> in comparison to HTML, where you specify what something is,
exactly. i want to stress the point that HTML has NOTHING todo with any of the following: - design - layout - look - style or all in one: how it should look
it's ONLY for MARKING UP your content with structure.
If you think about look when you code your html, then you're obviously doing sumthing fundamentally wrong.
I myself needed a long time to see how wrong i got it. I finally came when i used
s to structure sections and areas, realized that a width="xxx" does not belong inside an (or anything else for that matter) and tags are there to define what the content is. that is, a -tag is ONLY for table-data! not for any stupid layouting! (or else go design your webpages in excel!;)
As a result of this, if you want to *design* a webpage, STAY AWAY FROM (X)HTML until you *finished* your design. (and transform you page to CSS + visual media [images & more])
I can't tell you how important it is to stress this thing! Most of all problems ever seen with webpages happened for that reason. And it still happens...
This is the main reason why i was happy about the coming of firefox...
> Opera performs nice filtering on images when you magnify the page.
Why does everybody always talk about magnifying images when it's up to displaying them on *smaller* screens?
Because on bigger ones ther always will be blank space. but on smaller ones it *must* be smaller to be usable.
The problem is: in Firefox (and of course IE) you get a hell of a crap of image quality in *any* resizing. Just compare it to an image that got resized in photoshop or with another good filter like "lanczos resampling".
By the way: good quality resizing still isn't accaptable for small handheld devices. So if you want it fast you have to go with the uglyness.
By the way: there is ony one pretty simple thing you need to do for webpages that need to be usable on handhelds: add a stylesheet for devices with limited screen size which does no side-by-side stuff, uses other style-images and smaller fonts and dimensions. (not to be confused with content-images.) if you *must* provide different content-images for different images do it server-side. one example would be the a php-script that you could use like this: " alt="woah i got auto-resized"/> which would result in this for small screen media types:
which would call i.php which would load the cached resampled image if avaliable and output it, or resample it on-the-fly and store it in cache before returning it.
I developed an advanced library that did the i.php stuff for a big internet portal and it was used for a long time there. when i left the sinking ship they dropped it because they did not understand it. *g* the only bottleneck was that php was so slow. i would have recommended to program it as a separate apache module.
If we were 3D beings we would not be able to *move* or do anything in 3D space. We need a fourth dimension over which the variabels can change. This is time. So if you are on the side of those who think that free will is an imagination, then we are *static* 4D lifeforms.
And we can only "see" two different 2D slices of the 3D cone of all (electromagnetic) "events" (in a certain frequency range) that can reach us. (cone diameter gets bigger over dimension time with the speed of light).
Of course we can also measure tiny air pressure changes at two points (ears), infrared em-waves and different levels of pressure (is that the weak or strong *DontKnowHowItsCalledInEnglish* force) all over our body, detect different kinds of molecules when in contact with the tongue or the inside of our nose and calculate much stuff of it...
But i dare to say that we're fairly limited lifeforms.;)
Tough i would give parts of my body to have a true 3D vision in full electromagnetic spectrum. For spaceflights i also would like to add gravitation. And for now i can't see a practical usage beside the ones already avaliable for the other two forces because they are too weak over distances... but who knows... maybe we could then feel the pressure of other stuff or how something reacts chemically
Have you ever held a speech for 8 hours in a row? You don't want to do that. Believe me.
Okay, we can say that what we need is something that *fast* in usage. There are only a few "interfaces" of you body that are on a thing you could call the "fast lane" we humans have in our brains. These are mainly the hands and the speech system (mouth and throat muscles).
So those two interfaces make sense, but using speech only makes sense if you use all informations avaliable, meaning mood/emotions and the subtile "meaning" in how it sounds.
Else you can stay with the hands.
Or even better: combine them.
But the best would be of course a direct neural adapter.;)
By the way. Am i the only one who thinks that this JS+Flash combination - for a thing that is clearly a CSS's job - is nearly perverse?
PHP over Java? Is that supposed to be a joke?
