Strongly seconded. I've had Jabber evangelists preaching to me and bought their line ("and until you can convince all your unenlightened friends to use this, you can stay in touch using gateway servers"), forsaking multi-protocol clients for remote transport servers.
It was absolute hell to use, unreliable, extremely insecure (I was giving my ICQ/AIM passwords to a remote service), feature-incomplete (no AIM exchange rooms), and it was also annoying to my contacts. After bearing that pain for over a year, I finally went back to Pidgin and talking to everyone in the protocol they were using, right from my client. I still use Jabber, but only with other people who are also using it.
Wow, sounds like a really unpleasant experience.
The last two companies I've worked for have used Jabber (using jabberd2 and Wildfire, which became Openfire), and it was more reliable than using MSN, which had an awful habit of randomly having outages whenever we really needed to communicate.
The nice part about Jabber is that you have your pick of clients and servers. If you have one that doesn't work, pick another one. You'll notice that the original story was about business use. Most businesses use VPNs for security, so I don't see why encrypted Jabber/XMPP wouldn't be an ideal solution for them. If you just want to chat with your friends, you can always get a free account and use a multi-account client like Pidgin, Miranda, etc, with it, or just grab Google Talk, since more people have Gmail/Google Talk accounts than you know.
This is a great, succinct explanation of what's wrong with healthcare in America. Especially this part:
It's because the money isn't disappearing in the health care industry. It's because we've invented a system and placed it between the health care industry and their customers. A system that makes more money the less health care people get, and operates as a gatekeeper to such a large percentage of health care purchases that they can manipulate prices.
Yeah, I love the idea that poeple will use 'too much' health care if it's free.
People barely drag themselves to the doctor when actually sick, it doesn't matter how much it costs, people simply do not like to go. The best way of reducing health care costs in this country would be regular checkups, but people don't go to them even if they're free.
The only people who would 'abuse' the system are hypochondriacs, which are quickly recognized by doctors and ignored, and new parents, who already use 'too much' health care for their children anyway.
One of the larger problems is that we don't really have preventative maintenance. Diseases/illness caught earlier is almost invariably less expensive to treat, and decreases the load on places like emergency rooms.
Unfortunately, if you have insufficient funds or coverage to do that sort of visit, it's not an option.
One of the problems with the healthcare in America is that insurance companies pay for whatever they figure is the least expensive treatment path. It's a bit of an issue when the least expensive one doesn't necessarily work.
Very few doctors here balk at the idea of a single payer system, since dealing with insurance companies is simply a huge waste of time for not a great deal of payoff. Most physicians have at least one person dedicated towards extracting money from insurance companies.
Medicare (being the example of state-run healthcare) has a much lower overhead than commercial insurance, but it's pretty easy to see why. Medicare doesn't have to make a profit... which means that their costs will always be lower. Period. Insurance is an awful, awful scam, and I hope the whole industry goes down in flames.
I'm not disagreeing with your take on the mortgage industry's "creative underwriting", but rather the blame that is placed on the CRA, in particular, as a way to shove the blame on poor people.
Banks, as supposedly respectable lending institutions, shouldn't under any circumstances make loans which would lose them money, and complaining that the government "made them" give loans to people who don't have credit coming out their ears sounds like a really lousy way to push the blame off of the real estate and mortgage business. A great piece on this was done a while back on This American Life, which gave some more background to the extreme excesses spilling from the real estate bubble.
You pointed out a quite from the Boston Fed which said that they weren't discounting low credit scores. That may be the case, but granting NINA or "No Doc" loans was just plain *greedy* by any standard.
It's also likely that bills like the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act would not have been necessary if not for historically discriminatory lending practices.
Maybe it's just because you guys aren't used to GSM cellphones but over here in the UK everyone recognises that noise. Anytime you put a mobile next to speakers you get that noise.
Welcome to the 1990s, America!
Funny how this post got +5, Informative for the same thing you just said, yet your post is sitting at +1, Troll.
Because you can have God's own UI design that even the most moronic person in the universe could figure out, slap it onto a POS machine without enough power to run it quickly and you WILL have a response time/feedback time problem.
Nipple powered voting machine?
"Basically, the only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned." - Bruce Ediger (1995)
A government can't eliminate all of it's own citizens else it become the ruling party of a non-existent nation, and b) open to attack from OTHER governments as it looses the ability to replenish it's main military in a conflict.
