"A bad programmer then? The guy sitting in the corner who thinks he's a genius(and accordingly don't need no help from anyone) and don't want to admit he's been stuck with the same problem for days. I have zero patience for such wizkids. "
That doesn't make that guy a bad programmer, just a bad employee. Someone needs to noodle whip that person into understanding how to problem solve in an appropriate manner. That is a management issue. Dismissing such talent because of poor management skills, is missing real opportunity and possibly great success. I will grant you that there are individuals that will not tolerate being managed. I would agree with you that I too, have no patience for the like of those individuals, no matter how smart or talented.
What you wrote is humorous. It is so true too. Why can't people see the same thing with coding? It is beyond me that they seem to want to apply the 'more is better' principle to programming than any quality standards at all.
" He seems to make a unspoken assumption throughout the whole article, and that is that whoever does it quickest does it best."
Apparently you did not read the article. He states, in no uncertain terms, that this is not the case. You can find the following quote just below the graphs in the article. He even emphasizes the text to stress it.
"The quality of the work and the amount of time spent are simply uncorrelated."
He is making the point that a good coder is not necessarily fast and a fast coder is not necessarily good. I think it is more the case that most programmers out there do not fall into the category of 'excellent' or even 'good' and are threatened by such facts as this gentleman present, very thoroughly and quite well I might add.
Yea, geesh. That's better odds than here on earth (meaning I have a greater chance of dying of cancer on earth than that). I have an idea that something else was meant but not articulated well.
" The EFT is NOT designed to be VERTICALLY load bearing except for Aero loads from launch."
That is my point exactly. With the EFT in the picture as is, your risk cannot decrease without serious redesign. It has been the cause of all of the concern and mishaps so far. So why hang on to it. Without that as the central structure, your your SBR's need to be redesigned also. If you place the load on the top of the EFT, then you have to get rid of the central design of the EFT, specifically the sectional aspect with gasket material in between. It cannot bear a load with the structure. Yet we see it denoted that way in the lofting of new ideas in the article. Why? The cost of ditching it all and starting over cannot be more than redesigning 3 or more redesigns, as we have done 3 now already. Time to cut loses on a platform that has proven to be faulty and hazardous and start over with something we know works and wors well. I don't understand the arguement when the facts are all right there, in the article in question too.
"I'm saying that market share's effect is much much smaller than the effect of the basic design of the OS and the user interface."
The problem with that perspective is this; Just because there are two baked bean manufactures, let's say Bush's and Grandma Brown's (Grandma Brown's being much smaller than Bush's). Let's say Bush's has 90% of the market and Grandma Brown's has 10%. Where that may be very true, it does not mean that I will buy Bush's 90% of the time and Grandma Brown's 10% of the time. Statistically speaking from the customer point of view I will buy Bush's 100% of the time or Grandma Brown's 100% of the time. The people that buy Grandma Brown's 100% of the time only make up 10% of the people that buy baked beans. With that said, If I want send surprises to as many baked bean eaters as possible, then I would put them in Bush's cans. I wouldn't waste my time going to a place that is only going to get my surprises out to 10% of the baked bean eaters. The problem becomes more polarizing than that too. Lets say my surprises only fit in cans and not glass jars and Bushes only come in cans and Grandma Brown's in Glass jars. I am not going to retool my surprises for Glass Jars too when I can already serve 90% of the possible audience with what I have. Worse yet, if my surprises are meant to harm people and drive people toward eating Grandma Brown's Beans, then I am certainly not going to allow my surprises to work in glass jars at all. Being that virus writers are attempting to do damage and they have some purpose, then you can assume they are targeting one platform for a reason. Perhaps driving people toward the Apple platform is not the only reason, but it is safe to assume in at least some of the cases. The others could be partially attributed to there also being 90% more tools to write the viruses with than on the Apple platform. There is no arguement to be made that there are many many more software applications for the MS platform than the Apple. Much to the dispmay of Apple users and to the delight of windows virus writers. So arguements can be made both ways (more than I bring into the light here), but when you start adding up the plusses and minuses, Apple quickly falls out of the target area and MS comes into focus clearly.
