FrontPage had it's own special tags a FrontPage server would read.
With XML if you define the spec anyway you get to define all the tags. So I can't see how you could do the same thing. You can't put a non-XML tag in XML as long as it follows the rules for being an XML tag.
The closest I can think of would be tags you don't document, but since it is just XML anyone can see them, and they will be figured out pretty quickly.
I see you are ignoring what the Germans (and Japanese) did with places they invaded. It wasn't like the killing and suffering stopped at the point the fighting did.
You also seem to be neglecting the USSR. The highest death toll was on the Russian Front. If the US hadn't gotten involved Europe may well have ended up Communist. Stalin probably wouldn't have stopped at Germany when 'liberating' countries. Though it may have taken longer the USSR may well have beaten Germany even if the USA hadn't gotten involved, although possibly taking them longer and with higher casualties.
Of course there has been "unimaginable human suffering and death" since WWII, but at least we don't have to add millions more in concentration camps to it.
It's pretty easy to guess based on that they did before hand, and what they wrote about. Mass extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Communists, homosexuals and the handicapped. An unelected government, state control of media and commerce, propaganda, police state, slave labour of the non-Aryans, using land outside Germany as living space.
I'm sure it would be have full employment, low crime and the trains run on time, though most people wouldn't see that as much of a trade off.
It probably wouldn't have been dissimilar from Stalin's USSR or Mao's China or, well insert and dictatorship that killed large numbers of its own people. Brutal totalitarian regimes tend to follow a pattern really.
Better? No. Only if they got overthrown and something better came along, so it was better inspite of them, not becuase of them.
It is actually very hard to destroy a city from a distance with conventional weaponry, that is why both sides were wroking on nukes. London wasn't destroyed by bombing (firebombs or otherwise) becuase the Germans simply couldn't do it.
Who were these millions the British slaughtered? Dresden was bombed heavily in response to the bombing of Coventry (although neither was destroyed nor was everyone inside killed).
Certainly the "libertaing" (ie invading) Soviets did some pretty appalling things. There isn't an excuse for that, although the USSR had taken huge casulties and suffered a lot from the German invastion. If you consider revenge spite, then here you have a point.
That also means everyone else is out of reach of you. You could store weapons there, but why? You can store them on Earth, and when you want them you can at least get them in time to be useful.
See, on Stargate (which is fiction) they have stargates so they can go there straight away so having an off planet backup site makes sense. If in the real word you some "develop an easier method of getting lots of stuff there" (congrats by the way on achieving that small engineering feat) then other people can reach you easily too. So scratch the remote advantage.
That does nothing at all to make it profitable. It was easy to explore and exploit land, all you needed was a wagon and supplies. Even if you owned a chunk of the moon right now, it gives you no profit. The tech has to be developed to make it profitable to exploit it, until them trying to own and defend it just costs money.
National space monopolies are going to be the only way forward until tech reaches the point that there is a return on investment in space. Until then private industry will just stay well clear, as they can make much more profit (as opposed to losing money) by not going into space and spending the money elsewhere.
It isn't like staking out land in the old west where anyone could do it with some everyday supplies, which made it worth doing.
One day the tech will reach a point that national space agencies aren't really needed, but we are not there yet.
Nothing stops a college kid writing great software, selling it and earning loads of cash (assuming it is good enough and they are lucky enough). Certainly not this project from Google.
I think it has been the subject of several Sci-Fi stories too. I remember on where this guy is traveling from planet to planet, trying to get to the one he (Jesus) has last been born on but never catching up.
If my understanding of Christianity is correct though, Jesus would only need to die for their sins if the species had Original Sin, like the humans getting booted from Eden. But I'm sure bettter versed people can argue that one to death.
Reading the Time article, it seems MS big hope is that it isn't just a console. It becomes your CD player, your DVD player, your MP3 player, it talks to your PC, your digital camera and your iPod. You can use it to chat with other XBox 360 owners so it is telephoney and video conferencing as well.