A huge portion of the main military's equipment becomes next to useless within it's own borders, or within the borders of any country that they wish to continue to rule (rather than simply destroy) after the war. Look at how much trouble the French resistance gave to the Germans in WWII.
Also, the 2nd ammendment and those "BB-guns" was a major factor in the Japanese NOT invading mainland US after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. "A gun waiting behind every blade of grass" was the phrase they used. Luckily when we were contemplating a ground invasion of Japan we were worried about about pitchforks - their cititzens weren't really armed.
I'm not sure about the rest of your argument, but the United States was worried about more than pitchforks, since they calculated that casualties would be heavy, hence the decision to end the war with two small nuclear bombs.
Also, according to Wikipedia, the Japanese decision to call off the invasion of San Fransisco had little to nothing to do with armed civilians, but more their defeat at the Battle of Midway. Fleet Admiral Yamamoto, while often quoted by gun-rights magazines, may have been taken a bit out of context, since it does not appear that he was specifically referring to militias. There's a good chance he was referring to the heavy US military resistance they would be sure to face on American ground.
To contrast, my sister in law was one of the people who preordered a G1, and she hasn't stopped raving about how much she likes it.
Her only complaint was that, as she had been using it for four to six hours straight installing stuff on it, it seemed like a fairly short battery life.
I guess that, like most other technology, don't knock it until you try it. I think that Google has done a good job of trying to get mobile computing "right". I mean, it's better than Windows Mobile, no matter how you slice it. And as more providers and manufacturers put out Android based phones, we may see a nice shift in technology towards a more open platform.
Problem starts if you do not want to use java or GWT...;-)
It's definitely a different approach to creating web-based applications. Far more programmatic and structured than straight up Javascript toolkits. Looking at it purely with regard to maintainability and forward porting, GWT leaves just about everything else in the dust. The downside is you have to like to code everything in Java. In the end, it's all about personal preference.
Tje dojo library bloat is not that big. Dojo core is compressed around 50kbyte (compressed means just junk stripped, you get more if you go for real compression but that would cost initialization time)
The full dijit widget set is 200 kbyte, not that much considering it covers around 30-40 components!
And if you need just a subset you can roll your own custom builds and uses dynamic code loading if you miss something.
Also have in mind that if you roll your own custom build the browser cache can trigger so all this is loaded only once!
The point is that a lot of it is duplication, since a great deal of that functionality is already covered by GWT, and all of the dojo "boilerplate" is reproduced. For example, none of the RPC stuff is used, since GWT favors its own implementation over dojo.io.bind() or its descendants. Pure GWT is faster than GWT + Dojo, but I'm not sure by exactly how much.
Plus, if you're really stuck on the way Dojo looks and feels, you can just use Tatami, which allows you to use the Dojo toolkit from inside GWT. You get the extra Dojo library bloat, but it may help someone.
I also had written a UI in dojo, starting with 0.3.x and porting forward to 0.4.x. However, their API jump to 0.9.x and then 1.x made any further porting nearly impossible.
It was riddled with issues that had to be worked around by messing with undocumented properties and all sorts of other nonsense. (Check out the 0.4.x Wizard code for some examples.) Patches to fix problems weren't accepted, and the developers weren't very responsive to any criticism, saying that it would be fixed in the API incompatible next releases.
I moved to GWT, and haven't regretted the move at all. Performance wise, the precompilation has made it much faster, and the code is much more maintainable in java than in javascript. There's something nice about programmatically creating a reusable UI in a sane typed programming language instead of hacking together something in Javscript.
I just watched the video last night. I don't remember any political candidate being mentioned, and I was waiting to pounce on any such event.
You mean apart from the "smears" attempting to say that one of the two candidates is Muslim? Put together, its insinuating that he's a head chopping radical. If this weren't attempting to affect the election, why was it only being sent to "swing state" voters?
I'm working with a nice young lady from India today. I have conversations with the Korean lady across the aisle almost daily (even though she works in different group). A Vietnamese gentleman trained me for my current position. I'm Native American (I would say Indian, but that would bring confusion with the first sentence of this paragraph), and my teammate is white.
You can't use the "I too have multicultural friends, and that keeps me from being a racist" defense.
I would say that it is you that needs to get over your 1950's view of American race relations. The horribly racist and xenophobic image comes from being force-fed stories of the actions of a very small minority.
On the other hand, the movie, Obsession, has extensive clips from Muslim leaders openly calling for murder of non-Muslim peoples. They have clips of this being aired by Muslim broadcaster Al-Jazeerah (sp?). Another poster called the video one-sided. The movie claimed 15% of the Muslim population as believing that violence is a valid way to spread the Muslim faith.
