I'm seeing a lot code now starting in Firefox, then being tweaked for IE. It makes sense since if it works in FF, odds are it will work in IE...
Glad to see there's a least a few web developers around here with some common sense. I do something similar to you - I code for Safari and figure it will work in Firefox. Then I check it in FF - if need be, I make corrections [Safari ain't perfect]. And then I field the few (if any) complaints I get from IE. Of course, I avoid doing things that I know IE6 sucks at - for example, PNGs with transparency layers or PNGs with embedded color profiles. That's a sure way to have something look completely abysmal in IE6 [IE7 is certainly much better].
I somewhat question the technical savvy of the people who assumed that I'm just some lone hack and they're the "real" developers. Granted, my target audience tends to be under 50,000 actual users for any given system [sometimes as narrow as several hundred], but doing things this way seems to work out better for me. Then again, it's much easier these days to get people to use FF due to the massive spy/adware problems that were so prevalent with IE...
(Don't you just LOVE tweaking special stylesheets to work with IE? Joy....)
Mod parent up! I have to wonder if some of the mods even have a basic understanding of English. Pointing out that this wonderful IE6 & IE7 testing system that is such a boon to "web developers" is actually only good for web developers who have Windows is stunningly on-topic.
Personally, I make sure my sites work in Firefox and then field any complaints I might get from the minority of IE6 people I have to deal with by encouraging them to install Firefox. If that's a no go, then I'll actually bother to track down a winbox and hack it to work with IE6 (as I'm really in no mood to shell out $200 to MS just to muck with their subpar browser).
So far, that's been working well. I suspect that the FF installed base is larger than the numbers would indicate... obviously that's at least the case for the base I deal with.
...you were dumb enough to go along with the price increases in fuel.
And apparently still twice as smart as the rest of the world (at least according to your "logic") since our gas prices are still about half the price of elsewhere. But then, it's pretty obvious you're either a troll, a moron, or still living in your Dad's basement (I figure your Mom got sick of your whiney, vitriolic, self-pitying ass long ago).
But boy oh boy - I just love a good ol' can o' tripe! I feel an overwhelming compulsion to point everyone I know to your brilliant words of wisdom and insightful analysis so we can all discuss its merits at length and really come to realize how incredibly stupid we are and how OH SO smart you are. Damn - I think we're just all gonna have to line up and suck your dick now... you're so cool.
Cool. Thanks for the link. As I said, I don't doubt that we're warming. I'm unsure of whether it's a short term or long term trend. And it is a complicated system.
One of the issues I have with evolution is that people seem to get confused by nomenclature. Evolution, as I see it, is a proven fact. The currently accepted theory [natural selection] certainly makes sense but it's possible that there is more to it than that. I'm not saying I have any inkling of what that would be, it's just that trying to discuss alternatives to natural selection also gets the reaction of "oh great - you're one of those stupid creationists". Basically because, as I've said, people think natural selection and evolution are the same thing.
Anyway - again - thanks for the info.
Well, fact is, anybody who questions the veracity of global warming claims is, as you say, "some Bible thumping redneck from one of those ignorant red states".
Cool. Thanks for confirming your position as a narrow minded bigot. Your input helps to continually improve my filtering.
I really like the hand waving the editors use in saying "The Washington Post" when in fact the author of "The Washington Post" article is one of the DVD's producers. I'm not saying there isn't a story here, but how would you react if the CEO of Exxon Mobil wrote a piece complaining about the producers of An Inconvenient Truth, got it published in "The Washington Post" and then had it not only referenced as a TWP article, but got posted on slashdot as being some authoritative opinion on the whole issue.
Okay - groovy. Then I'm going to treat this more like an email discussion (I almost typed USENET and cringed at the implications) and moderation be damned.
