If your company is willing to get the latest plugin but can't be bothered updating to a browser that isn't 7+ years old then quite frankly your IT has more serious problems that google frame is NEVER going to be able to help with and they will probably make a mess of the depl
Big old corporations like that do indeed have much more serious IT problems than anything related to the Web. They've got software written in COBOL! Their proprietary IE6-specific intranet sites are probably among their most modern pieces of software, and they're not interested in rewriting them every time the rest of the world moved on. They've got something that worked fine for years, and will keep on working fine if they can just manage to ignore that fast-moving Web 2.0 thing out there.
But if their employees do want that fast-moving Web 2.0 thing, or maybe some hotshot at the company thinks Wave will revolutionise their internal communication, then Chrome Frame is definitely going to solve that for them.
This has nothing to do wth Opera and Mozilla. If they support HTML5, canvas, CSS3 and have a good javascript engine, then they can just use that.
Chrome Frame solves one really big problem: IE. If you don't think IE is a problem, then you can ignore it. If you don't have anything to do with IE, then you can ignore it. If you hate supporting IE, then you can now ignore IE and tell IE users to install CF.
Face it, CF reduces fragmentaion. If you hate it so much, it's probably because you're in the Mozilla camp and you're upset you didn't think of it first. But as long as you stick to modern standards, there's no reason for you to emulate anyone, and you're free to completely ignore CF.
There are quite a few companies locked in to IE 6 right now due to requirements from internal applications. I think Chrome Frame would be pretty attractive in this sort of environment. Instead of spending money and resources upgrading your apps you can deploy CF on your desktops and give your users a browser that runs as IE 6 internally and doesn't suck otherwise.
Companies that are locked in to IE 6 choose to be. It's trivially easy to just install a second browser for external sites, and leave IE6 only for your own ancient intranet apps.
That said, I love it that Google is subverting Microsoft's crappy rendering. IE users should be eternally thankful that Google puts this amount of effort into making IE work.
Not sure what all the fuss is about, as you will be allowed to use your mobile phone via a hands-free kit. So as long as your phone does navigation over the hands-free, it's fine to use.
Not according to TFA. Using a mobile phone hands-free is fine. Using a nav system is fine. Using a nav system on a hands-free phone is not fine.
From TFA:
The Road User Amendment Rule 2009 means drivers will not be able to look at a navigation aid on a mobile phone when driving, even if it is mounted on the dashboard.
"You can use a mobile phone held in a cradle while driving, but only to make, receive or terminate a phone call. You cannot use them in any other way, such as reading a GPS map, reading email or consulting an electronic diary."
The restriction does not apply to navigation systems that do not have a mobile phone function,
So basically, it's okay if your nav system is on your iPod Touch, but not if it's on your iPhone. WTF?
Oh, and this IS/. Lots of Apple fanboys submit stories all the time here. Or have you not noticed the overwhelmingly positive iPhone stories, even back when they were initially launched and had many similar issues? Or are you blinded by your own fanboyism?
Apple fanboyism on Slashdot? Are we talking about the same Apple that gets repeatedly attacked on Slashdot for their ridiculous app store approval policies?
Or do you think that Palm should be allowed to be more draconian than Apple because they're smaller?
You're the one getting defensive when his favourite company gets attacked, so who do you think is the real fanboy here?
The confederation did neither murder 7 to 10 million people in KZ's, nor was it an fascist ideology nor did it cause a war that caused 50 to 60 million deathes world wide.
The confederation only was a group of states that wanted to separate from the USA.
There was also the slavery issue, you know? Enslaving a fellow human being might not be quite as bad as murdering him, but it's still pretty high on the list of despicable things to do.
Well I for one would be happy to look at a Playboy knowing that what I'm looking at is real.
Good point. The main reason I don't like looking in a Payboy is that it all looks way too fake. Most porn looks terribly fake. Real is much more excting.
All the Barbie dolls I've ever seen were, uh, completely smooth down there. No features whatsoever (well, except the seams where her legs attached). Surely that's not what you mean...
