Xslt takes all the need to program & process display logic out of the server-side code
XSLT should only be used to transform backend XML into different XML or HTML. It should not be used for any kind of logic, processing, etc, because it doesn't perform nearly as well as a real programming language, and becomes very unreadable as soon as you deviate from simply applying templates and doing straightforward transformations.
I program in XSLT every single day, and I use a framework (Apache Cocoon) that is basically designed around XSLT transformations, and the most common problems I see, are caused by people trying to do complex stuff in XSLT.
XSLT is really great. Really. But it's no substitute for Java.
We're human, you're not and that makes us worth not killing.
Oh yeah, the highly effective "if you don't do what we want, we'll kill ourselves!" threat that's apparently an important feature of Starfleet training. I thought only TNG used it, but I recently saw a TOS episode that did exactly the same.
Once Upon A Time In The West starts with waiting, and yet it's a very gripping scene that sets the mood for the rest of the story.
Waiting can work if you do it right. The problem is that most writers don't. Good writers can get away with anything. Bad writers would do best to stick to the interesting bits and keep the action going. I've read really badly written books that were still entertaining because the author knew he'd better stick to his few strong points.
Is that any different than the millions of decent people who believe in god?
I have no problem with people believing something different than I do. I even don't have a problem with people believing outright crazy nonsense. I do have a problem with people supporting and defending a criminal organisation that threatens and oppresses people.
I don't care much for most of the listed celebs, but I'm a bit disappointed in Beck and Juliette Lewis. I really liked them.
When printing was discovered copies of the Bible were made and those who printed, distributed stocked these copies were prosecuted (for example burned, cooked in oil etc.). The sermon's at the time were in Latin only and the ruling elite (in the church) was not interested in changing that. They did not want people translate the Bible, interpret it etc. etc.
Probably because they didn't want the people to know what was really in the bible, as that would undermine their power. Let's face it, medieval christianity was as corrupt as scientology, but that doesn't mean modern christianity is, or that it started out that way. It got perverted and abused by medieval power mongers.
Paying for salvation has and is still practiced in Christianity.
Although this is beside the point of paying for access to their beliefs (as is the case with Scientology), I'd still like to see you back up this claim. It happened in the middle ages, yes, and it was the main reason for the reformation. No doubt there are still corrupt cults claiming this, but I doubt you'll be able to find any mainstream christian church claiming you need to pay for salvation.
As with any danegeld, you always end up paying more, because "it is in your best interests".
You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?
> Does the religion take you to court if you reveal their beliefs?
Only if you disagree with their beliefs:
Could be (I'm not that familiar with islam myself), but you don't have to pay that tithe in order to learn what they believe. Apparently the Quran and the Torah need to be in ancient languages to be appreciated properly, but they aren't trade secrets.
As for legal action, I'll bet you all the christian publishing companies prosecute and maintain their copyrights fiercely. And if the bible could be copyrighted, you'd see them acting just like scientology over its contents.
Quite clearly not, as the bible is frequently given away for free. Individual translations are copyrighted, and even those are easily accessible. And they're certainly not protected as trade secrets.
If the tale of Jonah isn't literally true, what else in the Bible isn't true? Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology. Given that the world's largest religion is based on it, I think knowing which bits are true would be rather important.
My suggestion is to use your god-given brain. Different bits have very different histories, and are written in very different ways. Some parts have been handed down as oral history for a thousand years, others are eye-witness accounts.
blockquote>
How do you know that Christ or Mohammad were not con men of the first caliber, the Hubbards of their age?
Well, Christ died poor and persecuted, and didn't wield any kind of worldly power. If he'd been a con man of the first caliber, surely he'd have gotten something out of it, right?
You've got a stronger case with Mohammed, who conquered entire nations and was quite successful in any worldly sense.
That ofcourse brings us to the question: are religions only credible if they've been started by someone who died young and poor?
you get guys like FPS Doug who might be thinking "hey, war is just like FPS, so why not sign up for the military and get paid to goto college!"
I don't really see the moral problem here. If all FPS players go off too get themselves killed in distant wars, perhaps we'll finally get some interesting games on the market again.
But Shadowrun is created by the same company that created Vista. MS doesn't care about Shadowrun nearly as much as they care about Vista, so if even one gamer buys Vista in order to play Shadowrun, that's a win for them.
Were the entire RPG hobby to vanish from the face of the earth, WotC might be shocked, but they wouldn't be seriously inconvenienced.
Remember: WotC got big from Magic the Gathering. That's what made them big enough to buy TSR, and even if D&D dies, they've got more than enouh to keep them in business, not the least of which is being owned by Hasbro.
Ofcourse as long as there is an RPG industry, WotC would prefer to stay on top of it. But personally I'd prefer some of the better RPGs to get a bit more limelight.
...so if you're going to hack it anyway, why not start with what's most popular?
So, I should switch back to Windows and hack that, instead of bothering with Linux?
The D&D = Windows analogy is often made in my RPG group, and we're all linux, OSS or Apple enthousiasts.
Our only problem is that we can't agree on what other RPG is the best. GURPS was popular in the distant past, then we tried CORPS, Shadowrun, WFRP, and eventually we ended up playing Earthdawn for over 10 years. And now, with their excellent 4th edition out, I'm pushing GURPS again. But it's good to have a choice at least.
