Really? That's pretty stupid. The machines that are going to give the most obviously poorest performance with Vista and they aren't offering XP? Seems like they should be focusing on keeping XP available on those machines. Can't look good on Dell everyone someone buys a cheap machine and gets it home only to find it crawls along with pathetic performance. Odd.
Mac brand is more desirable than Windows? Sure, for some values of desirable I guess. We all know it has it's place, and lots of people do indeed desire it.
However, Macs are a luxury item in the PC/laptop market. They are unquestionably expensive. Plus, many traditional windows users are still uncomfortable with the perceived 'switch. And these people also are not about to dig into Linux, cheaper or not. (For the same reason that most people do not service their own vehicles, cheaper or not.)
Further, you ignore the business market. Mac does not fit well in most business settings. It has made some niche inroads. But a business platform it is not, and there is no indication that it will be anytime in the reasonable future.
Anyone that has been exposed to Vista knows there are some good things in it, it _could_ have potential. But they also know how it was completely fucked up at the same time.
Performance is pathetic and it can be _very_ annoying to use. A lot of things _don't_ 'just work'.
If MS had managed to make Vista perform as well as XP and made the security less intrusive, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Out of at least a dozen people I know that have gotten new computers since Vista came out, I know of only 1 that didn't end up 'downgrading' to XP. And she complains all the time about how annoying it is and how it's slower than her last computer. But she does like the interface and the 'ooh, shiney!' aspect of it.
Now try finding a business that is happily using Vista. Good luck with that.
This discussion is kind of like NT vs 98. (Just that most people were never exposed to NT) If you used NT, you could see the potential in 98 and the vast improvements...however, it's stability, insecurity and performance just wasn't worth the 'upgrade'.
96% ehh? Obviously pulled that bit out of your ass.
Who said anything about those jobs? Who implied that this would work for everyone? Did you happen to notice what this article was about? You think most of our cops and teachers have been doing their jobs from overseas? wtf are you on? Sheesh, never mind what site we're on.
Depends on the place of work. At the last place I worked, I telecommuted for 4 years of the 8 I worked there. I did make the trip in to the office two days a week, but worked from home the rest. For 3.5 years this worked great. Manager kept me in the loop. I worked hard to keep up communication with the rest of the team, and they reciprocated in kind. It was very obvious to all that this situation worked very well, and that I actually put in a lot more hours and was a lot more productive because of it.
Unfortunately, my manager was actually a senior dev/architect that was forced into the management role and it was not his forte across the board. He ended up being expected to fill 3 hats, and upper management sacked him when he wasn't able to deliver 110% in all 3 roles.
So, they replaced him with a 'true' manager, with zero technical skills or background. From day one, the guy refused to work with my situation, and constantly undermined my relationship with the rest of the programmers. Regularly scheduled meetings on days I wasn't in without informing me or conferencing me in in any way. Despite this, I still completed huge amounts of work and was still able to work with and mentor the other programmers. He had me canned before he'd even been there 6 months.
Stupid move on the companies part, they lost 1/3 of their dedicated long-term employees over that 6 months and subsequent year. They still haven't recovered and from what I know, moral is simply pathetic now.
So, in my experience, telecommuting can work very very well, but only as well as your manager will allow it to. Bad manager? Don't even bother trying.
What's with building them in the water? That just increases cost, initially, and maintenance access. Just build them on the shore. We're building them all along the eastern shore of lake Huron in Ontario. (No, they don't detract from the actual shoreline...along the shore means anywhere from 500m to 10k+ inland)
That's just stupid. They're _windmills_. It would be a massive waste of money to guard them in particular over and above normal coast guard duties. The effort required to inflict any damage of real consequence is massively prohibitive. And trust me, industrial espionage? Not a problem here.
Yep, they're novel to see if you haven't before. But they're truly just really big steel towers with 3 giant blades at the top. They're building lots in Ontario these days, and there is nothing keeping anybody from getting reasonably close to them whatsoever...there's no point.
I do find it weird that they'd be building these out in the Ocean so that people can't see them. They're not unsightly, and the increased initial cost and access costs for maintenance seems counter productive. Ah well. It's a step in the right direction anyways.