Will it be used for those things? Time will tell, but it is fair to say it (and maybe the other next gen consoles) are more than just a console. Although clearly that isn't to say they won't be overhyped.
Yeah they should stop pissing about with those really popular and sucessful iPods people love. Lets get rid of buttons so you have to take the things out your pocket and look at them when you want to do something, becuase you can just tell the control by touch anymore.
Not everything needs wireless, harddrive and the like. A large part is costs, phones have buttons becuase they are cheaper than having everything by touch. You can also text faster with buttons, again because of the tactile feedback. With a screen you can't fell if your thumb is in the right place.
Not that this doesn't look nice, but lets not get carries away.
I was excpeting something good, that apart from effects and fights had interesting
(if not very deep) characters and enough good action to keep me entertained.
Compare to where? Certainly many countries on mainland Europe have higher tax rates (and some have better standard of living as well). VAT (sale tax) is 17.5%, but it is not on some items. Income tax has 20, 25 and 40 percent bands. Historically it used to be a lot higher, so I think we compare it with what it was and Europe.
Fuel tax does annoy people, we pay more for petrol than just about anywhere else and a huge chunk of that is tax.
- Mandatory, expensive and mediocre health care.
Although many people complain about the state of the NHS (which has been improving) British people in general are proud of having it. The fact you can get free treatment is seen as a good thing. Indeed, I think we tend to regard American as rather odd of not having such a health service when most of the rest of the developed world does.
How expensive it is will of course depend on how much tax you pay.
- Cameras everywhere.
Yes, and the scary thing is you don't notice or think about them. I don't think they really accomplish anything.
- A sensationalistic press that makes Fox look bi-partisan.
The tabloids are awful, but only part of the press. The more intellectual papers are called broadsheets (Times, Guardian, Independent) and are pretty good. Parts of the press are sensationalistic, but not the whole thing. Plus we get the BBC, generally regarded as one of the best and most unbiased news organisations.
- Out of control, bureaucratic utilities (like the article states).
I notice there are plenty of post by Americans complaining about similar experiences with American companies. I don't think there is anything particularly British about this.
- Television licenses along with warrant-less searches of homes suspected of running an unlicensed television.
The TV licenses pay for the BBC, and like with the NHS I think you would find most people are in favour of it. Brits are usually pretty proud of the Beeb (especially when it winds up the current government. I think it allows a more unbiased organisation than corporate owned news where the owners have their own interests. It helps keep the other news organisations honest too (apart from those tabloids, which don't really compete).
- Speed traps everywhere, set to excessively low limits and with giant fines.
There is a lot of fuss at the moment about speed cameras, but the really aren't everywhere or excessively low limits. Speed cameras that only photograph you when you are speeding I have no problems with, you are breaking the law and it only captures you when you are. I think they are less problematic than CCTV cameras in city centers, but people feel they have the right to speed and risk other people's lives (because everyone thinks they are a good driver).
- Cameras monitoring every meaningful inch of public space.
Did you do this one already?
I am a very socially liberal/libertarian US citizen
Something you have to realise is that libertarianism is a very American view point. In Europe socialism isn't a dirty world (and is very, very different from communism or communist countries that called themselves socialist), we regards the US parties as being right wing, and more right wing compared to the socialist parties that get elected here.
As I mentioned, the European countries with the highest standard of living (by most measures) tax and spend more. It certainly doesn't seem evil.
Now none of this is to say we don't have personal liberty problems. There has been fighting over ID cards, we are getting biometric passports, and we had scary anti-terrorism laws that violated people's rights long before it was the in thing.
Culturally though I think people in Europe are fine with higher levels of government intervention and action than people in the US. Some of the things you list aren't things we "put up with" but actually want. If you really dislike this you probably wouldn't be happy here at all.
For the record, I'm from the UK but I've worked in the US, so I've got to see both sides.
Comming from a family with two teachers I often found myself providing unofficial tech support for schools.
