Just a few minor corrections (and please correct me if I'm wrong):
The easy explanation as I was given to understand is that the photons propagate in spacetime, ie the wave that they are does. Spacetime is curved by gravity, hence the photons/waves curve with them.
That is my understanding as well.
According to General relativity, they cannot have mass since they propagate at light speed.
Sort-of. It is easier to prove that photons have no rest mass with Special Relativity.
Any object with mass obtains infinite mass upon attaining lightspeed, which is impossible. Hence a photon has no mass.
The concept of "changing mass" is actually an outdated concept. It is more helpful to imagine that it would take infinite kinetic energy for any object with mass to travel at the speed of light.
Of course, with a large amount of kinetic energy, I've often wondered whether an arbitary object could be turned into a black hole by accelerating (sp?) it fast enough?
One of the problems with Hummers, unlike Semi-trucks, is that they have high bumpers. These bumpers sometimes start ABOVE the bumber/hood of a small vehicle.
Why don't they make adjustable bumpers with off-road and on-road configurations? I'm not a civil or mechanical engineer, but it seems that it should be possible to deflect impacts into the frame from below.
Sorry to here about your computer. I'd send a "Get Well" card, but that would be silly.;-)
What I am saying is that the w3c's promotion of XML and CSS is destroying the web, because it is making it impossible for "average joe" to write his own html, which is one of the things that makes the web so good. Average joe can use <FONT> to change the font no problem. But w3c has now deprecated the <FONT> tag. We are supposed to use some css solution which is nonintuitive even for a reasonably experienced programmer.
You can still use the font tag with XHTML 1.0 transitional if CSS makes you uncomfortable. XHTML is also arguably easier to write than HTML. So if you really wanted to use techniques from the early part of the web, you are still welcome to.
In my experience, the average Joe has trouble understanding even the concept of markup. However, if one can understand how markup works and become proficient with XML and CSS's syntax (not necessarily the vocabulary), then the concept of stylesheets is easy. Selectors are like zip codes to groups of elements instead of houses. Rulesets are like construction plans. So I don't think CSS is that much more on the learning curve. Indeed - as an average-skilled programmer - I find XML and CSS to be easy and intuitive.
And while it is true that font tags are simpler than CSS, they also introduce more complicated (though, IMHO, still simple) problems. More complicated problems usually require more complicated solutions. As long as XML doesn't contain an email client, we're set.;-)
P.S. I know XML can never contain an email client, just as a paragraph of written text can never contain a physical object. It's a joke; laugh!:-)
Really, why do Slashdot story submitters have to have such completely and deliberately inaccurate stories? It *sucks*. I'd happily add a day or whatever on to the time until a story comes out if the eds would just read the linked to article on each story that they actually pass.
I already posted an admission (P.S. why was that moderated funny?) that my original link for "recent mass migration away from MSIE" should have referenced a different article (although that one has a typo). I goofed; I'm sorry!
I don't like IE either, but come on. There is no "recent mass migration."
I think the tiny grain of truth somewhere was that the current version of IE actually saw a market share decrease last month instead of an increase.
And by "mass", I wasn't implying "majority". I agree that the market share decrease was small; however, the absolute number of switchers was very large compared with Mozilla.org's historical conversion rate. Hence, the adjective, "mass".
Don't be so judgmental! I didn't tell anyone that I submitted the story. Some people know I was the submitter, since they know my screen name. However, I certainly didn't want bragging rights. I simply thought the article at internetnews.com was insightful and others might be interested.
Sigh. "Of couse, some things could be done any other way." should be "Of course, some things couldn't be done any other way." Sometimes I amaze even myself....
Correct. I should have said "PHP and ASP templates - with HTML - provide many of the same advantages as CSS." Of course, I like using CSS and semantic markup. However, TIMTOWTDI.
Do you know the relevant history behind the development of the WWW? Do you know why web browsers show a little hand with a finger pointing out when you hover over a link even today? It's because of the software the web was modelled after. Hugely influential and revolutionary software by Bill Atkison. Software for creating little 'page' (card) based 'applications'. That was where the initial inspiration came from.