So - slashdot moderation is a perfect example of what I perceive as a wider problem. And it comes down to people being dogmatic. Now, I understand dogmatism and I'm fine with the fact that it happens. In some ways, it has a bit to do with the way we're wired, in some ways it has a bit to do with how we're raised, who we hang with - and I don't view it as some massively evil thing. What drives me nuts is when someone is dogmatic and is incapable of seeing that they're being dogmatic. It makes it impossible to have a conversation with them. And my perception is that, over time, there actually do seem to be more people on slashdot who are dogmatic in their views but are pretty darned certain that they're the most open minded people in the world. Who knows - maybe I'm massively suffering from the same affliction and don't see it. Anyway - that's were moderation comes into play. I find it stunningly annoying that just because somebody has a dogmatic problem with me, they'll mod me down or [and this is always choice] respond from some lofty pseudo-intellectial standpoint as an AC.
I just don't find that this is nearly the forum for open, free discussion of ideas that I had hoped it would be. Granted, I think it has deteriorated over time [not like I'm some ancient magus here nor that I post massively - but I do come here many times a day on a nearly daily basis]. And it seems to me that it's almost worse than USENET from the standpoint that, rather than ganging up on people you disagree with via ad hominem attacks and flamewars, people seem to be ganging up on people with ad hominem moderation. And, since the people doing the moderation are the same people that do the meta-moderation, it's not like it's really self correcting.
I could easily go spew a bunch of crap that I don't even remotely think is correct on any of the global warming or intelligent design articles and quite easily get modded +5 Insightful, +5 Informative or +5 Funny. Just so long as I toe the party line, life is good. The minute I have the temerity to disagree with someone, I get flamed or -modded. To the point that I don't have much of a voice here at all. All of the global warmingests [yes - the zealots have actually gotten me referring to them as such] and the people who are (ir)rationally afraid of philosophy/religion [I see both rational and irrational fear of religion in people] seem to knee jerk react whenever I step out of line.
Granted, I can be very dry and/or sarcastic in some of my posts and those are frequently difficult for people to distinguish. I find you to be quite funny and appreciate what I perceive to be your intellect showing [might want to check that zipper]. And there was a prior response to my post by someone that was most likely meant to get a [+1 - Funny] mod but that could also be taken as being a flame. I figured it was meant to be funny and responded with something I thought was funny and yet to the point.
Wow. I've taken this well of topic, but the preceding has at least been cathartic for me.
<class id="topic.on">
Where I'm at in the global warming debate is still in the realm of skepticism. Not about the idea that observed global average temperatures have increased. I don't doubt that. It would be somewhat difficult to screw up that type of empirical data given the advances we've made in remote sensing technology. And I don't doubt that we have an impact on the weather due to our activities. I'm just not convinced that scientists are yet in a position to say with much certainty what exactly the results of our impact are going to be given the massive complexity of the system and the enormous number of unknowns. And even more so, I really don't see that they're in a position to assign good/bad to those results even if they are correct. To be fair, I suspect that the good/bad portion of this is something being jumped on
I understand your point and agree with it and would love to expound on my thoughts about the equivalent on the environmental industry side [imagine how they'd react if they were constantly referred to as "Big Ecology"]. Unfortunately, slashdot is not a forum for intelligent debate due to the deficiencies in the moderation system and I don't have a workable method to take this offline [grendel.dyndns.org doesn't connect for me]. I'd honestly like to discuss it with you further.
Something I read recently, I think in Sagan's last book, said planting trees is useless unless you commit to burying the trees. If they are harvested and burned (forest fire, firewood, or even after being made into furniture), there's no offset.
It sure sounds like a Saganism. Meaning that the underlying assumption is that for every tree I plant, one tree will be oxidized and all of the gases released to the atmosphere. Which is a hell of a wild assumption.
Makes me wonder how all of that carbon got sunk into those oil deposits in the first place. Really - from that standpoint, all we're doing by burning oil is helping to release that poor pent-up carbon from it's unnatural grave and restoring the atmosphere to it's proper, carbonated state.
The latest dishonest meme is that those who don't believe there is global warming are merely expressing their "valid difference of opinion".
