researchers whose various theories would be upset by the discovery, and who had not examined the skull in question at the time Science published the refuting article. Now that the evidence is safely in the hands of one of the findings detractors (who even science calls a "small but vocal group"), he has locked it away and won't let anyone look at it.
Your own link lists the "nitch" pronunciation (first).
just so you know.
You're part right. Red Hat is playing the Microsoft here. IBM did create a monster in handing their OS over to RedHat. Now IBM needs a certification board (to back the service/support promises they need to make to stay in business). Unfortunately, their strategic partners refused to sign on to the LCC, so they're stuck with this private partnership.
OTOH, not that many of the actual contibuters (besides IBM and RH employees) to the linux platform will be running RH (let alone RHEL). As suppliers of the technology (and stubborn ones at that at that) they will exert a fair amount of pressure on RH to keep RHEL in line with the rest of the community.
Finally, based on IBM's pattern of behavior towards open standards in general, look for them to push this outward into a proper standards body (mind you, after it has already gelled).
Exactly. Hasn't everyone seen Charlie's Angels??
I don't get this, I personally think windmills are pretty cool looking. I'm not saying that I want to pave national parks with windmills, but I don't see how a nice, sleek, modern windmill is having a negative impact on land that is already dotted with peoples ugly homes, grain silos, electric lines, highways ...
And on the noise thing, while I was traveling in Denmark a few years ago, back before windmills were at all common in the states, I spend a lot of time trying to check out some windmills (again, I think they're nifty). I never managed to get anywhere near enough to hear them.
A different register article suggests that in Koera only old people use PC's
uhmm... no, its not.