make WYSIWYG, What You See Is What You Get, HTML files.
As a ex-professional web developer, I have to say: You're doin' it wrong!
HTML has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with looks. If you so much as THINK about looks while writing HTML, you completely and utterly fail. ^^ (Yeah. Really.:)
CSS is for the looks. HTML is about structuring your code, by adding markup that explains what it is you have there. So software can make sense out of it. RDF or other ontologic languages would be an extension of that idea.
That's the best way, to test if the webdev you want to hire knows his stuff. The other one is his view on PHP. (If he still wants the job after you tell him he has to use PHP, he has no experience.) ^^ Oh, I forgot. There is no more beautifully clear hint on a webdev's experience, than the state of his face when you mention the words "Internet Explorer". Expect pulsating blood vessels and the look of a person who could kill a bunch of MS branded children with his bare hands.
That's why for heart-lung machines and other "mission critical" stuff with guarantees, people write their code in Haskell, and do real mathematical proofs for it. There are also tools to automatically generate those proofs from some annotations. But for most code, it simply isn't necessary to be that ultra-verbose.
Nintendo might not win the console wars, but they'll infiltrate the homes of everyone else.
They already won the console wars. While the others still think about who creates the most powerful console, while making losses, Nintendo made money like crazy.
And before they know what the real goal was, Nintendo will kick their asses through total dominance.
Not according to the data I have had. The number of people who can't reproduce without medical help rose dramatically in the last decades. Exponentially. I would have to look it up again, but I guess if you give it 30 minutes with Google, you will get the same data.
“The "More children have died from it in the last 3 months then die all year from seasonal flu." is an outright lie.”
— Craig W. Day, Ralph Baric, Sui Xiong Cai, Matt Frieman, Yohichi Kumaki,...
Virology, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 22 October 2009
Do you need it on a separate HTML page? Or do I need to pay Elsevier (publisher of dozens of fake medical journals for our nice pharma companies, and then given to doctors) to publish it? </sacrasm>
You Wikitards, and your belief in citation, is laughable and silly.
Then SAY that! Say "I surfed to that site to run a server-side script / call a cgi program / request data from a server [what X would do]". And not "I connected to a 'cloud'". Because that sounds silly, retarded, and PHBy at the same time.
I can just as well invent cool new words for old things, and then act as if I'm sooo avant-garde. Like those "AJAX" people... guess what, I did that, years before the word or the API were even invented (trough using the OBJECT tag and some JS).
Same thing here. Now because I have some app running on a server, that I can interact with with a browser, I suddenly can "Connect to my cloud."?
The level of retardation to think like that boggles the mind... It's the typical behavior of people who are so dumb that they think they are smarter than you and that you don't get it. Because what you say is waay over their head that they have parse errors, resulting in non-understandable logic.
The fundamental result they get is from a single high-energy gamma ray at the end of the last spike in the burst, which comes 0.9 s after the onset of that spike (seen in the lower-energy photon flux). They do a lot of analysis to argue that the most plausible explanation of that single photon is that it is a member of that spike rather than a random cosmic ray. Anyone familiar with modern statistical techniques will see that this is straightforward, albeit non-trivial.
So the assumption is, that the photons of different energies that they compared in arrival time, come from the same ray, and from the same moment in that ray's wave. And the proof for the assumption is some pretty complex statistical analysis?
Sorry, but I'm still far away from sold. Please enlighten me, how statistical analysis can determine the exact same starting time, and cope with the time-warping (that can happen near any object with a big mass) that most likely also happened? I simply can't imagine that. (This is a honest question. Not a rhetorical one.*)
I think that it's very likely, that the photons they measured, were just the set of those that arrived at roughly the same moment, because the either started at the same time, OR were time-warped, had different speeds, or whatever, which made them end up in the same time, despite having started at different ones. And without being there at the time of start, or knowing the state of all of space that the photons passed through, there is no way to ever know which of those things happened.