Really. And here I was thinking that the latest dishonest meme is that anyone who questions the veracity of the global warming claims must be some Bible thumping redneck from one of those ignorant red states. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Atheism is the the lack of belief, so it isn't a belief system either.
So, what you're saying is that athiests are okay with the idea that there is a God. They just don't believe there is a God, nor do they believe there isn't a God? Weird. I thought that was agnosticism.
This topic surprised me. I had assumed that the majority of CS degrees (4 year B.S.) tended toward the same set of math requirements: calc, diff eq, linear & abstract algebra, discrete, probability & statistics, numerical & complex analysis, with optional courses like partial diff eq, tensor calc, etc. plus the traditional CS classes [programming techniques, data structures & algorithms, compiler theory, operating systems theory] and perhaps some more hardware oriented classes depending upon your focus.
Does that tend to fall in line with other curriculums, or is CS becoming a bit more watered down these days?
My source was the American Heritage Dictionary (Google's definition default), which I looked up prior to my original post just to make sure I wasn't coming totally out of left field on this. Had I not had support for my statement, I wouldn't have made it.
atheism ('th-z'm) n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
You might want to cut back on the caffeine intake [or at least get yourself a "Jump To Conclusions" mat]. I made no statement that belief in something other than someone else's system is ignorance. That appears to be your conjecture. And I certainly never meant to imply it. I'm just saying that a well educated conclusion should be backed by evidence and research. So you almost have to know something about religions in order to state that they're wrong.
And, as a replier to my previous pointed out, not caring one way or another is much closer to being agnostic. I was somewhat hoping it was fairly obvious from my post that I was attempting to correct what I perceive as a misuse of the term 'atheism'. Apparently it wasn't.
One doesn't have to have any particular religious persuasion to see that teaching kids a relatively complex narrative (the old and new testaments) requires more time and effort on the parts of parents than not teaching them the narrative.
What you describe sounds less like atheism and more like apathy or ignorance. Atheism is a belief system, not a 'non-belief' system. In order to have any basis, at least some type of study of competing belief systems needs to have been conducted. Otherwise you've got yourself a faith based system that is neither capable of being critically analyzed nor intelligently defended.
Although, I would argue that atheism requires a far greater leap of faith than deism...
...sensible policies would force innovation and thus economic growth, not decrease it.
Your brilliant debate skills aside (see ad hominem), you're actually making the case for the person you so eloquently responded to. The keyword here being sensible. If you truly believed that Kyoto were a sensible policy that would stimulate innovation and growth, then you would have no problem with it being applied to everyone equally.
Or, perhaps you're arguing that it's meant to penalize the lesser economies by excluding them from all of the wonderful innovation and economic growth that the wealthy nations will reap in its wake?
In related news, Microsoft announced today that it has had a Google board member in development for several months and will be releasing it to the public next week.
Since I'm not a mac-head, the summary didn't make too much sense to me.
Being a "mac-head" would have no impact on understanding these items...
Spaces: a new application for the Leopard operating system that enables users to group different applications in separate environments.
Virtual desktops (ala Unix CDE and variants [KDE, OpenPuke^H^H^H^HView, et al)
Time Machine: you can back up and preserve everything on your Mac -- including priceless digital photos, music, movies, and documents -- without lifting a finger, you can go back in time to recover anything you've ever backed up.
Note sure why this is confusing for you, but it's a continuous backup system with a time-scroller that lets you take any file backward in time to a previous version (supposedly).
So, you're telling me that Writing on Water can only do between 1/15th and 1/30th of a frame per second on your machine? Damn - don't you think it's about time that you upgraded your Wave Processing Unit?
And the best part of your plan is that the oil companies could get even more money generating all of the power necessary to operate those 57,000 hydrogen-generating stations!
Subsidize $570 billion in H2 plants.
Create hydrogen from mass amounts of fossil fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm seeing a lot code now starting in Firefox, then being tweaked for IE. It makes sense since if it works in FF, odds are it will work in IE...