Your 90/10 rule is simply, well, to simple a view to apply in this case.
That analogy would only hold true if the Apple OS (straw house) was far far less secure that the Windows OS (brick house). I remind you that you are the one who compared Windows to the Brick house, certainly not me. That's blasphemy in my eyes. So your analogy fails in more than one regard.
You are correct, it was a fault with the External Fuel Tank (EFT) not the SRB's. The majority of the redesigns however do not remove the problem ridden EFT from the picture. If they do, the maximum payload is so dramatically reduced, the mission wouldn't serve much of a purpose. More over, the conjecture of placing the manned section of the craft on top of the EFT as a solution is no better. It would require a complete build from scratch on the launch delivery systems and pads. Our exisitng launch pads and facilites cannot handle that type of configuration, (that is cleary noted in the article too).
As far as relatively cheap, that cannot be said under any context. The shuttle program is the most expensive ever created, ever. There is nothing relative about the cost other than it is the biggest money draining space pogram ever created by man. There are NO facts to challenge that in any arena.
The resusability of the Shuttle has proven to be too costly. It takes approx 2.4 billion to build a new one and 1.2 billion to refit a used one after one flight. That is far from economical reuse. I am not arguing the SRB use, I am arguing that the Space Shuttle itself had ought to be ditched in favor of a more economical and less risky alternative, even if it is less elegant. Reuse the SRB's if you want, but stop blowing billions (3 billion per budget numbers) a year on the Shuttle Program.
Not one but two. Discovery and Challenger. I would also like to add that most of those successful launches did had glitches too, just not fatal ones or ones that caused the mission to be scrubbed. If they chosen not to launch if there were any glitches, we would not have had but a few launches total. That has been NASA's sticking point, trying to balance safety versus acceptable risk, as clearly demonstrated in the delay of the last launch caused by a faulty backup fuel tank sensor. On the second attempt they lowered their threshold of demanding that all four sensors be operational to 3 of 4 so as not to scrub the mission when the risk was still considered acceptable.
Where the heck do you get that from? EVERY shuttle accident was caused by a problem from those boosters. From 'O' Rings to insulation. They were not shuttle poblems, but booster problems.
"Take the best we got today and make it better, as opposed to inventing the Wheel Mk. II."
When you start with crap, we should build on it because it's the best we have? We should through the whole program out the window and stop blowing billions per launch 9well 1 billion per launch anyways) on a piece of crap system. The death of the shuttle would be the best thing that happened for the US space program in decades. Just the money used from one shuttle launch could have put 8 rovers on Mars. Think of it. We waste billions on something because of what? Pride? get over it. It's time to start making wise decisions not politically correct ones.
I agree to. That's the first thing I do on an MS OS installation, is to change the home page from the horrible, extremely slow MSN home page to Google. Nothing worse than waiting for the browser to respond after launching it because the home page takes too long to load. That's with broadband too!
I really like that they are not pasting the MS logo's all over it too. I kind of fear MS using a generic word such as 'start' though. I am sure they will find a way to patent/trademark/register it and it will be henceforth illegal to 'start' anything after that. Well at least I will be able to 'finish' things I have 'start'ed without legal worries, (I think). Sun had it right when they named Java. MS would have called it Coffee and made it illegal for any of us to start our day with coffee unless we had a license from them. The MS lexicon must be pretty thin, 'Office', 'Windows', 'Start', my gosh what will they come up with next, 'Floors', 'Paper'? How original. Perhaps they should trademark/register the word 'Crash' as they seem to have a corner on that market already.
Anyway, I think they have a better direction than in the past. Let's how the old MS doesn't creep into it. I might actually try it out if it doesn't bloat up, (like normal MS products do).
If you look up the market share numbers even then, the desktop market was still dominated, 90% or better depending on the reporting source, by Micorsoft OS's. With the numbers that high, I would expect nearly all of the virus target to be those systems.