So, a partisan think tank comes up with a movie designed to scare the shit out of people, and you believe their "15%" statistic, which isn't backed up *anywhere*? And the leaders you speak of.. their rhetoric is any different than the people here who would love to kill all Iranians?
It said most Muslims believe the extremist to be crazy wackos (my term), but most are held in check by fear.
Yes, and black people are going to kill whitey, but are afraid of the man. That's also not supported by anything.
I, for one, can't blame them for remaining quiet. We've seen bombings all over the place, most of them done by Muslims.
You're referring to the active warzone in Iraq, or elsewhere? Perhaps we can blame the attacks in Georgia on the Muslims as well?
Being open to everyone is cool, until they start strapping on the explosive vests. So, having said that, how do I walk the line between being open and not getting blown to pieces?
And which particular movie were you watching when you thought of the "explosive vests"? How many non-warzone bombings have taken place with "explosive vests"? Look, it's okay to be scared, but blaming a large group of people for the actions of a very small minority... is called racism.
I'm going to assume this is a troll, since it's very poorly backed up.
Damn it, try using "Democratic" instead of "Democrat". The pejorative never drives home a point, it just makes you sound ignorant.
It's a good indicator of the viewpoint of the poster/speaker, though. The use of "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" started somewhere around 2003 when someone in the GOP figured out that "running against the Democratic Party" was a potential liability in talking points.
Basically it shows that the speaker/poster is already heavily biased towards the Republican party, and so anything they put forth must be considered in that light.
Good point. I think I'll stop feeding the troll at this point. You can't convince someone that "teh muslims are coming" is a crock of crap, so why bother trying... Wish they didn't live in a swing state...
Yes, it is as bad. A fraudulent vote cancels out a valid vote, in effect taking a vote away from someone.
You mean in the same way that another person voting the other way negates it? That sounds like an excuse for dropping people from the voting rolls. Also remember that there are usually multiple votes cast at the same time for different government positions (President, Senate, House, local government, etc), and unless most people vote as a monolithic bloc, it's going to effect more than just a Presidential election.
Also, consider that the Governor's race in Washington (where known ACORN abuses occurred), required an additional 2 recounts, where the Republican won the first two counts and the Democrat won the last and final count.
In this case, the Democrats kept recounting and "finding" votes until they were over the top. Less than two hundred fraudulent votes were enough to win the election. So, in this case over a *million* votes were disenfranchised when the election was stolen.
To quote the prosecuting attorney in Washington (Dan Satterberg), the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections." Yup, sure sounds like they kept "refinding" the votes in an attempt to swing the election.
The presidential election in 2000 could have had a completely different outcome depending on who was counting or how many times they've counted. I'm not excusing voter fraud, just saying that it's a much smaller problem than disenfranchising voters.
Funny you mentioned "a few of the workers" when the Wikipedia article mentions so many cases of voter fraud that it is obviously a standard practice in ACORN. They are against photo id, since that would impact their fraudulent voter drives.
You're starting with the premise that they must "obviously" be engaged in standard practices of voter fraud, which is clouding your argument.
Photo ID regulations generally disenfranchise one particular type of person, which is more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican. There were also a lot of reported voting "irregularities" in Florida and Ohio over the last few elections. I'm guessing that you wouldn't consider it the standard practice of polling places to purge rolls of minority voters, etc, simply because there are so many instances?
This is the best possible outcome of the energy crisis: an efficient, sustainable, and most importantly decentralized power infrastructure. Let's hope these technologies really do take hold.
Amen. I want to see a decentralized power infrastructure as much as anyone... Would also mean that EVs would be a bit more practical, assuming we roll out better energy storage technologies at the same time.
Yesterday I received a DVD in the mail from an obscure group known as the "Clarion Fund." It was a hatchet job meant to scare people about the evils of muslim extremism.... The shocking part was that they somehow had my full name on the address label.... The joys of living in the swing state of VA....
This was reported on a little while ago in at least one online publication. It was called "Obsession".
I think when we get around to admitting that we're horribly racist and xenophobic in America, we'll be better off than that "open to everyone" crap we try to peddle to the rest of the world.
The very idea (demonstrably false though it may be) that a major party candidate is a Muslim shouldn't be a detractor from them holding the presidency, but as it has been used as a smear...
