This is all great info. One thing I'd do a bit different, though. If you add a username/password system, you can simplify the entire delivery system. Instead of emailing a link to the image, your confirmation would link to your login page where your buyer can download any images they have purchased. This is a minor improvement, but it will make the user experience better, particularly if they buy multiple images. This is also a necessary step towards making an actual shopping cart system. Keep in mind that once you've got this much done, alot of the way to a full online shopping system. Add in an online image catalog, a shopping cart & credit card processing, and you've got a complete (if basic) online store.
I'm NOT an expert on the subject, but I think you're misinterpreting him. You don't need to store the entire database in memory-- only the indexes & possibly a few additional fields (subjects, senders & dates). The vast majority of read access will be users checking their mail-- and most of the time, they won't have any new mail. A simple check of the index will tell you that. If they do have new mail, you go out to the disk & read in the actual mail. The over head of reading the mail will be more then just reading the disk, but you should make up for it with the savings from caching the indexes.
In the file system, you can't tell the system to only cache the relevant memory. It will automatically cache what it thinks is relevant. (as far as I know-- like I said, I'm not an expert-- please be polite if I'm wrong)
Gotta say I agree with the others on this... A socket every 16" is ridiculous. Think about it-- you're right that I have more devices then outlets in my office, but most of the devices are concentrated in two locations-- my desk & entertainment center. Why would I want to drag cords all over the room when a carefully placed power strip does the job even better (and adds surge suppression to boot)?
But where you are correct is that you do want more outlets then are usually provided. My dream room would have one outlet every 64 inches in most walls and one every 48 inches in areas where I expect to need more. Normally, no wall should have fewer then two outlets. Cat 5 (or 6) & cable should be available in opposite corners of each room where it makes sense.
And here's one that I haven't seen anyone else mention... At least one power outlet in each closet in the house. You may consider adding cat5 in the closet of your office as well. Handy for servers, but make sure it's well ventilated.
I have never said that anyone should abandon PHP completely. I specifically state in another thread that a smart programmer chooses the right tool for the job. For small jobs, PHP will quite frequently be a better choice then Rails. But that's not because of any limitations in Rails, just that for small jobs the overhead of even a simple framework can be more bother then it's worth.
My point is not that everyone should switch to Rails. But learning a web framework is never a minor undertaking. For me, learning Rails has been much more difficult then it was to learn Ruby, and in my experience the same is true of every other framework I've looked at, regardless of the language. If you're investing that much time to begin with, you might as well consider -all- of your options, rather then limiting yourself based on a flawed premise.
Ruby users are like "Hey guys, Ruby is better!!!", PHP users are like "Let's see, how can we improve PHP?". Guess which language will be a better solution in the end?
Yep, you're right. Us Ruby users are just sitting on our asses cheering, not actually improving anything. Oh, wait. No, we're not. The entire Rails environment is only about a year old, and is advancing literally every day. The core ruby language has been at the same version number for a while now, but there is a new version on the near horizon, all of the supporting technologies have advanced greatly in the meantime. Ruby might or might not be as successful as many of us believe, but it's not going to go away no matter how much you want it to.
This argument falls flat pretty quick. You don't need to abandon everything else you've learned to learn a new language. I'm not arguing that you need to learn every new language that comes along, but spending an hour learning -about- a new language is quite reasonable. Once you've done that, you can make a reasonable decision about whether you should continue and learn more.
Every language has advantages & disadvantages. I love Ruby & Rails, but for some jobs, I'll still use PHP. Some jobs are best suited to Perl, and some to C. A good programmer will be able to choose the best tool for the job at hand. Remember, all four of these languages have the same underlying inspirations, so once you know one, it's much easier to learn another. If you're a good PHP or Perl programmer, you can be a competent Ruby programmer in a week with some effort. Do you truly believe that your career & programming ability will be better served by NOT making that effort? If so, that's fine, that just leaves more jobs for the rest of us.