Is a virus writer going to waste their time writing a virus for something that carries such a small margain of successful targets? You would have to ignore the facts to come to that conclusion.
If Apple gains that much market share, which I hope they do some day, you will find the same problem there too. I am not making a defense for MS, but I refuse to ignore the simple facts too.
There is a yes and a no answer to the virus question on the new Apple x86s. The yes part is, now that they have adopted the x86 as the processor of choice, they get it's inherent problems too. The big one is the buffer overflow problem that an OS cannot completely overcome due to the chips physical architecture (that many viruses exploit to run their code). Yes there are some tricks that can be played to redirect the issue, but it is a chip problem, not an OS problem. The trick is to make sure an application cannot be hijacked in a way that can cause a buffer overflow to being with, the devil is in the immensity of the details there. That exploit simply does not exist in current G line of IBM processors, or in any of the other mainline RISC processors. So Apple will need to address how it will handle a buffer overflow event and attempt to keep track the issue or coding effectively. Something MS hasn't yet gotten a handle on.
The no part of the answer is that the Apple market share is still small enough that the virus writers simply do not target it. They want bang for their 'buck' or time spent and market share dictates that is the Windows platform. So probably we won't see much virus activity targeted toward the Apple OS until such a time as they gain more market share and become a juicy target for the writers of such code.
"there is no observable difference in results from the experiment performed in a DC-9 in free fall and the experiment performed in an orbiting chamber"
I almost choked on my coffee laughing at that one. I thought you got the point up until that sentence. But, perhaps you didn't watch the videos? Have you ever seen seen video from the space station or the shuttle with fluid released? I think not, if that is your stance. Perhaps a blind man could make that statement, but certainly not a sighted one and still be considered credible on any level.
It's not a vulnerability, it's a hack. It does not leave anyone's system open to an attack. NOw the switches you denote looking for... These would certainly be vulnerabilities exposed by a hack.
"Per my post, this isn't true. If you conform to the WC3 (or w3c, whatever) standard, your javascript won't work in IE when it comes to the event model."
Perhaps I am wrong here, but to my knowledge there is not a WC3 'standard set against javascript. There are recommendations, but javascript is a langauge that is not driven by WC3. It is a languge that makes use of the standards, not the other way around. So the problem of javascript not accessing the event model correctly falls in Sun's lap, not WC3 or Microsoft. Let's not confuse the facts here or nothing will ever get fixed.
If we all blame MS for a problem the Sun created. Sun will be more than happy to let the problem stand, and let MS take the fall, leaving us coders with a set of problems that will never get corrected. Place the blame where it belongs. Surely there is already enough that actually deserves to be in MS's hands that we can point the finger at Sun too where they deserve it.
"following the standards will often break the MS browser experience"
I would like to see an example of that being true for a current version of an MS browser. I really hate to defend an MS product, as I exclusively use and enjoy my Firefox browser. But the article and the examples show where the IE browser will render code not supported by WC3 and hence breaks on a Firefox browser. They also denote that IE renders bad code and re-enforces a bad coders belief that they are doing things correctly, when they are not. That is a much diffeernt problem than the picture you are painting and the article is supporting.
The article does go a bit out of bounds in my eyes too. YOu cannot fault Netscape version 4 for not following 2005 WC3 standards, just the same as you cannot fault IE 4 and 5 for the same things. A 1970's Pinto would fail miserably in today's fedarla safety standards, but no one expects Ford to go back and retool all of the remaining drivable Pinto's out there to meet them. To suggest that someone has to open go back and fix Netscape 4.x when it is a dead browser is simply ridiculous.
I feel almost exactly the same way. I want, real bad, to like her and cheer her on as a good candidate as I think she has a power base to work from. She could be a powerful player, but she keeps coming up with really dumb ideas and saying things that really grate on me from time to time.
Perhaps someone will find a hidden 'Hillary' unlock in GTA. Now that would be really funny.
