I didn't RTFA, but the quote in the summary might be the first thing I've read that Dvorak wrote that wasn't mindless trolling. He actually made a good point. I wonder how long he can keep it up.
I don't like any of them. Orkut was pretty bland. MySpace is buggy as hell. Facebook was only slightly less bland than Orkut. I dunno what's behind the doors of Wallop, but if they already have an API based on ActionScript, it could potentially be lots of fun. I sent them an e-mail for an invite. It was worth 5 minutes to see if this new site is worth a damn (assuming I get the invite:\).
Having recently re-written from scratch a very large project with two or more PHP developers and myself as the only front-end designer, I've found Ajax to be the fastest way to develop web apps for in-house use. If you write a spec for data I/O, then follow it exactly, the front end can be developed without the back end using sample data. The back end can be developed without the front end, since simulated posts/gets can be done to verify that the XML (or JSON or text or whatever) is valid. That means that I can make a front end, even if my PHP guy is working on something else, or my PHP guy can make a back end while I'm working on another project. The only down side is that if a change is made on the spec it has to be communicated and accounted for by everyone involved. So far, that hasn't been a problem.
Maybe it is a lack of specialization for the poster. Having two specialized developers (front-end and back-end) seems to speed things along just fine.
I think what you mean is, "I hope OS X doesn't end up like OS/2." I think OS/2 lost out because the operating system didn't offer any real advantages over Windows. OS X is a better operating system than Windows and comes with lots of integrated software that works well, not to mention that it is a BSD and runs lots of open source software (if you're into that sort of stuff). So, I think OS X won't lose out by running Windows applications like OS/2 did.
Man... I was about to say they were probably firing 5000 of their asshole customer retention specialists. I guess I shouldn't make fun of customer retention to their face.:/
They are just now relying on ads as their main source of revenue? Back when I used AOL, their ads were pervasive to the point of being annoying. Everyone I know that uses AIM thinks the number of ads are annoying.
So, what they are saying is that it will only get more annoying as they bump off dial-up. Great plan, AOL.
If AOL wanted to swap from service revenue to an ad revenue, they shouldn't have been shoving as many ads down people's throats before the switch.
I don't think it should be thrown out, if the math works.
I might not be grasping the point (of the sharpest knife in the drawer... ouch!), but doesn't science preclude pure a priori mathematics? What I mean is that science is supposed to be a posteriori. From observation, not from reason. Otherwise, it might be philosophy.
The reason this is so fishy is because GM denied renewal of leases (despite begging and protest) and took back cars back to have them destroyed. They seemed intent on obliterating the EV1 to remove it from public memory, much the same way the Egyptians did with Akhenaton when he tried to change the whole of Egypt to a monotheistic religion. And now, on the eve of the release of a motion picture that brings light to a set of events not many people are aware of, the Smithsonian removes (AFAIK) one of the last places people can see a real-life EV1 (like so much stone from a bas-relief sculpture), making a documentary seem, for all intents and purposes, more like fiction in the public eye. Oh, and GM had nothing to do with it. They were not under pressure to engage in some uber sparagmos-like act of worship to the oil gods at the detriment of all EV1s ever made.
Makes me wish I had GTA'd one and hidden it somewhere for future generations.
Well, that was a fun conspiracy theory. I'm going to drink some more vodka.
"Lots of people don't want a [convergent] device."
That's why there are carriers like Verizon that make tons of money crippling their phones and selling phones that are pretty much useless, like the LG Mio, for a premium. You just never hear about them because geeks want "just a phone" as much as Batman wants "just a belt." In other words, you are reading the wrong website if you are looking for news about just-a-cell-phone. That probably would have had heavy coverage in 1973 (or the early '80s when they were available to the public), but not any more.
As far as Nokia's nomenclature, I agree they don't "get it." But as far as their product goes, it's exactly what a different group of "lots of people" want. For me, the fewer things I carry around in my pocket, the better... especially if it is a Nokia N80.
