seems to me to be about why Gecko/Mozilla is better than anything, namely Safari. It seems to boil down to "Mozilla is better because it is truely open-source."
Personally, I liked Mozilla (well now I use Phoenix on windows, less bloat) on windows and I used Chimera on Mac OS X. Chimera didn't crash as often as IE 5.2 did plus it had tabs and was faster. Once Safari was reveiled I jumped instantly. (The introduction of tabs has made me never look back)
The real big thing that grabbed me with Safari was the Bookmark management and the orange arrow thing (I forget what it is called) While they may be small, they feel like big end-user innovations. It just kind of irks me that the Author implies the only reason I use Safari is because it is "bundled" with Mac OS X. I use it by choice because it feels better. I could care less if my browser renders a page a half second faster.
Except for Justices Breyer and Stevens, the Supreme Court has sold out. They have given their Nihil Obstat to perpetual copyright, and ignored the Constitution, no matter what they say in Justice Ginsburg's majority opinion. We can expect another Copyright Term Extension Act every twenty years. Citing this precedent, the Supreme Court will do nothing about it. I guess I should have expected as much from the Supreme Court that decided to throw out the results of the 2000 election, and coronate Bush.
I think someone pointed out the other day that the Constitution was extremely vague on the issue. Its just up to the Justices to interept the Constitution, not decide if its stupid. 7 out of 9 of them thought that the Law was in line with Constitution (and I'm inclined to argee that is it however stupid it is)
Congress is the body that can make new Laws or change the Constitution, not the Justices.
What kind of crappy java code are you running? (or version of Windows that for matter) I've never had that problem in my years of java experience unless it was a coding problem.
The MS JVM maybe faster/smaller because its based on 1.1.8 (especially the GUI side of Java) but there is no way Sun is "lazy and stupid" with their implementations.
If you write the simplest code you can that meet the requirements then more than likely its secure. It has no fancy tricks, its easy to see what its doing, therefore has less holes that need to be found.
"Now, C# is a pretty language. MS looked at Java and started on their list... "This is good in Java, lets include it. This isn't, lets either not include it or make a nicer alternative." They made quite a nice, competitive language."
You're right, I think it is a much nicer alternative to Java for client side apps.
"But I think C# will be used to convert the C, C++, and Java crowd into the.NET framework. Now, once you are in the framework, you'll see that VB.NET is easier to use, has the OO that Java/C++ people desire, and can make the deadlines easier to make."
C# is far from just a tool to convert people to the.NET framework. C/C++ people will probably still use C++.NET if they want.NET development. C# directly targets Java developers, but it can easily be decoupled from the.NET framework (look at Mono). Personally I'd rather not use the.NET Framework for C#, but until Mono becomes more mature I'm stuck using the.NET Class Library unless I want to rewrite all that stuff myself. VB.NET is simply C# with the VB words. VB.NET is nothing like VB6 and earlier. I can't say that 100% but from the VB.NET examples in the class library that sit along side the C# ones, they're so similar.
"Yeah, I think C# is MS's way to convert everyone to VB.NET."
I think its other way around.
"Luckily,.NET isn't as platform independent as Java atm, so I'll stick with my cup-of-joe."
True. I refuse to use ASP.NET on IIS since IIS is such a crock. I hope Mono keeps going strong for client side however.
Well the real reason they're offering is because Samuel Ginn gave 25 million to Engineering College if they did two things.
1) Rename it to be the "Samuel Ginn College of Engineering" which everything officially now says.
2) Offer a Wireless Engineering degree.
I'm a Junior taking good old fashioned Computer Science at AU. I do think people are probably better off just taking EE and then concentrating on wireless. I'm sure there have been EEs studying wireless for years, just not an official degree for it.
The Bible is far from perfect. Assuming God told someone what to write, the information was filtered through an imperfect human who, most likely, per their own nice little spin on things. Also, do you honestly believe God would sit down Moses and tell him the entire process of which the Universe was created?
Well I personally I don't believe the estimated age of Everything (tm) is as long as people say, but even a shorter amount of time allows for evolution and since most of your argument depends on shorter time, well, all your questions have been answered.
Slashdot Mirror
looks like you need to read this
a ry /j-jtp04223.html
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/libr
Exactly. To continue the metaphor:
I look at other wheels to see how they spin, but inventing my own wheel always makes it fit the car better.
