Frankly I began to get doubts about whether Mozilla would ever get anywhere. Even though I pretty quickly ditched NS 4.7 in favor of Moz. Or perhaps I came to that conclusion exactly because of the experience. Tried galeon back then but it was very fussy and not very stable.
But the 0.9 releases of Moz have shaped up very impressively; add the 1.0 Galeon release and it's almost flawless. Useful window management (remember, where the computer is used to help you manage your windows) with multiple desktops and Galeon's fullscreen mode make an excellent browsing platform indeed.
Don't do it. Don't go over your code making sweeping changes with the intent of making sweeping changes to your code.
Instead, very globally, identify the features and structures that you require in 3, 6 or 12 months time, from a marketing or similarly broad perspective. Identify the parts of your codebase that would need to be changed in order to achieve those goals (this is as good a definition of "out of shape" as any).
Then as you fix up your code: look at your fixes. And from these, formulate the rules that should guide your next development cycle.
Forget about NTFS. In a few years it'll come with Digital Rights Management technology (or they'll just start referring to ACL's as DRM's), and any implementation will have to be licensed from and reviewed by Microsoft. If you don't do that, you'll be punishable under the DMCA, or some terrorist act, or some children protection act, or whatever. Just... Forget about NTFS.
It is strange, Lawrence, that you should accuse us of apathy, when it has in fact been overzealous legislation that brought us here in the first place. IOW, you guys broke this stuff and botched it up -- not us.
And frankly I don't think there is any point left in playing the hero. The network, and people's expectations of the network, have already sunk so low that there is little left to fight for. Asymmetric transfer speeds are accepted as the norm rather than the exception, which enforces the few-to-many distribution model. Ports are being blocked on the network to prevent people from sharing files. Where that is not possible, service providers are brought to court and indicted. The W3C is increasingly irrelevant in an IE and Flash dominated world (XML? what a joke). Access providers may refuse to support Linux or any other non-MS, non-Apple platform, and there is no formal system in place by which you can convince them that your machine's TCP/IP stack actually works (there is no certification or 3rd party guarantee that you can get, there is no obligation for the access providers to, well, provide access). Even Slashdot nerds are clamouring to hold companies liable for security holes without realizing that this would mean only very big players could face the consequences of writing buggy software (i.e. all software).
Truly from where I am standing, Lawrence, why don't you just take the money and run.
You don't cheer for anyone here. You just take the money that the private sector is pouring into what started out as a military-academic network, and run. It's rather too late for any effective resistance, and perhaps resistance is not what is needed at this time at all. We (or, you, rather) lost our opportunity when we bought the hype and ran up the debts. Now that payback time has come, the vultures from finance are in charge again, and we are left bickering petty change. All of this will become just a minor footnote in the history of what they will call the "Digital Media Revolution". There will never have been an actual computer revolution.
Lynx? Who's still using Lynx? Who ever used Lynx? And why is j00 not r3wting for Links instead? A textbrowser surely much more deserving of your praise (it does tables and frames, and even sortof manages to map #RRGGBB values unto the VT100 color codes).
I hope this kills off for once and for all the tinny cheerleaderism about "Linux on the desktop", so that we can put that absurd, counter-productive, and frankly idle fantasy to rest. Please, leave us alone, fuck off, and please don't try to fix what was never broken. Thanks.
because the mafia loaned them the money to become successful and demand payment back.
Right. So if an artist hits big because you funded his gold teeth and his expensive wardrobe and you want your money back, it's like mafia?
Wake up. It's the star system, the hit system, the celebrity system that's broken. What's broken is that gold teeth and an expensive wardrobe can buy you platinum. But y'all are so addicted to the media crap, it'll never happen.
Dude, you are full of shit. KDE looks like Winders. Period. All the themes in the world aren't going to solve that. Especially not Trolltech's dreck. Have fun with that KDE "panel", or whatever you call that stupid slab. Shit. Roxors on, dude. Shit.
The W3C went from a useful to a stubborn to a useless organization. Who has time to wade through ten feet of W3C missives if all a web developer really needs to know is Internet Explorer?
Well, you just can't solve unsolvable problems. If you cannot do a test because it is not practical to do so, then the solution is not to keep changing the test until you arrive at something practical, but simply to accept that the subject is basically untestable.
It is quite valid to ask people how they feel about something. Whether it is relevant how people feel, or to what extent their feelings affect their behaviour is quite another matter.