I mean, Ken just kinda had this lump, but that didn't frighten me into worrying about the strange dangly thing hanging between my legs, much less make me want to cut it off...!
But how often did you see magazines intended for women to drool over photos of men airbrushed to look like Ken?
The problem is that what we see in magazines changes our perception of what's supposed to be normal. If you see men drooling over pictures of smooth, shaved, airbrushed women, you might think it's normal to look like that, and therefore you are not normal.
When we visited Edinburgh, we did try haggis, and it's pretty good, actually. Of course being a vegetarian, I had the vegetarian haggis (without the blood and sheep guts), but I also had a bite of the real stuff, and it was nowhere near as horrid as I'd expected.
The problem with that is that the average consumer says "Champagne" to mean sparkling wine (if they are slightly more sophisticated they mean sparkling wine produced using the methode Champenoise , so it is not really misleading to call it Champagne.
I think this can vary a lot per region, country, culture, social group, etc. To some, "Champagne" means "sparkling wine", to others it means "sparkling wine from the Champagne region".
As an interesting note: I recently learned that due to high demand, the Champagne region has been expanded.
Do you really expect traffic to be safe enough so anyone can navigate it by hearing alone?
Where I live, blind pedestrians usually either have a dog that watches traffic for them, or they have a red/white cane that gives them instant right of way when they cross the street.
Even so, when weather circumstances are such that you can miss tire noise, you can also miss engine noise or artificially added noise. I paid extra attention to this yesterday, and noticed that with quite a lot of regular cars in my neighbourhood, the tires make as much noise than the engine. Not for buses, trucks and accellerating cars, obviously, but the engine of a normal car at a steady speed (40-50 kph, less than your 35 mph) really doesn't make all that much noise. And even less when decellerating.
India is South Asia. Vietnam is South-East Asia. China and Japan are East Asia. Central Asia is Afghanistans and stuff in that area. West Asia (though rarely called that) is the Middle East. North Asia is Siberia.
It depends, if said developer is completing the most work, but also one of the highest paid, then the next round of down sizing it goes something like this:
PHB: Hmmm, Bob is making over $X. I see he's the most productive, but we could higher two new grads and an intern for the same amount. They'd be at least that productive right?
They wouldn't. Research has shown that good programmers are 10 times as productive as mediocre programmers. If the guy is completing the most work and his work is good, pay him whatever he asks.
Cursive writing is aimed at right-handed people. In fact, the entire left-to-right thing is aimed at right-handers.
As a lefty, I couldn't possibly have my cursive letters slanted to the right. One lefty in my class got special leftward-slanted writing sheets (which looked awful). I just dropped cursive writing as soon as I could. Nowadays I can only write in horrible little pointy capitals that nobody understands.
My left-handed sister also has horrible handwriting. My right-handed brother has the most gorgeous handwriting I've ever seen. Both cursive and non-cursive.
What a waste of time and energy. The only thing worse than Python is, well, Javascript.
That is exactly the whole point that you're so obviously missing here: nobody sane should have to write Javascript, and yet it's the only thing that's supported by browsers. So converting code from other languages to Javascript is the only sensible solution at the moment. (For the longer term, it'd be nice if they replaced Javascript with something halfway sane.)
It's not entirely clear to me what Skulpt is exactly, but Pyjamas is apparently GWT ported to Python, which sounds like a really cool idea. Now if somebody did the same thing with Ruby and Scala, I'd be really happy.
Javascript is just way too stupid to program manually, but currently we're in the odd situation where we're writing server stuff in Ruby, and browser stuff in Java. That's just wrong.
The point is that if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans being the top of the food chain.
(...) But even if we are at the top of the food chain on our planet, how would life on a different planet change that? They're bound to be in exactly the same dominant position on their planet as we are on ours.
The idea of the food chain is that the animals above eat the animals below. Cow eats grass. Human eats cow. That kind of thing. It's a predator-prey relationship. When I say humans are at the top of the food chain (in the literal sense) I mean that man has no natural predators. Nothing naturally hunts us for food. At most, humans get killed when they antagonize an animal (getting between a female lion and her cubs, for example).