Will it be a crime if someone rapes a robot? Can a robot be raped? I keep thinking of the movie A.I. where they had sex robots. Seems a bit to weird for me.
Agreed, followig the WC3 standards when coding resolves nearly all of the issues mentioned. Furthermore, many of the issues noted are only present on older versions of browsers, on both the IE and Netscape side. There are not too many coders that are going to spend the companies manhours coding to Netscape 4 anymore, and yet it is mentioned as a point to show how IE is incompatable with it. Why bother?
To address the comment about losing 10% of your potential customers, that is too simple an arguement. There are more factors than that,that need to be considered when making that decision. If I am selling Flash templates, I am already losing a substantial portion of potential customers if I call all people browsing the site potential customers, regardless of whether they will ever install the Flash plug-in. The other huge part of the equation is how much am I going to spend in manhours versus the dollars I could potentially earn in profit? If 10% represents $1000 in profit for that item and it will cost me $3000 to recode, it makes no sense economically.
You can avoid most all of these problems by simply coding to the WC3 standards. But even then, if you code to the new standards and someone browses your site with an old browser (netscape or IE), they still won't see the page as intended.
I am still mad that My Model T Ford doesn't meet Today's Federal Safety standards. And Ford refuses to fix it! What gull they have! How could Ford ever have considered building cars in the past that don't meet today's rules and laws!!
"Your point is especially wrong when it comes to event handling in IE versus Mozilla based (firefox). Firefox uses the w3c model of addEventListener(), IE uses attachEvent()."
I am not sure what you are trying to denote, but per your comment, you are noting things that you can code in Mozilla that will not work in IE. The purpose of the Slashdot post is to note that an IE only coded web site may not work in Mozilla. You are simply pointing out that the reverse is also true. AS many have stated in other comments, Conforming to the WC3 standards will most always result in web pages that work in both browsers. The IBM article goes well beyond either of these points though and notes that Third party coding languages, such as Javascript, from Sun Microsystems can also present substantial problems with compatability. If anything, I think the article is noting that there are multiple players in the web coding arena that are guilty of either allowing bad code to be rendered or not recognizing the WC3 standard as it was intended.
I live in NY and I think that Spitzer running for Gov. is really a mixed bag. I love what the man has done as Attorney General. I actually think it would be a great loss to see him in a different position. I don't believe his replacement could ever hope to live up to the standard he has set in digging up dirt on all of these major corporations (modern day mafia). I think many of these Corporations are starting to get the message that they will get caught eventually if they continue to play dirty, with Spitzer working the beat. They may breath a huge sigh of relief if they can get him in a position where he cannot weild so much power over them. Watch for the sizable corporate donations to his campaign, just to get him to leave the NYS (New Yotrk State) Attorney General's Office.
On the other hand, He would make a great Governor. He might be the first to actually promise something and follow through here. He knows his way around the law books and could actually force action where it is desperate needed here. G. Pataki has faile dmiserably in that regard, as did Mario Cumo before him.
Come on! They left out the important info from the article. I want to know what Anti-Spam Application got him. I want a copy for my home machine. It's obviously effective. hmm, I wonder if it works on a subscription model?
"autistic children are a burden on the system too, you know."
Are they? Or is that the other way around?
I think you have choosen a group that you do not know much about, based on your bias and sterotypes to make an analogy. I take offense to that. Please let me know your skin color, IQ and sexual preference so that I may use you in a similarly (in)appropriate analogy please.
On reflection, I find the standards pretty odd. It is ok as long as it only contains theft, killing and raping. But when we add in scenes of an act that nearly every human being on earth will participate in (sex) at sometime in their life, it becomes obscene? Sex is a naturally natural act for nearly every animal on earth, I hope that raping, killing and stealing are not. So what message does the current rating system send to kids, hmmm?