Now I don't have to return the DVDs after I rent them to rip and encode. Thanks MPAA!
seems to me to be about why Gecko/Mozilla is better than anything, namely Safari. It seems to boil down to "Mozilla is better because it is truely open-source."
Personally, I liked Mozilla (well now I use Phoenix on windows, less bloat) on windows and I used Chimera on Mac OS X. Chimera didn't crash as often as IE 5.2 did plus it had tabs and was faster. Once Safari was reveiled I jumped instantly. (The introduction of tabs has made me never look back)
The real big thing that grabbed me with Safari was the Bookmark management and the orange arrow thing (I forget what it is called) While they may be small, they feel like big end-user innovations. It just kind of irks me that the Author implies the only reason I use Safari is because it is "bundled" with Mac OS X. I use it by choice because it feels better. I could care less if my browser renders a page a half second faster.
Except for Justices Breyer and Stevens, the Supreme Court has sold out. They have given their Nihil Obstat to perpetual copyright, and ignored the Constitution, no matter what they say in Justice Ginsburg's majority opinion. We can expect another Copyright Term Extension Act every twenty years. Citing this precedent, the Supreme Court will do nothing about it. I guess I should have expected as much from the Supreme Court that decided to throw out the results of the 2000 election, and coronate Bush. I think someone pointed out the other day that the Constitution was extremely vague on the issue. Its just up to the Justices to interept the Constitution, not decide if its stupid. 7 out of 9 of them thought that the Law was in line with Constitution (and I'm inclined to argee that is it however stupid it is) Congress is the body that can make new Laws or change the Constitution, not the Justices.
What kind of crappy java code are you running? (or version of Windows that for matter) I've never had that problem in my years of java experience unless it was a coding problem.
The MS JVM maybe faster/smaller because its based on 1.1.8 (especially the GUI side of Java) but there is no way Sun is "lazy and stupid" with their implementations.
Being lazy = good.
If you write the simplest code you can that meet the requirements then more than likely its secure. It has no fancy tricks, its easy to see what its doing, therefore has less holes that need to be found.
I have a two button USB scroll mouse and the right click opens the context menus just like I would expect them to as a former windows user.
In Independence Day, the virus was uploaded on a Mac I believe.
Great, and I just bought this too.
"Now, C# is a pretty language. MS looked at Java and started on their list... "This is good in Java, lets include it. This isn't, lets either not include it or make a nicer alternative." They made quite a nice, competitive language."
.NET framework. Now, once you are in the framework, you'll see that VB.NET is easier to use, has the OO that Java/C++ people desire, and can make the deadlines easier to make."
.NET framework. C/C++ people will probably still use C++ .NET if they want .NET development. C# directly targets Java developers, but it can easily be decoupled from the .NET framework (look at Mono). Personally I'd rather not use the .NET Framework for C#, but until Mono becomes more mature I'm stuck using the .NET Class Library unless I want to rewrite all that stuff myself. VB.NET is simply C# with the VB words. VB.NET is nothing like VB6 and earlier. I can't say that 100% but from the VB.NET examples in the class library that sit along side the C# ones, they're so similar.
.NET isn't as platform independent as Java atm, so I'll stick with my cup-of-joe."
You're right, I think it is a much nicer alternative to Java for client side apps.
"But I think C# will be used to convert the C, C++, and Java crowd into the
C# is far from just a tool to convert people to the
"Yeah, I think C# is MS's way to convert everyone to VB.NET."
I think its other way around.
"Luckily,
True. I refuse to use ASP.NET on IIS since IIS is such a crock. I hope Mono keeps going strong for client side however.
Well the real reason they're offering is because Samuel Ginn gave 25 million to Engineering College if they did two things.
1) Rename it to be the "Samuel Ginn College of Engineering" which everything officially now says.
2) Offer a Wireless Engineering degree.
I'm a Junior taking good old fashioned Computer Science at AU. I do think people are probably better off just taking EE and then concentrating on wireless. I'm sure there have been EEs studying wireless for years, just not an official degree for it.
well I can answer number 5.
The Bible is far from perfect. Assuming God told someone what to write, the information was filtered through an imperfect human who, most likely, per their own nice little spin on things. Also, do you honestly believe God would sit down Moses and tell him the entire process of which the Universe was created?
Well I personally I don't believe the estimated age of Everything (tm) is as long as people say, but even a shorter amount of time allows for evolution and since most of your argument depends on shorter time, well, all your questions have been answered.