It would be cool though, if you could *prove* me wrong with one (logically consistent and sound) paragraph.:) ___ * From your comment I assume you're the exception here at/., and don't take everything you read as a personal attack on your beliefs. ^^
And how exactly do they know that they started at the same time?? Even if they did, time warping can happen anywhere in-between. You know, like getting close to a black hole.
Uuum, how do they know that the rays *started* at the same time? It can easily be a set of those rays of different energies starting at different times, that happened to end up here at that same time. Sorry, but there is no way in hell, they can know when those rays started. Let alone this exact.
It is especially designed for cloud computers with low hardware specifications, such as, netbooks, mobile devices (e.g. MIDs) or older computers. [...] It provides a fast desktop experience; connecting easily with applications in the cloud.
that completely disqualifies it.
How does one even "connect" to applications in a "cloud"? Wouldn't that be "Connecting easily to X clients on headless systems."?
Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud images, the Ubuntu One "personal cloud"
Oh-oh, we're getting dangerously close to a full set of buzzwords...
What did they smoke to make those cloudy names? Did the descision taking meeting look like the car full of smoke in that old Luniz video? ^^
This is unacceptable! I will fork this, and call it "Ubuntu Social iEnterprise Vertical e-Cloud Framework", Codename: "Twitching Twitter". 'Cause I got a fever. And the only prescription is "MOAR CLOUDBUZZ"!
It's me. Sometimes when we are drunk here, we make fun of you. But thank you for still running Windows ME. We got some very useful CPU cycles out of there. Oh, and your wife... nice tits... if you want those "special" photos back, I recommend you send me some nice money every month from now on...:P
European countries that relies 100% on American tech, both on hardware and software.
Being which ones? I don't know a single one. What I know though, is that Germany, France, Italy the UK and Russia are huge in military tech export. Especially Germany. I would not be surprised, if the US actually partially bought its specialized tech here.
And the chips are made in China/Korea/Taiwan/etc anyway.
So? 1. Security through obscurity never works, and 2. You can already build bombs and buy heavy weapons. Oh, and I found complete plans for nuclear bomb building on the net, back in 1998. Didn't change anything. Because 1., when you use that millitary hardware for anything bad, you still will go to jail or be shot. And 2. Having the plans is very far from being able to build it. A single F-22 does not cost $142.6 million for nothing. (Especially nuclear bombs are completely and utterly impossible to build, without very serious engineering experience and expertise in that area. Without it, you will just get a lump of uranium in a non-uniform-blob, without a nuclear chain-reaction. Also, you'd have to get the uranium/plutonium first.)
It's usually much more than just routing. It's an intelligent firewall, name server, intrusion-detection-system, honeypot, a printing and file server, a p2p client (and perhaps server), a very advanced answering machine that can route your calls trough VoIP and back if needed (very convenient if you want to call someone at home for cheap over the internet, while traveling), a development box (if you're developer), a multimedia device (with remote control, it plays internet radio streams for example), etc, etc, etc. All in nice compartiments, secured against each other.
Ok, that may be just me. But I should publish a disk image for general usage. It only that weren't so much work. (The system obviously is heavily customized for me.)
But it now runs since 2003/4, without any need for a shutdown, except when the hardware fails, (in which case I usually update the kernel too). The same OS survived 3 mainboards, 4 PSUs, 3 CPUs, and 7 hard disks. I did not have to change anything, except for one complete architecture change.
As long as the voting machines are not completely locked high-security machines (what TCPA was *actually* meant to be for), and the source and binaries are signed and compiled by signed compilers inside the machine itself, one can meddle with it. Simple as that.
Of course then the process of signing the compiler would have to happen in an openly visible event, with the ability for third parties to check everything on the spot. Because as we know, one could simple modify a compiler, so that even if you compile a new version of the compiler with it, that does not have the bad code, the resulting binary still gets bad code. With no traces in the source.
It cannot run the same applications as windows, therefore it's not windows...
Actually, it can. All the developer needs to do, is recompile for ARM, and link to different libraries. (The WinCE ones.)