Slashdot Mirror
"A bad programmer then? The guy sitting in the corner who thinks he's a genius(and accordingly don't need no help from anyone) and don't want to admit he's been stuck with the same problem for days. I have zero patience for such wizkids. "
That doesn't make that guy a bad programmer, just a bad employee. Someone needs to noodle whip that person into understanding how to problem solve in an appropriate manner. That is a management issue. Dismissing such talent because of poor management skills, is missing real opportunity and possibly great success. I will grant you that there are individuals that will not tolerate being managed. I would agree with you that I too, have no patience for the like of those individuals, no matter how smart or talented.
What you wrote is humorous. It is so true too. Why can't people see the same thing with coding? It is beyond me that they seem to want to apply the 'more is better' principle to programming than any quality standards at all.
" He seems to make a unspoken assumption throughout the whole article, and that is that whoever does it quickest does it best."
Apparently you did not read the article. He states, in no uncertain terms, that this is not the case. You can find the following quote just below the graphs in the article. He even emphasizes the text to stress it.
"The quality of the work and the amount of time spent are simply uncorrelated."
He is making the point that a good coder is not necessarily fast and a fast coder is not necessarily good. I think it is more the case that most programmers out there do not fall into the category of 'excellent' or even 'good' and are threatened by such facts as this gentleman present, very thoroughly and quite well I might add.
Yea, geesh. That's better odds than here on earth (meaning I have a greater chance of dying of cancer on earth than that). I have an idea that something else was meant but not articulated well.
" The EFT is NOT designed to be VERTICALLY load bearing except for Aero loads from launch."
That is my point exactly. With the EFT in the picture as is, your risk cannot decrease without serious redesign. It has been the cause of all of the concern and mishaps so far. So why hang on to it. Without that as the central structure, your your SBR's need to be redesigned also. If you place the load on the top of the EFT, then you have to get rid of the central design of the EFT, specifically the sectional aspect with gasket material in between. It cannot bear a load with the structure. Yet we see it denoted that way in the lofting of new ideas in the article. Why? The cost of ditching it all and starting over cannot be more than redesigning 3 or more redesigns, as we have done 3 now already. Time to cut loses on a platform that has proven to be faulty and hazardous and start over with something we know works and wors well. I don't understand the arguement when the facts are all right there, in the article in question too.
"I'm saying that market share's effect is much much smaller than the effect of the basic design of the OS and the user interface."
The problem with that perspective is this; Just because there are two baked bean manufactures, let's say Bush's and Grandma Brown's (Grandma Brown's being much smaller than Bush's). Let's say Bush's has 90% of the market and Grandma Brown's has 10%. Where that may be very true, it does not mean that I will buy Bush's 90% of the time and Grandma Brown's 10% of the time. Statistically speaking from the customer point of view I will buy Bush's 100% of the time or Grandma Brown's 100% of the time. The people that buy Grandma Brown's 100% of the time only make up 10% of the people that buy baked beans. With that said, If I want send surprises to as many baked bean eaters as possible, then I would put them in Bush's cans. I wouldn't waste my time going to a place that is only going to get my surprises out to 10% of the baked bean eaters. The problem becomes more polarizing than that too. Lets say my surprises only fit in cans and not glass jars and Bushes only come in cans and Grandma Brown's in Glass jars. I am not going to retool my surprises for Glass Jars too when I can already serve 90% of the possible audience with what I have. Worse yet, if my surprises are meant to harm people and drive people toward eating Grandma Brown's Beans, then I am certainly not going to allow my surprises to work in glass jars at all. Being that virus writers are attempting to do damage and they have some purpose, then you can assume they are targeting one platform for a reason. Perhaps driving people toward the Apple platform is not the only reason, but it is safe to assume in at least some of the cases. The others could be partially attributed to there also being 90% more tools to write the viruses with than on the Apple platform. There is no arguement to be made that there are many many more software applications for the MS platform than the Apple. Much to the dispmay of Apple users and to the delight of windows virus writers. So arguements can be made both ways (more than I bring into the light here), but when you start adding up the plusses and minuses, Apple quickly falls out of the target area and MS comes into focus clearly.
