Certainly some people will cut back on their projects to devote more time to paid work. Others will probably increase their involvement, in an attempt to build or enhance a portfolio of work that could help get or secure a job. In the end, it'll probably be a wash: not much net increase or decrease.
If IE and Safari can look at Firefox's source code and see exactly how FF implement's something, how can FF maintain a competitive advantage as a core browser. By core browser I mean without all the plugins/themes/extensions.
The thing is, the plugins/themes/extensions pretty much is FF's main competitive advantage, what with the apparent de-prioritization of standards and performance. Discounting extensibility isn't really fair.
So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?
Pretty much the same way Safari figures it out for FF: by downloading the source code. But it doesn't really matter, because the core architectures of Safari and FF (and IE, for that matter) are so different that a lot of the performance stuff in each browser can't really be applied across them. You can use some of the higher-level stuff, and both FF and Safari have done this with one another in the past, but the low-level stuff just doesn't translate all that well. The best you can do in cases like this is to use the code as documentation to help write your own, and even then it will come out looking very different.
There are no games that "cost too much," only games that can't make a profit at a price people are willing to pay for it.
The same could be said of game consoles, actually. But in either case, the problem is not in the price, but in the decisions that led to overspending while developing the product without adding value.
I don't doubt your experiences, but you are forgetting something critical: what you experienced was in Europe, not the US. What works for one will not work for each other. It worked for them, and good for them, but the US needs something else, and this attachment to Europe's solution will not end well in a region with different conditions.
Rail doesn't scale to the level required for it to work for the US. It works fine in small, dense regions like Europe and Japan, or in large but very sparse regions like Russia. In large, dense regions like the US, rail's weaknesses start to show. The cost to build the infrastructure is too large when there are that many places that far apart where people need to go. Furthermore, in a nation which continues to grow on the level the US does, "initial cost" is a myth: you pay it again and again as it becomes necessary to reach new places. Either that, or you simply stop creating new places to go, but this carries problems of its own.
The US tried rail once. It failed for many reasons, most of which have not changed since then. It is foolish and naive to take a path that has already failed for us once when options which actually have a chance of success remain open, especially when the grounds for that failing path are based solely on success in regions with very different conditions.
If the game is good, players will immerse themselves. They've been doing it since at least the days of the NES, and probably sooner. Developers can't really help this through any specific efforts, because it doesn't arise from any specific area of the game; all that truly matters is that the game is entertaining enough. Gamers can and will do the rest all by themselves.
Marketers would like you to think that gimmicks like photorealism and hyper-realistic physics aid in immersion, because that misconception gives developers some relatively easy-to-add hooks that they can use as marketing ploys. But these things don't actually help immersion at all, except in those truly sad souls who have let their imaginations atrophy, and those people need healing, not crutches.
Of course it complicates things. Perhaps this should serve as a wake-up call to the Mozilla folks, seeing at this is now makes the developer (after AOL and Apple) to, having initially showed strong support for Mozilla's projects, ultimately reject Gecko when the time came to make its own browser.
The only common thread between these three companies (among others) and their rejection of Gecko is Gecko itself: they've embraced a wide variety of other engines, they stand in opposition to Microsoft to varying degrees (including, in some cases, none at all), and the browsers they ultimately produced tend to follow many different paradigms and philosophies. Yet all of them agree, in the end, that Gecko was not going to get the job done. Something is very wrong with that picture, and it bothers me how the Mozilla team seems to take it so nonchalantly.
I say all of this as a Firefox fan who is nonetheless worried about the future of the engine that made standards-compliance important on the Web again. I have a few guesses as to what mistakes might have been made, but I don't claim to know for certain. What I do claim to know is that something needs to be done, even if the first step is just to figure out exactly what that is.
Is that really an alternative, though? It's just another manifestation of what I propose, except that -at least in theory- it's markets rather than government doing the backing. Ultimately, what you suggest is what I would prefer, but there is a time for ideological purity and there is a time for pragmatism, and this is the latter.
It is a shame that society has allowed itself to become so dependent on government intervention, but in society's current state, ripping the bandage off will not only do far more harm than good, but will likely leave things in a state where the market cannot take over its rightful functions. A more gradual phase-out is needed if we want the market to take over in a situation conducive to market-based growth, and that means that there must be some continued intervention for a while: just enough to repair the damage that the culture of dependency has wrought.