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 1
We all can say that Java is not the gift from god cause there are clearly languages and systems that are better in pretty much every field (but not all at once i guess;). Still it is absolutely *idiotic* to choose PHP over Java.
Why? Well fist of all it's SLOW! Not only a bit slow, like a turtle compared to a slug... it's one of the s-l-o-w-e-s-t languages you can get.[*1] The only thing i found to beat it was JavaScript interpreted with DOM (speaking of our next trend "AJAX"), and that *really* does mean something because JavaScript can kill a 3 GHz CPU with some silly table modifications while scrolling some divs over the screen. If you don't believe me just check some of your algorythms - take anything you like - and give it a try.
Then PHP is so dirty inside it's core, it's an insult to anything i would actually call a programming language. Have you had a problem using a constant lately (that crazy thing defined with define()!) and then you saw that php actually takes *every* text token it can't recognize as a STRING? I mean come on! What are those quotation marks for then? Next: What - my god - was zeev *thinking* for putting out those PEAR-library? That it could stand up to something like CPAN or the standard C library? I mean: Come on! First you have to define a proper language. Then you can do your library. And if you ever tried to do some advanced oop inside it you will know what i'm talking of when i say "PATCHWORK" in the best style of microsoft windows ME.)
Sure, if you want to write up stuff fast, then PHP is defenitely yours. But just as long as you don't need any decent planning or organization of your stuff. PHP is literally the *ultimate* language for all those wannabe-coders calling themselves "web-developers" and making as if they were oohh-soo-experts for glueing up some code that just deserves the name for its caotic structure that makes it so cryptic you have to write it new everytime you change something.
The thing - THE ULTIMATE THING - about php is exactly the same as about microsoft products. The guy that tells what has to happen - manager or "web-developer" wants quick results, not caring for irrelevant things like security, code quality, reusability, or maintainability. This is the heart of php. from the bottom of its interpreter up to its nice *ehrm* gdlib-interface and mod_php. Basically it's the BASIC of our days - the "internet century"?
If you don't have the nerve for making up the stuff yourselves that keeps your code clean and usable and you don't care about speed then chose PHP. If you want a language for some larger web- or backend-projects that are easy portable, has a big base and is made for stability and properness: Choose Java. And if you want ultimate speed and a "near-hardware-experience" (TM), you can just take C.
But in reality - take everything that suits your needs. No matter if it is "sooo 90s" or so hip. I give you some examples: Operating system? Well. C of course. And assemby where relevant. Games? C++ mainly. But basially because the alternatives are even worse than this not-so-proper but still better implementation of oop over a fast C core. Mathematical software. Prototyping. Advanced stuff? Well... I'd give functional progamming a good shot (mainly haskell and ocaml) Speaking of ocaml: Well, it's nearly as fast as C, while smokin' killing java in things of bytecode AND being an oop PLUS a functional programming language. If the tools weren't so rare and underdeveloped C/C++ and java would have not a rain of a chance.
And finally: Easy templating of your webpages? Well. Guess what: PHP was made for it and it does *this* job great exaclty for what its positive qualities are! Aaas long as you stay with just that thing and don't drag backend stuff to the "View" (in terms of model-view-controller blabla...)!
So choose your language wisely guys. Cause "so 90s" is possibly a thing "web-developers" would say, but this is the thing real geeks do!
... first getting this damn Aspartam or sugar replaced by Stevia, instead of letting Monsanto bring out fake studies to stay in us and european market? (In Japan you can already buy it!)
Btw: If i ever gonna make a game or movie, i WILL include both. Even more: If a man meets a woman in a game and in any natural case they would become intimate, then it will happen in this game or movie. Even if it then will never be visible in the usa.;P
I don't know who began with this madness of "ohh... sex is baaad and diirty. you will go to hell" (oops... question answered), but i consider anyone who thinks that way as sick and perverse.
Think of how great it could be if you would combine the greatest film you ever saw with the sexiest porn scenes you ever saw? I would pay for it... oohhh yeah!:)
> Earth's north magnetic pole is drifting from North America at such a clip that it could end up in Siberia in the next 50 years.