But the more important thing is: What are the main holdbacks that lets people use Windows. 1. Games: Don't run on these small systems anyway. I've seen enough people, meaning "Flash games" when they say "games". And those work on Linux. 2. "My very specific app": = lack of being informed about Wine, and the great alternatives that exist for Linux 3. Being used to what you always used: With KDE and Gnome imitating every single shitty aspect of Windows, most people you ask on the street (there was a video about that) won't know KDE4 from Win7 anyway. Re-label the items in the "start" menu (eg "OOo Writer" to "Microsoft Word"), and they won't have any trouble switching.
It's mostly not being used to how you get support anyway. If the average Luser knows about e.g. the Gentoo Forums, IRC and Bugzilla, he gets through without problems. Besides: What are friends for? ^^
Uuum, sorry, but by specifically not mentioning, that a Atom only runs with a north-bridge that pulls a multiple of the power of the Atom itself, thereby hiding its real power usage, you fail, and I will ignore the rest of your comment, for lack of competence.
Oh, and I have seen ARM Smartbook prototypes that take 1-2 watt TOTAL (including the Tegra GPU), and run pretty close to the 2 GHz already, with my own eyes. So don't tell me, something I have seen myself, can not possibly exist.
and so building an Acorn today that was realistically comparable to a modern PC is simply impossible.
Oh boy are you wrong.:) With ARM's price and power ratio, one could slap 16 to 32 ARMs together, resulting in a more powerful, and still less energy consuming and cheaper "multicore" chip than the best one from Intel.:) I wait for mainboards with stackable ARM sockets. So that you can just put them on top of each other, with a thin heat-pipe layer in-between, leading to a cooler on the back wall of the case.
Would look impressively cool (big win with the loud-voiced modders), and I'd be the first one to buy one. I run Linux anyway.
Hey, think about it: Imagine you can just buy a couple of additional cores every few months, for little money, and over the course of 1-2 years, get a real powerful monster of a computer.
As one user above said, the libraries for WinCE and WinNT are the same. Except for which parts are exposed. And porting consists of re-compiling and linking to different libraries. I don't think any software developer will have much trouble doing this.
But nonetheless, as I said, it looks like, to predict the future, one could combine the "Year of Linux on the Desktop" meme and the "In Soviet Russia..." meme into one, saying that it will soon be the year of the Desktop on (mobile) Linux. Meaning that Linux won't need to come to the desktop. Because the desktop will be an outdated concept, and Linux will run on everything that replaced it.:D
Yeah. In that a bully country terrorizes other countries for its own financial gain.
Come on. Do you really believe the "terrorists" lie? Sure, 9/11 was really bad. But compared to any other treat, it's nearly negilible. Also, we know exactly who financed the whole thing in the first place. Those "terrorists" are self-made. And used as an excuse for things that are literally 100 times worse (look at the death numbers. compare *all* "terrorist" attacks in the last 2 decades, the "wars", car accidents, etc. and tell me what you see!).
But i agree that Modern Warfare is realistic. War is always nasty. There will always be unfairnesses and torture. In *every* war. No exceptions. So if they want realism, then they have to face "killing" civilians.
And the best part: IT'S A FREAKIN' GAME, YOU (the ones who are "outraged") FREAKIN' RETARDS! It's not REAL. If you can't keep reality and games apart, you're a retard. That does not make it any more real. And we don't have your problem. You alone are too dumb for this situation. Will you fall down in reality, if I shoot a simulation of you??
Pfff... This whole thing stems from such incredible retardedness, it boggles the mind. How is it that we even have to discuss this?? If a game is all about raping children, and cutting them into pieces, then it's still not real. And NO, it is proven in countless studies, that this will NOT make anyone rape anyone. Rather the opposite!
This discussion is finished. I call for a new rule: Whenever someone "outrages" because he can't tell what's real and what not, the discussion is finished. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
make WYSIWYG, What You See Is What You Get, HTML files.
As a ex-professional web developer, I have to say: You're doin' it wrong!
HTML has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with looks. If you so much as THINK about looks while writing HTML, you completely and utterly fail. ^^ :)
(Yeah. Really.