Last time I tried Photoshop / Illustrator / Flash on WINE, it was very buggy at best.
When I said "commercial apps I can't get on Linux", I really meant "native support from vendors for commercial apps I can't get on Linux"... or something like that.
(Not that I don't appreciate the work of the WINE folks... they do great work)
I read somewhere about nickel-zinc batteries being capable of quick recharges. Basically, if I remember correctly, n-z batteries use a "slurry" or nickel and zinc that is put inside the cell. The idea was that recharging stations could suck out the old slurry and put new, charged slurry back in a relatively short amount of time. The hope was to use it on fleet vehicles. I'm not sure what the range would be, however.
If a secure BSD sub-system with the full power of OSS and the commercial apps Linux still can't get (e.g. Photoshop, Flash) is a pie in the sky, I'll take two. I call it the best of every world.
I tried Ajax when I first heard about it, which I think was when it was first gathering mass. Initially, the responseXML DOM object was a pain in the ass and that made me stay away from it. After I accepted that it would be difficult, I moved on to sending values back with responseText. That proved to be very easy. Then, I found that constantly creating XMLHttpRequest objects and setting up the proper parameters for IE vs. Everyone Else was a pain in the ass and that made me not like it. Eventually I found out about prototype.js, which was nice. I ended up ditching it because it was a little bloated to be used for Ajax-only stuff. So, I wrote my own JavaScript Ajax "class" to handle all the sending, waiting, receiving, and callbacks. I even have it create an associative array representation of the XML and "trace" so it looks like a print_r'd array in PHP. All I have to do is set the Ajax object to a variable, call a function in the object (that specifies the file to query, the post string, and the callback function), write the callback function, and write some php. It makes Ajax painless.
My point is: If you want to "learn" Ajax, learn how it works, write a class that does the stuff you will typically do, then use the class. It'll save you tons of time, code, and frustration in the end. Ajax is actually worth using now and has helped my company separate PHP code and HTML in our intranet web apps without using a template engine, which makes our PHP guy happy that I'm not fudging with his code and makes me happy that our PHP guy isn't fudging with my design.
Since no one seems to care, and I don't use FontBook very often, there is a checkbox at the bottom of the install screen. If you check it, you can import the font into FontBook, even if FB claims it is broken. So far, I have had no problems with the font. So, even thought the font error I get is "critical", it still works.
You might be right about the sheep to geek ratio. Actually, you are. But I think you are wrong about your BS call (I'm calling BS to your BS, as it were). I'm 25. I am a geek. I messed around with QBASIC, poking at source of existing programs and trying to modify them without any guidance, a little when I was really young (12?), and that was more than I was willing to tackle at that time (I wasn't much of a geek then and didn't figure there were books on the subject). If it weren't for HTML and JavaScript being easy, having a readily available development platform, and having simple documentation (e.g. the web) readily available when I was 17, and my TI-82 being easy to create "programs" for, I'm not sure where I'd be (I am a web designer / developer by profession now). Not all of us start as uber-geeks that understand Visual Basic or C, eating pizza and Jolt from birth. Some of us need to be weaned in and something simple is exactly what we want. Further, some of us don't have geek parents there to guide us (my dad bragged for years he didn't know where the power button was on our Gateway 2000 P2 266) or geek mentors or know of geek books. It's probably easier for fledgling geeks now-a-days because of the Internet, but I disagree that any prominant IDE is simple to jump into for any newbie who has no mentor to help them on their way because even now I find them irritating to work with and learn (esp. Visual Basic).
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't RTFA, but the quote in the summary might be the first thing I've read that Dvorak wrote that wasn't mindless trolling. He actually made a good point. I wonder how long he can keep it up.
I was thinking about doing a Peter Gabriel vs Nine Inch Nails... That could be fun.
I don't like any of them. Orkut was pretty bland. MySpace is buggy as hell. Facebook was only slightly less bland than Orkut. I dunno what's behind the doors of Wallop, but if they already have an API based on ActionScript, it could potentially be lots of fun. I sent them an e-mail for an invite. It was worth 5 minutes to see if this new site is worth a damn (assuming I get the invite :\).