And, BTW, you are way off topic. This article is about PHP frameworks. Let me explain to you. PHP is considered by some to be an excellent language. However, differently from Ruby, PHP users are ready to acknowledge its shortcomings. So, how can we make PHP a better language? Frameworks are one kind of solution.
Well, we're not really THAT far off topic. The reason that the OP doesn't want to use Rails is that they don't want to learn another language. That's a good reason on the surface, but to those of us who have made the leap, it's absurd. As many have pointed out, if you know PHP or Perl, the learning curve of Ruby is really shallow. You can get the basics in a few hours, and be quite proficient in a few weeks. And once you've taken the leap, you WILL be more efficient on 99% of tasks. So rather then being off topic, we are pointing out that the entire question is based on a flawed premise.
I'm not qualified to really explain the technical advantages & disadvantages of Ruby vs. PHP. But there's a high level overview of what's great about Ruby on the Ruby website. If you want more, the first edition of the excellent Programming Ruby is available for free online. You could easily scan through the first chapter in half an hour, and it touches on all the major parts of the language. If you're honest about your curiosity about Ruby, then I highly recommend you spend a few minutes & scan the online docs. You won't be disappointed.
There's a reason that Ruby programmers are such annoying cheerleaders-- the language is genuinely fun. Add to that the facts that you get much more done in much less time and your code is inherently less buggy, and you begin to see the reason for our enthusiasm. I challenge you to pick up Programming Ruby (or the new Agile Web Development in Rails). You may not decide to switch but you'll understand why we have.
The need to learn a new language is certainly a reasonable concern. Fortunately Ruby has a reasonably shallow learning curve. Coupled with the boost in productivity you'll get from using Rails, you will likely make up the downtime lost to learning on your first sizeable job.
Not only that, but the 518 is the only mouse I've ever seen that actually requires a specific OS. The drivers won't even install on anything other then WinXP. It will finction as an ordinary mouse, and any the features that are implemented in hardware work (three resolutions, browser forward & back), but you can't reprogram any of the buttons, and you can't override the sensitivity in software as they advertise. I really don't care about software sensitivity, but why on earth can't you reprogram the buttons?
(Yes, I know the resolution buttons aren't programmable-- I'm talking about the forward/back & application buttons)
Ok, I'll state upfront that I'm not an EE. Nevertheless, it seems that you're making a big, potentially flawed, assumption here. You assume that it requires that power level at all times. Couldn't it require a large amount of power, but only for a short time? It takes 1/2 gallon of water to run for an hour, but perhaps it can process it into hydrogen in only 5 minutes-- the rest of the time it would draw no (or minimal) electricity. Or maybe it pulses, similar to a microwave-- it's full power for 1 second out of every 4, but the rest of the time it's off. These examples are purely random guesses, but is there some way that you know upfront that they are not possible?
Your point is accurate, of course, but that doesn't really mean that the question has no merit. Microsoft could EASILY set an internal goal that, for example, 70% of bugs are patched within 72 hours of first discovery. Such a goal should be difficult, but not impossible to achieve. Any bugs that are not patched within the desired 72 hours, are patched ASAP. Now, as the original poster asked: Would such an initiative cause a noticeable decrease in infections? An increase? And such a timetable would mean anything but the most cursory compatibility testing is ruled out, so it would likely cause it's own set of (hopefully non-security related) problems. So would such a an iniative be a good thing or a bad thing?
Why would Bezos encourage you to use an affiliate link? He's the only one who actually stands to lose anything if you by through an affiliate as opposed to direct (well, him & other Amazon shareholders). But the grandparent is correct. Even if the link was an affiliate link, who cares. Especially considering that it's unlikely that many people are going to shell out $8000 for this set.
Never did say it. What I did say is that there is 'some evidence that it won't happen': that evidence is that time travellers of any kind don't seem to feature in our history. I raised Ockam's Razor because you have had to put forward extra theories e.g. the discreetness of time travellers and an arbitrary limit to their journeys in order to undermine what I call 'some evidence'.