CSS is for the looks. HTML is about structuring your code, by adding markup that explains what it is you have there. So software can make sense out of it. RDF or other ontologic languages would be an extension of that idea.
That's the best way, to test if the webdev you want to hire knows his stuff. The other one is his view on PHP. (If he still wants the job after you tell him he has to use PHP, he has no experience.) ^^
Oh, I forgot. There is no more beautifully clear hint on a webdev's experience, than the state of his face when you mention the words "Internet Explorer". Expect pulsating blood vessels and the look of a person who could kill a bunch of MS branded children with his bare hands.
That's why for heart-lung machines and other "mission critical" stuff with guarantees, people write their code in Haskell, and do real mathematical proofs for it. There are also tools to automatically generate those proofs from some annotations. But for most code, it simply isn't necessary to be that ultra-verbose.
Nintendo might not win the console wars, but they'll infiltrate the homes of everyone else.
They already won the console wars. While the others still think about who creates the most powerful console, while making losses, Nintendo made money like crazy.
And before they know what the real goal was, Nintendo will kick their asses through total dominance.
(*Hopes it will not come to a monopoly.*)
Not according to the data I have had. The number of people who can't reproduce without medical help rose dramatically in the last decades. Exponentially. I would have to look it up again, but I guess if you give it 30 minutes with Google, you will get the same data.
Here is your citation:
“The "More children have died from it in the last 3 months then die all year from seasonal flu." is an outright lie.”
— Craig W. Day, Ralph Baric, Sui Xiong Cai, Matt Frieman, Yohichi Kumaki,
Virology, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 22 October 2009
Do you need it on a separate HTML page?
Or do I need to pay Elsevier (publisher of dozens of fake medical journals for our nice pharma companies, and then given to doctors) to publish it?
</sacrasm>
You Wikitards, and your belief in citation, is laughable and silly.
Then SAY that! Say "I surfed to that site to run a server-side script / call a cgi program / request data from a server [what X would do]". And not "I connected to a 'cloud'". Because that sounds silly, retarded, and PHBy at the same time.
I can just as well invent cool new words for old things, and then act as if I'm sooo avant-garde. Like those "AJAX" people... guess what, I did that, years before the word or the API were even invented (trough using the OBJECT tag and some JS).
Same thing here. Now because I have some app running on a server, that I can interact with with a browser, I suddenly can "Connect to my cloud."?
The level of retardation to think like that boggles the mind... It's the typical behavior of people who are so dumb that they think they are smarter than you and that you don't get it. Because what you say is waay over their head that they have parse errors, resulting in non-understandable logic.
The fundamental result they get is from a single high-energy gamma ray at the end of the last spike in the burst, which comes 0.9 s after the onset of that spike (seen in the lower-energy photon flux). They do a lot of analysis to argue that the most plausible explanation of that single photon is that it is a member of that spike rather than a random cosmic ray. Anyone familiar with modern statistical techniques will see that this is straightforward, albeit non-trivial.
So the assumption is, that the photons of different energies that they compared in arrival time, come from the same ray, and from the same moment in that ray's wave. And the proof for the assumption is some pretty complex statistical analysis?
Sorry, but I'm still far away from sold. Please enlighten me, how statistical analysis can determine the exact same starting time, and cope with the time-warping (that can happen near any object with a big mass) that most likely also happened? I simply can't imagine that. (This is a honest question. Not a rhetorical one.*)
I think that it's very likely, that the photons they measured, were just the set of those that arrived at roughly the same moment, because the either started at the same time, OR were time-warped, had different speeds, or whatever, which made them end up in the same time, despite having started at different ones. And without being there at the time of start, or knowing the state of all of space that the photons passed through, there is no way to ever know which of those things happened.
It would be cool though, if you could *prove* me wrong with one (logically consistent and sound) paragraph. :) /., and don't take everything you read as a personal attack on your beliefs. ^^
___
* From your comment I assume you're the exception here at
And how exactly do they know that they started at the same time?? Even if they did, time warping can happen anywhere in-between. You know, like getting close to a black hole.
Ah, I know: They can't and it's bullshit!