I never used Hypercard, but I don't doubt it was influential. However, according to the original proposal for the WWW, TBL was more inspired by his earlier work with Enquire in 1980. This was seven years prior to the first release of Hypercard and the hypertalk programming language. I think that JavaScript and the DOM event model have more in common with hypertalk than the original vision for the WWW. And what about the contributions of Ted Nelson and Doug Engelbart. Surely they were more influential!
...and they missed the boat on having a half decent scripting language so Netscape assumed dominance with the god awful JavaScript to fill a niche...
Well, I really disagree! JavaScript is a wonderful programming language. Little things like dynamic typing, Self-like prototypes, and object/dictionary equivalence makes it easy to do really powerful things. I find it a real pleasure to work with.
The WWW is not about simply 'sharing documents' (do not listen to your inner hobgoblin who tells you otherwise), it's about sharing information - the exchange of information - and that's a two way process, and for that, you need an interface that facilitates that.
You're describing the Internet as a whole. The WWW is mainly about document-like information; that's what most of it is! Web apps are a relatively small part. (Note that there are hybrids, like/. and similar forums.)
As the bunny icon used to say "Subvert the dominant paradigm!"
Isn't that how the W3C works? Companies submit their "paradigm" to the consortium. The W3C works on a compromise. Companies implement the compromise along with their "paradigm". And due to a recent (long overdue) change in their policy: when there are at least two implementations, the compromised paradigm becomes a ratified specification. I still don'w understand: what's your beef?
No, use CSS whenever you need (or want) to say how something's displayed. Use Javascript whenever you need (or want) a page to be dynamic (but don't use it for things that you can accomplish with CSS/HTML!). And yes, as you say, HTML 4 still works. Just make sure your html is semantic.
True, but I was pointing out alternatives. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
It was originally designed that way, but now it is quite useful for documents, small programs (like rot13ing text, or something on a similar scale) and web applications (where a user interacts with a program that is actually on the server by means of a web browser and an html interface)
I've always considered web apps to be a big hack. Hence XAML, XUL, and other program-oriented GUI languages. I'm not saying that they aren't useful; I use them every day! I just think that they aren't ideal. Of couse, some things could be done any other way. However, the trade-off are still kinda annoying.
P.S. Not to be pedantic, but I will.:-) Did you know that the blockquote tag requires a block-level element inside of it? Simple text content does not conform with XHTML doctype or the HTML 4 doctype.
Nothing is bug free for 100% of the time. As an engineer, you should understand that! My personal experiences with news journalists suggests that errors, personal biasses, and misunderstandings are common. In addition, sometimes the facts about an issue are hard to agree on (like the mini-debate in my article's comments about the relevance of 1%). Accurate and timely news is quite rare.
The only way to get extremely accurate news is to compare multiple sources, from multiple points of view, over a length of time. I think that cliche, "trust, but verify", usually applies.
Besides, your going a little overboard. Typos happen even in scholarly journals! This particular error didn't obfuscate the meaning of the article too much. Cut them some slack!
Dude, it's just a typo. It is more important to have skill recognizing context clues and the meaning of imprecise statements than to have perfect grammar. There are far worse things to get upset about!
Certainly, in 1995 it was a lot easier to learn how create a web page. You can still use the same HTML of course, but few places teach that - they all want to try and teach new users about CSS, XHTML, DHTML, JavaScript and other buzzwords which only serve to overwhelm people.
Um, the only thing that seems correct is that it used to be a lot easier to become a professional web page author (IMHO). In my experience, most (educational) places want to teach 1995 era web development... things like massively nested frames, tables, and photoshopped images. Design is an afterthought.
Furthermore, those "buzzwords" aren't really that hard learn at all! XHTML is just a simpler HTML; CSS makes design so much easier; and a little JavaScript is easy as pie (a lot - like any programming language - takes skill). DHTML usually represents methods using JavaScript to change the existing CSS and markup; easy for little cutting-and-pasting. It just seems complicated many developers feel the need to use everything including the kitchen sink. Don't use CSS if you can use templates with PHP or ASP. Don't use JavaScript unless you really need it. HTML 4 still works. Moderation! Moderation! Moderation!
The hard parts about web development are design and consistency. Web browsers in 1995 were not more compliant than now; however, designs were so much simpler that it didn't matter. As I said before, developers nowadays want everything including the kitchen sink. Complex designs take more skill to develop and more testing to work around browser differences. Good design makes it easier to learn to code web sites, but learning to design well is really hard.