Basically, what he seems to be complaining about is the lack of standards, and on this he has a point. But he clearly doesn't understand the difference between standard-as-implementation (the Microsoft way of doing things) and standard-as-protocol (the superior way).
You can see some examples of standard-as-protocol, for example, when he talks about kernel ABIs, audio APIs, and such. But most of what he speaks of is mere whining about how there isn't Just One Way to do something, calling for standard-as-implementation when that simply isn't necessary: for example, the single configuration format or the "tight integration" between X and the kernel.
You might be able to do something with programming if you had a very impressive portfolio, which is an area where open-source projects can come in handy. This holds true for similar positions where portfolios can apply.
But there are some IT careers where you just can't build a portfolio. How would you do such a thing, for example, doing sysadmin work? In these cases, a degree is probably your best option.
In order to drive society forward, you must back the people who are capable of doing so. Given that society often requires money in great quantities before it can advance, there really is no other choice: you must back those who have become capable of doing what needs to be done. Backing those who cannot make a difference is doomed to fail, so the best you can hope for is to back those who can.
Truth be told, I'd bet it would be many more if they were dealing with typical home screen sizes and distances (i.e. not what an A/V-phile goes for). HD makes a marginal difference for most people, to be sure, but simply not enough to be worth the ridiculous prices they charge for the stuff.
Does this even require a patent attorney? The patent is quite specific in that it depends on re-rendering an HTML site into XML. The iPhone browser does not do this; it renders the HTML directly. Thus, whether or not the patent is valid, I don't see how it could possibly apply to the iPhone.
The patent is itself invalid, and should never have been granted. But in this case, it's not even relevant; it covers functionality the iPhone doesn't even have.
Part of the problem is that in most districts, teachers are no longer able to do the things you mention; the necessary power to carry out that responsibility has been taken away, by regulation and bylaws and lawsuits and a whole mess of other bureaucratic crap. You seem to recognize at least some of this with your comment about lawsuits, but I'm not sure you realize how deep it goes.
Of course it's still important to have dedicated and enthusiastic teachers, but there's only so much good these teachers can do when the system hamstrings them on the day they sign up. You also need a system that allows the teachers to teach.
Moderation is key. Online gaming and social networks have a nasty habit of eating people (metaphorically, of course). That needs to be prevented. But as long as they're in moderation, carefully balanced with other activities (and more to the point, activity) and monitored for safety, then these things can indeed be great learning tools for children.
Re:I don't like books by Bigots.
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
It's not (necessarily) about punishing his views by withholding sales from him.
That is exactly, completely, and totally what it is about.
It's realizing that Card isn't nearly as smart in real life as he seems to be in his books...
Because he holds a different belief from your own?
It's understanding that, in contact with the real world, Card is a hateful twit with a persecution complex, and suspecting that the books that seemed so clever before might be a bit slanted in the author's favor.
So what? Does this mean they have less literary merit? Of course not. The pretty window-dressing you give this falls on its face: this is nothing more than punishing him for what he believes.
Honestly, the geek stereotype does very, very little to attract women to CS. No one wants to constantly work with people they find loathsome, even if they might otherwise be interested in the field. There are surer ways to make yourself, miserable, but there aren't many, and women know this. They go into fields where they can apply their talents to people they actually enjoy being around. If that turns out to be impossible or impractical, then they apply their interests in a non-vocational way for example, perhaps by creating or contributing to OSS projects. The saddest cases give up entirely.
The male geek stereotype has been around for a long time, of course; why might it be to blame when it clearly was not in the past? Simple: the stereotype has changed. The "classic" stereotype, while it portrayed geeks as socially inept, also portrayed them as harmless: socially (and often physically) clumsy in an endearing sort of way, and certainly nothing to be afraid of. The more modern stereotype is far creepier, attributing more to problems with inhibition and self-control than mere misunderstanding. Geeks were once nothing to fear, and now they are, and so people have been away. Again, there are few ways to make yourself more miserable than to work with people you feel you constantly have to watch out for. And so they don't.
Re:I don't like books by Bigots.
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
Why not? Many of the people in this very thread suggest exactly that: namely, that people shouldn't read his works until he changes a belief he holds on an unrelated issue.