I received the "Obsession" DVD in the mail also. I watched the entire thing. I saw not one reference to the upcoming US election, nor any specific party or candidate. I agree the attempt by some on the extreme-right to label Obama as Muslim as a scare tactic is wrong, but the "Obsession" DVD carried no such message concerning Obama or the Democrats. Were there any errors of fact in the "Obsession" video? Were the film clips of Hitler meeting with the Mufti fakes? Were any of the WW2 historical facts reported in error? Were the pictures of the propaganda used by radical Islamic groups that were compared to (and were nearly identical to) Nazi propaganda made up or faked?
Is it not permissible for those to whom the threat posed by extreme Islamic radicals is an important issue, to publicize their positions during an election? Isn't that sort of the point of free speech, that people may voice their political and policy views to try to inform other voters about issues they feel are important? Or has the subject of radical Islam become so "PC-adverse" that any attempt to air views that don't minimize or dismiss it are not to be tolerated?
Perhaps the negative reaction to the DVD by those on the "left" is based more on not wanting to deal with the issue mostly based on the fact that historically the Democrats are viewed as the less-strong party when it comes to national security and foreign policy regarding dealings with foreign hostiles, and that citizens being reminded of the threats the world faces is bad for the Democrat election chances?
Damn it, try using "Democratic" instead of "Democrat". The pejorative never drives home a point, it just makes you sound ignorant.
I can see that you really do believe that the spectre of "Radical Islam" is so awful that we should scare the crap out of people in middle America about a fringe part of a religion. I mean, there are some pretty scary sects of Christianity, but I don't see anyone distributing DVDs about them and their "all the jews must die so we can go to heaven" crap. Or any of their "all gays must die" crap.
Look, pick on the extremists in any group, and you can make a very scary looking DVD, with which to scare middle America into doing just about anything... Plus, cherry pick a few facts and videos from a bunch of militants, and everyone looks awful. It definitely does not reflect the Muslim population in general.
But please, don't start saying that it wasn't politically motivated. Only one party is going to do better from scaremongering people about how awful people with towels on their heads are going to come here and kill all of their white babies, and it's not the Democratic party. Also, isn't this the same type of person who tends to falsely associate Senator Obama with being a Muslim? I'd think that falsely associating someone with a particular religious group, then sending out awful things about that particular religious group is a pretty effective smear, don't you?
And as for Hitler meeting with the Mufti, aren't you forgetting one of the architects of the Iraq invasion meeting with one of
SharpDevelop is better than Monodevelop, and is BSD licensed. It also, frankly, pwns the crap out of Eclipse. The only reason I don't use it on Windows (its much faster than VS, btw) is that its refactoring tools aren't yet on par with the excellent Resharper add-in.
You missed the most important part, which was the cross platform part of it. SharpDevelop works under Windows, nothing else. Monodevelop is more or less a port of SharpDevelop meant to work with GTK#.
As far as cross platform stuff goes, Monodevelop is all you're left with for C# stuff (if you discount Eclipse plugins).
Regardless, you can compile cross platform binaries with Visual Studio. If your time is worth so little that the $200 license for Windows is too high, then I respectfully suggest you reconsider either your rates, or your career.
You know, the "Linux users only use Linux because they're too cheap for Windows" meme is a little old. It has nothing to do with the license for Windows -- I just find it to be an inferior operating system for both my development tasks and my daily computing tasks. The fact that you naturally assume that I'd rather waste my time either maintaining a completely separate virtual or physical machine simply for the privilege of having a marginally nicer UI for designing apps which are only guaranteed to work as advertised on a single operating system?
As it stands now, I have no trouble using Eclipse as an IDE... I just avoid using C# for anything other than CLI tasks. Saying that anyone who doesn't use what you use is cheap and/or underpaid and/or incompetent is just plain condescending. If not ignorant. Use what you're comfortable with, and don't dog other peoples' choices in operating systems. It's just a single tool, and not worth scrapping my entire workflow and machine installation to accommodate.
Slashdot Mirror
While Skype is a cross platform IM tool, the one shortcoming I find with it is the Linux client does not support Video.
Is there a solution for cross platform video conferencing?
Yeah, it would be great if they would eventually support video for Linux. Did it take a year for your post to show up? ;)
Strongly seconded. I've had Jabber evangelists preaching to me and bought their line ("and until you can convince all your unenlightened friends to use this, you can stay in touch using gateway servers"), forsaking multi-protocol clients for remote transport servers.