A very easy to use but powerful scripting language (something not unlike HyperTalk itself springs to mind), the ability to easily use other native interface widgets - like tabs and menus -, as well as some basic drawing tools (line, rectangle, circle and a basic fill tool spring to mind) together with an easy publishing system should have been the goals for HTML & HTTP IMO.
You're describing the design goals for Java or the X Window System. However, that's not for what hypertext was meant. The World Wide Web is about transferring documents - not programs. Writing documents with (X)HTML, and CSS is easy. On the other hand, writing complex programs with markup and scrips is hard.
IMO we should have a system where - say you are browsing your web site and you spot a spelling mistake on it at http://www.i-like-kibble.org/about.html you should just be able to click an edit button in your browser, be asked to supply a username and password and then have it open webdav://www.i-like-kibble.org/about.html either in a built in editor or it should ask you to select an editor (such as notepad, gedit or even MS Word). When the page is 'saved' in the editor, the changes should be uploaded to the site automatically by the browser. If they had been even remotely competant and argued for this from day one (and hacked up a couple of functional implimentations) we could all have that functionality today.
TBL did have that functionality in mind while writing the original web browser: WorldWideWeb. The W3C's proof-of-concept web browser was designed with exactly that feature built-in. WikiWikiWeb is the popular server version of your vision. The W3C's founders envisioned your suggestion; however, most users simply didn't need or want that functionality. That's one reason why Mosaic and Netscape Navigator were successful despite not having automatic editing capabilities.
And what really annoys me? CSS wasn't even that well designed. It's got huge gaping holes in functionality. You sh
I've found Topix.net to be more encompassing than either site. The site was created by former Netscape employees. It categorizes news into very specialized topics. The search functions better than Google News's, which seems to have a much small database for many subjects when compared with Topix.
All of the news aggregates seem inadequate. Google News has a great interface, but often I don't find news articles on specific subjects when searching the site. Obviously, MSN Newsbot will be biased towards MSNBC. (BTW, the URL, newsbot.msnbc.com, is really redundant!) Even Topix, which I pimped up there, has some bad points too. Google remains the king for relevant and enticing advertisements, and the ads are sometimes annoying or irrelevant on Topix (tho not nearly as annoying as with most sites). And sometimes there are some repeats from other services; although, it is mostly OK. Are aggregates the "new" search engines?
(I know this is a little off-topic, so please excuse my tangent.)
There's a term in Washinton DC that comes straight into play here. "Unfunded mandate". When a government agency is told it has to do something it doesn't presently do, and not given a matching budget increase to cover the cost of that task, it's a big problem.
A guest engineer speaking at a seminar imparted this bit of advice on us undergraduates. The number rule of departmental funding: NEVER GO UNDER BUDGET. This applies equally well to companies as it does with government programs.
You see, it the engineers in develop a product or solution under the time allotted with a surplus of cash, then the upper management will decrease the budget for the following year while increasing the workload. When a large project actually needs the extra time/cash, it would never get approved or the engineering team would get the blame.
So departmental manager end up using extra money buying everyone a new computer rather than save that money. This unwritten law of "adequate efficiency" seems quite strange to newbies, but makes sense for those in the workforce. Of course there are many exceptions, but it helps explain why large corporations and government agencies generate so much waste.
Isn't urine sterile? Combined with the fact that you pee onto the package membrane and not into the food itself, I don't really see what the problem is. In fact, I'd probably perfer urine over dirty water for hydrating MREs. Remember that even those "clear" puddles of water on the ground often contain nasty parasites and other irritating-to-deadly toxins. The alternative to urine could be much worse!
If everybody broke into a network would it still be unlawful.
The underlying moral principle of "respect other people's property" still applies.
That's true, but what about when an intranet is left open and someone, exploring the network, stumbles upon it?
My friend's wife once found the answers to all the homework and exams during a class on computer administration, while viewing the intranet from her workstation. The files were not password protected and there was nothing indicating that this was supposed to be private (before opening it).
She realized this wasn't right, and told the teacher. Unfortunately, the professor was not pleased, and the school tried to expel her on grounds of illegally cracking into the network! In the end, she was forced to drop the class even though my friend's wife knew more than the teacher himself! (I think the college's lawyers realized they could be sued if they expelled her.)
