Well, dumbass, Java comes with a runtime. The language and the runtime form the entity known as Java. If the compiler is written in Java and then compiled to native code, then there's another compiler implemented in native code (essentially C++->native code per the VM's language), in no way distinguishable from the original compiler. So the only way to write a compiler in Java is to run the compiler in the JVM, which the GP shunned in favour of native code.
You know, with the apparent conviction SCO has been going after Linux, I shouldn't be the least bit surprised if they actually did consider all that code theirs and included it in their new packages. They probably didn't, but..:)
'Dogmatism' here is Web Standards vs., well, non-standards. I think it's a worthy cause. See, if MS just fixed their stuff then we wouldn't have to have this discussion, would we?
And I disagree -if the site is W3C-compliant, it's by definition 'shoddy', say what you will about the business model of the place.
People always talk of the IE users as if they were some invariable constant, which is completely incorrect. A significant change in web browser percentages could occur in a matter of weeks (it takes about 15 minutes to download FF or Opera on a 56K, I just got 0.9 and 7.50) in a suitable environment. Said suitable environment is created (or deterred) by webmasters like you.
In fact most of the problem is a simple circular route of doom: web developers develop for IE because 'everyone uses it' and everyone uses IE because 'everything is developed for it' (yes yes, there are other issues, but those are minor since we're talking about free (as in beer) software here).
I code my sites in XHTML 1.1, consequences be damned. I only run minuscule sites so I don't have anyone pressuring me either way, of course.
>My only worry is that some sites still work only with IE.
Seriously, whenever you cannot enter a site using a 'non-standard' browser, send e-mail to the webmaster (and anyone else in that domain. Around the thousandth user complaining about it someone usually takes notice. Let's see what the highest UID is right now...
Also, just because the software is open-source doesn't mean it's easy to integrate with. Just look at all the Perl out there. If you can't detect if the code is binary or ascii, it's hard to interface with:)
Re:The sound of one hand clapping...
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
Mod parent up (and GP down).
There's a big difference between information that you choose to reveal and information that someone else chooses to find out about you.
Re:Signal to noise ratio plan.
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, and I always thought 'blog' was a stupid name. We could call them 'news categories' or 'news groups' instead.
They should do away with selecting anything in writing -although a computer with the optional "You have chosen Blank Blank, is this correct?" is better than what we have now. Of course, it can be argued whether it's necessary to count the votes of the people who can't figure out which name to put an X next to.
No, we should use audio. Computer asks: "Who would you like to vote for?", to which Bubba can say "Wheall, meh paw'n ahlweahs bean'n rew-baahpleacn, saw'm vot'n fer Gawwg Dub-yah Bousch" (to which the machine says "Just the name, please"). Special provisions can be made to those without the ability to speak.
"Cake or death?" "Death. --No, no, cake!" "Aha, you said death!"
I can't understand why this person took in Haskell and OCaml anyway* -the question was scripting languages and most scripting tasks are text processing and process control, neither of which any functional language is particularly suited for. I'm surprised Prolog wasn't there..
That aside, OCaml really is nice. I tend to use Haskell whenever I go functional, though.
* I'm not even going to bother wondering about C# and Java.
Now, this is certainly a smart dog, no doubt about it, but..
>This is really the reasoning part. You don't need to tell the dog what the toy's name is - the dog will figure it out himself. If you tell him to look for something he's never heard of, he will have a look around and if there's something new and unusual, he will guess that's what you meant.
The Slashdot blurb was a bit misleading. The dog doesn't necessarily learn that a 'squeege' is called a squeege after one exposure (most humans don't) but if it knows the names of all the other things in the pile, it will reason that the one the human wants must be the one without a name.
So the dog understands the sentence structure [GET] [OBJECT], which is impressive in itself.
I don't know about that one. I'm pretty sure even the electrical impulses (or their sequencing etc.) vary slightly from person to person (similarly, the 'brainwaves' don't really differ in normal persons, but where they occur, how they tour to get certain information etc. may be radically different).
And, you know, as much as I hate to say this postmortem, Reagan wasn't infallible, and that particular quote is idiotic. I don't think Lenin or Mao understood communism:)
>I dunno. They do appear to have the ability to have information they disagree with removed from a website, simply by making a bogus complaint to the ISP.
And, actually, it's a bit worse. There's still this whole debacle about the Scientologist writings not being allowed to be published.