And yet, I did not suggest that all browsers were always updated immediately did I? Are you really suggesting that browser update penetration and time lines are as slow as they were 8 years ago? When people used what came on their computer and never ever updated it?
Updating a browser is not nearly the big deal it used to be perceived as.
Not to nitpick, but that's a pretty limited rationality for terrorism, and I don't think that the majority of terrorism exists to try to force people into their way of life. On the contrary, for the most part terrorism arises as a result of others trying to force their way of life on people that do not want to have said way of life forced upon them.
Now religion on the other hand...pretty much spot on.
Wanting and having the balls to clean the slate is cowardly? What, he's only a 'man' if he forces himself to continue on with his life as if nothing happened?
The truth of the matter is up to this guy, and this guy alone. You can arm-chair psycho-analyze this all you want, and it won't mean shit. If he's being cowardly, he knows it. If he's being brave, he knows it. Condemning the guy over the internet based on how _you_ feel about the situation given your limited view on the matter is what is cowardly.
Again, he may very well be cowardly, but I highly suspect balls of steel myself.
Blind hope is warm and fuzzy for some, sure, but if you live your life 'hoping' for eternal life after death, you're likely to miss out on a good chunk of your actual life.
Living life in fear of death, makes it kind of hard to get the most out of life.
I personally advocate living life to the fullest, every day. You know for a fact that you will die, so the sooner you accept it, the sooner you can get on with living the life you have. Should there happen to be a life after death, then that will just be a bonus in the end. But don't count on it. I have no intention of lying on my death bed wishing I'd lived more while I could and tortured about whether there was more or not. If you can't be satisfied with how you have lived your life up to that point, there is nothing that is going to help you once you pass, eternal life or no eternal life. A need to put all your eggs in the 'I'm not really going to die' basket indicates regret at how one has lived the life they actually had.
Don't stress the unknown, there's nothing you can do about it. Enjoy what you have now and you won't be disappointed in the end no matter what happens.
Based on the post you were replying to, it would only be a legend _if_ there were in fact a core of truth to it, otherwise it would be a myth. I believe you are looking at the argument backwards. No one is saying that a particular event must be true because it is called a legend, or not true because it is called a myth.
Finding proof that there is truth in an old myth or legend is the interesting bit. But that still says nothing about the rest of a given myth or legend, or any other myth or legend for that matter. Maybe Heracles is based in truth, maybe not. As it stands, we view it as a myth. Who knows, some day maybe information will come to light that show that it is actually based in truthful events that have become legendary over time.
Further, none of this pertains to what or why people believe certain things about these myths and legends, it simply does not matter. Where a story derives from and how it is later consumed are not necessarily directly dependent upon each other. It's also odd that you suggest that people would only ever worship something that was most assuredly _not_ based upon real events. That's overtly rational when discussing faith of any sort. Fact and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive, they can certainly occupy the same space.
How many people downloaded FF3 last week? (Heck, my Dad even did of his own accord, never even mentioned the existence of FF3 to him) And how many people have automatic-updates turned off in windows?
It's not an assumption, it's a reasonable expectation. This isn't 1999 anymore.
Do you really think we don't know what Flash is capable of? This is/., open standards will be chosen above closed technologies every time. Further, Flash has been abused extensively, leaving a bad taste in the mouth for many. 98%? Totally pulled that out of your ass. I can find no data to back that up anywhere, none. Accessibility? Pathetic with Flash.
Flash has it's uses. Flash will still exist in a JS2/HTML5 world. However, Flash will not supplant these, despite your desire for it to do so.
I would be shocked if the improvements in JS2 and HTML5 didn't actually steal back a lot of 'market share' from Flash. Heck, the canvas tag alone opens up a world of possibilities that we used to have to relegate to Flash only. Don't take it as a personal insult, this is a good thing.
So true, though I'm about to have to add a land line back in the mix again unfortunately. Went out with my wife a couple weeks ago, got a baby sitter. Left our contact numbers with her. She asks "Where's the phone?". Er... Had to leave my cell phone behind for her to use in case of emergency.
Won't be many more years before my son has friends calling. I either leave him unable to be contacted by phone, let his friends call my cell, or get a land line.
Nope, landlines aren't dead yet and won't be for some time I'm sure.