She wasn't the only one. A while back, I heard about a case where the New York Times sued a hacker when he found a security hole in their network and told them about it (and didn't do anything else). In both cases nothing was damaged at all, nothing was really seen and nobody was hurt. It's like someone notices that your back door's lock is broken, sends you a letter about it, and you sue them for trespassing.
What I'm saying is that we need some kind of legal protection for these kind of accidental "hacking."
Yes, but non-scientists probably think that a mole is just a furry animal.:-)
For the confused: 6.022E23 represents the number of molecules in a large container of any gas (specifically a 22.4L gas can). That's why Avogadro's number is important.
Although you make some good points, a lot don't have to do with windows.
I love having a simple, unified interface shared by almost all the programs I use.
This isn't true in general about Windows applications any more than Mac or GNU programs. Your "unified interface" is generally the result from using software created by only one vendor. What about ATI's Media Center, Intel's Create & Share, or Cyberlink's PoweDVD? What about almost every game (which is generally considered an advantage for using the Windows platform)? What about the Print Shop, Winamp, AIM, or even iTunes? What about Microsoft's own Media Player or MSN browser? Every one of these Windows programs has a drastically different interface compared with MS Office or most bundled Windows apps (like notepad, calc, or mspaint). Yet I used most of them several times in any particular week while using Windows. Granted some programs like CD Creator or even Mozilla Firefox try to mimic Microsoft's HIG; however, those are the exceptions rather than the rule. The only thing that prevents complete disintegration is limitations of Windows's GUI toolkits and half-hearted attempts to follow the HIG. It is a myth that Windows programs share a common interface.
I like having simple configuration dialogs for almost all my programs which let me easily change program settings, instead of messing around with obsure configuration files.
I grant you that, in general, most set-up options are harder with Linux programs than Windows programs. However, that is a feature not a bug! Many Windows problems are the result of users making configuration changes without thinking first. Setting stuff up should be hard so that you don't make changes on a whim. That way most users understand what they are changing and the consequences of it. If something should be changed often, then it is a bug in the program and should be an option instead of a configuration setting.
Besides, try setting up multi-user account defaults in MS Windows (in Linux, you only need to set up and copy a default user's account). Try setting per-user permissions. Try automating common tasks with shell scripts. These things are harder with Windows than with most Linux distributions. And have you ever heard about the registry? This little (big) database with obscure locations for software settings?
I'm glad I don't have to spend hours trying to find a good program to do what I want, I just want one that works well enough and is easy to set up and use. I don't need 50 different packages that all try to do the same thing, I just need one good program that actually does it.
Then just pick one package at random. Or do you have problems making decisions? Besides, there are many choices in Windows's world: MSIE vs. Mozilla vs. Opera. Winamp vs. iTunes vs. Media Player. MS Office vs. OpenOffice vs. WordPerfect Office. Notepad vs. jEdit vs. SuperEdi vs. EditPad Pro vs. 1000 other programs. The only difference is that most Linux distributions conveniently bundle most of your options while you have to download or purchase the ones you want with Windows. Windows isn't usable by itself for nearly anything besides browsing the internet, after all.
I like having my programs and commands have names that actually make sense, not things like "grep", "GIMP", "X".
What about "pushd", "Excel", or "Explorer"? Each one of those is a Windows program distributed by Microsoft with an equally ambiguous name. (BTW, "GREP" is an acronym for "Global Regular Expression Parser". Your confusion is like MSIE to someone who never heard about MicroSoft's Internet Explorer.")
I like the compatibility I share with 90% of the world.
I can make PDF, HTML, JPEG, or even Flash files that work with Windows programs just fine on most Linux distributions. Most (9
Which virtual machine are you trying to install? I just browsed to this simple Java applet example and it worked out-of-the-box. Note that I installed Java2 SDK 1.4.something a long time ago, before installing Firefox 0.9 (from scratch) using the Windows installer. In fact, I installed all my plug-ins before using Firefox 0.9. What are you referring to? Is it possible that your unfortunate situation is just a special case or an anomaly?
Slashdot Mirror
Just a few minor corrections (and please correct me if I'm wrong):
That is my understanding as well.
Sort-of. It is easier to prove that photons have no rest mass with Special Relativity.
The concept of "changing mass" is actually an outdated concept. It is more helpful to imagine that it would take infinite kinetic energy for any object with mass to travel at the speed of light.