So what you meant above was: "if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans having no natural predators"?
I think you might want to revise that argument.
Believers would have to find some other way to explain how we were still God's favored ones (which is almost certainly what "in God's image" was meant to imply).
That's not at all certain. I just gave you an excellent alternative theory (that fits the bill much better, IMO).
Your alternate theory concerns what, in particular, in man is made in God's image. That's not what I'm addressing here. What I'm addressing is what it means symbolically to be made in God's image. The symbolic significance would seem to be that humans are closer to God (i.e., his chosen people) than any other creature. If we were confronted with a species that was as well or better off than us in significant ways, that would pose a problem for that vview.
It would only pose a problem for the view that we're the only favoured ones. But the notion of each planet having its own favoured species wouldn't pose any fundamental theological problems.
And they'd do it by saying something like our soul is more advanced than the soul of the beings that we encounter.
A "more advanced soul"? What does that even mean?
Europeans used the same kinds of arguments against indigenous people all the time. Even the most advanced race can be thought of as "poor, ignorant savages" if your definition of knowledge includes knowing God. Even people in the same culture can have those kinds of thoughts about each other, if one groups religious practices are outside the norm for that community.
The idea of other humans having no soul or a lesser soul is a rather backward view that I doubt anyone still subscribes to nowadays.
Although I'm sure some people will want to convert the aliens.
I think you're painting Christianity to be far more open-minded than it actually is.
And I am certain that you're painting Christianity as far more backwards than it really is. I'm not going to argue that all Christians are this open minded, but many are.
In Christianity, there is no "other" Jesus to turn to. There's also the Adam & Eve problem. If you try to keep creationism in the mix, you've got to explain a) multiple creation events, and b) why God said that we have dominion over the earth,
This is the whole point: we have dominion over the earth, which is a single planet. Nowhere does the bible claim any lack of competition out there. And if there is competition out there, there are several possible ways of dealing with it:
Perhaps wherever the bible says "human", it should be read as "all advanced intelligent species", God's plan for salvation as described in the bible is for them too, and we need to convert them
Because, for smaller hospitals, it's not feasible to have the practice management and (if available) EHR tools served locally. They're hosted by outside companies and accessed via the Internet.
So limit access to those. There's still no reason to allow everything. And even less reason to allow random workers to install spyware or any other kind of software.
One would assume that M$ (only using the $ for relevance) found that it would be simpler and cheaper to just pay a (probably) small fee than spend years in court al la SCO. Therefore Blizzard probably would do the same, although this isn't core business to Microsoft but *is* to Blizzard so they might want to defend.
I don't think Blizzard has as much stake in defending the validity of software patents in general (unlike MS). And this touches Blizard's flagship product. And Blizzard seems like mostly pretty good guys, so they might want to fight this just on principle.
Perhaps it's because companies don't fight these claims often enough, that software patents continue to eat up our sanity.
Exactly. That's why I hope Blizzard fights this with all they have.
The number of communications required to keep a game with N players updated with each other is O(N!). This patent suggests a method by which the communications are sent to a central server, with the server sending regular updates to each player of all the actions taken by the other N-1 players.
So far it sounds exactly like how a MUD works.
The server includes the ability for clients to become part of a "group" which further limits the amount of communication required to something less than O(N). The patent attempts to claim the Nagle algorithm as a unique invention (ie: hold on to outgoing messages for a short time to potentially squeeze more data into one packet).
"Group" in this context would be similar to "instance" in World of Warcraft or "grid" in EVE Online.
I'm not familiar with WoW or EVE terminology, but is there any chance that this might be similar to a "room" in a MUD?
Slashdot Mirror
If your company is willing to get the latest plugin but can't be bothered updating to a browser that isn't 7+ years old then quite frankly your IT has more serious problems that google frame is NEVER going to be able to help with and they will probably make a mess of the depl
Big old corporations like that do indeed have much more serious IT problems than anything related to the Web. They've got software written in COBOL! Their proprietary IE6-specific intranet sites are probably among their most modern pieces of software, and they're not interested in rewriting them every time the rest of the world moved on. They've got something that worked fine for years, and will keep on working fine if they can just manage to ignore that fast-moving Web 2.0 thing out there.