(I really like Scientology, by the way and think Mr. Hubbard was a great visionary and that all that evil talk about Scientology is purely fictional and surely they wouldn't blow up my computer for saying anything against them (which I didn't!) or send black helicopter men to assassinate me/Be back in a sec, someone at the door, wonder who it is at 03:30 and what the heck is that nois
Haha. Unfortunately I believe 'I' is the correct pronoun in that context although colloquially 'me' is usually used. As a general rule, 'I/me' is used in the same fashion as 'he/him', namely, the first form is used as the Subject of a sentence whereas the latter is the Object of the sentence. Sorry.
Oh, you're certainly right, there are complex applications. A web browser is not necessarily one of those. For example the Dillo browser mentioned above produces an executable of about 350KB, and is fairly featured.
I'm concerned that the availability of resources will encourage developers to use questionable techniques. Have you seen the tentative Longhorn hardware requirements?
The biggest threat to US mobile gaming is I smacking the mobile gamer on the head for being an idiot. Get a goddamn handheld game and keep it separate from your phone. You know why? Because you end up paying more if you don't. And more importantly, I end up paying more for my just-for-telephone-calls phone.
XHTML is a misleading name. Essentially all XHTML is is simply an XML document type -it has a schema, and, yes, it is theoretically extensible just like any XML document. The extensions are known as releases -XHTML 1.0 vs. XHTML 1.1, which have different schemas.
The individual web developer will not extend XHTML in any fashion (he can, but then it's not of the same document type anymore and will therefore not work with the clients (browsers)).
XHTML is mostly a subset of HTML (although one or two new tags are defined also). See here for all XHTML 1.1 tags.
The reason for XHTML's existence is that HTML concentrates (heavily) on presentation as well as structure, and it was felt that this should not be. So XHTML defines the structure of a given document and leaves any presentation of that data to some other entity (like any good XML document)*. The presentation layer is called CSS or Cascading Style Sheets.
* I don't mean that an XML document can't define presentation per se -what I mean is that a good XML document does one thing and one thing only: presents some data in a structured manner (for example, this post contains a MemberName, Subject, Text, ModerationScore and so on). There's nothing that prevents using XML to describe presentation, but it should not be presentation -that's a very important distinction. So theoretically an XHTML file describing the structure of the document could be accompanied by another XML file that described how it was to be presented, but at least for now that task has been given to CSS. For information about XML as presentation description, you can take a look at XUL from Mozilla.
> And this is why Linux is good for you, even if you don't care about the actual software and are a Windows-only user.
Oh, I don't know about that. I think that my startup company may go with Windows. I only plan to host a single webserver to handle the 3M+ hits per month. I'm very focused on redundancy and recovery so if something --gods forbid-- would happen to the webserver, my backup cluster of 300 servers is ready to hop into action right away. It's really convenient that MS came up with this -and the curious thing is that they announced it just about the same time I was drawing my specs. It was almost so close you couldn't tell which of us spoke first!
Sure, the resources are there but --and let me be very clear about this-- this is not an acceptable excuse for poor coding. I think (or hope?) most of the poor code in Firefox is directly inherited from Mozilla, but I'm honestly a bit afraid it may continue to exist since it's probably pretty deeply rooted in the structure.
> It would also probably cut the number of web pages you can view by half as well.
I'm well aware. I actually really like the other poster's suggestion about Dillo, thanks to them!
>I still write in HTML 4.0 Transitional and validate it. Why should I be left out?
You're not left out. If I *really* need your site, I can scrounge up the 27MB of Firefox.
>XHTML is unnecessarily complex for my needs. At the end of the day, I merely want a site that looks reasonably good and is functional.
XHTML is, by definition, much simpler than HTML, since it comprises of a smaller set of tags and attributes. I'm assuming you mean CSS, but -honestly- you can make an ordinary site very easily using CSS (admittedly making an absolutely positioned site is much easier than a relatively positioned one).
It may be just me but when the 'lean', 'no-nonsense' and 'stripped' version of software requires 27MB to run with two open tags I think it's perfectly fine to blame the developers of that software, even if there were no extra resource leaks.
I hope someone will write a browser that will parse only valid XHTML 1.1/CSS and nothing else. Would cut the executable in half not to try to support the horrible code people put on the web a few years ago.
Ah -one more trick when talking about/completely/ computer-illiterate people (I do some work with the elderly): when teaching this method of password creation I always have slices of paper -red, but I assume anything works- cut very thin with slight variances in thickness. If anyone has a problem understanding the keyboard as etch-a-scetch concept, I simply ask the user to give the key and then place the paper slices on the keyboard so that the 'picture' is clearly visible. This usually gets even the worst cases.
Of course, nothing is completely foolproof/infallible.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, dumbass, Java comes with a runtime. The language and the runtime form the entity known as Java. If the compiler is written in Java and then compiled to native code, then there's another compiler implemented in native code (essentially C++->native code per the VM's language), in no way distinguishable from the original compiler. So the only way to write a compiler in Java is to run the compiler in the JVM, which the GP shunned in favour of native code.
