Right now, as monstroyer said, programming languages are (at least) predominatly english. If you search google for answers to some programming question you may have, you'll see everything from German to French to Russian all using English commands, etc. It makes me wonder why localized version of languages weren't made. Since variable names only care about consistancy, I can call a variable whatever, but the commands themselves are still English or English based. So, if we all fall into an English standard, would we move away from English if, as was suggested, these Chineese became the primary progammers?
Yet, some commands are abbreviated and criptic to deflate. They aren't real English, that is. But no one complains.
It seems like we have two different "concepts." A localized semantic approach or a cryptic set of letters that we still understand because we know what the command does.
If English, etc. goes away, English commands would still be viable, since we know what the command does (e.g. I may know what Exp stands for, but I know what it does). Or, we can keep updating languages to be local to whatever vernacular.
To me, neither seems more or less desierable or usable as long as week keep traditional commands.
Either way, I don't think we will lose touch with programming; we only lose touch with certain programming languages, and that is only a mild possibility, since I'm sure there are quite a few uni-lingual non-anglophones that write in very English languages, like VB, and make it along quite well.
Apparently the ship has undergone some sort of specialization to allow it to be a marsh-submarine instead of its original function of water-floater. This is truly an acomplishment for Darwinian evolution.
Soon, I'm sure examples such as this will crop up all over, as ships start to pass on their abilities to survive under marshes to their offspring.
I think they did this before, but instead of prefixing "Open" it was "Red" as in "Red Scare." Now, we don't want an "Open Scare", do we? [One of] The downfall[s] of comunism/open* is problem of the commons. Without going into much detail, lots of people reap the benefits while a few slack off duties and reap the benefits of everyone elses work. The people working see how the non-worker is still getting w/o giving, and either stop out of spite or because they think that guy has the right idea. Then everything goes to hell because no one is working, and everyone dies/leaves. A good example of this is the common room in a dorm. While it isn't always the messiest room, it's rarely the best looking.
So, why does software avoid this? I think it is because 1) people really love coding and 2) other people that really love coding provided tools for free for other people to code. The first guy said: I need a compiler, and I love to code. I'll code it for fun and give it away. The second guy said: I've got this free compiler and I really love to code. I'll try coding some software. Ad infintium. The only real investment is time, and most of these guys would be doing it anyway.
Open/Red Coke, on the other hand, would be a problem. The materials are not free (unless a group of people happened to own cane fields and factories and aluminum mines). It takes a ton of people to run a Open/Red Coke plant, even if it is entirely automated by machines (even machines need to get lubed up now and again). Then the product might need to be shipped. Though if we took and open approach, people would come to the plant and pick it up (e.g. download it) or some people would recieve a small amount of money in exchange for shipping it to us (e.g. I can buy a Gentoo cd). However, I think the first part would stop the Open/Red Coke product in its tracks. I can't think of people that like to mine ore because it's fun; not many, if any one, would just do that anyway. Not many, if anyone, would spend their spare time gathering/proccessing cane for sugar. Not many would, if anyone, would spend their time lubing the machines. Etc.
The other reason that open software works is that one only needs to make ONE product. I can make one text editor and give it to millions of people, but I can't make one can of Open/Red coke and give it to millions.
So, could it work? It'd be a really really really long shot. Nothing is impossible, right? Is it likely, I scincerely doubt it. Maybe I'm being closed (ha!) minded. I might be missing a potential product that could be open, other than software. So, as a disclaimer, I'm not saying it is improbable for every venture, but I can't think of one that it would work (other than software).
but gave no insight as to what that reliable & useful information would be.
If Sys Admins at other colleges are anything like the ones at mine, he doesn't need to list what valuable information they could give you. He doesn't have to because they don't HAVE any reliable or useful information to give. At my university, we had other people that would tell us what we needed to know. Of course, folks in my dorm/honors program were ad hoc administrators of several servers around campus, since the Sys Admins were incompetant...
I was merely stating that if people listened to the crap other people say, some great projects would not exist. In other words, if I was working to eliminate smallpox, for example, and I get discouraged when people say, "It is impossible," it IS impossible. If I keep on working, I might just do something good for people.
I was making a comparison of that sort, not of the Linux-is-.Net sort. Your interpretation of my comparison seems to highlight that you have no idea of what I meant.