But if their employees do want that fast-moving Web 2.0 thing, or maybe some hotshot at the company thinks Wave will revolutionise their internal communication, then Chrome Frame is definitely going to solve that for them.
This has nothing to do wth Opera and Mozilla. If they support HTML5, canvas, CSS3 and have a good javascript engine, then they can just use that.
Chrome Frame solves one really big problem: IE. If you don't think IE is a problem, then you can ignore it. If you don't have anything to do with IE, then you can ignore it. If you hate supporting IE, then you can now ignore IE and tell IE users to install CF.
Face it, CF reduces fragmentaion. If you hate it so much, it's probably because you're in the Mozilla camp and you're upset you didn't think of it first. But as long as you stick to modern standards, there's no reason for you to emulate anyone, and you're free to completely ignore CF.
There are quite a few companies locked in to IE 6 right now due to requirements from internal applications. I think Chrome Frame would be pretty attractive in this sort of environment. Instead of spending money and resources upgrading your apps you can deploy CF on your desktops and give your users a browser that runs as IE 6 internally and doesn't suck otherwise.
Companies that are locked in to IE 6 choose to be. It's trivially easy to just install a second browser for external sites, and leave IE6 only for your own ancient intranet apps.
That said, I love it that Google is subverting Microsoft's crappy rendering. IE users should be eternally thankful that Google puts this amount of effort into making IE work.
Not sure what all the fuss is about, as you will be allowed to use your mobile phone via a hands-free kit. So as long as your phone does navigation over the hands-free, it's fine to use.
Not according to TFA. Using a mobile phone hands-free is fine. Using a nav system is fine. Using a nav system on a hands-free phone is not fine.
From TFA:
The Road User Amendment Rule 2009 means drivers will not be able to look at a navigation aid on a mobile phone when driving, even if it is mounted on the dashboard.
"You can use a mobile phone held in a cradle while driving, but only to make, receive or terminate a phone call. You cannot use them in any other way, such as reading a GPS map, reading email or consulting an electronic diary."
The restriction does not apply to navigation systems that do not have a mobile phone function,
So basically, it's okay if your nav system is on your iPod Touch, but not if it's on your iPhone. WTF?
Oh, and this IS /. Lots of Apple fanboys submit stories all the time here. Or have you not noticed the overwhelmingly positive iPhone stories, even back when they were initially launched and had many similar issues? Or are you blinded by your own fanboyism?
Apple fanboyism on Slashdot? Are we talking about the same Apple that gets repeatedly attacked on Slashdot for their ridiculous app store approval policies?
Or do you think that Palm should be allowed to be more draconian than Apple because they're smaller?
You're the one getting defensive when his favourite company gets attacked, so who do you think is the real fanboy here?
The confederation did neither murder 7 to 10 million people in KZ's, nor was it an fascist ideology nor did it cause a war that caused 50 to 60 million deathes world wide.
The confederation only was a group of states that wanted to separate from the USA.
There was also the slavery issue, you know? Enslaving a fellow human being might not be quite as bad as murdering him, but it's still pretty high on the list of despicable things to do.
Well I for one would be happy to look at a Playboy knowing that what I'm looking at is real.
Good point. The main reason I don't like looking in a Payboy is that it all looks way too fake. Most porn looks terribly fake. Real is much more excting.
All the Barbie dolls I've ever seen were, uh, completely smooth down there. No features whatsoever (well, except the seams where her legs attached). Surely that's not what you mean...
I mean, Ken just kinda had this lump, but that didn't frighten me into worrying about the strange dangly thing hanging between my legs, much less make me want to cut it off...!
But how often did you see magazines intended for women to drool over photos of men airbrushed to look like Ken?
The problem is that what we see in magazines changes our perception of what's supposed to be normal. If you see men drooling over pictures of smooth, shaved, airbrushed women, you might think it's normal to look like that, and therefore you are not normal.