You're right, you didn't say it, but the context of your statement -strongly- implied it. Go back & read the entire thread. I replied to someone who said time travel was impossible. They were quite adamant. I replied that we didn't know. I did not say that time travel was possible, only that we don't know. You reply, saying "Where's the evidence"? But since I'm not arguing in favor of time travel, it's not my responsibility to provide evidence. Once again, Occam's razor doesn't say that you need to completely ignore even the possibility of other theories, only that you should assume the simplest is true until evidence shows otherwise.
At this point, Occam's Razor suggests that time travel is not possible. But it's a big jump from that to saying that we absolutely & without possibility of error know for sure. So unless you can prove that time travel doesn't exist, it's silly & unscientific to completely dismiss the possibility.
Alright, that's fair enough. I suppose since I'm the one arguing that it's silly to say time travel is impossible, I should also concede that we don't know for sure whether dinosaurs & man coexisted. It seems pretty unlikely based on what we do know. The earliest -recorded- history is, what 6000 years? The latest fossils of what would normally be considered dinosaurs are around 65 million years ago? That's a big discrepancy, and while certainly oral history could account for these legends, it seems unlikely that they would carry over at least hundreds of thousands or millions of years. But you're certainly correct that we don't know for certain, and unlikley and impossible are far from the same thing.
I agree that the one button mouse is a bad idea, but as the AC already pointed out, MacOS has context menus, and has for many years. The only difference is that you hold a key on the keyboard rather then on the mouse. Is it a design flaw? I think so, but I'm sure that there are many who would argue with me. And considering that it can be remedied as easily as buying a third party mouse, I don't see that it's a big deal.
You didn't read my original post, did you? I said time travel was "extrordinairly unlikely" (oddly, you quoted this bit even though you don't seem to have read it). But you seem to be saying that it's impossible. Actually, you're not saying that now, you seem to be backpedaling. But, you're still defending someone who said it was impossible. We do not know whether time travel is possible or not. Do I think it's possible? Probably not. But I'm not egotistical enough to believe that I can say for sure.
You also accuse me of ignoring Occam's Razor, but I don't see that it's relevant to the discussion. I'm not trying to say that Time Travel is an explanation for some observed phenomenon. I'm trying to say that, based on currently available evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that time travel exists. Occam's Razor doesn't say that you should completely ignore all other possibilities, just that you should assume the simplest is true until you have evidence to the contrary. Read the subject of this thread. The original poster says, in no uncertain terms that "Time Travel is IMPOSSIBLE", and argues that scientists shouldn't even consider the issue since we know that it's "IMPOSSIBLE". But WE DON'T KNOW THAT. Not too long ago, we KNEW that the sun was at the center of the universe. And we were so certain of it that you could be burned at the stake for even postulating otherwise. While I'm sure the parent isn't suggesting that people be burned at the stake, his reasoning is clearly & obviously flawed. I find it somewhat offensive that you're questioning my understanding of the scientific method while defending that viewpoint.
I agree with you, but you're forgetting one significant advantage that MacOS will have if it runs on x86 vs. PowerPC: real-time Windows emulation. If you can run your existing Windows apps with no speed penalty, it will make Apple's marketing job much easier.
Of course, some people are citing this as a disadvantage as well-- why develop MacOS apps at all if your Windows apps work fine?
It's to early to tell for sure, but I tend to agree with the first viewpoint. Windows apps will work, but they'll bring along all of their disadvantages as well. If Apple can continue to maintain their usability advantages, and if they can leverage the commodity hardware market to lower the cost of their hardware (It won't run on generic hardware, but that doesn't mean that they can't turn that generic hardware into Apple hardware with a simple BIOS upgrade), I think that this will be a great move for Apple.
As for it's effect on Linux, it will probably hurt a bit. Developers who would otherwise work on Linux projects will switch to MacOS. Same with users. But it certainly won't kill it. In fact, in the long run, it could really help by simply getting people to acknowledge that there are OS's other then Windows out there.
The hidden parent that I'm replying to (I'm assuming the author is usually a troll) says pretty much exactly what I wanted to say-- ease of use & power are not mutually exclusive. MacOS is a perfect example of this. Granted that it's a difficult feat to do right, but it's definitely possible to have the power of Unix in a truly easy to use system.