You know, with the apparent conviction SCO has been going after Linux, I shouldn't be the least bit surprised if they actually did consider all that code theirs and included it in their new packages. They probably didn't, but.. :)
> It is possible to compile java to native code; JIT's do it all the time.
Well, the JVM wouldn't be written in Java then, would it?
'Dogmatism' here is Web Standards vs., well, non-standards. I think it's a worthy cause. See, if MS just fixed their stuff then we wouldn't have to have this discussion, would we?
And I disagree -if the site is W3C-compliant, it's by definition 'shoddy', say what you will about the business model of the place.
People always talk of the IE users as if they were some invariable constant, which is completely incorrect. A significant change in web browser percentages could occur in a matter of weeks (it takes about 15 minutes to download FF or Opera on a 56K, I just got 0.9 and 7.50) in a suitable environment. Said suitable environment is created (or deterred) by webmasters like you.
In fact most of the problem is a simple circular route of doom: web developers develop for IE because 'everyone uses it' and everyone uses IE because 'everything is developed for it' (yes yes, there are other issues, but those are minor since we're talking about free (as in beer) software here).
I code my sites in XHTML 1.1, consequences be damned. I only run minuscule sites so I don't have anyone pressuring me either way, of course.
>My only worry is that some sites still work only with IE.
Seriously, whenever you cannot enter a site using a 'non-standard' browser, send e-mail to the webmaster (and anyone else in that domain. Around the thousandth user complaining about it someone usually takes notice. Let's see what the highest UID is right now...
Also, just because the software is open-source doesn't mean it's easy to integrate with. Just look at all the Perl out there. If you can't detect if the code is binary or ascii, it's hard to interface with :)
Mod parent up (and GP down).
There's a big difference between information that you choose to reveal and information that someone else chooses to find out about you.
Yeah, and I always thought 'blog' was a stupid name. We could call them 'news categories' or 'news groups' instead.
That's OpenBSD. Damn, man, it's two articles down on the front page.
They should do away with selecting anything in writing -although a computer with the optional "You have chosen Blank Blank, is this correct?" is better than what we have now. Of course, it can be argued whether it's necessary to count the votes of the people who can't figure out which name to put an X next to.
No, we should use audio. Computer asks: "Who would you like to vote for?", to which Bubba can say "Wheall, meh paw'n ahlweahs bean'n rew-baahpleacn, saw'm vot'n fer Gawwg Dub-yah Bousch" (to which the machine says "Just the name, please"). Special provisions can be made to those without the ability to speak.
"Cake or death?"
"Death. --No, no, cake!"
"Aha, you said death!"
Haha. Funny.
I can't understand why this person took in Haskell and OCaml anyway* -the question was scripting languages and most scripting tasks are text processing and process control, neither of which any functional language is particularly suited for. I'm surprised Prolog wasn't there..
That aside, OCaml really is nice. I tend to use Haskell whenever I go functional, though.
* I'm not even going to bother wondering about C# and Java.
Now, this is certainly a smart dog, no doubt about it, but..
>This is really the reasoning part. You don't need to tell the dog what the toy's name is - the dog will figure it out himself. If you tell him to look for something he's never heard of, he will have a look around and if there's something new and unusual, he will guess that's what you meant.
The Slashdot blurb was a bit misleading. The dog doesn't necessarily learn that a 'squeege' is called a squeege after one exposure (most humans don't) but if it knows the names of all the other things in the pile, it will reason that the one the human wants must be the one without a name.
So the dog understands the sentence structure [GET] [OBJECT], which is impressive in itself.
I don't know about that one. I'm pretty sure even the electrical impulses (or their sequencing etc.) vary slightly from person to person (similarly, the 'brainwaves' don't really differ in normal persons, but where they occur, how they tour to get certain information etc. may be radically different).
:)
And, you know, as much as I hate to say this postmortem, Reagan wasn't infallible, and that particular quote is idiotic. I don't think Lenin or Mao understood communism
>I dunno. They do appear to have the ability to have information they disagree with removed from a website, simply by making a bogus complaint to the ISP.
/Be back in a sec, someone at the door, wonder who it is at 03:30 and what the heck is that nois
And, actually, it's a bit worse. There's still this whole debacle about the Scientologist writings not being allowed to be published.