When we visited Edinburgh, we did try haggis, and it's pretty good, actually. Of course being a vegetarian, I had the vegetarian haggis (without the blood and sheep guts), but I also had a bite of the real stuff, and it was nowhere near as horrid as I'd expected.
The problem with that is that the average consumer says "Champagne" to mean sparkling wine (if they are slightly more sophisticated they mean sparkling wine produced using the methode Champenoise , so it is not really misleading to call it Champagne.
I think this can vary a lot per region, country, culture, social group, etc. To some, "Champagne" means "sparkling wine", to others it means "sparkling wine from the Champagne region".
As an interesting note: I recently learned that due to high demand, the Champagne region has been expanded.
We're talking about blind pedestrians...
Do you really expect traffic to be safe enough so anyone can navigate it by hearing alone?
Where I live, blind pedestrians usually either have a dog that watches traffic for them, or they have a red/white cane that gives them instant right of way when they cross the street.
Even so, when weather circumstances are such that you can miss tire noise, you can also miss engine noise or artificially added noise. I paid extra attention to this yesterday, and noticed that with quite a lot of regular cars in my neighbourhood, the tires make as much noise than the engine. Not for buses, trucks and accellerating cars, obviously, but the engine of a normal car at a steady speed (40-50 kph, less than your 35 mph) really doesn't make all that much noise. And even less when decellerating.
When the wind is blowing the wrong way and the car is only going 35mph, it is easy to miss the tire noise.
Which is why it's important to always pay attention and look out for other traffic.
I think I've got a solution to your problem: how about we require everybody to watch where they're going when in traffic?
Do this a block away from a busy street, for added realism. See how close he is.
And how fast he's going. The faster a car is going, the more noise the tires make.
And in my country, blind people with a red/white cane always have right of way. Making cars extra noisy is stupid.
Cars should make noise; not all intersections have streetlights.
Cars do make noise. In my experience, the tires on the street make a lot more noise nowadays than the engines.
Adding artificial noise is silly and stupid.
India is South Asia. Vietnam is South-East Asia. China and Japan are East Asia. Central Asia is Afghanistans and stuff in that area. West Asia (though rarely called that) is the Middle East. North Asia is Siberia.
It depends, if said developer is completing the most work, but also one of the highest paid, then the next round of down sizing it goes something like this:
PHB: Hmmm, Bob is making over $X. I see he's the most productive, but we could higher two new grads and an intern for the same amount. They'd be at least that productive right?
They wouldn't. Research has shown that good programmers are 10 times as productive as mediocre programmers. If the guy is completing the most work and his work is good, pay him whatever he asks.
Cursive writing is aimed at right-handed people. In fact, the entire left-to-right thing is aimed at right-handers.
As a lefty, I couldn't possibly have my cursive letters slanted to the right. One lefty in my class got special leftward-slanted writing sheets (which looked awful). I just dropped cursive writing as soon as I could. Nowadays I can only write in horrible little pointy capitals that nobody understands.
My left-handed sister also has horrible handwriting. My right-handed brother has the most gorgeous handwriting I've ever seen. Both cursive and non-cursive.
What a waste of time and energy. The only thing worse than Python is, well, Javascript.
That is exactly the whole point that you're so obviously missing here: nobody sane should have to write Javascript, and yet it's the only thing that's supported by browsers. So converting code from other languages to Javascript is the only sensible solution at the moment. (For the longer term, it'd be nice if they replaced Javascript with something halfway sane.)
It's not entirely clear to me what Skulpt is exactly, but Pyjamas is apparently GWT ported to Python, which sounds like a really cool idea. Now if somebody did the same thing with Ruby and Scala, I'd be really happy.
Javascript is just way too stupid to program manually, but currently we're in the odd situation where we're writing server stuff in Ruby, and browser stuff in Java. That's just wrong.
The point is that if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans being the top of the food chain.
(...) But even if we are at the top of the food chain on our planet, how would life on a different planet change that? They're bound to be in exactly the same dominant position on their planet as we are on ours.