It was absolute hell to use, unreliable, extremely insecure (I was giving my ICQ/AIM passwords to a remote service), feature-incomplete (no AIM exchange rooms), and it was also annoying to my contacts. After bearing that pain for over a year, I finally went back to Pidgin and talking to everyone in the protocol they were using, right from my client. I still use Jabber, but only with other people who are also using it.
Wow, sounds like a really unpleasant experience.
The last two companies I've worked for have used Jabber (using jabberd2 and Wildfire, which became Openfire), and it was more reliable than using MSN, which had an awful habit of randomly having outages whenever we really needed to communicate.
The nice part about Jabber is that you have your pick of clients and servers. If you have one that doesn't work, pick another one. You'll notice that the original story was about business use. Most businesses use VPNs for security, so I don't see why encrypted Jabber/XMPP wouldn't be an ideal solution for them. If you just want to chat with your friends, you can always get a free account and use a multi-account client like Pidgin, Miranda, etc, with it, or just grab Google Talk, since more people have Gmail/Google Talk accounts than you know.
Will someone mod this up?
This is a great, succinct explanation of what's wrong with healthcare in America. Especially this part:
It's because the money isn't disappearing in the health care industry. It's because we've invented a system and placed it between the health care industry and their customers. A system that makes more money the less health care people get, and operates as a gatekeeper to such a large percentage of health care purchases that they can manipulate prices.
Yeah, I love the idea that poeple will use 'too much' health care if it's free.
People barely drag themselves to the doctor when actually sick, it doesn't matter how much it costs, people simply do not like to go. The best way of reducing health care costs in this country would be regular checkups, but people don't go to them even if they're free.
The only people who would 'abuse' the system are hypochondriacs, which are quickly recognized by doctors and ignored, and new parents, who already use 'too much' health care for their children anyway.
One of the larger problems is that we don't really have preventative maintenance. Diseases/illness caught earlier is almost invariably less expensive to treat, and decreases the load on places like emergency rooms.
Unfortunately, if you have insufficient funds or coverage to do that sort of visit, it's not an option.
One of the problems with the healthcare in America is that insurance companies pay for whatever they figure is the least expensive treatment path. It's a bit of an issue when the least expensive one doesn't necessarily work.
Very few doctors here balk at the idea of a single payer system, since dealing with insurance companies is simply a huge waste of time for not a great deal of payoff. Most physicians have at least one person dedicated towards extracting money from insurance companies.
Medicare (being the example of state-run healthcare) has a much lower overhead than commercial insurance, but it's pretty easy to see why. Medicare doesn't have to make a profit ... which means that their costs will always be lower. Period. Insurance is an awful, awful scam, and I hope the whole industry goes down in flames.
I'm not disagreeing with your take on the mortgage industry's "creative underwriting", but rather the blame that is placed on the CRA, in particular, as a way to shove the blame on poor people.
Banks, as supposedly respectable lending institutions, shouldn't under any circumstances make loans which would lose them money, and complaining that the government "made them" give loans to people who don't have credit coming out their ears sounds like a really lousy way to push the blame off of the real estate and mortgage business. A great piece on this was done a while back on This American Life, which gave some more background to the extreme excesses spilling from the real estate bubble.
You pointed out a quite from the Boston Fed which said that they weren't discounting low credit scores. That may be the case, but granting NINA or "No Doc" loans was just plain *greedy* by any standard.
It's also likely that bills like the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act would not have been necessary if not for historically discriminatory lending practices.
Unless GWB was in the office of every bank in America that gave a mortgage to someone who could not afford it, don't blame him.
And I suppose you think that the CRA was to blame for this entire mess? It was not the cause of this crap we're in.
Download CrossOver Mac Pro
Download CrossOver Games Mac
Download CrossOver Linux Pro
Download CrossOver Games Linux
Maybe it's just because you guys aren't used to GSM cellphones but over here in the UK everyone recognises that noise. Anytime you put a mobile next to speakers you get that noise.
Welcome to the 1990s, America!
Funny how this post got +5, Informative for the same thing you just said, yet your post is sitting at +1, Troll.
Because you can have God's own UI design that even the most moronic person in the universe could figure out, slap it onto a POS machine without enough power to run it quickly and you WILL have a response time/feedback time problem.
Nipple powered voting machine?
"Basically, the only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned." - Bruce Ediger (1995)
A government can't eliminate all of it's own citizens else it become the ruling party of a non-existent nation, and b) open to attack from OTHER governments as it looses the ability to replenish it's main military in a conflict.