Of course, with a large amount of kinetic energy, I've often wondered whether an arbitary object could be turned into a black hole by accelerating (sp?) it fast enough?
Why don't they make adjustable bumpers with off-road and on-road configurations? I'm not a civil or mechanical engineer, but it seems that it should be possible to deflect impacts into the frame from below.
Sorry to here about your computer. I'd send a "Get Well" card, but that would be silly. ;-)
You can still use the font tag with XHTML 1.0 transitional if CSS makes you uncomfortable. XHTML is also arguably easier to write than HTML. So if you really wanted to use techniques from the early part of the web, you are still welcome to.
In my experience, the average Joe has trouble understanding even the concept of markup. However, if one can understand how markup works and become proficient with XML and CSS's syntax (not necessarily the vocabulary), then the concept of stylesheets is easy. Selectors are like zip codes to groups of elements instead of houses. Rulesets are like construction plans. So I don't think CSS is that much more on the learning curve. Indeed - as an average-skilled programmer - I find XML and CSS to be easy and intuitive.
And while it is true that font tags are simpler than CSS, they also introduce more complicated (though, IMHO, still simple) problems. More complicated problems usually require more complicated solutions. As long as XML doesn't contain an email client, we're set. ;-)
P.S. I know XML can never contain an email client, just as a paragraph of written text can never contain a physical object. It's a joke; laugh! :-)
I already posted an admission (P.S. why was that moderated funny?) that my original link for "recent mass migration away from MSIE" should have referenced a different article (although that one has a typo). I goofed; I'm sorry!
And by "mass", I wasn't implying "majority". I agree that the market share decrease was small; however, the absolute number of switchers was very large compared with Mozilla.org's historical conversion rate. Hence, the adjective, "mass".
Don't be so judgmental! I didn't tell anyone that I submitted the story. Some people know I was the submitter, since they know my screen name. However, I certainly didn't want bragging rights. I simply thought the article at internetnews.com was insightful and others might be interested.
Don't strut and fret upon the stage...
I don't quite understand what you are referring to, nor do I know what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase that?
Sigh. "Of couse, some things could be done any other way." should be "Of course, some things couldn't be done any other way." Sometimes I amaze even myself....
Correct. I should have said "PHP and ASP templates - with HTML - provide many of the same advantages as CSS." Of course, I like using CSS and semantic markup. However, TIMTOWTDI.
I never used Hypercard, but I don't doubt it was influential. However, according to the original proposal for the WWW, TBL was more inspired by his earlier work with Enquire in 1980. This was seven years prior to the first release of Hypercard and the hypertalk programming language. I think that JavaScript and the DOM event model have more in common with hypertalk than the original vision for the WWW. And what about the contributions of Ted Nelson and Doug Engelbart. Surely they were more influential!
Well, I really disagree! JavaScript is a wonderful programming language. Little things like dynamic typing, Self-like prototypes, and object/dictionary equivalence makes it easy to do really powerful things. I find it a real pleasure to work with.
You're describing the Internet as a whole. The WWW is mainly about document-like information; that's what most of it is! Web apps are a relatively small part. (Note that there are hybrids, like /. and similar forums.)
Isn't that how the W3C works? Companies submit their "paradigm" to the consortium. The W3C works on a compromise. Companies implement the compromise along with their "paradigm". And due to a recent (long overdue) change in their policy: when there are at least two implementations, the compromised paradigm becomes a ratified specification. I still don'w understand: what's your beef?
True, but I was pointing out alternatives. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
I've always considered web apps to be a big hack. Hence XAML, XUL, and other program-oriented GUI languages. I'm not saying that they aren't useful; I use them every day! I just think that they aren't ideal. Of couse, some things could be done any other way. However, the trade-off are still kinda annoying.
P.S. Not to be pedantic, but I will. :-) Did you know that the blockquote tag requires a block-level element inside of it? Simple text content does not conform with XHTML doctype or the HTML 4 doctype.
WARNING LEVEL BROWN: OFFTOPIC! OFFTOPIC! OFFTOPIC! ;-)
Nothing is bug free for 100% of the time. As an engineer, you should understand that! My personal experiences with news journalists suggests that errors, personal biasses, and misunderstandings are common. In addition, sometimes the facts about an issue are hard to agree on (like the mini-debate in my article's comments about the relevance of 1%). Accurate and timely news is quite rare.