Glad to see there's a least a few web developers around here with some common sense. I do something similar to you - I code for Safari and figure it will work in Firefox. Then I check it in FF - if need be, I make corrections [Safari ain't perfect]. And then I field the few (if any) complaints I get from IE. Of course, I avoid doing things that I know IE6 sucks at - for example, PNGs with transparency layers or PNGs with embedded color profiles. That's a sure way to have something look completely abysmal in IE6 [IE7 is certainly much better].
I somewhat question the technical savvy of the people who assumed that I'm just some lone hack and they're the "real" developers. Granted, my target audience tends to be under 50,000 actual users for any given system [sometimes as narrow as several hundred], but doing things this way seems to work out better for me. Then again, it's much easier these days to get people to use FF due to the massive spy/adware problems that were so prevalent with IE...
(Don't you just LOVE tweaking special stylesheets to work with IE? Joy....)
Mod parent up! I have to wonder if some of the mods even have a basic understanding of English. Pointing out that this wonderful IE6 & IE7 testing system that is such a boon to "web developers" is actually only good for web developers who have Windows is stunningly on-topic.
Personally, I make sure my sites work in Firefox and then field any complaints I might get from the minority of IE6 people I have to deal with by encouraging them to install Firefox. If that's a no go, then I'll actually bother to track down a winbox and hack it to work with IE6 (as I'm really in no mood to shell out $200 to MS just to muck with their subpar browser).
So far, that's been working well. I suspect that the FF installed base is larger than the numbers would indicate... obviously that's at least the case for the base I deal with.
The beauty of it is that I was able to take advantage of short circuiting early into the evaluation...
And apparently still twice as smart as the rest of the world (at least according to your "logic") since our gas prices are still about half the price of elsewhere. But then, it's pretty obvious you're either a troll, a moron, or still living in your Dad's basement (I figure your Mom got sick of your whiney, vitriolic, self-pitying ass long ago).
But boy oh boy - I just love a good ol' can o' tripe! I feel an overwhelming compulsion to point everyone I know to your brilliant words of wisdom and insightful analysis so we can all discuss its merits at length and really come to realize how incredibly stupid we are and how OH SO smart you are. Damn - I think we're just all gonna have to line up and suck your dick now... you're so cool.
Damn. I wish I had mod points to spend right now. You definitely being getting a plus from me.
Cool. Thanks for the link. As I said, I don't doubt that we're warming. I'm unsure of whether it's a short term or long term trend. And it is a complicated system. One of the issues I have with evolution is that people seem to get confused by nomenclature. Evolution, as I see it, is a proven fact. The currently accepted theory [natural selection] certainly makes sense but it's possible that there is more to it than that. I'm not saying I have any inkling of what that would be, it's just that trying to discuss alternatives to natural selection also gets the reaction of "oh great - you're one of those stupid creationists". Basically because, as I've said, people think natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Anyway - again - thanks for the info.
Well, fact is, anybody who questions the veracity of global warming claims is, as you say, "some Bible thumping redneck from one of those ignorant red states".
Cool. Thanks for confirming your position as a narrow minded bigot. Your input helps to continually improve my filtering.
I really like the hand waving the editors use in saying "The Washington Post" when in fact the author of "The Washington Post" article is one of the DVD's producers. I'm not saying there isn't a story here, but how would you react if the CEO of Exxon Mobil wrote a piece complaining about the producers of An Inconvenient Truth, got it published in "The Washington Post" and then had it not only referenced as a TWP article, but got posted on slashdot as being some authoritative opinion on the whole issue.
Okay - groovy. Then I'm going to treat this more like an email discussion (I almost typed USENET and cringed at the implications) and moderation be damned.