Uuum, how do they know that the rays *started* at the same time? It can easily be a set of those rays of different energies starting at different times, that happened to end up here at that same time. Sorry, but there is no way in hell, they can know when those rays started. Let alone this exact.
It might be fast, but
It is especially designed for cloud computers with low hardware specifications, such as, netbooks, mobile devices (e.g. MIDs) or older computers. [...] It provides a fast desktop experience; connecting easily with applications in the cloud.
that completely disqualifies it.
How does one even "connect" to applications in a "cloud"? Wouldn't that be "Connecting easily to X clients on headless systems."?
Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud images, the Ubuntu One "personal cloud"
Oh-oh, we're getting dangerously close to a full set of buzzwords...
What did they smoke to make those cloudy names? Did the descision taking meeting look like the car full of smoke in that old Luniz video? ^^
This is unacceptable! I will fork this, and call it "Ubuntu Social iEnterprise Vertical e-Cloud Framework", Codename: "Twitching Twitter".
'Cause I got a fever. And the only prescription is "MOAR CLOUDBUZZ"!
While I'm a bit of a Microsoft fan
*distributes torches and pitchforks* KILL HIIIIMM!!!
*starts to run*
How about buying a brand-new shiny CPU, that gets its price cut in half (literally) less than a week later? (And then again 14%, a few weeks later.)
Man, was I angry! I had to buy a 500 water-cooling set, to smile again. :P
It's me. Sometimes when we are drunk here, we make fun of you. But thank you for still running Windows ME. We got some very useful CPU cycles out of there. Oh, and your wife... nice tits... if you want those "special" photos back, I recommend you send me some nice money every month from now on... :P
European countries that relies 100% on American tech, both on hardware and software.
Being which ones? I don't know a single one. What I know though, is that Germany, France, Italy the UK and Russia are huge in military tech export. Especially Germany. I would not be surprised, if the US actually partially bought its specialized tech here.
And the chips are made in China/Korea/Taiwan/etc anyway.
So? 1. Security through obscurity never works, and 2. You can already build bombs and buy heavy weapons. Oh, and I found complete plans for nuclear bomb building on the net, back in 1998.
Didn't change anything. Because 1., when you use that millitary hardware for anything bad, you still will go to jail or be shot. And 2. Having the plans is very far from being able to build it. A single F-22 does not cost $142.6 million for nothing. (Especially nuclear bombs are completely and utterly impossible to build, without very serious engineering experience and expertise in that area. Without it, you will just get a lump of uranium in a non-uniform-blob, without a nuclear chain-reaction. Also, you'd have to get the uranium/plutonium first.)
It's usually much more than just routing. It's an intelligent firewall, name server, intrusion-detection-system, honeypot, a printing and file server, a p2p client (and perhaps server), a very advanced answering machine that can route your calls trough VoIP and back if needed (very convenient if you want to call someone at home for cheap over the internet, while traveling), a development box (if you're developer), a multimedia device (with remote control, it plays internet radio streams for example), etc, etc, etc. All in nice compartiments, secured against each other.
Ok, that may be just me. But I should publish a disk image for general usage. It only that weren't so much work. (The system obviously is heavily customized for me.)
But it now runs since 2003/4, without any need for a shutdown, except when the hardware fails, (in which case I usually update the kernel too). The same OS survived 3 mainboards, 4 PSUs, 3 CPUs, and 7 hard disks. I did not have to change anything, except for one complete architecture change.
So I take it, it "just works" for any cracker too. How nice...
As long as the voting machines are not completely locked high-security machines (what TCPA was *actually* meant to be for), and the source and binaries are signed and compiled by signed compilers inside the machine itself, one can meddle with it. Simple as that.
Of course then the process of signing the compiler would have to happen in an openly visible event, with the ability for third parties to check everything on the spot. Because as we know, one could simple modify a compiler, so that even if you compile a new version of the compiler with it, that does not have the bad code, the resulting binary still gets bad code. With no traces in the source.
It cannot run the same applications as windows, therefore it's not windows...
Actually, it can. All the developer needs to do, is recompile for ARM, and link to different libraries. (The WinCE ones.)