The only way to get extremely accurate news is to compare multiple sources, from multiple points of view, over a length of time. I think that cliche, "trust, but verify", usually applies.
Besides, your going a little overboard. Typos happen even in scholarly journals! This particular error didn't obfuscate the meaning of the article too much. Cut them some slack!
Dude, it's just a typo. It is more important to have skill recognizing context clues and the meaning of imprecise statements than to have perfect grammar. There are far worse things to get upset about!
I agree, I submitted a bad link. I was referring to the recent loss of MSIE's market share to Firefox and other alternatives.
Sorry!
For got to point out that petabyte already mentioned the point involving wikiwikiweb. Sorry for my omission.
Warning: also a long rant.
Um, the only thing that seems correct is that it used to be a lot easier to become a professional web page author (IMHO). In my experience, most (educational) places want to teach 1995 era web development ... things like massively nested frames, tables, and photoshopped images. Design is an afterthought.
Furthermore, those "buzzwords" aren't really that hard learn at all! XHTML is just a simpler HTML; CSS makes design so much easier; and a little JavaScript is easy as pie (a lot - like any programming language - takes skill). DHTML usually represents methods using JavaScript to change the existing CSS and markup; easy for little cutting-and-pasting. It just seems complicated many developers feel the need to use everything including the kitchen sink. Don't use CSS if you can use templates with PHP or ASP. Don't use JavaScript unless you really need it. HTML 4 still works. Moderation! Moderation! Moderation!
The hard parts about web development are design and consistency. Web browsers in 1995 were not more compliant than now; however, designs were so much simpler that it didn't matter. As I said before, developers nowadays want everything including the kitchen sink. Complex designs take more skill to develop and more testing to work around browser differences. Good design makes it easier to learn to code web sites, but learning to design well is really hard.
You're describing the design goals for Java or the X Window System. However, that's not for what hypertext was meant. The World Wide Web is about transferring documents - not programs. Writing documents with (X)HTML, and CSS is easy. On the other hand, writing complex programs with markup and scrips is hard.
TBL did have that functionality in mind while writing the original web browser: WorldWideWeb. The W3C's proof-of-concept web browser was designed with exactly that feature built-in. WikiWikiWeb is the popular server version of your vision. The W3C's founders envisioned your suggestion; however, most users simply didn't need or want that functionality. That's one reason why Mosaic and Netscape Navigator were successful despite not having automatic editing capabilities.
Correction: the URL is newsbot.msnbc.msn.com.
I've found Topix.net to be more encompassing than either site. The site was created by former Netscape employees. It categorizes news into very specialized topics. The search functions better than Google News's, which seems to have a much small database for many subjects when compared with Topix.
All of the news aggregates seem inadequate. Google News has a great interface, but often I don't find news articles on specific subjects when searching the site. Obviously, MSN Newsbot will be biased towards MSNBC. (BTW, the URL, newsbot.msnbc.com, is really redundant!) Even Topix, which I pimped up there, has some bad points too. Google remains the king for relevant and enticing advertisements, and the ads are sometimes annoying or irrelevant on Topix (tho not nearly as annoying as with most sites). And sometimes there are some repeats from other services; although, it is mostly OK. Are aggregates the "new" search engines?
(I know this is a little off-topic, so please excuse my tangent.)
A guest engineer speaking at a seminar imparted this bit of advice on us undergraduates. The number rule of departmental funding: NEVER GO UNDER BUDGET. This applies equally well to companies as it does with government programs.
You see, it the engineers in develop a product or solution under the time allotted with a surplus of cash, then the upper management will decrease the budget for the following year while increasing the workload. When a large project actually needs the extra time/cash, it would never get approved or the engineering team would get the blame.
So departmental manager end up using extra money buying everyone a new computer rather than save that money. This unwritten law of "adequate efficiency" seems quite strange to newbies, but makes sense for those in the workforce. Of course there are many exceptions, but it helps explain why large corporations and government agencies generate so much waste.
Isn't urine sterile? Combined with the fact that you pee onto the package membrane and not into the food itself, I don't really see what the problem is. In fact, I'd probably perfer urine over dirty water for hydrating MREs. Remember that even those "clear" puddles of water on the ground often contain nasty parasites and other irritating-to-deadly toxins. The alternative to urine could be much worse!