Whoa. Behold the anti-fanboy.
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Lots of writers have fanboys, of course. So does Card. But it takes a special kind of writer to have not just people who irrationally love his works for imaginary or irrelevant reasons, but people who irrationally hate his works for imaginary or irrelevant reasons. It seems that Card is such a writer.
Ovid had a humorous poem about a dead parrot long before this play was ever written, complete with the long-winded and repetitive description of exactly how dead the parrot is which characterizes Monty Python's sketch.
This was itself a parody of a poem by Catullus, lamenting the death of his lover's "sparrow." The quotes are there for a reason; it's the term he used, but modern poets would probably have used a more, err, feline term to catch the nuance, if you know what I mean (wink and a nudge, say no more, say no more).
Monty Python was made up of some extremely erudite people; even Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film actually corresponds to someone from Arthurian legend (and bonus points if you can tell me who). No doubt they drew inspiration from the Ovid poem too, among others, and is there really any problem with that? It's friggin funny.
Of course, the Washington Post is so invested in corporate Republican politics that it is undermining Obama with this story, now that Obama is going to be in charge. The WP could have run this analysis any time during the campaign season, and changed its ways, if they were indeed showing bias. But instead, they're just lying now, because their favoritism of McCain didn't quite work.
Um, the Post endorsed Obama for President. It doesn't exactly make sense to favor the opposing candidate, does it? If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.
Yes, the First Amendment gives you the right to say almost anything you care to. Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of something the First Amendment does not give you the right to do.
Actually, it does give you the right to say this. What it does not do is shield you from the inevitable charges of falsely inciting a panic.
Free speech must, in any truly free society, be held as absolute and sacrosanct. This does not, however, mean that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions and choices; it only means that speech itself must never be a crime.
Congratulations USA on your recent election. The world watched this very carefully, and we are generally happy with the choice you have made.
Because you think Obama will do whatever you want? Perhaps. I have to admit, my hopes are not high. But perhaps in time he will remember that a head of state's first duty is to his own constituency, and all else is secondary.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly some people will cut back on their projects to devote more time to paid work. Others will probably increase their involvement, in an attempt to build or enhance a portfolio of work that could help get or secure a job. In the end, it'll probably be a wash: not much net increase or decrease.
If IE and Safari can look at Firefox's source code and see exactly how FF implement's something, how can FF maintain a competitive advantage as a core browser. By core browser I mean without all the plugins/themes/extensions.
The thing is, the plugins/themes/extensions pretty much is FF's main competitive advantage, what with the apparent de-prioritization of standards and performance. Discounting extensibility isn't really fair.
So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?
Pretty much the same way Safari figures it out for FF: by downloading the source code. But it doesn't really matter, because the core architectures of Safari and FF (and IE, for that matter) are so different that a lot of the performance stuff in each browser can't really be applied across them. You can use some of the higher-level stuff, and both FF and Safari have done this with one another in the past, but the low-level stuff just doesn't translate all that well. The best you can do in cases like this is to use the code as documentation to help write your own, and even then it will come out looking very different.
There are no games that "cost too much," only games that can't make a profit at a price people are willing to pay for it.
The same could be said of game consoles, actually. But in either case, the problem is not in the price, but in the decisions that led to overspending while developing the product without adding value.
Talking about a "good OS" is all very well, but did classic MacOS on the Macintosh 128k do these things?
No, but it didn't multitask either, so the point is moot: such a situation could not have come up anyway.
I don't doubt your experiences, but you are forgetting something critical: what you experienced was in Europe, not the US. What works for one will not work for each other. It worked for them, and good for them, but the US needs something else, and this attachment to Europe's solution will not end well in a region with different conditions.
Rail doesn't scale to the level required for it to work for the US. It works fine in small, dense regions like Europe and Japan, or in large but very sparse regions like Russia. In large, dense regions like the US, rail's weaknesses start to show. The cost to build the infrastructure is too large when there are that many places that far apart where people need to go. Furthermore, in a nation which continues to grow on the level the US does, "initial cost" is a myth: you pay it again and again as it becomes necessary to reach new places. Either that, or you simply stop creating new places to go, but this carries problems of its own.
The US tried rail once. It failed for many reasons, most of which have not changed since then. It is foolish and naive to take a path that has already failed for us once when options which actually have a chance of success remain open, especially when the grounds for that failing path are based solely on success in regions with very different conditions.