Try that sort of substitution in any programming language. I dare you.
But it was a joke. Really. See the winky face at the end? You might have missed that or maybe it wasn't in the right form of English.
But what does Grok Law have to say about all this?! I'm lost without them.
This suit takes place in the US, so it would be "Your Honor." But, you know... semantics and what not ;)
Specifically like Google Books, I bet. Unless the book is multi-column, then fuck it and we'll wait for the single column edition.
Having recently re-written from scratch a very large project with two or more PHP developers and myself as the only front-end designer, I've found Ajax to be the fastest way to develop web apps for in-house use. If you write a spec for data I/O, then follow it exactly, the front end can be developed without the back end using sample data. The back end can be developed without the front end, since simulated posts/gets can be done to verify that the XML (or JSON or text or whatever) is valid. That means that I can make a front end, even if my PHP guy is working on something else, or my PHP guy can make a back end while I'm working on another project. The only down side is that if a change is made on the spec it has to be communicated and accounted for by everyone involved. So far, that hasn't been a problem.
Maybe it is a lack of specialization for the poster. Having two specialized developers (front-end and back-end) seems to speed things along just fine.
SpellingCows doesn't work in Safari...
I think what you mean is, "I hope OS X doesn't end up like OS/2." I think OS/2 lost out because the operating system didn't offer any real advantages over Windows. OS X is a better operating system than Windows and comes with lots of integrated software that works well, not to mention that it is a BSD and runs lots of open source software (if you're into that sort of stuff). So, I think OS X won't lose out by running Windows applications like OS/2 did.
Man... I was about to say they were probably firing 5000 of their asshole customer retention specialists. I guess I shouldn't make fun of customer retention to their face. :/
I'm going to buy it to help prove a point to the music industry. Then I'm going to delete it to prove another point to the music industry.
They are just now relying on ads as their main source of revenue? Back when I used AOL, their ads were pervasive to the point of being annoying. Everyone I know that uses AIM thinks the number of ads are annoying.
So, what they are saying is that it will only get more annoying as they bump off dial-up. Great plan, AOL.
If AOL wanted to swap from service revenue to an ad revenue, they shouldn't have been shoving as many ads down people's throats before the switch.
A really good lay comes to mind...
I might not be grasping the point (of the sharpest knife in the drawer... ouch!), but doesn't science preclude pure a priori mathematics? What I mean is that science is supposed to be a posteriori. From observation, not from reason. Otherwise, it might be philosophy.
But I might not be sharp or sober...
Soo... Let me see if I got this right: String Theory is so Web 2.0?
The reason this is so fishy is because GM denied renewal of leases (despite begging and protest) and took back cars back to have them destroyed. They seemed intent on obliterating the EV1 to remove it from public memory, much the same way the Egyptians did with Akhenaton when he tried to change the whole of Egypt to a monotheistic religion. And now, on the eve of the release of a motion picture that brings light to a set of events not many people are aware of, the Smithsonian removes (AFAIK) one of the last places people can see a real-life EV1 (like so much stone from a bas-relief sculpture), making a documentary seem, for all intents and purposes, more like fiction in the public eye. Oh, and GM had nothing to do with it. They were not under pressure to engage in some uber sparagmos-like act of worship to the oil gods at the detriment of all EV1s ever made.
Makes me wish I had GTA'd one and hidden it somewhere for future generations.
Well, that was a fun conspiracy theory. I'm going to drink some more vodka.
Don't you mean "Take a troll through our modern world with John C. Dvorak..." ?
"Lots of people don't want a [convergent] device."
That's why there are carriers like Verizon that make tons of money crippling their phones and selling phones that are pretty much useless, like the LG Mio, for a premium. You just never hear about them because geeks want "just a phone" as much as Batman wants "just a belt." In other words, you are reading the wrong website if you are looking for news about just-a-cell-phone. That probably would have had heavy coverage in 1973 (or the early '80s when they were available to the public), but not any more.