That's true, but what about when an intranet is left open and someone, exploring the network, stumbles upon it?
My friend's wife once found the answers to all the homework and exams during a class on computer administration, while viewing the intranet from her workstation. The files were not password protected and there was nothing indicating that this was supposed to be private (before opening it).
She realized this wasn't right, and told the teacher. Unfortunately, the professor was not pleased, and the school tried to expel her on grounds of illegally cracking into the network! In the end, she was forced to drop the class even though my friend's wife knew more than the teacher himself! (I think the college's lawyers realized they could be sued if they expelled her.)
She wasn't the only one. A while back, I heard about a case where the New York Times sued a hacker when he found a security hole in their network and told them about it (and didn't do anything else). In both cases nothing was damaged at all, nothing was really seen and nobody was hurt. It's like someone notices that your back door's lock is broken, sends you a letter about it, and you sue them for trespassing.
What I'm saying is that we need some kind of legal protection for these kind of accidental "hacking."
Yes, but non-scientists probably think that a mole is just a furry animal. :-)
For the confused: 6.022E23 represents the number of molecules in a large container of any gas (specifically a 22.4L gas can). That's why Avogadro's number is important.
That's a good point, but how many times do you configure a program?
Although you make some good points, a lot don't have to do with windows.
This isn't true in general about Windows applications any more than Mac or GNU programs. Your "unified interface" is generally the result from using software created by only one vendor. What about ATI's Media Center, Intel's Create & Share, or Cyberlink's PoweDVD? What about almost every game (which is generally considered an advantage for using the Windows platform)? What about the Print Shop, Winamp, AIM, or even iTunes? What about Microsoft's own Media Player or MSN browser? Every one of these Windows programs has a drastically different interface compared with MS Office or most bundled Windows apps (like notepad, calc, or mspaint). Yet I used most of them several times in any particular week while using Windows. Granted some programs like CD Creator or even Mozilla Firefox try to mimic Microsoft's HIG; however, those are the exceptions rather than the rule. The only thing that prevents complete disintegration is limitations of Windows's GUI toolkits and half-hearted attempts to follow the HIG. It is a myth that Windows programs share a common interface.
I grant you that, in general, most set-up options are harder with Linux programs than Windows programs. However, that is a feature not a bug! Many Windows problems are the result of users making configuration changes without thinking first. Setting stuff up should be hard so that you don't make changes on a whim. That way most users understand what they are changing and the consequences of it. If something should be changed often, then it is a bug in the program and should be an option instead of a configuration setting.
Besides, try setting up multi-user account defaults in MS Windows (in Linux, you only need to set up and copy a default user's account). Try setting per-user permissions. Try automating common tasks with shell scripts. These things are harder with Windows than with most Linux distributions. And have you ever heard about the registry? This little (big) database with obscure locations for software settings?
Then just pick one package at random. Or do you have problems making decisions? Besides, there are many choices in Windows's world: MSIE vs. Mozilla vs. Opera. Winamp vs. iTunes vs. Media Player. MS Office vs. OpenOffice vs. WordPerfect Office. Notepad vs. jEdit vs. SuperEdi vs. EditPad Pro vs. 1000 other programs. The only difference is that most Linux distributions conveniently bundle most of your options while you have to download or purchase the ones you want with Windows. Windows isn't usable by itself for nearly anything besides browsing the internet, after all.
What about "pushd", "Excel", or "Explorer"? Each one of those is a Windows program distributed by Microsoft with an equally ambiguous name. (BTW, "GREP" is an acronym for "Global Regular Expression Parser". Your confusion is like MSIE to someone who never heard about MicroSoft's Internet Explorer.")
I can make PDF, HTML, JPEG, or even Flash files that work with Windows programs just fine on most Linux distributions. Most (9
Which virtual machine are you trying to install? I just browsed to this simple Java applet example and it worked out-of-the-box. Note that I installed Java2 SDK 1.4.something a long time ago, before installing Firefox 0.9 (from scratch) using the Windows installer. In fact, I installed all my plug-ins before using Firefox 0.9. What are you referring to? Is it possible that your unfortunate situation is just a special case or an anomaly?