That being said I agree with your main point. Pogo may not support DHTML but it clearly supports HTML. Besides most "wireless devices" out there don't support all of the bells and whistles that desktop browsers are expected to handle. Savy web-developers have taken this into account already. And "animated GIFs" are pretty useless. Most animated GIFs I've seen have been banner adds. Disabling them can only be a good thing.
Did I use the words "blow up an airplane"? Nope. Read before you write Einstein. Sudden depressurization would cause major stress to an airplane. Depending up the age, condition of the airplane that stress could pull it apart. It's happened before. Get a clue yourself.
I find the blatent soundbiting in regards to Chucks comments regarding blind programmers to be utterly amazing. People have grabbed hold to one sentence with a pitbull grip and totally ignored the rest of what was said. Here are some statements that were ignored by so many.
Chuck Moore : I'm amazed at how effective blind programmers can be. I rely so strongly upon seeing the code that it's hard to imagine listening to it. Yet I know it can be done.
Also Chuck Moore : But in fact, color is merely a property of words that helps to distinguish them. As is intensity, size, font, volume and tone. I'm sure colorForth will be translated into these other representations. I, myself, will be exploring spoken colorForth. (As soon as I can decipher PC sound cards.)
Someone suggested that Chuck should have "considered blind programmers" when designing colorForth. In truth colorForth in its current form could be more easily adapted to blind use than much of the Windows paradigm. There are bits encoded in the Forth words that change the color to red, green, blue ect. A computer could easily be programmed to simply say "red", "green", "blue" or even "defining", "compiling", "executing".
Perhaps he might not have used the best or most PC choice of words, but the thought is "when experimenting with a tool I'm designing for myself, why should I be restricted by what best works for someone else?" I totally agree. ColorForth is just now being released to the public. Like many other tools that were developed in private and are in the initial phase of release it will take time before it fits needs of this or that particular user. But to focus online on its limitations is to be truly "blind".
I think its a hoax. I can't find an actual news link on it anywhere. Besides it goes directly against what was happening recently in Brazil. In 1999 Brazil banned guns period due to its high crime rate.
http://www.conjunturacriminal.com.br/artigos/kah nn yt.html
At that time Brazil was leading the world in hand gun murders. (Kinda flies in the face of the "is safer when the crooks don't know who's armed" argument doesn't it?)
This ban was overturned by Brazil's Supreme Court in 2000.
http://www.iansa.org/news/2000/oct_00/brazil_ove r. htm
And the thought of stewerdesses telling passengers to "aim well to avoid decompression" is just plain laughable.
Besides, let's say the terrorists goal was to destroy the plane (eg Lockerby Scotland) instead of using it as a flying bomb. All he would have to is nonchalantly pull out his gun while no one was looking and blow out a window. If Brazillians are considering such a measure then the U.S. should ban flights from Brazilian airlines.
I believe that was MacAuthur in the Korean conflict. And he wanted the nuclear wall of fire on the northern border between Korea and China to stop the advance of the Chinese troops.
I agree with the Sky marshal option, but not with the "armed with guns". Well they can be armed with guns, but they should have some other non-projectile weapons (tazers, pepper spray, nightsticks, knives) for use in the air to avoid that nasty decompression problem. They should also be well trained in hand to hand combat. A person with a nightstick should be able to handle someone with a box-cutter without too much trouble.
While I'm not sure about the claims concerning the license of the Amiga SDK, the assertions about the patent of the Taos VP (not 'VM') are dead wrong. There is a HUGE difference betweed the Pascal P-Code interpreter and the Taos VP machine translator. The difference is speed. A byte code interpreter evaluates each code one at a time. A machine translator converts the entire chunk of code into native code and then executes it. It's sort of like the difference between Java VM and Java JIT. Taos certainly predates Java JITs and it may predate the Java VM itself. (I certainly heard of Taos before I heard of Java.) Oh, and for the record Pascal PCode was not the first VM implemented language either. BCPL also had a bytecode VM. The Oberon slim binary format (another machine translation technology) predates Java JIT, but I'm not sure if it predates Taos VP either. At any rate it's implementation is quite different from Taos VP.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm...NetScape 6 actually CAN support CSS!
n n6 dhtml.html
http://developer.apple.com/internet/javascript/
That being said I agree with your main point. Pogo may not support DHTML but it clearly supports HTML. Besides most "wireless devices" out there don't support all of the bells and whistles that desktop browsers are expected to handle. Savy web-developers have taken this into account already. And "animated GIFs" are pretty useless. Most animated GIFs I've seen have been banner adds. Disabling them can only be a good thing.