Do you really want to tell me that siberia is near on on the south pole? Well then go look at a world map first. (Maybe better not one from the usa, as there you could not find it...;)
Btw: I live on the top of the "Gory Putorana" in Sibria, where the map looks at YOU, you insensitive clod!*
* Truth quality of statement measured to be comparable to an average slashdot post.
Isn't it actually *more* intelligent to use shortcuts, since it allows you to finish a task quicker. This again allows you to do more complex tasks and more work in the same amount of time. So you archieve bigger targets than anyone not using that "shortcuts".
One example would be program libraries. Just try to do something large without them.;)
Of course you could still do the same amount of work than before while using shortcuts, resulting in what you call "bottom line driven mindedness". But you *can* do more if you want to.
So "mindedness" does not have to result from "shortcuts", does it?;)
On the other side a wise man once said: The amount of intelligence on the planet is constant. It's just the amount of poeple that rises. (no exact quote);)
So i recommend just being happy that you - evolutionary - will be the most successful one if you are "top line driven" *and* use use shortcuts.:)
And one final thing: I totally agree with you if you wanted to say that today poeple just get lazy and stupid. But why is this so? My actual thought - based on what i know - is that there are three causes. 1. The more poeple you have, and the more comfort they have, the less hard it is to survive, making you lazyer. 2. Big companies create a feedback loop of stupidness by making their products and services easyer and easyer, allowing us cause 1, forcing them to make even more easy stuff to expose from others. 3. Governments act too focused on short-term things so they don't see that good education is probably the best thing to stimulate economic growth, even if it's a long-term investion. And because the government is made out of poeple that got education from a former government, this also creates a negative feedback loop.
My final thought - so i can also come up with a solution - would be, to 1. invest the most of a country's budget to education and so investing - indirectly - in pretty much everything positive, and 2. creating an evironment where companies can expose themselves positively from others by creating more advanced products including simplified versions of older products and services as parts, and so making life easyer while still hilding a minimum level of expected intelligence.
if poeple weren't lazy as a basic rule of evolution, then you could leave away the second point. Bbut i giess this is just a unrealisitc dream.;)
So who wants to become our next president and find out how to realize this in practice?;)
*lol* wasn't "alien nation" that show that was even more ridiculous than star trek in things of the look of the aliens?
well... what did we have in alien nation? poeple with hairs on their head and poeple with spots on their head.
they did not even have some strange "alien" head deformations like in star trek.
that was what i loved about babylon 5: aliens made of energy. living spaceships... well... most aliens still looked like earth lifeforms (black mantis, humans of differen nations, other animals) but it was far better than most other series...
I guess the main thing would be: Build a core that has - one side to plug messenger network protocols with passing trough *all* functionality of all present and if possible all future networks - another side where you can plug in functionality like on firefox. - a third interface to the core for ui/theme support by translation from theme data to a set of widgets and functionality.
i guess most of this is already done. in
miranda
but a thing that is missing is probably the lightweight style that extensions on firefox have. it's jsut javascript with xml. so everybody can start pretty quick and add own stuff. if this will become possible in miranda (i'm sorry but i don't know if it already is...), then why bother with other stuff because we already got the perfect messenger.:)
"Perfection by customizability trough community"<sup>TM</sup>.
> (And no, FasterFox doesn't make FF render pages at the speeds of IE or Opera)
If your renderer is spaghetti-code and you leave out the clean structure and error-checking then it's no problem to get faster than firefox.
So i would not really call IE a "renderer"... it's only half of the work... done bad.
By the way. Try loading one of those huge pages like http://derstandard.at/ and measure the time in IE and FF. On my pc FF is faster WITH all the extensions... So maybe your pc is just buggy...?
Hmm... must be your computer. Because i run firefox *every* day from the morning to late at night. With up to 20 tabs open and at average 3-5 tabs open. And i can't remember a single crash comign from it...
The unly thing that crashed were plugins like quicktime or windows media player. but i simply disabled them and am redirecting the stuff to bsplayer and winamp. problem solved.