(I really like Scientology, by the way and think Mr. Hubbard was a great visionary and that all that evil talk about Scientology is purely fictional and surely they wouldn't blow up my computer for saying anything against them (which I didn't!) or send black helicopter men to assassinate me
Haha. Unfortunately I believe 'I' is the correct pronoun in that context although colloquially 'me' is usually used. As a general rule, 'I/me' is used in the same fashion as 'he/him', namely, the first form is used as the Subject of a sentence whereas the latter is the Object of the sentence. Sorry.
Oh, you're certainly right, there are complex applications. A web browser is not necessarily one of those. For example the Dillo browser mentioned above produces an executable of about 350KB, and is fairly featured.
I'm concerned that the availability of resources will encourage developers to use questionable techniques. Have you seen the tentative Longhorn hardware requirements?
The biggest threat to US mobile gaming is I smacking the mobile gamer on the head for being an idiot. Get a goddamn handheld game and keep it separate from your phone. You know why? Because you end up paying more if you don't. And more importantly, I end up paying more for my just-for-telephone-calls phone.
XHTML is a misleading name. Essentially all XHTML is is simply an XML document type -it has a schema, and, yes, it is theoretically extensible just like any XML document. The extensions are known as releases -XHTML 1.0 vs. XHTML 1.1, which have different schemas.
The individual web developer will not extend XHTML in any fashion (he can, but then it's not of the same document type anymore and will therefore not work with the clients (browsers)).
XHTML is mostly a subset of HTML (although one or two new tags are defined also). See here for all XHTML 1.1 tags.
The reason for XHTML's existence is that HTML concentrates (heavily) on presentation as well as structure, and it was felt that this should not be. So XHTML defines the structure of a given document and leaves any presentation of that data to some other entity (like any good XML document)*. The presentation layer is called CSS or Cascading Style Sheets.
* I don't mean that an XML document can't define presentation per se -what I mean is that a good XML document does one thing and one thing only: presents some data in a structured manner (for example, this post contains a MemberName, Subject, Text, ModerationScore and so on). There's nothing that prevents using XML to describe presentation, but it should not be presentation -that's a very important distinction. So theoretically an XHTML file describing the structure of the document could be accompanied by another XML file that described how it was to be presented, but at least for now that task has been given to CSS. For information about XML as presentation description, you can take a look at XUL from Mozilla.
I see Sunday Miscognition has struck again.
For pun-impaired, the wordplay with the two meanings of 'backup' was the idea here.
> And this is why Linux is good for you, even if you don't care about the actual software and are a Windows-only user.
:)
Oh, I don't know about that. I think that my startup company may go with Windows. I only plan to host a single webserver to handle the 3M+ hits per month. I'm very focused on redundancy and recovery so if something --gods forbid-- would happen to the webserver, my backup cluster of 300 servers is ready to hop into action right away. It's really convenient that MS came up with this -and the curious thing is that they announced it just about the same time I was drawing my specs. It was almost so close you couldn't tell which of us spoke first!
Yes yes, I RTFA
Sure, the resources are there but --and let me be very clear about this-- this is not an acceptable excuse for poor coding. I think (or hope?) most of the poor code in Firefox is directly inherited from Mozilla, but I'm honestly a bit afraid it may continue to exist since it's probably pretty deeply rooted in the structure.
> It would also probably cut the number of web pages you can view by half as well.
I'm well aware. I actually really like the other poster's suggestion about Dillo, thanks to them!
>I still write in HTML 4.0 Transitional and validate it. Why should I be left out?
You're not left out. If I *really* need your site, I can scrounge up the 27MB of Firefox.
>XHTML is unnecessarily complex for my needs. At the end of the day, I merely want a site that looks reasonably good and is functional.
XHTML is, by definition, much simpler than HTML, since it comprises of a smaller set of tags and attributes. I'm assuming you mean CSS, but -honestly- you can make an ordinary site very easily using CSS (admittedly making an absolutely positioned site is much easier than a relatively positioned one).
And, ahaha, get this, ahaha, the Linux version will be called Fondertux! Haha!
It may be just me but when the 'lean', 'no-nonsense' and 'stripped' version of software requires 27MB to run with two open tags I think it's perfectly fine to blame the developers of that software, even if there were no extra resource leaks.
I hope someone will write a browser that will parse only valid XHTML 1.1/CSS and nothing else. Would cut the executable in half not to try to support the horrible code people put on the web a few years ago.
Ah -one more trick when talking about /completely/ computer-illiterate people (I do some work with the elderly): when teaching this method of password creation I always have slices of paper -red, but I assume anything works- cut very thin with slight variances in thickness. If anyone has a problem understanding the keyboard as etch-a-scetch concept, I simply ask the user to give the key and then place the paper slices on the keyboard so that the 'picture' is clearly visible. This usually gets even the worst cases.
Of course, nothing is completely foolproof/infallible.