As far as stagnancy of Unix (and the creation of Linux), I think that is a narrow application. Your assertion would be similar to ".Net is going after Java," not development platforms in general. I'd think that since Microsoft is "betting the company" on.Net, they have bigger fish to fry than JUST Java, though I'm sure it is on the list. Likewise, while the Unix/Java market may be stagnatn, the OS/Dev-Platform market is not stagnant at all.
I'll sum up the article: It'll be a really long an arduous task to be fully compatible with Microsoft's.Net stuff, so don't even try.
I'm sure Linus would have gotten the same sort of flack when making Linux. But he started the project, and look what it is becoming.
I think what the guy doesn't see is that not everyone 1) wants to program/compile on Windows (let alone whether they have a copy) and 2) wants to run this supposedly cross-platform language only on Windows.
It's okay to have dreams of bringing down a monopoly, but the point of an open source project is to have other options. Even if it is a long and arduous task, it still has merit, and should still be done, even if for just another option.
Now, if Microsoft makes a Linux compiler for.Net and a X11 implementation of Windows.Forms, then the article might have a little more validity. At least then there would be a choice of OSes.
Apparently there are about 15 links in their menu to Linux before the article even starts. Then, as was said, the article doesn't mention Linux until the end. They should have called it 5 reasons to go with SCO, and just left Linux out of it (as far as the title is concerned). At least then they wouldn't have us laughing at them.
Now, as far as the text of the article, that is another story.
Either way (rant or ignorance), it is still completley illogical. Develop the bottom line, then add features to make the top of the line. Apple made the eMac and iBook with the ability to do dual display spanning, but crippled it to be only mirroring. Someone "hacked" it, and now I can span monitors on my eMac. They paid developers to cripple it so they could sell it for less. I pay less and can still have the same features.
It seems like bad business practice if you spend money to sell something for less money. It's also, apparently, bad practice to defent Microsoft on/..
But I got a "C" in economics. It seemed like it was the art of Pulling Things Out of Your Ass.
They are paying developers more money to cripple XP so they can sell it for less. Only a multi-billion dollar monopoly can get away with such illogical and rediculous actions.
But people using the computer at home to surf the net?
These are the people who do the most propigation of viruses.
Spyware falls into the "or mildly irritating", not the blatantly dangerous. I was going for dramatic effect on top of sarcasim. It's hard to carry that over text.
I'll be happy to bring up the obligatory Mac OS X comment. Not that I've had any sort of virus problem ever (I blame educating myself), but I've had even fewer on Mac. Whatever that means. I guess I've had -1 or fewer problems since I started using Mac.
while to them your computing skills ammount at best to some mild entertainment on a slow evening.
Mild is an overstatement.
I'm not suggesting that everyone be IT professionals. I realize that some people aren't interested. But I liken it unto this: In order to drive a car, you must pass certain tests, most importantly a driving exam. I'm not going to pretend that computers are as dangerous as cars. I would never suggest that not knowing how to use a computer could end in potential disaster.
Let's keep this car metaphore going. Let's say I am going to purchase a car. Should I blindly walk into any dealership and purchase the first thing the salesman attempts to sell to me? I might end up with a Kia or a BMW. Further, I might not know what is IN the car. Maybe OnStar is spying on you. Maybe your car will break down because it is poorly constructed.
No one is going to walk into any purchase completly blind. Why would someone put something on their computer that they don't know what it is? If there is a possibility of danger (or at least mild irritation), it seems like a good idea to take a look at the product and ask questions.
Would you, without internet access (to get you as much out of your element as they are on the 'net) even know where to _start_ looking for information on what can be hidden in yours?
If you don't have Internet, most of the spyware programs would be obsolete. I'll pretend that had nothing to do with spyware and was an attack on my line of thinking. So, yes, I would know where to start. I would probably go first to a library, the Google of the real world, and check, perhaps, the card cataloge or a computer based search system (if they indeed have one). I would, next, consult local watch peddlers. Finally, I would talk to people about it. Get their verbal reviews. That seems like a good course of action that wouldn't require me to know EVERYTHING about something, as I don't know everything about every software I use (e.g. if it runs UDP or TCP or even uses the internet at all), but still gain enough knowledge to make a good decision. We can only do as well as we are equiped (But I am arguing that, with spyware, we are all pretty well equiped to find answers).
Your well being and even your _life_ depend every day on people whose field of expertise _isn't_ computing science
There is no denying this. However, computers are really prying their way into most fields. If people don't know how to use them, they may not be protecting my life and/or well being to the best of their ability.