Your 90/10 rule is simply, well, to simple a view to apply in this case.
That analogy would only hold true if the Apple OS (straw house) was far far less secure that the Windows OS (brick house). I remind you that you are the one who compared Windows to the Brick house, certainly not me. That's blasphemy in my eyes. So your analogy fails in more than one regard.
You are correct, it was a fault with the External Fuel Tank (EFT) not the SRB's. The majority of the redesigns however do not remove the problem ridden EFT from the picture. If they do, the maximum payload is so dramatically reduced, the mission wouldn't serve much of a purpose. More over, the conjecture of placing the manned section of the craft on top of the EFT as a solution is no better. It would require a complete build from scratch on the launch delivery systems and pads. Our exisitng launch pads and facilites cannot handle that type of configuration, (that is cleary noted in the article too).
As far as relatively cheap, that cannot be said under any context. The shuttle program is the most expensive ever created, ever. There is nothing relative about the cost other than it is the biggest money draining space pogram ever created by man. There are NO facts to challenge that in any arena.
The resusability of the Shuttle has proven to be too costly. It takes approx 2.4 billion to build a new one and 1.2 billion to refit a used one after one flight. That is far from economical reuse. I am not arguing the SRB use, I am arguing that the Space Shuttle itself had ought to be ditched in favor of a more economical and less risky alternative, even if it is less elegant. Reuse the SRB's if you want, but stop blowing billions (3 billion per budget numbers) a year on the Shuttle Program.
"only one had a fatal performance anomaly."
Not one but two. Discovery and Challenger. I would also like to add that most of those successful launches did had glitches too, just not fatal ones or ones that caused the mission to be scrubbed. If they chosen not to launch if there were any glitches, we would not have had but a few launches total. That has been NASA's sticking point, trying to balance safety versus acceptable risk, as clearly demonstrated in the delay of the last launch caused by a faulty backup fuel tank sensor. On the second attempt they lowered their threshold of demanding that all four sensors be operational to 3 of 4 so as not to scrub the mission when the risk was still considered acceptable.
""
Where the heck do you get that from? EVERY shuttle accident was caused by a problem from those boosters. From 'O' Rings to insulation. They were not shuttle poblems, but booster problems.
"Take the best we got today and make it better, as opposed to inventing the Wheel Mk. II."
When you start with crap, we should build on it because it's the best we have? We should through the whole program out the window and stop blowing billions per launch 9well 1 billion per launch anyways) on a piece of crap system. The death of the shuttle would be the best thing that happened for the US space program in decades. Just the money used from one shuttle launch could have put 8 rovers on Mars. Think of it. We waste billions on something because of what? Pride? get over it. It's time to start making wise decisions not politically correct ones.
I agree to. That's the first thing I do on an MS OS installation, is to change the home page from the horrible, extremely slow MSN home page to Google. Nothing worse than waiting for the browser to respond after launching it because the home page takes too long to load. That's with broadband too!
I really like that they are not pasting the MS logo's all over it too. I kind of fear MS using a generic word such as 'start' though. I am sure they will find a way to patent/trademark/register it and it will be henceforth illegal to 'start' anything after that. Well at least I will be able to 'finish' things I have 'start'ed without legal worries, (I think). Sun had it right when they named Java. MS would have called it Coffee and made it illegal for any of us to start our day with coffee unless we had a license from them. The MS lexicon must be pretty thin, 'Office', 'Windows', 'Start', my gosh what will they come up with next, 'Floors', 'Paper'? How original. Perhaps they should trademark/register the word 'Crash' as they seem to have a corner on that market already.
Anyway, I think they have a better direction than in the past. Let's how the old MS doesn't creep into it. I might actually try it out if it doesn't bloat up, (like normal MS products do).
If you look up the market share numbers even then, the desktop market was still dominated, 90% or better depending on the reporting source, by Micorsoft OS's. With the numbers that high, I would expect nearly all of the virus target to be those systems.