For flash i can say that it seriously slows down everything and sometimes seem to hang. but closing the tab that contains it restores everything to normal state and i can continue using ff until the night.:)
Good thing that adblock now stops 95% of all flash (speaking: all the stuff i don't want to see:)
First you insult me, then you call me a troll, then i tell you friendly why you are wrong, and then you call this a flamebait.
Is there a more assholy event (in hawking's meaning) than you and your little moments in this universe??
Shame on you. Hope we meet some time so i can bind your arms to differend trees, attach your head on the back of my car with a rope, rip your head off at 30 m/s in under 6 seconds, an shit into your throat!
Well... in fact, you won't believe it, but actually it DID make the internet faster. At least that's what zdnet wrote in some internet pro and pc pro tests... I'm sure i still have the article somewhere below tese piles of magazines... hmmm...
If i remember it correctly they did several "real-life" benchmarks by rendering huge graphics- and plugin-loaded webpages and measuring the time. They even wrote that before, they laughed at intel because they believed it was absurd. but ot after they did their tests..
Well sure this depends on how much you trust the zdnet-labs. I did back then. Nowadays i don't know......but who cares anyways, because i'm no fan of electricity powered heating plates with data processing facilities... they're not very economic... for both functions...;)
Well, thank you for insulting me for not being perfect by knowing everything.
it's no fault to to make a mistake when you accept corrections. and i love to learn stuff where my knowledge is flawed.
but you sir, just insultes yourself more than me for psoting this message.
by the way: you did not even say that you have a source of your knowledge ant where it is. instead you posed as if you were the creator of the universe by itself and you had 0th-hand-knowledge.
so here is my score: 0, Troll. take it. you really earned it.
Welll... scientists found that after eating stuff that was heated in a microwave caused poeple to have the same blood values as someone who is short of getting cancer. I would not want such blood values every time i eat or dring somethign hot...
No thanks! I'll wait 'till global warming solves it for everyone...;P (If you need it *now*, try aerogel!)
well... combine stupidity with lazyness and the poeple do everything you wish them to do. what do you think why producs get "so easy, even a small child could use it" and "directly delivered to your couch and fully automatically so you don't have to move." exactly! this has nothing to do with making the primitive stuff more automatic so you can focus on the more high level ones... even if (i think most companies don't even realize it) repeat {
this still leads to dumber and lazyer poeple
wich then leads to even simpler products } until (catastrophe);
the government does the rest with their budget (old data from 2004 but still valid): - $400.0 (17.5%) for "defense" (aka offense) - $53.1 ( 2.4%) for education
so maybe we should stop sending money to the 3rd world and send them to build some schools and teach some teachers in the usa.:)
Well... maybe this is because THEY DID NOT CARE FOR THE SPECIFICATION!
Seriously... it's not w3c's fault, or why do you think that *now* firefox can claim their specific rendering style to be standards-compilant with w3c?
By the way: STOP THE FUCK THINKING THAT HTML HAS SOMETHING TO TO WITH LAYOUT/DESIGN!!! This is by far the most annoying thing you can do when creating html or telling others about it! Nowadays (X)HTML has NOTHING to do with any layout or design stuff anymore. It just describes the MEANING and STRUCTURE! If you look for design and layout, look for CSS! PLEASE! Or i have to vomit all over you next time i hear such crap!
P.S.: Sorry for flaming that much. Sometimes it's just the last straw...
Slashdot Mirror
> in comparison to HTML, where you specify what something is,
;)
exactly. i want to stress the point that HTML has NOTHING todo with any of the following:
- design
- layout
- look
- style
or all in one: how it should look
it's ONLY for MARKING UP your content with structure.
If you think about look when you code your html, then you're obviously doing sumthing fundamentally wrong.
I myself needed a long time to see how wrong i got it. I finally came when i used s to structure sections and areas, realized that a width="xxx" does not belong inside an (or anything else for that matter)
and tags are there to define what the content is. that is, a -tag is ONLY for table-data! not for any stupid layouting! (or else go design your webpages in excel!
As a result of this, if you want to *design* a webpage, STAY AWAY FROM (X)HTML until you *finished* your design. (and transform you page to CSS + visual media [images & more])
I can't tell you how important it is to stress this thing! Most of all problems ever seen with webpages happened for that reason. And it still happens...