Would you prefer that the next time you need surgery, you're in the hands of people with l33t h4x0r skillz, or in the hands of _surgeons_?
That depends on if the 133t h4x0r people know anything about surgury. I would suspect they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't know how, esp. seening as to become a liscenced surgeon, you must pass all kinds of tests and pretty much know what you are doing. So, I'd rather have the person who knows the most about what they are doing.
Now, funny how we are back to passing tests. When you are dealing with something that is potentially dangerous (or at least midly irritating), you should know what you are dealing with. Like I said. I'm not suggesting that computers are the most dangerous things, but sometimes bad things happen. Further, I'm not asking that everyone be experts. I only ask that people know how to drive before they get in the car to drive on the open roads, and that people know enough to ask questions when purchasing a car.
Ever wondered why there are laws and courts of law out there? Because the "ha ha, if you're not informed, it sucks to be you" approach just doesn't work.
It DOES work like that, depending on what you mean. I doubt if I said, "I didn't know that selling heroin was illegal," would get me out of jail. Further, if I say, "I didn't see the clause in the UELA that said 'can send info to third party about users browsing habits' when I didn't read it and clicked OK to agree to the terms," would hold up in a court.
So, yeah, I wouldn't feel bad about doing some research to make sure I wasn't getting spied on.
Apparently, it's a equation in logic that has either infinite countermodels or none (assuming I wrote it properly). At least that was what my PHL professor claimed. The problem is that/. strips the HTML Charcodes for the symbols needed to write the model "properly", so I had to revert to the way we wrote it in LogicMaster. You can look there for more info if you are interested. The book is pretty cheap, and explains alot. Logic is mentally stimulating but not much of a conversation piece. It's fun to play with if you have a few hours with nothing to do...
I think there is some really nice irony here. I'll get a good laugh out of it. What it really comes down to, to me, is that users blindly install things (ha, even anti-spyware/adware) and don't listen to what people say about it.
"Gator cursors?! Rad. I love little annoying cursors." Install spyware.
If people would be more informed about their computing habits, spyware would be avoided, as would viruses.
Adware, on the other hand, may have some legitamate uses. For example, Opera had a free version of it's browser that shows ads. AIM shows ads. Even Slashdot shows ads.
But if you don't like it, don't run it. Research is the key. It's time we stop letting people use computers until they understand HOW to use them.
Like many other academic studies, such as skinning humans alive to see how long they can live, I think this one should only be placed into the right hands.
It's a pisser that spammers now have another tool to circumvent filters; on the other hand, the people who write the filters know exactly what a spammer would do to make "better" spam.
too often, hardware/software is seriously crippled because of backwards compatibility.
Home game consoles have never really be backward compatible. PS2 is the first real back-ward compatible that I know of (though someone will end up telling me differently).
I couldn't play my Nintendo games on a Nintendo 64 out-of-the-box, and I surely can't play them on a GameCube. There is no precident for backwards compatibility in the gaming market, IMO, so it shouldn't be a concern for Microsoft.
Besides, most gamers I know have more than one game system, so it is no big deal if they have yet another one.
In the end, we'll still end up with companies (e.g. Microsoft and AOL) who will still continue with their closed/proprietary formats; if they do adopt an open standard, they will try to make it different so it ends up being incompatible, or patent it so no one else can use it. And lets not even get into the ills of what Microsoft did for HTML Scripting... eck.
So, yay, we have a standard. But can we get everyone to implement it PROPERLY?
I really hate to be so blunt - but where I'm from we're severely lacking Medical Doctors. Here in Ontario, we really need you people.
I really hate to be so blunt - but where I'm from (e.g. America), the IT market is oversaturated, getting outsourced to cheaper places, and it maybe we are starting to come out. In Ontario, they really nead people like you (the author of the original topic). Here, we need to get some of the unemployeed IT people back into steady jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Try Visual Basic. For an example with verbs:
do while not [some condition]
[some code]
loop
Besides, he said BASED on English. Languages are, it seems to me, shorthand for English.
Right now, as monstroyer said, programming languages are (at least) predominatly english. If you search google for answers to some programming question you may have, you'll see everything from German to French to Russian all using English commands, etc. It makes me wonder why localized version of languages weren't made. Since variable names only care about consistancy, I can call a variable whatever, but the commands themselves are still English or English based. So, if we all fall into an English standard, would we move away from English if, as was suggested, these Chineese became the primary progammers?