Is a virus writer going to waste their time writing a virus for something that carries such a small margain of successful targets? You would have to ignore the facts to come to that conclusion.
If Apple gains that much market share, which I hope they do some day, you will find the same problem there too. I am not making a defense for MS, but I refuse to ignore the simple facts too.
There is a yes and a no answer to the virus question on the new Apple x86s. The yes part is, now that they have adopted the x86 as the processor of choice, they get it's inherent problems too. The big one is the buffer overflow problem that an OS cannot completely overcome due to the chips physical architecture (that many viruses exploit to run their code). Yes there are some tricks that can be played to redirect the issue, but it is a chip problem, not an OS problem. The trick is to make sure an application cannot be hijacked in a way that can cause a buffer overflow to being with, the devil is in the immensity of the details there. That exploit simply does not exist in current G line of IBM processors, or in any of the other mainline RISC processors. So Apple will need to address how it will handle a buffer overflow event and attempt to keep track the issue or coding effectively. Something MS hasn't yet gotten a handle on.
The no part of the answer is that the Apple market share is still small enough that the virus writers simply do not target it. They want bang for their 'buck' or time spent and market share dictates that is the Windows platform. So probably we won't see much virus activity targeted toward the Apple OS until such a time as they gain more market share and become a juicy target for the writers of such code.
"there is no observable difference in results from the experiment performed in a DC-9 in free fall and the experiment performed in an orbiting chamber"
I almost choked on my coffee laughing at that one. I thought you got the point up until that sentence. But, perhaps you didn't watch the videos? Have you ever seen seen video from the space station or the shuttle with fluid released? I think not, if that is your stance. Perhaps a blind man could make that statement, but certainly not a sighted one and still be considered credible on any level.
"I love these sorts of vulnerabilities"
It's not a vulnerability, it's a hack. It does not leave anyone's system open to an attack. NOw the switches you denote looking for... These would certainly be vulnerabilities exposed by a hack.
"Per my post, this isn't true. If you conform to the WC3 (or w3c, whatever) standard, your javascript won't work in IE when it comes to the event model."
Perhaps I am wrong here, but to my knowledge there is not a WC3 'standard set against javascript. There are recommendations, but javascript is a langauge that is not driven by WC3. It is a languge that makes use of the standards, not the other way around. So the problem of javascript not accessing the event model correctly falls in Sun's lap, not WC3 or Microsoft. Let's not confuse the facts here or nothing will ever get fixed.
If we all blame MS for a problem the Sun created. Sun will be more than happy to let the problem stand, and let MS take the fall, leaving us coders with a set of problems that will never get corrected. Place the blame where it belongs. Surely there is already enough that actually deserves to be in MS's hands that we can point the finger at Sun too where they deserve it.
"following the standards will often break the MS browser experience"
I would like to see an example of that being true for a current version of an MS browser. I really hate to defend an MS product, as I exclusively use and enjoy my Firefox browser. But the article and the examples show where the IE browser will render code not supported by WC3 and hence breaks on a Firefox browser. They also denote that IE renders bad code and re-enforces a bad coders belief that they are doing things correctly, when they are not. That is a much diffeernt problem than the picture you are painting and the article is supporting.
The article does go a bit out of bounds in my eyes too. YOu cannot fault Netscape version 4 for not following 2005 WC3 standards, just the same as you cannot fault IE 4 and 5 for the same things. A 1970's Pinto would fail miserably in today's fedarla safety standards, but no one expects Ford to go back and retool all of the remaining drivable Pinto's out there to meet them. To suggest that someone has to open go back and fix Netscape 4.x when it is a dead browser is simply ridiculous.
I feel almost exactly the same way. I want, real bad, to like her and cheer her on as a good candidate as I think she has a power base to work from. She could be a powerful player, but she keeps coming up with really dumb ideas and saying things that really grate on me from time to time.
Perhaps someone will find a hidden 'Hillary' unlock in GTA. Now that would be really funny.