While at the secondary level they do use standard office stuff, at primary level they use lots of specialised software. There are easy to use and simplified word processors, databases and the like, as well as much more specific programs that teach specific subjects. I'm not sure there are open source equvilients of that kind of software.
Then there is support, in my experience most of it was unofficial, by teachers, relatives and friends who happened to know about computers. The numbers of people who know about open source seems rather smalled so support would be harder to get. Plus arguably open source requires more support as it can be trickier to install.
Maybe local OSS advocate groups should offer support if they want to push OSS software to schools.
you'd never eat a good seafood or rare-meat meal again.
You hunt seafood? What do you do, shoot crabs and stalk muscles? Those oysters are coming right for me!
As for rare meat, I can go to a restaurant and order a good, rare stake without anyone having hunted the animal. It just has to be good meat, not cooked much. I'm pretty sure nobody hunts cows these days.
animals always have the advantage of strength and lethality.
Right, so how many hunters get killed per year vs how many animals? I think any advantage the animal has is rather negated by the hunter's gun.Not that a careless or stupid hunter can't get hurt, by the odds really are massively in their favour.
Re:Another day.. another google story..
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
Plenty of films get sequals if they did well enough to get profit. If the sequel does well then that may get another. B movies do it a lot, but so do bigger movies that were not necessarily huge money makers, just walk aroung a video rental place some time and count the sequals there.
I think in larger companies lots of things are implemented as database because IT departments keep getting bitten by things not implemented as databases.
These things have a nasty habit of growing in size, complexity and importance, then someone wants to joining the data up with something in your DB. Now you have to reimplement the whole thing.
In a large company you probably have licence agreement or existing machine you can use (just put a new schema in) so the money cost isn't much. You probably have tools for developing and writing/running reports on the DB, and in house expertise in using them. Your databases are probably already set up with backup and failover, so all that is done for you.
So what some people see as overkill, others see as future proofing.
Thing is, it plays quite differently from, say, original Doom even graphics aside. If you like FPS games, the difference is really important.
It's like lumping, say, all sci-fi films together. Sure they are, by definition, all sci-fi. If you hate sci-fi it probably all seems the same.
If you like sci-fi though you know some are great and some suck, and if someone tells you they are all the same, you aren't going to think much of their opinion.
Very few things in any media are genre busting. What was the last movie you saw that created a new genre? I read lots of sci-fi books, and I keep reading it because I enjoy the genre. There is to me easily enough range in it to keep me entertained.
Likewise I like FPS games, playing Halo 2 isn't like playing Riddick, or playing UT, or playing Doom.
when it does there will be a new breed of films that reach people more deeply, challenge their emotions and intellect.
I don't beleive it. Other media like books have been able to tell any story from day one, yet people still keep buying the same sort of stuff in the same genres. Loads of it is not deep or challenging.
I think will keep on seeing the same blockbusters, romatic comedies and other current types of film. I don't think better technology will have much impact there.
I think it is often forgotten a lot of people a lot of the time don't want deep or challanging in their entertainment, they want escapism.
Except a lot of people seem to really like the gameplay of first person shooters. I'm not sure people always want anything deeper. After all, plenty of books, TV shows and films get by without being deep. It doesn't have to be deep if it is fun.
Games my follow formulas, but the devil is in the details as they say.
If you aren't a gamer then the difference between games of the same genre probably seems minor. If you are though you know what is important is how a game plays, particularly in multiplayer. This isn't from any one thing, but a combination of many factors. Two FPS games may give very different experiences of play, even if they both look like running around shooting people.
Just like films, or books or TV shows within a genre can differ from each other, games within a genre can as well.
Altavista may have had some nice functions, but Google returns much more useful results. There is a reason pretty much everyone stopped using Altavista you know.
It seems to be trendy on/. to bash Google these days, but people switched because it was the best overall. That seems to have forced Yahoo to improve as well.
Slashdot Mirror
FrontPage had it's own special tags a FrontPage server would read.