Yet, some commands are abbreviated and criptic to deflate. They aren't real English, that is. But no one complains.
It seems like we have two different "concepts." A localized semantic approach or a cryptic set of letters that we still understand because we know what the command does.
If English, etc. goes away, English commands would still be viable, since we know what the command does (e.g. I may know what Exp stands for, but I know what it does). Or, we can keep updating languages to be local to whatever vernacular.
To me, neither seems more or less desierable or usable as long as week keep traditional commands.
Either way, I don't think we will lose touch with programming; we only lose touch with certain programming languages, and that is only a mild possibility, since I'm sure there are quite a few uni-lingual non-anglophones that write in very English languages, like VB, and make it along quite well.
Apparently the ship has undergone some sort of specialization to allow it to be a marsh-submarine instead of its original function of water-floater. This is truly an acomplishment for Darwinian evolution.
Soon, I'm sure examples such as this will crop up all over, as ships start to pass on their abilities to survive under marshes to their offspring.
I think they did this before, but instead of prefixing "Open" it was "Red" as in "Red Scare." Now, we don't want an "Open Scare", do we? [One of] The downfall[s] of comunism/open* is problem of the commons. Without going into much detail, lots of people reap the benefits while a few slack off duties and reap the benefits of everyone elses work. The people working see how the non-worker is still getting w/o giving, and either stop out of spite or because they think that guy has the right idea. Then everything goes to hell because no one is working, and everyone dies/leaves. A good example of this is the common room in a dorm. While it isn't always the messiest room, it's rarely the best looking.
So, why does software avoid this? I think it is because 1) people really love coding and 2) other people that really love coding provided tools for free for other people to code. The first guy said: I need a compiler, and I love to code. I'll code it for fun and give it away. The second guy said: I've got this free compiler and I really love to code. I'll try coding some software. Ad infintium. The only real investment is time, and most of these guys would be doing it anyway.
Open/Red Coke, on the other hand, would be a problem. The materials are not free (unless a group of people happened to own cane fields and factories and aluminum mines). It takes a ton of people to run a Open/Red Coke plant, even if it is entirely automated by machines (even machines need to get lubed up now and again). Then the product might need to be shipped. Though if we took and open approach, people would come to the plant and pick it up (e.g. download it) or some people would recieve a small amount of money in exchange for shipping it to us (e.g. I can buy a Gentoo cd). However, I think the first part would stop the Open/Red Coke product in its tracks. I can't think of people that like to mine ore because it's fun; not many, if any one, would just do that anyway. Not many, if anyone, would spend their spare time gathering/proccessing cane for sugar. Not many would, if anyone, would spend their time lubing the machines. Etc.
The other reason that open software works is that one only needs to make ONE product. I can make one text editor and give it to millions of people, but I can't make one can of Open/Red coke and give it to millions.
So, could it work? It'd be a really really really long shot. Nothing is impossible, right? Is it likely, I scincerely doubt it. Maybe I'm being closed (ha!) minded. I might be missing a potential product that could be open, other than software. So, as a disclaimer, I'm not saying it is improbable for every venture, but I can't think of one that it would work (other than software).
but gave no insight as to what that reliable & useful information would be.
If Sys Admins at other colleges are anything like the ones at mine, he doesn't need to list what valuable information they could give you. He doesn't have to because they don't HAVE any reliable or useful information to give. At my university, we had other people that would tell us what we needed to know. Of course, folks in my dorm/honors program were ad hoc administrators of several servers around campus, since the Sys Admins were incompetant...
I was merely stating that if people listened to the crap other people say, some great projects would not exist. In other words, if I was working to eliminate smallpox, for example, and I get discouraged when people say, "It is impossible," it IS impossible. If I keep on working, I might just do something good for people.
.Net, they have bigger fish to fry than JUST Java, though I'm sure it is on the list. Likewise, while the Unix/Java market may be stagnatn, the OS/Dev-Platform market is not stagnant at all.
I was making a comparison of that sort, not of the Linux-is-.Net sort. Your interpretation of my comparison seems to highlight that you have no idea of what I meant.