OMG!!! A bunch of 20-somethings without guns just showed up in my field. They must be here to steal my sheep and tip my cows!!! There is no other possible explanation!!!
Personally, I'd highly suggest a chair that does not have arms on it, or that can be removed. That's the first thing I do on any office chair I have to use, take the arms off.
I used to have back problems, and that was the one change I've made over the years that has had the most significant impact on improving my back. Arms on a chair tend to lead to bad posture, your back and shoulders are happiest when your arms and shoulders hang naturally. When you prop up your elbows, even just a tiny bit, you raise and put strain on your shoulders, which stresses your back as well.
YMMV, but don't knock it until you try it. Everyone I know that I have suggested this to that has actually given it a try for a couple days swears by it now.
Not sure what you're trying to say there. There was no API overhaul in 3.5. Nothing in 2.0 changed for 3.0 or 3.5. Not one thing. 3.0 added WPF, WCF, WF etc. 3.5 added some new language features and some extensions to the framework. But nothing from 2.0 was changed at all.
No, IE7 didn't fare well on Acid3. However, IE7 was delivered before the Acid3 upgrade race began. Apparently MS is working very hard on making Acid3 work in IE8.
Yes, the DOM implementation is the sore point with IE. However, you can fix ALL of these problems with a few lines of js, adding prototypes to make javascript work the same way. It would be nice if it was fixed, and hopefully it will be, but the fix is very simple and doesn't require any browser-test code forks.
Yes, not sure why they did that with XMLHttpRequest, but again, it is dirt simple to abstract the problem away permanently.
No, you don't need Visual Studio 2008 to build sites that work cross browser. The reason that it DOES generate good cross browser code is because so many developers WERE doing it on their own and NOT using their tools. Now that we CAN use their tools, they are nice tools to have. This isn't FrontPage. This isn't something that has been forced down any developers throats. MS has realized that the only way to get devs using their tools is if their tools do what the devs want them to do. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Silverlight is most assuredly NOT a windows only platform. That is either stated out of complete and utter ignorance, or you are lying. Either way, it is wrong.
But no, you're right, MS would rather Silverlight was stillborn wouldn't they?
I'm no MS fanboy. I'm amongst the first to come down on them when they do stupid things. But they are actually getting a lot of things right these days from a development perspective. Like I said earlier, this is not 1999 anymore. Time to update your punching bag to reflect reality a bit better.
I'm sorry, but I have to call FUD on this. This is not 1999 anymore. MS has changed a lot in terms of how it approaches web technologies.
First, IE 7's javascript engine is vastly fixed over what they offered before. (Actually, they'd made a lot of improvements in 6 and 6.5 too) There are still a couple glaring inconsistencies, but these are mostly confined to the DOM, and are very easy to quickly abstract away.
Second, MS has been working VERY hard with each release to ASP.Net to make things work for ALL browsers, NOT just for IE. Visual Studio 2008 works extremely well for creating AJAX enabled content that works cross-browser, without rolling all your own client code. This isn't by accident. Remember...MS is about developers developers developers. Well, the developers have been screaming for years about this stuff, and MS has in fact listened. To great end in fact.
Third, Silverlight is not an IE/Windows only platform. And if you really think they're going to try that bait and switch tactic again, you're nuts. MS is not that stupid. They actually want Silverlight to be valid and compete with Flash. And they know the ONLY way for that to happen is if it runs everywhere that Flash runs. They may have had to learn this the hard way over the years, but they won't be making the mistakes you suggest.
But why am I arguing? I should be asking for examples of where MS is doing as you suggest they will. You're basically saying...Yeah, they're getting better in this area, and that area, and this other area, all so that they can pull the rug out from everyone in 3...2...1...
Hmm...still waiting. Anyways, examples and proof please if you wish to carry on with this logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but that's 8 pages of pointers into said book ;)
Really? That's pretty stupid. The machines that are going to give the most obviously poorest performance with Vista and they aren't offering XP? Seems like they should be focusing on keeping XP available on those machines. Can't look good on Dell everyone someone buys a cheap machine and gets it home only to find it crawls along with pathetic performance. Odd.