With XML if you define the spec anyway you get to define all the tags. So I can't see how you could do the same thing. You can't put a non-XML tag in XML as long as it follows the rules for being an XML tag.
The closest I can think of would be tags you don't document, but since it is just XML anyone can see them, and they will be figured out pretty quickly.
I see you are ignoring what the Germans (and Japanese) did with places they invaded. It wasn't like the killing and suffering stopped at the point the fighting did.
You also seem to be neglecting the USSR. The highest death toll was on the Russian Front. If the US hadn't gotten involved Europe may well have ended up Communist. Stalin probably wouldn't have stopped at Germany when 'liberating' countries. Though it may have taken longer the USSR may well have beaten Germany even if the USA hadn't gotten involved, although possibly taking them longer and with higher casualties.
Of course there has been "unimaginable human suffering and death" since WWII, but at least we don't have to add millions more in concentration camps to it.
It's pretty easy to guess based on that they did before hand, and what they wrote about. Mass extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Communists, homosexuals and the handicapped. An unelected government, state control of media and commerce, propaganda, police state, slave labour of the non-Aryans, using land outside Germany as living space.
I'm sure it would be have full employment, low crime and the trains run on time, though most people wouldn't see that as much of a trade off.
It probably wouldn't have been dissimilar from Stalin's USSR or Mao's China or, well insert and dictatorship that killed large numbers of its own people. Brutal totalitarian regimes tend to follow a pattern really.
Better? No. Only if they got overthrown and something better came along, so it was better inspite of them, not becuase of them.
It became a bad thing then the enemy could nuke you back. Then everyone is destroyed and nobody can help rebuilding.
It is actually very hard to destroy a city from a distance with conventional weaponry, that is why both sides were wroking on nukes. London wasn't destroyed by bombing (firebombs or otherwise) becuase the Germans simply couldn't do it.
Who were these millions the British slaughtered? Dresden was bombed heavily in response to the bombing of Coventry (although neither was destroyed nor was everyone inside killed).
Certainly the "libertaing" (ie invading) Soviets did some pretty appalling things. There isn't an excuse for that, although the USSR had taken huge casulties and suffered a lot from the German invastion. If you consider revenge spite, then here you have a point.
That also means everyone else is out of reach of you. You could store weapons there, but why? You can store them on Earth, and when you want them you can at least get them in time to be useful.
See, on Stargate (which is fiction) they have stargates so they can go there straight away so having an off planet backup site makes sense. If in the real word you some "develop an easier method of getting lots of stuff there" (congrats by the way on achieving that small engineering feat) then other people can reach you easily too. So scratch the remote advantage.
That does nothing at all to make it profitable. It was easy to explore and exploit land, all you needed was a wagon and supplies. Even if you owned a chunk of the moon right now, it gives you no profit. The tech has to be developed to make it profitable to exploit it, until them trying to own and defend it just costs money.
National space monopolies are going to be the only way forward until tech reaches the point that there is a return on investment in space. Until then private industry will just stay well clear, as they can make much more profit (as opposed to losing money) by not going into space and spending the money elsewhere.
It isn't like staking out land in the old west where anyone could do it with some everyday supplies, which made it worth doing.
One day the tech will reach a point that national space agencies aren't really needed, but we are not there yet.
Nothing stops a college kid writing great software, selling it and earning loads of cash (assuming it is good enough and they are lucky enough). Certainly not this project from Google.
I think it has been the subject of several Sci-Fi stories too. I remember on where this guy is traveling from planet to planet, trying to get to the one he (Jesus) has last been born on but never catching up.
If my understanding of Christianity is correct though, Jesus would only need to die for their sins if the species had Original Sin, like the humans getting booted from Eden. But I'm sure bettter versed people can argue that one to death.
The post was talking about Republicans not Christians in general.
Reading the Time article, it seems MS big hope is that it isn't just a console. It becomes your CD player, your DVD player, your MP3 player, it talks to your PC, your digital camera and your iPod. You can use it to chat with other XBox 360 owners so it is telephoney and video conferencing as well.