As far as stagnancy of Unix (and the creation of Linux), I think that is a narrow application. Your assertion would be similar to ".Net is going after Java," not development platforms in general. I'd think that since Microsoft is "betting the company" on
I'll sum up the article: It'll be a really long an arduous task to be fully compatible with Microsoft's .Net stuff, so don't even try.
.Net and a X11 implementation of Windows.Forms, then the article might have a little more validity. At least then there would be a choice of OSes.
I'm sure Linus would have gotten the same sort of flack when making Linux. But he started the project, and look what it is becoming.
I think what the guy doesn't see is that not everyone 1) wants to program/compile on Windows (let alone whether they have a copy) and 2) wants to run this supposedly cross-platform language only on Windows.
It's okay to have dreams of bringing down a monopoly, but the point of an open source project is to have other options. Even if it is a long and arduous task, it still has merit, and should still be done, even if for just another option.
Now, if Microsoft makes a Linux compiler for
They must have been running it on the code that was leaked. Typical of Windows to bow under pressure, and finally snap with a dry cracking sound.
Apparently there are about 15 links in their menu to Linux before the article even starts. Then, as was said, the article doesn't mention Linux until the end. They should have called it 5 reasons to go with SCO, and just left Linux out of it (as far as the title is concerned). At least then they wouldn't have us laughing at them.
Now, as far as the text of the article, that is another story.
I think it was probably Al Gore, since he Invented the Internet.
;)
Or the Pinto. If you drop it on the wrong side, it may explode.
At least the people who make nicely padded carrying cases would get a few more sales.
Not to mention all the guns were replaced with flashlights...
Either way (rant or ignorance), it is still completley illogical. Develop the bottom line, then add features to make the top of the line. Apple made the eMac and iBook with the ability to do dual display spanning, but crippled it to be only mirroring. Someone "hacked" it, and now I can span monitors on my eMac. They paid developers to cripple it so they could sell it for less. I pay less and can still have the same features.
/..
It seems like bad business practice if you spend money to sell something for less money. It's also, apparently, bad practice to defent Microsoft on
But I got a "C" in economics. It seemed like it was the art of Pulling Things Out of Your Ass.
They are paying developers more money to cripple XP so they can sell it for less. Only a multi-billion dollar monopoly can get away with such illogical and rediculous actions.
But people using the computer at home to surf the net?
These are the people who do the most propigation of viruses.
Spyware falls into the "or mildly irritating", not the blatantly dangerous. I was going for dramatic effect on top of sarcasim. It's hard to carry that over text.
I'll be happy to bring up the obligatory Mac OS X comment. Not that I've had any sort of virus problem ever (I blame educating myself), but I've had even fewer on Mac. Whatever that means. I guess I've had -1 or fewer problems since I started using Mac.
while to them your computing skills ammount at best to some mild entertainment on a slow evening.
Mild is an overstatement.
I'm not suggesting that everyone be IT professionals. I realize that some people aren't interested. But I liken it unto this: In order to drive a car, you must pass certain tests, most importantly a driving exam. I'm not going to pretend that computers are as dangerous as cars. I would never suggest that not knowing how to use a computer could end in potential disaster.
Let's keep this car metaphore going. Let's say I am going to purchase a car. Should I blindly walk into any dealership and purchase the first thing the salesman attempts to sell to me? I might end up with a Kia or a BMW. Further, I might not know what is IN the car. Maybe OnStar is spying on you. Maybe your car will break down because it is poorly constructed.
No one is going to walk into any purchase completly blind. Why would someone put something on their computer that they don't know what it is? If there is a possibility of danger (or at least mild irritation), it seems like a good idea to take a look at the product and ask questions.
Would you, without internet access (to get you as much out of your element as they are on the 'net) even know where to _start_ looking for information on what can be hidden in yours?
If you don't have Internet, most of the spyware programs would be obsolete. I'll pretend that had nothing to do with spyware and was an attack on my line of thinking. So, yes, I would know where to start. I would probably go first to a library, the Google of the real world, and check, perhaps, the card cataloge or a computer based search system (if they indeed have one). I would, next, consult local watch peddlers. Finally, I would talk to people about it. Get their verbal reviews. That seems like a good course of action that wouldn't require me to know EVERYTHING about something, as I don't know everything about every software I use (e.g. if it runs UDP or TCP or even uses the internet at all), but still gain enough knowledge to make a good decision. We can only do as well as we are equiped (But I am arguing that, with spyware, we are all pretty well equiped to find answers).