A huge portion of the main military's equipment becomes next to useless within it's own borders, or within the borders of any country that they wish to continue to rule (rather than simply destroy) after the war. Look at how much trouble the French resistance gave to the Germans in WWII.
Also, the 2nd ammendment and those "BB-guns" was a major factor in the Japanese NOT invading mainland US after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. "A gun waiting behind every blade of grass" was the phrase they used. Luckily when we were contemplating a ground invasion of Japan we were worried about about pitchforks - their cititzens weren't really armed.
I'm not sure about the rest of your argument, but the United States was worried about more than pitchforks, since they calculated that casualties would be heavy, hence the decision to end the war with two small nuclear bombs.
Also, according to Wikipedia, the Japanese decision to call off the invasion of San Fransisco had little to nothing to do with armed civilians, but more their defeat at the Battle of Midway. Fleet Admiral Yamamoto, while often quoted by gun-rights magazines, may have been taken a bit out of context, since it does not appear that he was specifically referring to militias. There's a good chance he was referring to the heavy US military resistance they would be sure to face on American ground.
You're right in regards to our shredding of the Constitution. One of the best quotes about this came from "Nimey":
As has been observed, "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution.
To contrast, my sister in law was one of the people who preordered a G1, and she hasn't stopped raving about how much she likes it.
Her only complaint was that, as she had been using it for four to six hours straight installing stuff on it, it seemed like a fairly short battery life.
I guess that, like most other technology, don't knock it until you try it. I think that Google has done a good job of trying to get mobile computing "right". I mean, it's better than Windows Mobile, no matter how you slice it. And as more providers and manufacturers put out Android based phones, we may see a nice shift in technology towards a more open platform.
Problem starts if you do not want to use java or GWT... ;-)
It's definitely a different approach to creating web-based applications. Far more programmatic and structured than straight up Javascript toolkits. Looking at it purely with regard to maintainability and forward porting, GWT leaves just about everything else in the dust. The downside is you have to like to code everything in Java. In the end, it's all about personal preference.
Tje dojo library bloat is not that big. Dojo core is compressed around 50kbyte (compressed means just junk stripped, you get more if you go for real compression but that would cost initialization time) The full dijit widget set is 200 kbyte, not that much considering it covers around 30-40 components! And if you need just a subset you can roll your own custom builds and uses dynamic code loading if you miss something. Also have in mind that if you roll your own custom build the browser cache can trigger so all this is loaded only once!
The point is that a lot of it is duplication, since a great deal of that functionality is already covered by GWT, and all of the dojo "boilerplate" is reproduced. For example, none of the RPC stuff is used, since GWT favors its own implementation over dojo.io.bind() or its descendants. Pure GWT is faster than GWT + Dojo, but I'm not sure by exactly how much.
Plus, if you're really stuck on the way Dojo looks and feels, you can just use Tatami, which allows you to use the Dojo toolkit from inside GWT. You get the extra Dojo library bloat, but it may help someone.
I also had written a UI in dojo, starting with 0.3.x and porting forward to 0.4.x. However, their API jump to 0.9.x and then 1.x made any further porting nearly impossible.
It was riddled with issues that had to be worked around by messing with undocumented properties and all sorts of other nonsense. (Check out the 0.4.x Wizard code for some examples.) Patches to fix problems weren't accepted, and the developers weren't very responsive to any criticism, saying that it would be fixed in the API incompatible next releases.
I moved to GWT, and haven't regretted the move at all. Performance wise, the precompilation has made it much faster, and the code is much more maintainable in java than in javascript. There's something nice about programmatically creating a reusable UI in a sane typed programming language instead of hacking together something in Javscript.
Someone should consider pointing him at http://www.wowdetox.com/.
I'm not sure at which point a hobby becomes an addiction, but I think it's safe to say this guy is a bit beyond that.
I just watched the video last night. I don't remember any political candidate being mentioned, and I was waiting to pounce on any such event.
You mean apart from the "smears" attempting to say that one of the two candidates is Muslim? Put together, its insinuating that he's a head chopping radical. If this weren't attempting to affect the election, why was it only being sent to "swing state" voters?
I'm working with a nice young lady from India today. I have conversations with the Korean lady across the aisle almost daily (even though she works in different group). A Vietnamese gentleman trained me for my current position. I'm Native American (I would say Indian, but that would bring confusion with the first sentence of this paragraph), and my teammate is white.