I agree with your point, but there is one important flaw in your reasoning-- Humans & dinosaurs never coexisted on the planet. Even if Dinosaurs did breathe fire, humans would have no way to know it other then indirect evidence. I think it's safe to say that we would be more likely to interpret that today then they were thousands of years ago. But again, that's not to say that I disagree with what you're saying, just that little bit of it.
You're not a scientist, are you? I'm not either, but even I know that abscence of proof in support of a theory is NOT proof against it. How do we know that the time travellers are not just discreet? Maybe you can only time travel back 100 years-- and it will be discovered on June 19th 2105? Just because we don't have proof of time travellers today doesn't mean we won't tomorrow.
"it works in firefox, just get all your users to switch."
But that's not what he said at all. He said (to paraphrase) if you're designing for an environment where you have control of your users browser platform, then using CSS makes sense. Otherwise you'll have headachces dealing with CSS browser issues. It would have been more clear had he broken the two seperate thoughts into distinct paragraphs, but his point was still pretty clear.
This is not a theory then, it is a hypothesis until it can be proven. Then it becomes a theory. At this point, I see no way to test the hypothesis without going back in time for real.
Do we live in a time now where scientists disregard the scientific theory, base of all science?
Or could it be that the person paraphrasing the mainstream article paraphrasing the research got it wrong? Just because someone made a minor error on Slashdot doesn't mean that the scientific method is dead.
So you say, absolutely and without any possibility of being wrong that time travel is IMPOSSIBLE? You're an idiot. Is it extrordinairly unlikely? Yes. Impossible? We don't know. There are lots of things that we once thought were impossible, but now are routine, could this be one of those? Based on your apparent philosophy, though, we shouldn't bother doing any research into anything that's unlikely, since we know it's really IMPOSSIBLE.
Slashdot Mirror
This is all great info. One thing I'd do a bit different, though. If you add a username/password system, you can simplify the entire delivery system. Instead of emailing a link to the image, your confirmation would link to your login page where your buyer can download any images they have purchased. This is a minor improvement, but it will make the user experience better, particularly if they buy multiple images. This is also a necessary step towards making an actual shopping cart system. Keep in mind that once you've got this much done, alot of the way to a full online shopping system. Add in an online image catalog, a shopping cart & credit card processing, and you've got a complete (if basic) online store.
I'm NOT an expert on the subject, but I think you're misinterpreting him. You don't need to store the entire database in memory-- only the indexes & possibly a few additional fields (subjects, senders & dates). The vast majority of read access will be users checking their mail-- and most of the time, they won't have any new mail. A simple check of the index will tell you that. If they do have new mail, you go out to the disk & read in the actual mail. The over head of reading the mail will be more then just reading the disk, but you should make up for it with the savings from caching the indexes.
In the file system, you can't tell the system to only cache the relevant memory. It will automatically cache what it thinks is relevant. (as far as I know-- like I said, I'm not an expert-- please be polite if I'm wrong)
Ummm... I think it was a joke. Must be over your head.
Gotta say I agree with the others on this... A socket every 16" is ridiculous. Think about it-- you're right that I have more devices then outlets in my office, but most of the devices are concentrated in two locations-- my desk & entertainment center. Why would I want to drag cords all over the room when a carefully placed power strip does the job even better (and adds surge suppression to boot)?
But where you are correct is that you do want more outlets then are usually provided. My dream room would have one outlet every 64 inches in most walls and one every 48 inches in areas where I expect to need more. Normally, no wall should have fewer then two outlets. Cat 5 (or 6) & cable should be available in opposite corners of each room where it makes sense.
And here's one that I haven't seen anyone else mention... At least one power outlet in each closet in the house. You may consider adding cat5 in the closet of your office as well. Handy for servers, but make sure it's well ventilated.