This is the main reason why i was happy about the coming of firefox...
> Opera performs nice filtering on images when you magnify the page.
Why does everybody always talk about magnifying images when it's up to displaying them on *smaller* screens?
Because on bigger ones ther always will be blank space. but on smaller ones it *must* be smaller to be usable.
The problem is: in Firefox (and of course IE) you get a hell of a crap of image quality in *any* resizing. Just compare it to an image that got resized in photoshop or with another good filter like "lanczos resampling".
By the way: good quality resizing still isn't accaptable for small handheld devices. So if you want it fast you have to go with the uglyness.
By the way: there is ony one pretty simple thing you need to do for webpages that need to be usable on handhelds: add a stylesheet for devices with limited screen size which does no side-by-side stuff, uses other style-images and smaller fonts and dimensions. (not to be confused with content-images.)
if you *must* provide different content-images for different images do it server-side. one example would be the a php-script that you could use like this:
" alt="woah i got auto-resized"/>
which would result in this for small screen media types:
which would call i.php which would load the cached resampled image if avaliable and output it, or resample it on-the-fly and store it in cache before returning it.
I developed an advanced library that did the i.php stuff for a big internet portal and it was used for a long time there. when i left the sinking ship they dropped it because they did not understand it. *g*
the only bottleneck was that php was so slow. i would have recommended to program it as a separate apache module.
> Being that we are 3D beings,
;)
If we were 3D beings we would not be able to *move* or do anything in 3D space. We need a fourth dimension over which the variabels can change. This is time. So if you are on the side of those who think that free will is an imagination, then we are *static* 4D lifeforms.
And we can only "see" two different 2D slices of the 3D cone of all (electromagnetic) "events" (in a certain frequency range) that can reach us. (cone diameter gets bigger over dimension time with the speed of light).
Of course we can also measure tiny air pressure changes at two points (ears), infrared em-waves and different levels of pressure (is that the weak or strong *DontKnowHowItsCalledInEnglish* force) all over our body, detect different kinds of molecules when in contact with the tongue or the inside of our nose and calculate much stuff of it...
But i dare to say that we're fairly limited lifeforms.
Tough i would give parts of my body to have a true 3D vision in full electromagnetic spectrum.
For spaceflights i also would like to add gravitation.
And for now i can't see a practical usage beside the ones already avaliable for the other two forces because they are too weak over distances... but who knows... maybe we could then feel the pressure of other stuff or how something reacts chemically
I actually prefer the non-impotent (here animated) version: :-)o===8 :-)--o=8 :-)----8E
8-)-o==8
Have you ever held a speech for 8 hours in a row? You don't want to do that. Believe me.
;)
Okay, we can say that what we need is something that *fast* in usage. There are only a few "interfaces" of you body that are on a thing you could call the "fast lane" we humans have in our brains. These are mainly the hands and the speech system (mouth and throat muscles).
So those two interfaces make sense, but using speech only makes sense if you use all informations avaliable, meaning mood/emotions and the subtile "meaning" in how it sounds.
Else you can stay with the hands.
Or even better: combine them.
But the best would be of course a direct neural adapter.
Hmmm what does Mike Davidson think?
/ sifr.js
He makes it LGPL but obfuscates it to obviously stop reusage?
http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/files/sifr/2.0
(Should i submit it on the[ ]daily)WTF(.com)?
By the way. Am i the only one who thinks that this JS+Flash combination - for a thing that is clearly a CSS's job - is nearly perverse?
We all can say that Java is not the gift from god cause there are clearly languages and systems that are better in pretty much every field (but not all at once i guess ;). Still it is absolutely *idiotic* to choose PHP over Java.
Why? Well fist of all it's SLOW! Not only a bit slow, like a turtle compared to a slug... it's one of the s-l-o-w-e-s-t languages you can get.[*1] The only thing i found to beat it was JavaScript interpreted with DOM (speaking of our next trend "AJAX"), and that *really* does mean something because JavaScript can kill a 3 GHz CPU with some silly table modifications while scrolling some divs over the screen.