If the game is good, players will immerse themselves. They've been doing it since at least the days of the NES, and probably sooner. Developers can't really help this through any specific efforts, because it doesn't arise from any specific area of the game; all that truly matters is that the game is entertaining enough. Gamers can and will do the rest all by themselves.
Marketers would like you to think that gimmicks like photorealism and hyper-realistic physics aid in immersion, because that misconception gives developers some relatively easy-to-add hooks that they can use as marketing ploys. But these things don't actually help immersion at all, except in those truly sad souls who have let their imaginations atrophy, and those people need healing, not crutches.
Of course it complicates things. Perhaps this should serve as a wake-up call to the Mozilla folks, seeing at this is now makes the developer (after AOL and Apple) to, having initially showed strong support for Mozilla's projects, ultimately reject Gecko when the time came to make its own browser.
The only common thread between these three companies (among others) and their rejection of Gecko is Gecko itself: they've embraced a wide variety of other engines, they stand in opposition to Microsoft to varying degrees (including, in some cases, none at all), and the browsers they ultimately produced tend to follow many different paradigms and philosophies. Yet all of them agree, in the end, that Gecko was not going to get the job done. Something is very wrong with that picture, and it bothers me how the Mozilla team seems to take it so nonchalantly.
I say all of this as a Firefox fan who is nonetheless worried about the future of the engine that made standards-compliance important on the Web again. I have a few guesses as to what mistakes might have been made, but I don't claim to know for certain. What I do claim to know is that something needs to be done, even if the first step is just to figure out exactly what that is.
There's a hole in my letters, dear Liza, dear Liza...
Is that really an alternative, though? It's just another manifestation of what I propose, except that -at least in theory- it's markets rather than government doing the backing. Ultimately, what you suggest is what I would prefer, but there is a time for ideological purity and there is a time for pragmatism, and this is the latter.
It is a shame that society has allowed itself to become so dependent on government intervention, but in society's current state, ripping the bandage off will not only do far more harm than good, but will likely leave things in a state where the market cannot take over its rightful functions. A more gradual phase-out is needed if we want the market to take over in a situation conducive to market-based growth, and that means that there must be some continued intervention for a while: just enough to repair the damage that the culture of dependency has wrought.
Basically, what he seems to be complaining about is the lack of standards, and on this he has a point. But he clearly doesn't understand the difference between standard-as-implementation (the Microsoft way of doing things) and standard-as-protocol (the superior way).
You can see some examples of standard-as-protocol, for example, when he talks about kernel ABIs, audio APIs, and such. But most of what he speaks of is mere whining about how there isn't Just One Way to do something, calling for standard-as-implementation when that simply isn't necessary: for example, the single configuration format or the "tight integration" between X and the kernel.
You might be able to do something with programming if you had a very impressive portfolio, which is an area where open-source projects can come in handy. This holds true for similar positions where portfolios can apply.
But there are some IT careers where you just can't build a portfolio. How would you do such a thing, for example, doing sysadmin work? In these cases, a degree is probably your best option.
In order to drive society forward, you must back the people who are capable of doing so. Given that society often requires money in great quantities before it can advance, there really is no other choice: you must back those who have become capable of doing what needs to be done. Backing those who cannot make a difference is doomed to fail, so the best you can hope for is to back those who can.
Truth be told, I'd bet it would be many more if they were dealing with typical home screen sizes and distances (i.e. not what an A/V-phile goes for). HD makes a marginal difference for most people, to be sure, but simply not enough to be worth the ridiculous prices they charge for the stuff.
Does this even require a patent attorney? The patent is quite specific in that it depends on re-rendering an HTML site into XML. The iPhone browser does not do this; it renders the HTML directly. Thus, whether or not the patent is valid, I don't see how it could possibly apply to the iPhone.
The patent is itself invalid, and should never have been granted. But in this case, it's not even relevant; it covers functionality the iPhone doesn't even have.
I know Opera Mini and some other mobile browsers do this, but I thought Safari worked on the HTML itself. Wouldn't that render the patent irrelevant?