I have never said that anyone should abandon PHP completely. I specifically state in another thread that a smart programmer chooses the right tool for the job. For small jobs, PHP will quite frequently be a better choice then Rails. But that's not because of any limitations in Rails, just that for small jobs the overhead of even a simple framework can be more bother then it's worth.
My point is not that everyone should switch to Rails. But learning a web framework is never a minor undertaking. For me, learning Rails has been much more difficult then it was to learn Ruby, and in my experience the same is true of every other framework I've looked at, regardless of the language. If you're investing that much time to begin with, you might as well consider -all- of your options, rather then limiting yourself based on a flawed premise.
Ruby users are like "Hey guys, Ruby is better!!!", PHP users are like "Let's see, how can we improve PHP?". Guess which language will be a better solution in the end?
Yep, you're right. Us Ruby users are just sitting on our asses cheering, not actually improving anything. Oh, wait. No, we're not. The entire Rails environment is only about a year old, and is advancing literally every day. The core ruby language has been at the same version number for a while now, but there is a new version on the near horizon, all of the supporting technologies have advanced greatly in the meantime. Ruby might or might not be as successful as many of us believe, but it's not going to go away no matter how much you want it to.
This argument falls flat pretty quick. You don't need to abandon everything else you've learned to learn a new language. I'm not arguing that you need to learn every new language that comes along, but spending an hour learning -about- a new language is quite reasonable. Once you've done that, you can make a reasonable decision about whether you should continue and learn more.
Every language has advantages & disadvantages. I love Ruby & Rails, but for some jobs, I'll still use PHP. Some jobs are best suited to Perl, and some to C. A good programmer will be able to choose the best tool for the job at hand. Remember, all four of these languages have the same underlying inspirations, so once you know one, it's much easier to learn another. If you're a good PHP or Perl programmer, you can be a competent Ruby programmer in a week with some effort. Do you truly believe that your career & programming ability will be better served by NOT making that effort? If so, that's fine, that just leaves more jobs for the rest of us.
And, BTW, you are way off topic. This article is about PHP frameworks. Let me explain to you. PHP is considered by some to be an excellent language. However, differently from Ruby, PHP users are ready to acknowledge its shortcomings. So, how can we make PHP a better language? Frameworks are one kind of solution.
Well, we're not really THAT far off topic. The reason that the OP doesn't want to use Rails is that they don't want to learn another language. That's a good reason on the surface, but to those of us who have made the leap, it's absurd. As many have pointed out, if you know PHP or Perl, the learning curve of Ruby is really shallow. You can get the basics in a few hours, and be quite proficient in a few weeks. And once you've taken the leap, you WILL be more efficient on 99% of tasks. So rather then being off topic, we are pointing out that the entire question is based on a flawed premise.
I'm not qualified to really explain the technical advantages & disadvantages of Ruby vs. PHP. But there's a high level overview of what's great about Ruby on the Ruby website. If you want more, the first edition of the excellent Programming Ruby is available for free online. You could easily scan through the first chapter in half an hour, and it touches on all the major parts of the language. If you're honest about your curiosity about Ruby, then I highly recommend you spend a few minutes & scan the online docs. You won't be disappointed.
There's a reason that Ruby programmers are such annoying cheerleaders-- the language is genuinely fun. Add to that the facts that you get much more done in much less time and your code is inherently less buggy, and you begin to see the reason for our enthusiasm. I challenge you to pick up Programming Ruby (or the new Agile Web Development in Rails). You may not decide to switch but you'll understand why we have.
The need to learn a new language is certainly a reasonable concern. Fortunately Ruby has a reasonably shallow learning curve. Coupled with the boost in productivity you'll get from using Rails, you will likely make up the downtime lost to learning on your first sizeable job.
Not only that, but the 518 is the only mouse I've ever seen that actually requires a specific OS. The drivers won't even install on anything other then WinXP. It will finction as an ordinary mouse, and any the features that are implemented in hardware work (three resolutions, browser forward & back), but you can't reprogram any of the buttons, and you can't override the sensitivity in software as they advertise. I really don't care about software sensitivity, but why on earth can't you reprogram the buttons?