Mac brand is more desirable than Windows? Sure, for some values of desirable I guess. We all know it has it's place, and lots of people do indeed desire it.
However, Macs are a luxury item in the PC/laptop market. They are unquestionably expensive. Plus, many traditional windows users are still uncomfortable with the perceived 'switch. And these people also are not about to dig into Linux, cheaper or not. (For the same reason that most people do not service their own vehicles, cheaper or not.)
Further, you ignore the business market. Mac does not fit well in most business settings. It has made some niche inroads. But a business platform it is not, and there is no indication that it will be anytime in the reasonable future.
Anyone that has been exposed to Vista knows there are some good things in it, it _could_ have potential.
But they also know how it was completely fucked up at the same time.
Performance is pathetic and it can be _very_ annoying to use. A lot of things _don't_ 'just work'.
If MS had managed to make Vista perform as well as XP and made the security less intrusive, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Out of at least a dozen people I know that have gotten new computers since Vista came out, I know of only 1 that didn't end up 'downgrading' to XP. And she complains all the time about how annoying it is and how it's slower than her last computer. But she does like the interface and the 'ooh, shiney!' aspect of it.
Now try finding a business that is happily using Vista. Good luck with that.
This discussion is kind of like NT vs 98. (Just that most people were never exposed to NT)
If you used NT, you could see the potential in 98 and the vast improvements...however, it's stability, insecurity and performance just wasn't worth the 'upgrade'.
96% ehh? Obviously pulled that bit out of your ass.
Who said anything about those jobs? Who implied that this would work for everyone? Did you happen to notice what this article was about? You think most of our cops and teachers have been doing their jobs from overseas? wtf are you on? Sheesh, never mind what site we're on.
Depends on the place of work.
At the last place I worked, I telecommuted for 4 years of the 8 I worked there. I did make the trip in to the office two days a week, but worked from home the rest. For 3.5 years this worked great. Manager kept me in the loop. I worked hard to keep up communication with the rest of the team, and they reciprocated in kind. It was very obvious to all that this situation worked very well, and that I actually put in a lot more hours and was a lot more productive because of it.
Unfortunately, my manager was actually a senior dev/architect that was forced into the management role and it was not his forte across the board. He ended up being expected to fill 3 hats, and upper management sacked him when he wasn't able to deliver 110% in all 3 roles.
So, they replaced him with a 'true' manager, with zero technical skills or background. From day one, the guy refused to work with my situation, and constantly undermined my relationship with the rest of the programmers. Regularly scheduled meetings on days I wasn't in without informing me or conferencing me in in any way. Despite this, I still completed huge amounts of work and was still able to work with and mentor the other programmers. He had me canned before he'd even been there 6 months.
Stupid move on the companies part, they lost 1/3 of their dedicated long-term employees over that 6 months and subsequent year. They still haven't recovered and from what I know, moral is simply pathetic now.
So, in my experience, telecommuting can work very very well, but only as well as your manager will allow it to. Bad manager? Don't even bother trying.
That is somewhat insane, sort of...as others point out there is some fallacy in why that is insane though.
What is insane about it is that the cost is highly inflated, both initial and maintenance-wise, because it is being built _in_the_ocean_.
That is what is insane, never mind stupid and senseless.
Build it onshore and the cost comes way down. This looks almost like it is a project designed to 'prove' that wind power is not financially viable.
What's with building them in the water? That just increases cost, initially, and maintenance access. Just build them on the shore. We're building them all along the eastern shore of lake Huron in Ontario. (No, they don't detract from the actual shoreline...along the shore means anywhere from 500m to 10k+ inland)
That's just stupid. They're _windmills_. It would be a massive waste of money to guard them in particular over and above normal coast guard duties. The effort required to inflict any damage of real consequence is massively prohibitive. And trust me, industrial espionage? Not a problem here.
Yep, they're novel to see if you haven't before. But they're truly just really big steel towers with 3 giant blades at the top. They're building lots in Ontario these days, and there is nothing keeping anybody from getting reasonably close to them whatsoever...there's no point.
I do find it weird that they'd be building these out in the Ocean so that people can't see them. They're not unsightly, and the increased initial cost and access costs for maintenance seems counter productive. Ah well. It's a step in the right direction anyways.