The idea of the food chain is that the animals above eat the animals below. Cow eats grass. Human eats cow. That kind of thing. It's a predator-prey relationship. When I say humans are at the top of the food chain (in the literal sense) I mean that man has no natural predators. Nothing naturally hunts us for food. At most, humans get killed when they antagonize an animal (getting between a female lion and her cubs, for example).
So what you meant above was: "if another race of intelligent beings was found somewhere else in the universe, it would topple the idea of humans having no natural predators"?
I think you might want to revise that argument.
Believers would have to find some other way to explain how we were still God's favored ones (which is almost certainly what "in God's image" was meant to imply).
That's not at all certain. I just gave you an excellent alternative theory (that fits the bill much better, IMO).
Your alternate theory concerns what, in particular, in man is made in God's image. That's not what I'm addressing here. What I'm addressing is what it means symbolically to be made in God's image. The symbolic significance would seem to be that humans are closer to God (i.e., his chosen people) than any other creature. If we were confronted with a species that was as well or better off than us in significant ways, that would pose a problem for that vview.
It would only pose a problem for the view that we're the only favoured ones. But the notion of each planet having its own favoured species wouldn't pose any fundamental theological problems.
And they'd do it by saying something like our soul is more advanced than the soul of the beings that we encounter.
A "more advanced soul"? What does that even mean?
Europeans used the same kinds of arguments against indigenous people all the time. Even the most advanced race can be thought of as "poor, ignorant savages" if your definition of knowledge includes knowing God. Even people in the same culture can have those kinds of thoughts about each other, if one groups religious practices are outside the norm for that community.
The idea of other humans having no soul or a lesser soul is a rather backward view that I doubt anyone still subscribes to nowadays.
Although I'm sure some people will want to convert the aliens.
I think you're painting Christianity to be far more open-minded than it actually is.
And I am certain that you're painting Christianity as far more backwards than it really is. I'm not going to argue that all Christians are this open minded, but many are.
In Christianity, there is no "other" Jesus to turn to. There's also the Adam & Eve problem. If you try to keep creationism in the mix, you've got to explain a) multiple creation events, and b) why God said that we have dominion over the earth,
This is the whole point: we have dominion over the earth, which is a single planet. Nowhere does the bible claim any lack of competition out there. And if there is competition out there, there are several possible ways of dealing with it:
Perhaps wherever the bible says "human", it should be read as "all advanced intelligent species", God's plan for salvation as described in the bible is for them too, and we need to convert them
Because, for smaller hospitals, it's not feasible to have the practice management and (if available) EHR tools served locally. They're hosted by outside companies and accessed via the Internet.
So limit access to those. There's still no reason to allow everything. And even less reason to allow random workers to install spyware or any other kind of software.
One would assume that M$ (only using the $ for relevance) found that it would be simpler and cheaper to just pay a (probably) small fee than spend years in court al la SCO. Therefore Blizzard probably would do the same, although this isn't core business to Microsoft but *is* to Blizzard so they might want to defend.
I don't think Blizzard has as much stake in defending the validity of software patents in general (unlike MS). And this touches Blizard's flagship product. And Blizzard seems like mostly pretty good guys, so they might want to fight this just on principle.
Perhaps it's because companies don't fight these claims often enough, that software patents continue to eat up our sanity.
Exactly. That's why I hope Blizzard fights this with all they have.
Patent 5822523, summarised:
The number of communications required to keep a game with N players updated with each other is O(N!). This patent suggests a method by which the communications are sent to a central server, with the server sending regular updates to each player of all the actions taken by the other N-1 players.
So far it sounds exactly like how a MUD works.
The server includes the ability for clients to become part of a "group" which further limits the amount of communication required to something less than O(N). The patent attempts to claim the Nagle algorithm as a unique invention (ie: hold on to outgoing messages for a short time to potentially squeeze more data into one packet).
"Group" in this context would be similar to "instance" in World of Warcraft or "grid" in EVE Online.
I'm not familiar with WoW or EVE terminology, but is there any chance that this might be similar to a "room" in a MUD?