Yes, but we weren't discussing this kind of "leading the witness" spinmeisterschaft, characterized by the suggestive nouns you mentioned.
This is about offering people an arbitrary (because the cost is nil) choice, then inferring from that what they will do if the cost is non-nil.
The point is that a wealthy person who declares only a weak commitment might (through taxes) end up being a much stronger supporter of the war effort then a poor person declaring a strong commitment.
Everybody is a strong supporter of environmentally friendly products as long as they don't end up paying for it.
Another way to put this, is that using words like "strongly" and "weakly" biases the survey to place disproportionate value onto what is fundamentally a rather arbitrary decision (do I support something strongly or weakly? But then what does either of these really mean? -> Whatever).
Not to disparage too much what you're saying, because there's a lot of truth to it, I can't help but observe that the addition of emotionally charged qualifiers such as those you've mentioned, also has a lot of drawbacks.
Were you to ask me if I supported the war or not, I would tell you that I support it. If you offer me the choice between whether I support it strongly or relucantly, I would be apprehensive about your motives in asking the question like that. Why do you want me to commit strongly or weakly?
The suggestion that comes to my mind is, "strongly" and "weakly" are weasel words that the surveyors can use to nudge the outcomes of the survey any way they like. For example if it proves beneficial to the surveyors to show that people are in some way divided in their support of the war, then it suffices for them to show that, even though the overwhelming majority of people supports the war, only (say) 10% does so strongly (considering that most people, when offered the choice between committing strongly or weakly, will commit weakly).
So all things considered, I'd prefer surveys to just ask people what you need to know. And leave the weasel words out of it.
This kind of technology probably won't displace LCD/CRT anytime soon. But it's getting pretty close to the point where it's good enough to allow some really neat stuff that you can't do with LCD's or CRT's. For example, put this stuff on a T-shirt and you can put Thinkgeek's T-shirt division out of business.
Think of e-paper as of PDA's. PDA's are not sufficiently generic to replace the PC anytime soon or probably ever. But still they can be very useful. And just the fact that you can take them with you has spurned companies to market them as fashion accessories. Similary, e-paper is not a general purpose display solution. But as a fashion accessory it's unbeatable.
PS: I'm starting to buy into the theory that the/. editors recycle news on weekends on purpose (and I think Timothy has agreed to take the blame? Or maybe they run a pool): the story link was still visited from the last time..
Of course, actually what Shakespeare said was in reference to a desire held by those in power, i.e. "let's kill all the lawyers so we can do as we please". More like a moron philosopher, is you sir.
Slashdot Mirror
But the 0.9 releases of Moz have shaped up very impressively; add the 1.0 Galeon release and it's almost flawless. Useful window management (remember, where the computer is used to help you manage your windows) with multiple desktops and Galeon's fullscreen mode make an excellent browsing platform indeed.
Instead, very globally, identify the features and structures that you require in 3, 6 or 12 months time, from a marketing or similarly broad perspective. Identify the parts of your codebase that would need to be changed in order to achieve those goals (this is as good a definition of "out of shape" as any).
Then as you fix up your code: look at your fixes. And from these, formulate the rules that should guide your next development cycle.
Forget about NTFS. In a few years it'll come with Digital Rights Management technology (or they'll just start referring to ACL's as DRM's), and any implementation will have to be licensed from and reviewed by Microsoft. If you don't do that, you'll be punishable under the DMCA, or some terrorist act, or some children protection act, or whatever. Just... Forget about NTFS.
And frankly I don't think there is any point left in playing the hero. The network, and people's expectations of the network, have already sunk so low that there is little left to fight for. Asymmetric transfer speeds are accepted as the norm rather than the exception, which enforces the few-to-many distribution model. Ports are being blocked on the network to prevent people from sharing files. Where that is not possible, service providers are brought to court and indicted. The W3C is increasingly irrelevant in an IE and Flash dominated world (XML? what a joke). Access providers may refuse to support Linux or any other non-MS, non-Apple platform, and there is no formal system in place by which you can convince them that your machine's TCP/IP stack actually works (there is no certification or 3rd party guarantee that you can get, there is no obligation for the access providers to, well, provide access). Even Slashdot nerds are clamouring to hold companies liable for security holes without realizing that this would mean only very big players could face the consequences of writing buggy software (i.e. all software).