(Yes, I know the resolution buttons aren't programmable-- I'm talking about the forward/back & application buttons)
Ok, I'll state upfront that I'm not an EE. Nevertheless, it seems that you're making a big, potentially flawed, assumption here. You assume that it requires that power level at all times. Couldn't it require a large amount of power, but only for a short time? It takes 1/2 gallon of water to run for an hour, but perhaps it can process it into hydrogen in only 5 minutes-- the rest of the time it would draw no (or minimal) electricity. Or maybe it pulses, similar to a microwave-- it's full power for 1 second out of every 4, but the rest of the time it's off. These examples are purely random guesses, but is there some way that you know upfront that they are not possible?
Oh, yeah, I'm sure your right. I mean, $50 million in lost revenue is always great for the bottom line.
Your point is accurate, of course, but that doesn't really mean that the question has no merit. Microsoft could EASILY set an internal goal that, for example, 70% of bugs are patched within 72 hours of first discovery. Such a goal should be difficult, but not impossible to achieve. Any bugs that are not patched within the desired 72 hours, are patched ASAP. Now, as the original poster asked: Would such an initiative cause a noticeable decrease in infections? An increase? And such a timetable would mean anything but the most cursory compatibility testing is ruled out, so it would likely cause it's own set of (hopefully non-security related) problems. So would such a an iniative be a good thing or a bad thing?
Why would Bezos encourage you to use an affiliate link? He's the only one who actually stands to lose anything if you by through an affiliate as opposed to direct (well, him & other Amazon shareholders). But the grandparent is correct. Even if the link was an affiliate link, who cares. Especially considering that it's unlikely that many people are going to shell out $8000 for this set.
Never did say it. What I did say is that there is 'some evidence that it won't happen': that evidence is that time travellers of any kind don't seem to feature in our history. I raised Ockam's Razor because you have had to put forward extra theories e.g. the discreetness of time travellers and an arbitrary limit to their journeys in order to undermine what I call 'some evidence'.
You're right, you didn't say it, but the context of your statement -strongly- implied it. Go back & read the entire thread. I replied to someone who said time travel was impossible. They were quite adamant. I replied that we didn't know. I did not say that time travel was possible, only that we don't know. You reply, saying "Where's the evidence"? But since I'm not arguing in favor of time travel, it's not my responsibility to provide evidence. Once again, Occam's razor doesn't say that you need to completely ignore even the possibility of other theories, only that you should assume the simplest is true until evidence shows otherwise.
At this point, Occam's Razor suggests that time travel is not possible. But it's a big jump from that to saying that we absolutely & without possibility of error know for sure. So unless you can prove that time travel doesn't exist, it's silly & unscientific to completely dismiss the possibility.
Alright, that's fair enough. I suppose since I'm the one arguing that it's silly to say time travel is impossible, I should also concede that we don't know for sure whether dinosaurs & man coexisted. It seems pretty unlikely based on what we do know. The earliest -recorded- history is, what 6000 years? The latest fossils of what would normally be considered dinosaurs are around 65 million years ago? That's a big discrepancy, and while certainly oral history could account for these legends, it seems unlikely that they would carry over at least hundreds of thousands or millions of years. But you're certainly correct that we don't know for certain, and unlikley and impossible are far from the same thing.
I agree that the one button mouse is a bad idea, but as the AC already pointed out, MacOS has context menus, and has for many years. The only difference is that you hold a key on the keyboard rather then on the mouse. Is it a design flaw? I think so, but I'm sure that there are many who would argue with me. And considering that it can be remedied as easily as buying a third party mouse, I don't see that it's a big deal.
You didn't read my original post, did you? I said time travel was "extrordinairly unlikely" (oddly, you quoted this bit even though you don't seem to have read it). But you seem to be saying that it's impossible. Actually, you're not saying that now, you seem to be backpedaling. But, you're still defending someone who said it was impossible. We do not know whether time travel is possible or not. Do I think it's possible? Probably not. But I'm not egotistical enough to believe that I can say for sure.