You can't use the "I too have multicultural friends, and that keeps me from being a racist" defense.
I would say that it is you that needs to get over your 1950's view of American race relations. The horribly racist and xenophobic image comes from being force-fed stories of the actions of a very small minority.
So, Americans aren't racist at all? And we're not xenophobic at all?
On the other hand, the movie, Obsession, has extensive clips from Muslim leaders openly calling for murder of non-Muslim peoples. They have clips of this being aired by Muslim broadcaster Al-Jazeerah (sp?). Another poster called the video one-sided. The movie claimed 15% of the Muslim population as believing that violence is a valid way to spread the Muslim faith.
So, a partisan think tank comes up with a movie designed to scare the shit out of people, and you believe their "15%" statistic, which isn't backed up *anywhere*? And the leaders you speak of .. their rhetoric is any different than the people here who would love to kill all Iranians?
It said most Muslims believe the extremist to be crazy wackos (my term), but most are held in check by fear.
Yes, and black people are going to kill whitey, but are afraid of the man. That's also not supported by anything.
I, for one, can't blame them for remaining quiet. We've seen bombings all over the place, most of them done by Muslims.
You're referring to the active warzone in Iraq, or elsewhere? Perhaps we can blame the attacks in Georgia on the Muslims as well?
Being open to everyone is cool, until they start strapping on the explosive vests. So, having said that, how do I walk the line between being open and not getting blown to pieces?
And which particular movie were you watching when you thought of the "explosive vests"? How many non-warzone bombings have taken place with "explosive vests"? Look, it's okay to be scared, but blaming a large group of people for the actions of a very small minority ... is called racism.
I'm going to assume this is a troll, since it's very poorly backed up.
Damn it, try using "Democratic" instead of "Democrat". The pejorative never drives home a point, it just makes you sound ignorant.
It's a good indicator of the viewpoint of the poster/speaker, though. The use of "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" started somewhere around 2003 when someone in the GOP figured out that "running against the Democratic Party" was a potential liability in talking points.
Basically it shows that the speaker/poster is already heavily biased towards the Republican party, and so anything they put forth must be considered in that light.
Good point. I think I'll stop feeding the troll at this point. You can't convince someone that "teh muslims are coming" is a crock of crap, so why bother trying... Wish they didn't live in a swing state...
Yes, it is as bad. A fraudulent vote cancels out a valid vote, in effect taking a vote away from someone.
You mean in the same way that another person voting the other way negates it? That sounds like an excuse for dropping people from the voting rolls. Also remember that there are usually multiple votes cast at the same time for different government positions (President, Senate, House, local government, etc), and unless most people vote as a monolithic bloc, it's going to effect more than just a Presidential election.
Also, consider that the Governor's race in Washington (where known ACORN abuses occurred), required an additional 2 recounts, where the Republican won the first two counts and the Democrat won the last and final count.
In this case, the Democrats kept recounting and "finding" votes until they were over the top. Less than two hundred fraudulent votes were enough to win the election. So, in this case over a *million* votes were disenfranchised when the election was stolen.
To quote the prosecuting attorney in Washington (Dan Satterberg), the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections." Yup, sure sounds like they kept "refinding" the votes in an attempt to swing the election.
The presidential election in 2000 could have had a completely different outcome depending on who was counting or how many times they've counted. I'm not excusing voter fraud, just saying that it's a much smaller problem than disenfranchising voters.
Funny you mentioned "a few of the workers" when the Wikipedia article mentions so many cases of voter fraud that it is obviously a standard practice in ACORN. They are against photo id, since that would impact their fraudulent voter drives.
You're starting with the premise that they must "obviously" be engaged in standard practices of voter fraud, which is clouding your argument.
Photo ID regulations generally disenfranchise one particular type of person, which is more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican. There were also a lot of reported voting "irregularities" in Florida and Ohio over the last few elections. I'm guessing that you wouldn't consider it the standard practice of polling places to purge rolls of minority voters, etc, simply because there are so many instances?
This is the best possible outcome of the energy crisis: an efficient, sustainable, and most importantly decentralized power infrastructure. Let's hope these technologies really do take hold.
Amen. I want to see a decentralized power infrastructure as much as anyone... Would also mean that EVs would be a bit more practical, assuming we roll out better energy storage technologies at the same time.
Obligatory link to manufacturer.
Yesterday I received a DVD in the mail from an obscure group known as the "Clarion Fund." It was a hatchet job meant to scare people about the evils of muslim extremism.... The shocking part was that they somehow had my full name on the address label.... The joys of living in the swing state of VA....