So - slashdot moderation is a perfect example of what I perceive as a wider problem. And it comes down to people being dogmatic. Now, I understand dogmatism and I'm fine with the fact that it happens. In some ways, it has a bit to do with the way we're wired, in some ways it has a bit to do with how we're raised, who we hang with - and I don't view it as some massively evil thing. What drives me nuts is when someone is dogmatic and is incapable of seeing that they're being dogmatic. It makes it impossible to have a conversation with them. And my perception is that, over time, there actually do seem to be more people on slashdot who are dogmatic in their views but are pretty darned certain that they're the most open minded people in the world. Who knows - maybe I'm massively suffering from the same affliction and don't see it. Anyway - that's were moderation comes into play. I find it stunningly annoying that just because somebody has a dogmatic problem with me, they'll mod me down or [and this is always choice] respond from some lofty pseudo-intellectial standpoint as an AC.
I just don't find that this is nearly the forum for open, free discussion of ideas that I had hoped it would be. Granted, I think it has deteriorated over time [not like I'm some ancient magus here nor that I post massively - but I do come here many times a day on a nearly daily basis]. And it seems to me that it's almost worse than USENET from the standpoint that, rather than ganging up on people you disagree with via ad hominem attacks and flamewars, people seem to be ganging up on people with ad hominem moderation. And, since the people doing the moderation are the same people that do the meta-moderation, it's not like it's really self correcting.
I could easily go spew a bunch of crap that I don't even remotely think is correct on any of the global warming or intelligent design articles and quite easily get modded +5 Insightful, +5 Informative or +5 Funny. Just so long as I toe the party line, life is good. The minute I have the temerity to disagree with someone, I get flamed or -modded. To the point that I don't have much of a voice here at all. All of the global warmingests [yes - the zealots have actually gotten me referring to them as such] and the people who are (ir)rationally afraid of philosophy/religion [I see both rational and irrational fear of religion in people] seem to knee jerk react whenever I step out of line.
Granted, I can be very dry and/or sarcastic in some of my posts and those are frequently difficult for people to distinguish. I find you to be quite funny and appreciate what I perceive to be your intellect showing [might want to check that zipper]. And there was a prior response to my post by someone that was most likely meant to get a [+1 - Funny] mod but that could also be taken as being a flame. I figured it was meant to be funny and responded with something I thought was funny and yet to the point.
Wow. I've taken this well of topic, but the preceding has at least been cathartic for me.
<class id="topic.on">
Where I'm at in the global warming debate is still in the realm of skepticism. Not about the idea that observed global average temperatures have increased. I don't doubt that. It would be somewhat difficult to screw up that type of empirical data given the advances we've made in remote sensing technology. And I don't doubt that we have an impact on the weather due to our activities. I'm just not convinced that scientists are yet in a position to say with much certainty what exactly the results of our impact are going to be given the massive complexity of the system and the enormous number of unknowns. And even more so, I really don't see that they're in a position to assign good/bad to those results even if they are correct. To be fair, I suspect that the good/bad portion of this is something being jumped on
By what name would you prefer we called you? I'm open to new suggestions.
Try open minded on for size.
Hi -
I understand your point and agree with it and would love to expound on my thoughts about the equivalent on the environmental industry side [imagine how they'd react if they were constantly referred to as "Big Ecology"]. Unfortunately, slashdot is not a forum for intelligent debate due to the deficiencies in the moderation system and I don't have a workable method to take this offline [grendel.dyndns.org doesn't connect for me]. I'd honestly like to discuss it with you further.
Cheers
Something I read recently, I think in Sagan's last book, said planting trees is useless unless you commit to burying the trees. If they are harvested and burned (forest fire, firewood, or even after being made into furniture), there's no offset.
It sure sounds like a Saganism. Meaning that the underlying assumption is that for every tree I plant, one tree will be oxidized and all of the gases released to the atmosphere. Which is a hell of a wild assumption. Makes me wonder how all of that carbon got sunk into those oil deposits in the first place. Really - from that standpoint, all we're doing by burning oil is helping to release that poor pent-up carbon from it's unnatural grave and restoring the atmosphere to it's proper, carbonated state.