Will it be used for those things? Time will tell, but it is fair to say it (and maybe the other next gen consoles) are more than just a console. Although clearly that isn't to say they won't be overhyped.
Yeah they should stop pissing about with those really popular and sucessful iPods people love. Lets get rid of buttons so you have to take the things out your pocket and look at them when you want to do something, becuase you can just tell the control by touch anymore.
Not everything needs wireless, harddrive and the like. A large part is costs, phones have buttons becuase they are cheaper than having everything by touch. You can also text faster with buttons, again because of the tactile feedback. With a screen you can't fell if your thumb is in the right place.
Not that this doesn't look nice, but lets not get carries away.
I was excpeting something good, that apart from effects and fights had interesting (if not very deep) characters and enough good action to keep me entertained.
He certainly did something different from that.
- Huge taxation.
Compare to where? Certainly many countries on mainland Europe have higher tax rates (and some have better standard of living as well). VAT (sale tax) is 17.5%, but it is not on some items. Income tax has 20, 25 and 40 percent bands. Historically it used to be a lot higher, so I think we compare it with what it was and Europe.
Fuel tax does annoy people, we pay more for petrol than just about anywhere else and a huge chunk of that is tax.
- Mandatory, expensive and mediocre health care.
Although many people complain about the state of the NHS (which has been improving) British people in general are proud of having it. The fact you can get free treatment is seen as a good thing. Indeed, I think we tend to regard American as rather odd of not having such a health service when most of the rest of the developed world does.
How expensive it is will of course depend on how much tax you pay.
- Cameras everywhere.
Yes, and the scary thing is you don't notice or think about them. I don't think they really accomplish anything.
- A sensationalistic press that makes Fox look bi-partisan.
The tabloids are awful, but only part of the press. The more intellectual papers are called broadsheets (Times, Guardian, Independent) and are pretty good. Parts of the press are sensationalistic, but not the whole thing. Plus we get the BBC, generally regarded as one of the best and most unbiased news organisations.
- Out of control, bureaucratic utilities (like the article states).
I notice there are plenty of post by Americans complaining about similar experiences with American companies. I don't think there is anything particularly British about this.
- Television licenses along with warrant-less searches of homes suspected of running an unlicensed television.
The TV licenses pay for the BBC, and like with the NHS I think you would find most people are in favour of it. Brits are usually pretty proud of the Beeb (especially when it winds up the current government. I think it allows a more unbiased organisation than corporate owned news where the owners have their own interests. It helps keep the other news organisations honest too (apart from those tabloids, which don't really compete).
- Speed traps everywhere, set to excessively low limits and with giant fines.
There is a lot of fuss at the moment about speed cameras, but the really aren't everywhere or excessively low limits. Speed cameras that only photograph you when you are speeding I have no problems with, you are breaking the law and it only captures you when you are. I think they are less problematic than CCTV cameras in city centers, but people feel they have the right to speed and risk other people's lives (because everyone thinks they are a good driver).
- Cameras monitoring every meaningful inch of public space.
Did you do this one already?
I am a very socially liberal/libertarian US citizen
Something you have to realise is that libertarianism is a very American view point. In Europe socialism isn't a dirty world (and is very, very different from communism or communist countries that called themselves socialist), we regards the US parties as being right wing, and more right wing compared to the socialist parties that get elected here.
As I mentioned, the European countries with the highest standard of living (by most measures) tax and spend more. It certainly doesn't seem evil.
Now none of this is to say we don't have personal liberty problems. There has been fighting over ID cards, we are getting biometric passports, and we had scary anti-terrorism laws that violated people's rights long before it was the in thing.
Culturally though I think people in Europe are fine with higher levels of government intervention and action than people in the US. Some of the things you list aren't things we "put up with" but actually want. If you really dislike this you probably wouldn't be happy here at all.
For the record, I'm from the UK but I've worked in the US, so I've got to see both sides.
Comming from a family with two teachers I often found myself providing unofficial tech support for schools.