This was reported on a little while ago in at least one online publication. It was called "Obsession".
I think when we get around to admitting that we're horribly racist and xenophobic in America, we'll be better off than that "open to everyone" crap we try to peddle to the rest of the world.
The very idea (demonstrably false though it may be) that a major party candidate is a Muslim shouldn't be a detractor from them holding the presidency, but as it has been used as a smear...
I received the "Obsession" DVD in the mail also. I watched the entire thing. I saw not one reference to the upcoming US election, nor any specific party or candidate. I agree the attempt by some on the extreme-right to label Obama as Muslim as a scare tactic is wrong, but the "Obsession" DVD carried no such message concerning Obama or the Democrats. Were there any errors of fact in the "Obsession" video? Were the film clips of Hitler meeting with the Mufti fakes? Were any of the WW2 historical facts reported in error? Were the pictures of the propaganda used by radical Islamic groups that were compared to (and were nearly identical to) Nazi propaganda made up or faked?
Is it not permissible for those to whom the threat posed by extreme Islamic radicals is an important issue, to publicize their positions during an election? Isn't that sort of the point of free speech, that people may voice their political and policy views to try to inform other voters about issues they feel are important? Or has the subject of radical Islam become so "PC-adverse" that any attempt to air views that don't minimize or dismiss it are not to be tolerated?
Perhaps the negative reaction to the DVD by those on the "left" is based more on not wanting to deal with the issue mostly based on the fact that historically the Democrats are viewed as the less-strong party when it comes to national security and foreign policy regarding dealings with foreign hostiles, and that citizens being reminded of the threats the world faces is bad for the Democrat election chances?
Damn it, try using "Democratic" instead of "Democrat". The pejorative never drives home a point, it just makes you sound ignorant.
I can see that you really do believe that the spectre of "Radical Islam" is so awful that we should scare the crap out of people in middle America about a fringe part of a religion. I mean, there are some pretty scary sects of Christianity, but I don't see anyone distributing DVDs about them and their "all the jews must die so we can go to heaven" crap. Or any of their "all gays must die" crap.
Look, pick on the extremists in any group, and you can make a very scary looking DVD, with which to scare middle America into doing just about anything... Plus, cherry pick a few facts and videos from a bunch of militants, and everyone looks awful. It definitely does not reflect the Muslim population in general.
But please, don't start saying that it wasn't politically motivated. Only one party is going to do better from scaremongering people about how awful people with towels on their heads are going to come here and kill all of their white babies, and it's not the Democratic party. Also, isn't this the same type of person who tends to falsely associate Senator Obama with being a Muslim? I'd think that falsely associating someone with a particular religious group, then sending out awful things about that particular religious group is a pretty effective smear, don't you?
And as for Hitler meeting with the Mufti, aren't you forgetting one of the architects of the Iraq invasion meeting with one of
SharpDevelop is better than Monodevelop, and is BSD licensed. It also, frankly, pwns the crap out of Eclipse. The only reason I don't use it on Windows (its much faster than VS, btw) is that its refactoring tools aren't yet on par with the excellent Resharper add-in.
You missed the most important part, which was the cross platform part of it. SharpDevelop works under Windows, nothing else. Monodevelop is more or less a port of SharpDevelop meant to work with GTK#.
As far as cross platform stuff goes, Monodevelop is all you're left with for C# stuff (if you discount Eclipse plugins).
Regardless, you can compile cross platform binaries with Visual Studio. If your time is worth so little that the $200 license for Windows is too high, then I respectfully suggest you reconsider either your rates, or your career.
You know, the "Linux users only use Linux because they're too cheap for Windows" meme is a little old. It has nothing to do with the license for Windows -- I just find it to be an inferior operating system for both my development tasks and my daily computing tasks. The fact that you naturally assume that I'd rather waste my time either maintaining a completely separate virtual or physical machine simply for the privilege of having a marginally nicer UI for designing apps which are only guaranteed to work as advertised on a single operating system?
As it stands now, I have no trouble using Eclipse as an IDE... I just avoid using C# for anything other than CLI tasks. Saying that anyone who doesn't use what you use is cheap and/or underpaid and/or incompetent is just plain condescending. If not ignorant. Use what you're comfortable with, and don't dog other peoples' choices in operating systems. It's just a single tool, and not worth scrapping my entire workflow and machine installation to accommodate.