Part of the problem is that in most districts, teachers are no longer able to do the things you mention; the necessary power to carry out that responsibility has been taken away, by regulation and bylaws and lawsuits and a whole mess of other bureaucratic crap. You seem to recognize at least some of this with your comment about lawsuits, but I'm not sure you realize how deep it goes.
Of course it's still important to have dedicated and enthusiastic teachers, but there's only so much good these teachers can do when the system hamstrings them on the day they sign up. You also need a system that allows the teachers to teach.
Moderation is key. Online gaming and social networks have a nasty habit of eating people (metaphorically, of course). That needs to be prevented. But as long as they're in moderation, carefully balanced with other activities (and more to the point, activity) and monitored for safety, then these things can indeed be great learning tools for children.
It's not (necessarily) about punishing his views by withholding sales from him.
That is exactly, completely, and totally what it is about.
It's realizing that Card isn't nearly as smart in real life as he seems to be in his books...
Because he holds a different belief from your own?
It's understanding that, in contact with the real world, Card is a hateful twit with a persecution complex, and suspecting that the books that seemed so clever before might be a bit slanted in the author's favor.
So what? Does this mean they have less literary merit? Of course not. The pretty window-dressing you give this falls on its face: this is nothing more than punishing him for what he believes.
Honestly, the geek stereotype does very, very little to attract women to CS. No one wants to constantly work with people they find loathsome, even if they might otherwise be interested in the field. There are surer ways to make yourself, miserable, but there aren't many, and women know this. They go into fields where they can apply their talents to people they actually enjoy being around. If that turns out to be impossible or impractical, then they apply their interests in a non-vocational way for example, perhaps by creating or contributing to OSS projects. The saddest cases give up entirely.
The male geek stereotype has been around for a long time, of course; why might it be to blame when it clearly was not in the past? Simple: the stereotype has changed. The "classic" stereotype, while it portrayed geeks as socially inept, also portrayed them as harmless: socially (and often physically) clumsy in an endearing sort of way, and certainly nothing to be afraid of. The more modern stereotype is far creepier, attributing more to problems with inhibition and self-control than mere misunderstanding. Geeks were once nothing to fear, and now they are, and so people have been away. Again, there are few ways to make yourself more miserable than to work with people you feel you constantly have to watch out for. And so they don't.
Why not? Many of the people in this very thread suggest exactly that: namely, that people shouldn't read his works until he changes a belief he holds on an unrelated issue.
Lots of writers have fanboys, of course. So does Card. But it takes a special kind of writer to have not just people who irrationally love his works for imaginary or irrelevant reasons, but people who irrationally hate his works for imaginary or irrelevant reasons. It seems that Card is such a writer.
Ovid had a humorous poem about a dead parrot long before this play was ever written, complete with the long-winded and repetitive description of exactly how dead the parrot is which characterizes Monty Python's sketch.
This was itself a parody of a poem by Catullus, lamenting the death of his lover's "sparrow." The quotes are there for a reason; it's the term he used, but modern poets would probably have used a more, err, feline term to catch the nuance, if you know what I mean (wink and a nudge, say no more, say no more).
Monty Python was made up of some extremely erudite people; even Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film actually corresponds to someone from Arthurian legend (and bonus points if you can tell me who). No doubt they drew inspiration from the Ovid poem too, among others, and is there really any problem with that? It's friggin funny.
Of course, the Washington Post is so invested in corporate Republican politics that it is undermining Obama with this story, now that Obama is going to be in charge. The WP could have run this analysis any time during the campaign season, and changed its ways, if they were indeed showing bias. But instead, they're just lying now, because their favoritism of McCain didn't quite work.
Um, the Post endorsed Obama for President. It doesn't exactly make sense to favor the opposing candidate, does it? If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.
Yes, the First Amendment gives you the right to say almost anything you care to. Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of something the First Amendment does not give you the right to do.
Actually, it does give you the right to say this. What it does not do is shield you from the inevitable charges of falsely inciting a panic.
Free speech must, in any truly free society, be held as absolute and sacrosanct. This does not, however, mean that people should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions and choices; it only means that speech itself must never be a crime.
In the same vein:
Congratulations USA on your recent election. The world watched this very carefully, and we are generally happy with the choice you have made.
Because you think Obama will do whatever you want? Perhaps. I have to admit, my hopes are not high. But perhaps in time he will remember that a head of state's first duty is to his own constituency, and all else is secondary.