While at the secondary level they do use standard office stuff, at primary level they use lots of specialised software. There are easy to use and simplified word processors, databases and the like, as well as much more specific programs that teach specific subjects. I'm not sure there are open source equvilients of that kind of software.
Then there is support, in my experience most of it was unofficial, by teachers, relatives and friends who happened to know about computers. The numbers of people who know about open source seems rather smalled so support would be harder to get. Plus arguably open source requires more support as it can be trickier to install.
Maybe local OSS advocate groups should offer support if they want to push OSS software to schools.
you'd never eat a good seafood or rare-meat meal again.
You hunt seafood? What do you do, shoot crabs and stalk muscles? Those oysters are coming right for me!
As for rare meat, I can go to a restaurant and order a good, rare stake without anyone having hunted the animal. It just has to be good meat, not cooked much. I'm pretty sure nobody hunts cows these days.
animals always have the advantage of strength and lethality.
Right, so how many hunters get killed per year vs how many animals? I think any advantage the animal has is rather negated by the hunter's gun.Not that a careless or stupid hunter can't get hurt, by the odds really are massively in their favour.
Not a googleplex then?
Plenty of films get sequals if they did well enough to get profit. If the sequel does well then that may get another. B movies do it a lot, but so do bigger movies that were not necessarily huge money makers, just walk aroung a video rental place some time and count the sequals there.
I think in larger companies lots of things are implemented as database because IT departments keep getting bitten by things not implemented as databases.
These things have a nasty habit of growing in size, complexity and importance, then someone wants to joining the data up with something in your DB. Now you have to reimplement the whole thing.
In a large company you probably have licence agreement or existing machine you can use (just put a new schema in) so the money cost isn't much. You probably have tools for developing and writing/running reports on the DB, and in house expertise in using them. Your databases are probably already set up with backup and failover, so all that is done for you.
So what some people see as overkill, others see as future proofing.
I know this is /. but maybe you could actually give some, you know, reasons? There may be some, but if you don't say we don't know.
Thing is, it plays quite differently from, say, original Doom even graphics aside. If you like FPS games, the difference is really important.
It's like lumping, say, all sci-fi films together. Sure they are, by definition, all sci-fi. If you hate sci-fi it probably all seems the same.
If you like sci-fi though you know some are great and some suck, and if someone tells you they are all the same, you aren't going to think much of their opinion.
Very few things in any media are genre busting. What was the last movie you saw that created a new genre? I read lots of sci-fi books, and I keep reading it because I enjoy the genre. There is to me easily enough range in it to keep me entertained.
Likewise I like FPS games, playing Halo 2 isn't like playing Riddick, or playing UT, or playing Doom.
when it does there will be a new breed of films that reach people more deeply, challenge their emotions and intellect.
I don't beleive it. Other media like books have been able to tell any story from day one, yet people still keep buying the same sort of stuff in the same genres. Loads of it is not deep or challenging.
I think will keep on seeing the same blockbusters, romatic comedies and other current types of film. I don't think better technology will have much impact there.
I think it is often forgotten a lot of people a lot of the time don't want deep or challanging in their entertainment, they want escapism.
Except a lot of people seem to really like the gameplay of first person shooters. I'm not sure people always want anything deeper. After all, plenty of books, TV shows and films get by without being deep. It doesn't have to be deep if it is fun.
Games my follow formulas, but the devil is in the details as they say.
If you aren't a gamer then the difference between games of the same genre probably seems minor. If you are though you know what is important is how a game plays, particularly in multiplayer. This isn't from any one thing, but a combination of many factors. Two FPS games may give very different experiences of play, even if they both look like running around shooting people.
Just like films, or books or TV shows within a genre can differ from each other, games within a genre can as well.
Altavista may have had some nice functions, but Google returns much more useful results. There is a reason pretty much everyone stopped using Altavista you know.
It seems to be trendy on /. to bash Google these days, but people switched because it was the best overall. That seems to have forced Yahoo to improve as well.