And yet, I did not suggest that all browsers were always updated immediately did I?
Are you really suggesting that browser update penetration and time lines are as slow as they were 8 years ago? When people used what came on their computer and never ever updated it?
Updating a browser is not nearly the big deal it used to be perceived as.
Not to nitpick, but that's a pretty limited rationality for terrorism, and I don't think that the majority of terrorism exists to try to force people into their way of life. On the contrary, for the most part terrorism arises as a result of others trying to force their way of life on people that do not want to have said way of life forced upon them.
Now religion on the other hand...pretty much spot on.
Wanting and having the balls to clean the slate is cowardly?
What, he's only a 'man' if he forces himself to continue on with his life as if nothing happened?
The truth of the matter is up to this guy, and this guy alone. You can arm-chair psycho-analyze this all you want, and it won't mean shit. If he's being cowardly, he knows it. If he's being brave, he knows it. Condemning the guy over the internet based on how _you_ feel about the situation given your limited view on the matter is what is cowardly.
Again, he may very well be cowardly, but I highly suspect balls of steel myself.
It's called curiosity. It's what we do as humans. No, it doesn't matter one whit. Yes, people are going to be curious anyways.
Er, I'll take option C please.
Blind hope is warm and fuzzy for some, sure, but if you live your life 'hoping' for eternal life after death, you're likely to miss out on a good chunk of your actual life.
Living life in fear of death, makes it kind of hard to get the most out of life.
I personally advocate living life to the fullest, every day. You know for a fact that you will die, so the sooner you accept it, the sooner you can get on with living the life you have. Should there happen to be a life after death, then that will just be a bonus in the end. But don't count on it. I have no intention of lying on my death bed wishing I'd lived more while I could and tortured about whether there was more or not. If you can't be satisfied with how you have lived your life up to that point, there is nothing that is going to help you once you pass, eternal life or no eternal life. A need to put all your eggs in the 'I'm not really going to die' basket indicates regret at how one has lived the life they actually had.
Don't stress the unknown, there's nothing you can do about it. Enjoy what you have now and you won't be disappointed in the end no matter what happens.
Based on the post you were replying to, it would only be a legend _if_ there were in fact a core of truth to it, otherwise it would be a myth. I believe you are looking at the argument backwards. No one is saying that a particular event must be true because it is called a legend, or not true because it is called a myth.
Finding proof that there is truth in an old myth or legend is the interesting bit. But that still says nothing about the rest of a given myth or legend, or any other myth or legend for that matter. Maybe Heracles is based in truth, maybe not. As it stands, we view it as a myth. Who knows, some day maybe information will come to light that show that it is actually based in truthful events that have become legendary over time.
Further, none of this pertains to what or why people believe certain things about these myths and legends, it simply does not matter. Where a story derives from and how it is later consumed are not necessarily directly dependent upon each other. It's also odd that you suggest that people would only ever worship something that was most assuredly _not_ based upon real events. That's overtly rational when discussing faith of any sort. Fact and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive, they can certainly occupy the same space.
How many people downloaded FF3 last week? (Heck, my Dad even did of his own accord, never even mentioned the existence of FF3 to him)
And how many people have automatic-updates turned off in windows?
It's not an assumption, it's a reasonable expectation. This isn't 1999 anymore.
Do you really think we don't know what Flash is capable of? /., open standards will be chosen above closed technologies every time. Further, Flash has been abused extensively, leaving a bad taste in the mouth for many. 98%? Totally pulled that out of your ass. I can find no data to back that up anywhere, none. Accessibility? Pathetic with Flash.
This is
Flash has it's uses. Flash will still exist in a JS2/HTML5 world. However, Flash will not supplant these, despite your desire for it to do so.
I would be shocked if the improvements in JS2 and HTML5 didn't actually steal back a lot of 'market share' from Flash. Heck, the canvas tag alone opens up a world of possibilities that we used to have to relegate to Flash only. Don't take it as a personal insult, this is a good thing.
That's the point, letting him know what his stance should be to garner your vote.
So true, though I'm about to have to add a land line back in the mix again unfortunately.
Went out with my wife a couple weeks ago, got a baby sitter. Left our contact numbers with her. She asks "Where's the phone?". Er...