If you don't believe me just check some of your algorythms - take anything you like - and give it a try.
Then PHP is so dirty inside it's core, it's an insult to anything i would actually call a programming language.
Have you had a problem using a constant lately (that crazy thing defined with define()!) and then you saw that php actually takes *every* text token it can't recognize as a STRING? I mean come on! What are those quotation marks for then?
Next: What - my god - was zeev *thinking* for putting out those PEAR-library? That it could stand up to something like CPAN or the standard C library? I mean: Come on! First you have to define a proper language. Then you can do your library.
And if you ever tried to do some advanced oop inside it you will know what i'm talking of when i say "PATCHWORK" in the best style of microsoft windows ME.)
Sure, if you want to write up stuff fast, then PHP is defenitely yours. But just as long as you don't need any decent planning or organization of your stuff.
PHP is literally the *ultimate* language for all those wannabe-coders calling themselves "web-developers" and making as if they were oohh-soo-experts for glueing up some code that just deserves the name for its caotic structure that makes it so cryptic you have to write it new everytime you change something.
The thing - THE ULTIMATE THING - about php is exactly the same as about microsoft products. The guy that tells what has to happen - manager or "web-developer" wants quick results, not caring for irrelevant things like security, code quality, reusability, or maintainability. This is the heart of php. from the bottom of its interpreter up to its nice *ehrm* gdlib-interface and mod_php.
Basically it's the BASIC of our days - the "internet century"?
If you don't have the nerve for making up the stuff yourselves that keeps your code clean and usable and you don't care about speed then chose PHP.
If you want a language for some larger web- or backend-projects that are easy portable, has a big base and is made for stability and properness: Choose Java.
And if you want ultimate speed and a "near-hardware-experience" (TM), you can just take C.
But in reality - take everything that suits your needs. No matter if it is "sooo 90s" or so hip.
I give you some examples:
Operating system? Well. C of course. And assemby where relevant.
Games? C++ mainly. But basially because the alternatives are even worse than this not-so-proper but still better implementation of oop over a fast C core.
Mathematical software. Prototyping. Advanced stuff? Well... I'd give functional progamming a good shot (mainly haskell and ocaml)
Speaking of ocaml: Well, it's nearly as fast as C, while smokin' killing java in things of bytecode AND being an oop PLUS a functional programming language. If the tools weren't so rare and underdeveloped C/C++ and java would have not a rain of a chance.
And finally: Easy templating of your webpages?
Well. Guess what: PHP was made for it and it does *this* job great exaclty for what its positive qualities are!
Aaas long as you stay with just that thing and don't drag backend stuff to the "View" (in terms of model-view-controller blabla...)!
So choose your language wisely guys. Cause "so 90s" is possibly a thing "web-developers" would say, but this is the thing real geeks do!
P.
... first getting this damn Aspartam or sugar replaced by Stevia, instead of letting Monsanto bring out fake studies to stay in us and european market? (In Japan you can already buy it!)
What you want is soooo wrong!
;P
:)
I want good stories AND sexy women!
Is that too hard?
Btw: If i ever gonna make a game or movie, i WILL include both. Even more: If a man meets a woman in a game and in any natural case they would become intimate, then it will happen in this game or movie. Even if it then will never be visible in the usa.
I don't know who began with this madness of "ohh... sex is baaad and diirty. you will go to hell" (oops... question answered),
but i consider anyone who thinks that way as sick and perverse.
Think of how great it could be if you would combine the greatest film you ever saw with the sexiest porn scenes you ever saw?
I would pay for it... oohhh yeah!
> North Pole Heads South
;)
and later:
> Earth's north magnetic pole is drifting from North America at such a clip that it could end up in Siberia in the next 50 years.
Do you really want to tell me that siberia is near on on the south pole? Well then go look at a world map first. (Maybe better not one from the usa, as there you could not find it...
Btw: I live on the top of the "Gory Putorana" in Sibria, where the map looks at YOU, you insensitive clod!*
* Truth quality of statement measured to be comparable to an average slashdot post.