Will it be a crime if someone rapes a robot? Can a robot be raped? I keep thinking of the movie A.I. where they had sex robots. Seems a bit to weird for me.
I think it's cool, but gosh, the mindstorm lego set can do all of that and more. Where is the new cool stuff? This is almost a disappointment to me.
Agreed, followig the WC3 standards when coding resolves nearly all of the issues mentioned. Furthermore, many of the issues noted are only present on older versions of browsers, on both the IE and Netscape side. There are not too many coders that are going to spend the companies manhours coding to Netscape 4 anymore, and yet it is mentioned as a point to show how IE is incompatable with it. Why bother?
,that need to be considered when making that decision. If I am selling Flash templates, I am already losing a substantial portion of potential customers if I call all people browsing the site potential customers, regardless of whether they will ever install the Flash plug-in. The other huge part of the equation is how much am I going to spend in manhours versus the dollars I could potentially earn in profit? If 10% represents $1000 in profit for that item and it will cost me $3000 to recode, it makes no sense economically.
To address the comment about losing 10% of your potential customers, that is too simple an arguement. There are more factors than that
You can avoid most all of these problems by simply coding to the WC3 standards. But even then, if you code to the new standards and someone browses your site with an old browser (netscape or IE), they still won't see the page as intended.
I am still mad that My Model T Ford doesn't meet Today's Federal Safety standards. And Ford refuses to fix it! What gull they have! How could Ford ever have considered building cars in the past that don't meet today's rules and laws!!
"Your point is especially wrong when it comes to event handling in IE versus Mozilla based (firefox). Firefox uses the w3c model of addEventListener(), IE uses attachEvent()."
I am not sure what you are trying to denote, but per your comment, you are noting things that you can code in Mozilla that will not work in IE. The purpose of the Slashdot post is to note that an IE only coded web site may not work in Mozilla. You are simply pointing out that the reverse is also true. AS many have stated in other comments, Conforming to the WC3 standards will most always result in web pages that work in both browsers. The IBM article goes well beyond either of these points though and notes that Third party coding languages, such as Javascript, from Sun Microsystems can also present substantial problems with compatability. If anything, I think the article is noting that there are multiple players in the web coding arena that are guilty of either allowing bad code to be rendered or not recognizing the WC3 standard as it was intended.
I live in NY and I think that Spitzer running for Gov. is really a mixed bag. I love what the man has done as Attorney General. I actually think it would be a great loss to see him in a different position. I don't believe his replacement could ever hope to live up to the standard he has set in digging up dirt on all of these major corporations (modern day mafia). I think many of these Corporations are starting to get the message that they will get caught eventually if they continue to play dirty, with Spitzer working the beat. They may breath a huge sigh of relief if they can get him in a position where he cannot weild so much power over them. Watch for the sizable corporate donations to his campaign, just to get him to leave the NYS (New Yotrk State) Attorney General's Office.
On the other hand, He would make a great Governor. He might be the first to actually promise something and follow through here. He knows his way around the law books and could actually force action where it is desperate needed here. G. Pataki has faile dmiserably in that regard, as did Mario Cumo before him.
Come on! They left out the important info from the article. I want to know what Anti-Spam Application got him. I want a copy for my home machine. It's obviously effective. hmm, I wonder if it works on a subscription model?
"autistic children are a burden on the system too, you know."
Are they? Or is that the other way around?
I think you have choosen a group that you do not know much about, based on your bias and sterotypes to make an analogy. I take offense to that. Please let me know your skin color, IQ and sexual preference so that I may use you in a similarly (in)appropriate analogy please.
On reflection, I find the standards pretty odd. It is ok as long as it only contains theft, killing and raping. But when we add in scenes of an act that nearly every human being on earth will participate in (sex) at sometime in their life, it becomes obscene? Sex is a naturally natural act for nearly every animal on earth, I hope that raping, killing and stealing are not. So what message does the current rating system send to kids, hmmm?