Did I use the words "blow up an airplane"? Nope. Read before you write Einstein. Sudden depressurization would cause major stress to an airplane. Depending up the age, condition of the airplane that stress could pull it apart. It's happened before. Get a clue yourself.
I find the blatent soundbiting in regards to Chucks comments regarding blind programmers to be utterly amazing. People have grabbed hold to one sentence with a pitbull grip and totally ignored the rest of what was said. Here are some statements that were ignored by so many.
Chuck Moore : I'm amazed at how effective blind programmers can be. I rely so strongly upon seeing the code that it's hard to imagine listening to it. Yet I know it can be done.
Also Chuck Moore : But in fact, color is merely a property of words that helps to distinguish them. As is intensity, size, font, volume and tone. I'm sure colorForth will be translated into these other representations. I, myself, will be exploring spoken colorForth. (As soon as I can decipher PC sound cards.)
Someone suggested that Chuck should have "considered blind programmers" when designing colorForth. In truth colorForth in its current form could be more easily adapted to blind use than much of the Windows paradigm. There are bits encoded in the Forth words that change the color to red, green, blue ect. A computer could easily be programmed to simply say "red", "green", "blue" or even "defining", "compiling", "executing".
Perhaps he might not have used the best or most PC choice of words, but the thought is "when experimenting with a tool I'm designing for myself, why should I be restricted by what best works for someone else?" I totally agree. ColorForth is just now being released to the public. Like many other tools that were developed in private and are in the initial phase of release it will take time before it fits needs of this or that particular user. But to focus online on its limitations is to be truly "blind".
I think its a hoax. I can't find an actual news link on it anywhere. Besides it goes directly against what was happening recently in Brazil. In 1999 Brazil banned guns period due to its high crime rate.
h nn yt.html
e r. htm
http://www.conjunturacriminal.com.br/artigos/ka
At that time Brazil was leading the world in hand gun murders. (Kinda flies in the face of the "is safer when the crooks don't know who's armed" argument doesn't it?)
This ban was overturned by Brazil's Supreme Court in 2000.
http://www.iansa.org/news/2000/oct_00/brazil_ov
And the thought of stewerdesses telling passengers to "aim well to avoid decompression" is just plain laughable.
Besides, let's say the terrorists goal was to destroy the plane (eg Lockerby Scotland) instead of using it as a flying bomb. All he would have to is nonchalantly pull out his gun while no one was looking and blow out a window. If Brazillians are considering such a measure then the U.S. should ban flights from Brazilian airlines.
I believe that was MacAuthur in the Korean conflict. And he wanted the nuclear wall of fire on the northern border between Korea and China to stop the advance of the Chinese troops.
I agree with the Sky marshal option, but not with the "armed with guns". Well they can be armed with guns, but they should have some other non-projectile weapons (tazers, pepper spray, nightsticks, knives) for use in the air to avoid that nasty decompression problem. They should also be well trained in hand to hand combat. A person with a nightstick should be able to handle someone with a box-cutter without too much trouble.
While I'm not sure about the claims concerning the license of the Amiga SDK, the assertions about the patent of the Taos VP (not 'VM') are dead wrong. There is a HUGE difference betweed the Pascal P-Code interpreter and the Taos VP machine translator. The difference is speed. A byte code interpreter evaluates each code one at a time. A machine translator converts the entire chunk of code into native code and then executes it. It's sort of like the difference between Java VM and Java JIT. Taos certainly predates Java JITs and it may predate the Java VM itself. (I certainly heard of Taos before I heard of Java.) Oh, and for the record Pascal PCode was not the first VM implemented language either. BCPL also had a bytecode VM. The Oberon slim binary format (another machine translation technology) predates Java JIT, but I'm not sure if it predates Taos VP either. At any rate it's implementation is quite different from Taos VP.