> and a list of deviants for the governement
seriously... who came up with that "sex is bad" thing?
i mean: if you think sex is bad, then you WILL go extinct.
okay, i guess those poeple don't understand evolution either so they don't know that they will.
then again: why do they still exist?
hmm.. maybe because they break their own rules? (and feel dirty for it? *lol*)
there truly are some strange minds in this world...
Isn't it actually *more* intelligent to use shortcuts, since it allows you to finish a task quicker. This again allows you to do more complex tasks and more work in the same amount of time. So you archieve bigger targets than anyone not using that "shortcuts".
;)
;)
;)
:)
;)
;)
One example would be program libraries. Just try to do something large without them.
Of course you could still do the same amount of work than before while using shortcuts, resulting in what you call "bottom line driven mindedness". But you *can* do more if you want to.
So "mindedness" does not have to result from "shortcuts", does it?
On the other side a wise man once said: The amount of intelligence on the planet is constant. It's just the amount of poeple that rises. (no exact quote)
So i recommend just being happy that you - evolutionary - will be the most successful one if you are "top line driven" *and* use use shortcuts.
And one final thing: I totally agree with you if you wanted to say that today poeple just get lazy and stupid.
But why is this so?
My actual thought - based on what i know - is that there are three causes.
1. The more poeple you have, and the more comfort they have, the less hard it is to survive, making you lazyer.
2. Big companies create a feedback loop of stupidness by making their products and services easyer and easyer, allowing us cause 1, forcing them to make even more easy stuff to expose from others.
3. Governments act too focused on short-term things so they don't see that good education is probably the best thing to stimulate economic growth, even if it's a long-term investion. And because the government is made out of poeple that got education from a former government, this also creates a negative feedback loop.
My final thought - so i can also come up with a solution - would be, to
1. invest the most of a country's budget to education and so investing - indirectly - in pretty much everything positive, and
2. creating an evironment where companies can expose themselves positively from others by creating more advanced products including simplified versions of older products and services as parts, and so making life easyer while still hilding a minimum level of expected intelligence.
if poeple weren't lazy as a basic rule of evolution, then you could leave away the second point. Bbut i giess this is just a unrealisitc dream.
So who wants to become our next president and find out how to realize this in practice?
*lol* wasn't "alien nation" that show that was even more ridiculous than star trek in things of the look of the aliens?
well... what did we have in alien nation? poeple with hairs on their head and poeple with spots on their head.
they did not even have some strange "alien" head deformations like in star trek.
that was what i loved about babylon 5: aliens made of energy. living spaceships...
well... most aliens still looked like earth lifeforms (black mantis, humans of differen nations, other animals)
but it was far better than most other series...
Most likely there will be at lease one company that allows "the good old way" and kick all other provider's arses, and make loads of money with it!
And if there is none, then i will do it! *g*
I guess the main thing would be: Build a core that has
:)
- one side to plug messenger network protocols with passing trough *all* functionality of all present and if possible all future networks
- another side where you can plug in functionality like on firefox.
- a third interface to the core for ui/theme support by translation from theme data to a set of widgets and functionality.
i guess most of this is already done. in
miranda
but a thing that is missing is probably the lightweight style that extensions on firefox have. it's jsut javascript with xml. so everybody can start pretty quick and add own stuff.
if this will become possible in miranda (i'm sorry but i don't know if it already is...), then why bother with other stuff because we already got the perfect messenger.
"Perfection by customizability trough community"<sup>TM</sup>.
P.S.: Why doesn't extrans work anymore??
> (And no, FasterFox doesn't make FF render pages at the speeds of IE or Opera)
If your renderer is spaghetti-code and you leave out the clean structure and error-checking then it's no problem to get faster than firefox.
So i would not really call IE a "renderer"... it's only half of the work... done bad.
By the way. Try loading one of those huge pages like http://derstandard.at/ and measure the time in IE and FF. On my pc FF is faster WITH all the extensions...
So maybe your pc is just buggy...?
Hmm... must be your computer. Because i run firefox *every* day from the morning to late at night. With up to 20 tabs open and at average 3-5 tabs open. And i can't remember a single crash comign from it...