The latest dishonest meme is that those who don't believe there is global warming are merely expressing their "valid difference of opinion".
Really. And here I was thinking that the latest dishonest meme is that anyone who questions the veracity of the global warming claims must be some Bible thumping redneck from one of those ignorant red states. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Atheism is the the lack of belief, so it isn't a belief system either.
So, what you're saying is that athiests are okay with the idea that there is a God. They just don't believe there is a God, nor do they believe there isn't a God? Weird. I thought that was agnosticism.
This topic surprised me. I had assumed that the majority of CS degrees (4 year B.S.) tended toward the same set of math requirements: calc, diff eq, linear & abstract algebra, discrete, probability & statistics, numerical & complex analysis, with optional courses like partial diff eq, tensor calc, etc. plus the traditional CS classes [programming techniques, data structures & algorithms, compiler theory, operating systems theory] and perhaps some more hardware oriented classes depending upon your focus.
Does that tend to fall in line with other curriculums, or is CS becoming a bit more watered down these days?
My source was the American Heritage Dictionary (Google's definition default), which I looked up prior to my original post just to make sure I wasn't coming totally out of left field on this. Had I not had support for my statement, I wouldn't have made it.
atheism ('th-z'm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
You might want to cut back on the caffeine intake [or at least get yourself a "Jump To Conclusions" mat]. I made no statement that belief in something other than someone else's system is ignorance. That appears to be your conjecture. And I certainly never meant to imply it. I'm just saying that a well educated conclusion should be backed by evidence and research. So you almost have to know something about religions in order to state that they're wrong.
And, as a replier to my previous pointed out, not caring one way or another is much closer to being agnostic. I was somewhat hoping it was fairly obvious from my post that I was attempting to correct what I perceive as a misuse of the term 'atheism'. Apparently it wasn't.
One doesn't have to have any particular religious persuasion to see that teaching kids a relatively complex narrative (the old and new testaments) requires more time and effort on the parts of parents than not teaching them the narrative.
What you describe sounds less like atheism and more like apathy or ignorance. Atheism is a belief system, not a 'non-belief' system. In order to have any basis, at least some type of study of competing belief systems needs to have been conducted. Otherwise you've got yourself a faith based system that is neither capable of being critically analyzed nor intelligently defended.
Although, I would argue that atheism requires a far greater leap of faith than deism...
Your brilliant debate skills aside (see ad hominem), you're actually making the case for the person you so eloquently responded to. The keyword here being sensible. If you truly believed that Kyoto were a sensible policy that would stimulate innovation and growth, then you would have no problem with it being applied to everyone equally.
Or, perhaps you're arguing that it's meant to penalize the lesser economies by excluding them from all of the wonderful innovation and economic growth that the wealthy nations will reap in its wake?
In related news, Microsoft announced today that it has had a Google board member in development for several months and will be releasing it to the public next week.
Anyone have any insights on how I can get one of these Chinese sweatshop gigs?
At the moment, I'm an 80-hour/week, salaried American software engineer and I could really use the massive cut in weekly hours.
All help will be greatly appreciated.
Being a "mac-head" would have no impact on understanding these items...
Spaces: a new application for the Leopard operating system that enables users to group different applications in separate environments.
- Virtual desktops (ala Unix CDE and variants [KDE, OpenPuke^H^H^H^HView, et al)
Time Machine: you can back up and preserve everything on your Mac -- including priceless digital photos, music, movies, and documents -- without lifting a finger, you can go back in time to recover anything you've ever backed up.Did the Amiga come with its own tinfoil hat, too?
So, you're telling me that Writing on Water can only do between 1/15th and 1/30th of a frame per second on your machine? Damn - don't you think it's about time that you upgraded your Wave Processing Unit?
Christ, it's getting to the point where I don't even have to put my tinfoil hat on to believe it anymore.
That's when you know you've passed over into permanent insanity.