Had to leave my cell phone behind for her to use in case of emergency.
Won't be many more years before my son has friends calling. I either leave him unable to be contacted by phone, let his friends call my cell, or get a land line.
Nope, landlines aren't dead yet and won't be for some time I'm sure.
OMG!!! A bunch of 20-somethings without guns just showed up in my field. They must be here to steal my sheep and tip my cows!!! There is no other possible explanation!!!
;)
Nudge nudge, wink wink
Personally, I'd highly suggest a chair that does not have arms on it, or that can be removed. That's the first thing I do on any office chair I have to use, take the arms off.
I used to have back problems, and that was the one change I've made over the years that has had the most significant impact on improving my back. Arms on a chair tend to lead to bad posture, your back and shoulders are happiest when your arms and shoulders hang naturally. When you prop up your elbows, even just a tiny bit, you raise and put strain on your shoulders, which stresses your back as well.
YMMV, but don't knock it until you try it. Everyone I know that I have suggested this to that has actually given it a try for a couple days swears by it now.
Not sure what you're trying to say there. There was no API overhaul in 3.5.
Nothing in 2.0 changed for 3.0 or 3.5. Not one thing. 3.0 added WPF, WCF, WF etc. 3.5 added some new language features and some extensions to the framework. But nothing from 2.0 was changed at all.
Q) How do you make a dog go meow?
A) Freeze it, then run it through a band saw.
No, IE7 didn't fare well on Acid3. However, IE7 was delivered before the Acid3 upgrade race began. Apparently MS is working very hard on making Acid3 work in IE8.
Yes, the DOM implementation is the sore point with IE. However, you can fix ALL of these problems with a few lines of js, adding prototypes to make javascript work the same way. It would be nice if it was fixed, and hopefully it will be, but the fix is very simple and doesn't require any browser-test code forks.
Yes, not sure why they did that with XMLHttpRequest, but again, it is dirt simple to abstract the problem away permanently.
No, you don't need Visual Studio 2008 to build sites that work cross browser. The reason that it DOES generate good cross browser code is because so many developers WERE doing it on their own and NOT using their tools. Now that we CAN use their tools, they are nice tools to have. This isn't FrontPage. This isn't something that has been forced down any developers throats. MS has realized that the only way to get devs using their tools is if their tools do what the devs want them to do. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Silverlight is most assuredly NOT a windows only platform. That is either stated out of complete and utter ignorance, or you are lying. Either way, it is wrong.
But no, you're right, MS would rather Silverlight was stillborn wouldn't they?
I'm no MS fanboy. I'm amongst the first to come down on them when they do stupid things. But they are actually getting a lot of things right these days from a development perspective. Like I said earlier, this is not 1999 anymore. Time to update your punching bag to reflect reality a bit better.
I'm sorry, but I have to call FUD on this. This is not 1999 anymore. MS has changed a lot in terms of how it approaches web technologies.
First, IE 7's javascript engine is vastly fixed over what they offered before. (Actually, they'd made a lot of improvements in 6 and 6.5 too) There are still a couple glaring inconsistencies, but these are mostly confined to the DOM, and are very easy to quickly abstract away.
Second, MS has been working VERY hard with each release to ASP.Net to make things work for ALL browsers, NOT just for IE. Visual Studio 2008 works extremely well for creating AJAX enabled content that works cross-browser, without rolling all your own client code. This isn't by accident. Remember...MS is about developers developers developers. Well, the developers have been screaming for years about this stuff, and MS has in fact listened. To great end in fact.
Third, Silverlight is not an IE/Windows only platform. And if you really think they're going to try that bait and switch tactic again, you're nuts. MS is not that stupid. They actually want Silverlight to be valid and compete with Flash. And they know the ONLY way for that to happen is if it runs everywhere that Flash runs. They may have had to learn this the hard way over the years, but they won't be making the mistakes you suggest.
But why am I arguing? I should be asking for examples of where MS is doing as you suggest they will. You're basically saying...Yeah, they're getting better in this area, and that area, and this other area, all so that they can pull the rug out from everyone in 3...2...1...
Hmm...still waiting. Anyways, examples and proof please if you wish to carry on with this logic.