:)
:)
The unly thing that crashed were plugins like quicktime or windows media player. but i simply disabled them and am redirecting the stuff to bsplayer and winamp. problem solved.
For flash i can say that it seriously slows down everything and sometimes seem to hang. but closing the tab that contains it restores everything to normal state and i can continue using ff until the night.
Good thing that adblock now stops 95% of all flash (speaking: all the stuff i don't want to see
Does anyone remember the url of this new-i/o (nio) demo of a steerable flight over mars surface in realtime with 400 MB terrain data?
Thank you, asshole!
First you insult me, then you call me a troll, then i tell you friendly why you are wrong, and then you call this a flamebait.
Is there a more assholy event (in hawking's meaning) than you and your little moments in this universe??
Shame on you. Hope we meet some time so i can bind your arms to differend trees, attach your head on the back of my car with a rope, rip your head off at 30 m/s in under 6 seconds, an shit into your throat!
Well... in fact, you won't believe it, but actually it DID make the internet faster. At least that's what zdnet wrote in some internet pro and pc pro tests... I'm sure i still have the article somewhere below tese piles of magazines... hmmm...
...but who cares anyways, because i'm no fan of electricity powered heating plates with data processing facilities... they're not very economic... for both functions... ;)
If i remember it correctly they did several "real-life" benchmarks by rendering huge graphics- and plugin-loaded webpages and measuring the time. They even wrote that before, they laughed at intel because they believed it was absurd. but ot after they did their tests..
Well sure this depends on how much you trust the zdnet-labs. I did back then. Nowadays i don't know...
Well, thank you for insulting me for not being perfect by knowing everything.
it's no fault to to make a mistake when you accept corrections. and i love to learn stuff where my knowledge is flawed.
but you sir, just insultes yourself more than me for psoting this message.
by the way: you did not even say that you have a source of your knowledge ant where it is. instead you posed as if you were the creator of the universe by itself and you had 0th-hand-knowledge.
so here is my score: 0, Troll. take it. you really earned it.
Welll... scientists found that after eating stuff that was heated in a microwave caused poeple to have the same blood values as someone who is short of getting cancer.
;P
I would not want such blood values every time i eat or dring somethign hot...
No thanks! I'll wait 'till global warming solves it for everyone...
(If you need it *now*, try aerogel!)
> and the end users dont give a care.
:)
well... combine stupidity with lazyness and the poeple do everything you wish them to do.
what do you think why producs get "so easy, even a small child could use it" and "directly delivered to your couch and fully automatically so you don't have to move."
exactly! this has nothing to do with making the primitive stuff more automatic so you can focus on the more high level ones...
even if (i think most companies don't even realize it) repeat {
this still leads to dumber and lazyer poeple
wich then leads to even simpler products
} until (catastrophe);
the government does the rest with their budget (old data from 2004 but still valid):
- $400.0 (17.5%) for "defense" (aka offense)
- $53.1 ( 2.4%) for education
so maybe we should stop sending money to the 3rd world and send them to build some schools and teach some teachers in the usa.
> Not only does it contain a plethora of benchmarks on the latest Dual core CPU's, ...
;)
Can someone please block the posting of articles from poeple who can't distinguish "CPUs" from "CPU's"?
Thank you.
(Or do i have to do it all by myself?
Well... maybe this is because THEY DID NOT CARE FOR THE SPECIFICATION!
Seriously... it's not w3c's fault, or why do you think that *now* firefox can claim their specific rendering style to be standards-compilant with w3c?
By the way: STOP THE FUCK THINKING THAT HTML HAS SOMETHING TO TO WITH LAYOUT/DESIGN!!!
This is by far the most annoying thing you can do when creating html or telling others about it!
Nowadays (X)HTML has NOTHING to do with any layout or design stuff anymore. It just describes the MEANING and STRUCTURE!
If you look for design and layout, look for CSS! PLEASE!
Or i have to vomit all over you next time i hear such crap!
P.S.: Sorry for flaming that much. Sometimes it's just the last straw...