Your well being and even your _life_ depend every day on people whose field of expertise _isn't_ computing science
There is no denying this. However, computers are really prying their way into most fields. If people don't know how to use them, they may not be protecting my life and/or well being to the best of their ability.
Would you prefer that the next time you need surgery, you're in the hands of people with l33t h4x0r skillz, or in the hands of _surgeons_?
That depends on if the 133t h4x0r people know anything about surgury. I would suspect they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't know how, esp. seening as to become a liscenced surgeon, you must pass all kinds of tests and pretty much know what you are doing. So, I'd rather have the person who knows the most about what they are doing.
Now, funny how we are back to passing tests. When you are dealing with something that is potentially dangerous (or at least midly irritating), you should know what you are dealing with. Like I said. I'm not suggesting that computers are the most dangerous things, but sometimes bad things happen. Further, I'm not asking that everyone be experts. I only ask that people know how to drive before they get in the car to drive on the open roads, and that people know enough to ask questions when purchasing a car.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to go to google.com and type "software title spyware". Try it! It is fun.
Opera 7
Photoshop 7
Flash 6
Ever wondered why there are laws and courts of law out there? Because the "ha ha, if you're not informed, it sucks to be you" approach just doesn't work.
It DOES work like that, depending on what you mean. I doubt if I said, "I didn't know that selling heroin was illegal," would get me out of jail. Further, if I say, "I didn't see the clause in the UELA that said 'can send info to third party about users browsing habits' when I didn't read it and clicked OK to agree to the terms," would hold up in a court.
So, yeah, I wouldn't feel bad about doing some research to make sure I wasn't getting spied on.
Apparently, it's a equation in logic that has either infinite countermodels or none (assuming I wrote it properly). At least that was what my PHL professor claimed. The problem is that /. strips the HTML Charcodes for the symbols needed to write the model "properly", so I had to revert to the way we wrote it in LogicMaster. You can look there for more info if you are interested. The book is pretty cheap, and explains alot. Logic is mentally stimulating but not much of a conversation piece. It's fun to play with if you have a few hours with nothing to do...
I think there is some really nice irony here. I'll get a good laugh out of it. What it really comes down to, to me, is that users blindly install things (ha, even anti-spyware/adware) and don't listen to what people say about it.
"Gator cursors?! Rad. I love little annoying cursors." Install spyware.
If people would be more informed about their computing habits, spyware would be avoided, as would viruses.
Adware, on the other hand, may have some legitamate uses. For example, Opera had a free version of it's browser that shows ads. AIM shows ads. Even Slashdot shows ads.
But if you don't like it, don't run it. Research is the key. It's time we stop letting people use computers until they understand HOW to use them.
Like many other academic studies, such as skinning humans alive to see how long they can live, I think this one should only be placed into the right hands.
It's a pisser that spammers now have another tool to circumvent filters; on the other hand, the people who write the filters know exactly what a spammer would do to make "better" spam.
The question is: who will implement first?
Why didn't they just give DoubleClick the bid? They already seem to have the tracking thing down.
too often, hardware/software is seriously crippled because of backwards compatibility.
Home game consoles have never really be backward compatible. PS2 is the first real back-ward compatible that I know of (though someone will end up telling me differently).
I couldn't play my Nintendo games on a Nintendo 64 out-of-the-box, and I surely can't play them on a GameCube. There is no precident for backwards compatibility in the gaming market, IMO, so it shouldn't be a concern for Microsoft.
Besides, most gamers I know have more than one game system, so it is no big deal if they have yet another one.
He called the Iraqi Linux Users Group "iLug." Don't tell Apple.
In the end, we'll still end up with companies (e.g. Microsoft and AOL) who will still continue with their closed/proprietary formats; if they do adopt an open standard, they will try to make it different so it ends up being incompatible, or patent it so no one else can use it. And lets not even get into the ills of what Microsoft did for HTML Scripting... eck.
So, yay, we have a standard. But can we get everyone to implement it PROPERLY?
I really hate to be so blunt - but where I'm from we're severely lacking Medical Doctors. Here in Ontario, we really need you people.
I really hate to be so blunt - but where I'm from (e.g. America), the IT market is oversaturated, getting outsourced to cheaper places, and it maybe we are starting to come out. In Ontario, they really nead people like you (the author of the original topic). Here, we need to get some of the unemployeed IT people back into steady jobs.
You'd be better off doing medicine.