But the more important thing is: What are the main holdbacks that lets people use Windows.
1. Games: Don't run on these small systems anyway. I've seen enough people, meaning "Flash games" when they say "games". And those work on Linux.
2. "My very specific app": = lack of being informed about Wine, and the great alternatives that exist for Linux
3. Being used to what you always used: With KDE and Gnome imitating every single shitty aspect of Windows, most people you ask on the street (there was a video about that) won't know KDE4 from Win7 anyway. Re-label the items in the "start" menu (eg "OOo Writer" to "Microsoft Word"), and they won't have any trouble switching.
It's mostly not being used to how you get support anyway. If the average Luser knows about e.g. the Gentoo Forums, IRC and Bugzilla, he gets through without problems. Besides: What are friends for? ^^
Uuum, sorry, but by specifically not mentioning, that a Atom only runs with a north-bridge that pulls a multiple of the power of the Atom itself, thereby hiding its real power usage, you fail, and I will ignore the rest of your comment, for lack of competence.
Oh, and I have seen ARM Smartbook prototypes that take 1-2 watt TOTAL (including the Tegra GPU), and run pretty close to the 2 GHz already, with my own eyes. So don't tell me, something I have seen myself, can not possibly exist.
and so building an Acorn today that was realistically comparable to a modern PC is simply impossible.
Oh boy are you wrong. :) :)
With ARM's price and power ratio, one could slap 16 to 32 ARMs together, resulting in a more powerful, and still less energy consuming and cheaper "multicore" chip than the best one from Intel.
I wait for mainboards with stackable ARM sockets. So that you can just put them on top of each other, with a thin heat-pipe layer in-between, leading to a cooler on the back wall of the case.
Would look impressively cool (big win with the loud-voiced modders), and I'd be the first one to buy one. I run Linux anyway.
Hey, think about it: Imagine you can just buy a couple of additional cores every few months, for little money, and over the course of 1-2 years, get a real powerful monster of a computer.
As one user above said, the libraries for WinCE and WinNT are the same. Except for which parts are exposed. And porting consists of re-compiling and linking to different libraries. I don't think any software developer will have much trouble doing this.
But nonetheless, as I said, it looks like, to predict the future, one could combine the "Year of Linux on the Desktop" meme and the "In Soviet Russia ..." meme into one, saying that it will soon be the year of the Desktop on (mobile) Linux. Meaning that Linux won't need to come to the desktop. Because the desktop will be an outdated concept, and Linux will run on everything that replaced it. :D
Terrorism is a very big part of modern warfare.
Yeah. In that a bully country terrorizes other countries for its own financial gain.
Come on. Do you really believe the "terrorists" lie? Sure, 9/11 was really bad. But compared to any other treat, it's nearly negilible. Also, we know exactly who financed the whole thing in the first place. Those "terrorists" are self-made. And used as an excuse for things that are literally 100 times worse (look at the death numbers. compare *all* "terrorist" attacks in the last 2 decades, the "wars", car accidents, etc. and tell me what you see!).
But i agree that Modern Warfare is realistic. War is always nasty. There will always be unfairnesses and torture. In *every* war. No exceptions. So if they want realism, then they have to face "killing" civilians.
And the best part: IT'S A FREAKIN' GAME, YOU (the ones who are "outraged") FREAKIN' RETARDS! It's not REAL. If you can't keep reality and games apart, you're a retard. That does not make it any more real. And we don't have your problem. You alone are too dumb for this situation. Will you fall down in reality, if I shoot a simulation of you??
Pfff... This whole thing stems from such incredible retardedness, it boggles the mind. How is it that we even have to discuss this?? If a game is all about raping children, and cutting them into pieces, then it's still not real. And NO, it is proven in countless studies, that this will NOT make anyone rape anyone. Rather the opposite!
This discussion is finished. I call for a new rule: Whenever someone "outrages" because he can't tell what's real and what not, the discussion is finished. Period.
How goes the saying: Every time you throw a chair, somewhere, a Windows system crashes... or was it the other way around...?