As far as Nokia's nomenclature, I agree they don't "get it." But as far as their product goes, it's exactly what a different group of "lots of people" want. For me, the fewer things I carry around in my pocket, the better... especially if it is a Nokia N80.
With all the open source stuff going on with this device, it's odd that OGG and Jabber aren't on the list of supported media / protocols.
I meant creation of Flash.
... or something like that.
Last time I tried Photoshop / Illustrator / Flash on WINE, it was very buggy at best.
When I said "commercial apps I can't get on Linux", I really meant "native support from vendors for commercial apps I can't get on Linux"
(Not that I don't appreciate the work of the WINE folks... they do great work)
I read somewhere about nickel-zinc batteries being capable of quick recharges. Basically, if I remember correctly, n-z batteries use a "slurry" or nickel and zinc that is put inside the cell. The idea was that recharging stations could suck out the old slurry and put new, charged slurry back in a relatively short amount of time. The hope was to use it on fleet vehicles. I'm not sure what the range would be, however.
If a secure BSD sub-system with the full power of OSS and the commercial apps Linux still can't get (e.g. Photoshop, Flash) is a pie in the sky, I'll take two. I call it the best of every world.
I tried Ajax when I first heard about it, which I think was when it was first gathering mass. Initially, the responseXML DOM object was a pain in the ass and that made me stay away from it. After I accepted that it would be difficult, I moved on to sending values back with responseText. That proved to be very easy. Then, I found that constantly creating XMLHttpRequest objects and setting up the proper parameters for IE vs. Everyone Else was a pain in the ass and that made me not like it. Eventually I found out about prototype.js, which was nice. I ended up ditching it because it was a little bloated to be used for Ajax-only stuff. So, I wrote my own JavaScript Ajax "class" to handle all the sending, waiting, receiving, and callbacks. I even have it create an associative array representation of the XML and "trace" so it looks like a print_r'd array in PHP. All I have to do is set the Ajax object to a variable, call a function in the object (that specifies the file to query, the post string, and the callback function), write the callback function, and write some php. It makes Ajax painless.
My point is: If you want to "learn" Ajax, learn how it works, write a class that does the stuff you will typically do, then use the class. It'll save you tons of time, code, and frustration in the end. Ajax is actually worth using now and has helped my company separate PHP code and HTML in our intranet web apps without using a template engine, which makes our PHP guy happy that I'm not fudging with his code and makes me happy that our PHP guy isn't fudging with my design.
Since no one seems to care, and I don't use FontBook very often, there is a checkbox at the bottom of the install screen. If you check it, you can import the font into FontBook, even if FB claims it is broken. So far, I have had no problems with the font. So, even thought the font error I get is "critical", it still works.
You might be right about the sheep to geek ratio. Actually, you are. But I think you are wrong about your BS call (I'm calling BS to your BS, as it were). I'm 25. I am a geek. I messed around with QBASIC, poking at source of existing programs and trying to modify them without any guidance, a little when I was really young (12?), and that was more than I was willing to tackle at that time (I wasn't much of a geek then and didn't figure there were books on the subject). If it weren't for HTML and JavaScript being easy, having a readily available development platform, and having simple documentation (e.g. the web) readily available when I was 17, and my TI-82 being easy to create "programs" for, I'm not sure where I'd be (I am a web designer / developer by profession now). Not all of us start as uber-geeks that understand Visual Basic or C, eating pizza and Jolt from birth. Some of us need to be weaned in and something simple is exactly what we want. Further, some of us don't have geek parents there to guide us (my dad bragged for years he didn't know where the power button was on our Gateway 2000 P2 266) or geek mentors or know of geek books. It's probably easier for fledgling geeks now-a-days because of the Internet, but I disagree that any prominant IDE is simple to jump into for any newbie who has no mentor to help them on their way because even now I find them irritating to work with and learn (esp. Visual Basic).