You also accuse me of ignoring Occam's Razor, but I don't see that it's relevant to the discussion. I'm not trying to say that Time Travel is an explanation for some observed phenomenon. I'm trying to say that, based on currently available evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that time travel exists. Occam's Razor doesn't say that you should completely ignore all other possibilities, just that you should assume the simplest is true until you have evidence to the contrary. Read the subject of this thread. The original poster says, in no uncertain terms that "Time Travel is IMPOSSIBLE", and argues that scientists shouldn't even consider the issue since we know that it's "IMPOSSIBLE". But WE DON'T KNOW THAT. Not too long ago, we KNEW that the sun was at the center of the universe. And we were so certain of it that you could be burned at the stake for even postulating otherwise. While I'm sure the parent isn't suggesting that people be burned at the stake, his reasoning is clearly & obviously flawed. I find it somewhat offensive that you're questioning my understanding of the scientific method while defending that viewpoint.
I agree with you, but you're forgetting one significant advantage that MacOS will have if it runs on x86 vs. PowerPC: real-time Windows emulation. If you can run your existing Windows apps with no speed penalty, it will make Apple's marketing job much easier.
Of course, some people are citing this as a disadvantage as well-- why develop MacOS apps at all if your Windows apps work fine?
It's to early to tell for sure, but I tend to agree with the first viewpoint. Windows apps will work, but they'll bring along all of their disadvantages as well. If Apple can continue to maintain their usability advantages, and if they can leverage the commodity hardware market to lower the cost of their hardware (It won't run on generic hardware, but that doesn't mean that they can't turn that generic hardware into Apple hardware with a simple BIOS upgrade), I think that this will be a great move for Apple.
As for it's effect on Linux, it will probably hurt a bit. Developers who would otherwise work on Linux projects will switch to MacOS. Same with users. But it certainly won't kill it. In fact, in the long run, it could really help by simply getting people to acknowledge that there are OS's other then Windows out there.
The hidden parent that I'm replying to (I'm assuming the author is usually a troll) says pretty much exactly what I wanted to say-- ease of use & power are not mutually exclusive. MacOS is a perfect example of this. Granted that it's a difficult feat to do right, but it's definitely possible to have the power of Unix in a truly easy to use system.
I agree with your point, but there is one important flaw in your reasoning-- Humans & dinosaurs never coexisted on the planet. Even if Dinosaurs did breathe fire, humans would have no way to know it other then indirect evidence. I think it's safe to say that we would be more likely to interpret that today then they were thousands of years ago. But again, that's not to say that I disagree with what you're saying, just that little bit of it.
You're not a scientist, are you? I'm not either, but even I know that abscence of proof in support of a theory is NOT proof against it. How do we know that the time travellers are not just discreet? Maybe you can only time travel back 100 years-- and it will be discovered on June 19th 2105? Just because we don't have proof of time travellers today doesn't mean we won't tomorrow.
"it works in firefox, just get all your users to switch."
But that's not what he said at all. He said (to paraphrase) if you're designing for an environment where you have control of your users browser platform, then using CSS makes sense. Otherwise you'll have headachces dealing with CSS browser issues. It would have been more clear had he broken the two seperate thoughts into distinct paragraphs, but his point was still pretty clear.
This is not a theory then, it is a hypothesis until it can be proven. Then it becomes a theory.
At this point, I see no way to test the hypothesis without going back in time for real.
Do we live in a time now where scientists disregard the scientific theory, base of all science?
Or could it be that the person paraphrasing the mainstream article paraphrasing the research got it wrong? Just because someone made a minor error on Slashdot doesn't mean that the scientific method is dead.
So you say, absolutely and without any possibility of being wrong that time travel is IMPOSSIBLE? You're an idiot. Is it extrordinairly unlikely? Yes. Impossible? We don't know. There are lots of things that we once thought were impossible, but now are routine, could this be one of those? Based on your apparent philosophy, though, we shouldn't bother doing any research into anything that's unlikely, since we know it's really IMPOSSIBLE.