Truly from where I am standing, Lawrence, why don't you just take the money and run.
The point is, everyone can see that the article is long, and nobody is interested in your desire for candy canes.
You don't cheer for anyone here. You just take the money that the private sector is pouring into what started out as a military-academic network, and run. It's rather too late for any effective resistance, and perhaps resistance is not what is needed at this time at all. We (or, you, rather) lost our opportunity when we bought the hype and ran up the debts. Now that payback time has come, the vultures from finance are in charge again, and we are left bickering petty change. All of this will become just a minor footnote in the history of what they will call the "Digital Media Revolution". There will never have been an actual computer revolution.
By the way, if y'all can spot the deficiencies in the above script so well, why not fix the script and post the results? Open source, anyone?
Don't you just hate procmail?
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted." (Hassan i Sabbah)
Lynx? Who's still using Lynx? Who ever used Lynx? And why is j00 not r3wting for Links instead? A textbrowser surely much more deserving of your praise (it does tables and frames, and even sortof manages to map #RRGGBB values unto the VT100 color codes).
I hope this kills off for once and for all the tinny cheerleaderism about "Linux on the desktop", so that we can put that absurd, counter-productive, and frankly idle fantasy to rest. Please, leave us alone, fuck off, and please don't try to fix what was never broken. Thanks.
Right. So if an artist hits big because you funded his gold teeth and his expensive wardrobe and you want your money back, it's like mafia?
Wake up. It's the star system, the hit system, the celebrity system that's broken. What's broken is that gold teeth and an expensive wardrobe can buy you platinum. But y'all are so addicted to the media crap, it'll never happen.
Dude, you are full of shit. KDE looks like Winders. Period. All the themes in the world aren't going to solve that. Especially not Trolltech's dreck. Have fun with that KDE "panel", or whatever you call that stupid slab. Shit. Roxors on, dude. Shit.
Bah, just pick a nice theme. At least Gtk has decent theme support, unlike Qt, where you can pick any look as long as it's Windows.
Fuck you too, "buddy".
The W3C went from a useful to a stubborn to a useless organization. Who has time to wade through ten feet of W3C missives if all a web developer really needs to know is Internet Explorer?
It is quite valid to ask people how they feel about something. Whether it is relevant how people feel, or to what extent their feelings affect their behaviour is quite another matter.
This is about offering people an arbitrary (because the cost is nil) choice, then inferring from that what they will do if the cost is non-nil.
The point is that a wealthy person who declares only a weak commitment might (through taxes) end up being a much stronger supporter of the war effort then a poor person declaring a strong commitment.
Everybody is a strong supporter of environmentally friendly products as long as they don't end up paying for it.
Another way to put this, is that using words like "strongly" and "weakly" biases the survey to place disproportionate value onto what is fundamentally a rather arbitrary decision (do I support something strongly or weakly? But then what does either of these really mean? -> Whatever).
Were you to ask me if I supported the war or not, I would tell you that I support it. If you offer me the choice between whether I support it strongly or relucantly, I would be apprehensive about your motives in asking the question like that. Why do you want me to commit strongly or weakly?
The suggestion that comes to my mind is, "strongly" and "weakly" are weasel words that the surveyors can use to nudge the outcomes of the survey any way they like. For example if it proves beneficial to the surveyors to show that people are in some way divided in their support of the war, then it suffices for them to show that, even though the overwhelming majority of people supports the war, only (say) 10% does so strongly (considering that most people, when offered the choice between committing strongly or weakly, will commit weakly).
So all things considered, I'd prefer surveys to just ask people what you need to know. And leave the weasel words out of it.
Yeah, tech stuff. Other stuff can be quite expensive, especially if you include s&h.
s/spurned/spurred/...
Think of e-paper as of PDA's. PDA's are not sufficiently generic to replace the PC anytime soon or probably ever. But still they can be very useful. And just the fact that you can take them with you has spurned companies to market them as fashion accessories. Similary, e-paper is not a general purpose display solution. But as a fashion accessory it's unbeatable.
PS: I'm starting to buy into the theory that the /. editors recycle news on weekends on purpose (and I think Timothy has agreed to take the blame? Or maybe they run a pool): the story link was still visited from the last time..
Try links, it's better than lynx.
Of course, actually what Shakespeare said was in reference to a desire held by those in power, i.e. "let's kill all the lawyers so we can do as we please". More like a moron philosopher, is you sir.