Look at it as they were the same species but different only in the ways an American or French person and a Chinese person would be different.
Are we still talking about Neanderthal versus Homo sapiens? Because that difference is quite a lot bigger than that between a Chinese and a
European, in many different ways. Europeans and Chinese are more similar genetically than two random Africans, whereas Neanderthals had a different skull, different skeletal and muscle structure, etc. I'm not an expert on this, but a lot of people who are don't think Neanderthal and H. sapiens were even interfertile. And that would mean it's really two different species.
(re-posting the properly formatted version of my post; I really should learn to use the preview button)
In my theory of evolution, it's not so much that "the fittest survive," but that "those that fit survive."
That's a coincidence! It's the same in Darwin's theory of evolution! (Ofcourse you have to realise that you don't fit anymore once someone else eats your food before you get the chance to.)
Those that benefit themselves, others, and the environment as a whole tend to survive and evolve more readily than those that form an adversarial relationship to others and the environment.
Those that are benefitted by themselves, others and the environment survive. Being nice to creatures that are eating your kids is not going to help your survival.
Monkeys still exist because there have been - and remain - plenty of habitats that are beneficial to them, and they're very adaptable to new environments. Long after Humans have engineered all remaining environments into complete unsuitability, monkeys will likely still remain, because they manage to survive on just the detritus of our habitats.
You're thinking of rats. They will outlive us, whereas most monkeys (and especially apes) really depend on jungle, forest, that sort of stuff. Keep chopping down trees and eventually monkeys will disappear. We're one of the few primates, and definitely the only ape, that thrives on plains. Or anywhere else, really.
In my theory of evolution, it's not so much that "the fittest survive," but that "those that fit survive."
That's a coincidence! It's the same in Darwin's theory of evolution! (Ofcourse you have to realise that you don't fit anymore once someone else eats your food before you get the chance to.)
Those that benefit themselves, others, and the environment as a whole tend to survive and evolve more readily than those that form an adversarial relationship to others and the environment.
Those that are benefitted by themselves, others and the environment survive. Being nice to creatures that are eating your kids is not going to help your survival.
Monkeys still exist because there have been - and remain - plenty of habitats that are beneficial to them, and they're very adaptable to new environments. Long after Humans have engineered all remaining environments into complete unsuitability, monkeys will likely still remain, because they manage to survive on just the detritus of our habitats.
You're thinking of rats. They will outlive us, whereas most monkeys (and especially apes) really depend on jungle, forest, that sort of stuff. Keep chopping down trees and eventually monkeys will disappear. We're one of the few primates, and definitely the only ape, that thrives on plains. Or anywhere else, really.
I'd say that human ancestors didn't take to the flatlands all that great but were actually well adapted to rivers and for the style of fishing known as noodling. (Paddle-like foot shape, thinned out body hair, improved hand dexterity, downturned nose, these seem better adapted for mucking in water than walking around on some grassland.)
Actually, humans are (one of?) the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom. Why would fishers need to be able to run for days on the plains? Maybe somewhere some human ancestors mucked about in or near water, but there can be hardly any doubt that for most of our recent evolution, hunting dominated, and I'm pretty sure that's what's shaped our feet. Paddling has little to do with it.
It is true that we're excellent swimmers as well, but so are elephants, tigers and lots of other animals. Actually, we're amazingly good all rounders. But if there's any one area where we truly shine, it's running. And thinking, obviously. Our only real disadvantage is that we need tools in order to kill.
I agree with everything but the Neanderthals. Modern thinking is suggesting that they just integrated and their feature blended in or was absorbed into modern humans. I don't see any problems with that either.
I do. As I understand it, it's extremely unlikely that homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred successfully.
Even even if they did integrate in, and interbred with, homo sapiens, then their genes would still have gone extinct if their descendents weren't as fit for their environment as pure homo sapiens was.
And something similar must have happened with earlier hominids. If they were fit enough to survive for millions of years, and after the arrival of a newer hominid they suddenly disappear, something must have changed in their environment to cause that extinction. The obvious culprit here is the arrival of the newer, better adapted hominid. And this doesn't have to be due to violent competition. Even the most peaceful species can cause another species' extinction by being just a little bit more effective at finding and eating the same resources.
The only way this kind of extinction may have been prevented is if there never was more than a single population of hominids that evolved as a whole into the new species. This sounds a bit unlikely to me.
Or, as another example, if you switch from Ruby to Java, let's say on a web project: How long before you can make a informed choice which web framework to pick? How long before you know the architecture implications of picking Hibernate, and when iBatis would be a better match? To know what Spring can do for you, and what you are giving up by not using it? Until you know even a standard set of tools like Eclipse plus which plugins to use, FindBugs, Ant, Cruise Control, Emma,..., plus another dozen or more libraries typically used even on a small Java web project.
Someone with tons of Java experience may not know all of that either. The thing is, a great programmer will be albe to learn them, appreciate their value and understand their shortcomings, while a mediocre programmer won't. A good programmer with no Java experience will be able to learn the basics of Java in two weeks, and will then be able to learn the basics of various libraries and frameworks. In a couple of months he may understand the intricacies of various J2EE implementations, when to use hibernate, the advantages and disadvantages of various web frameworks, etc. Experience with a few existing frameworks won't help you if you're unable to understand why a new one might be better.
Of course, you can be productive even when you don't yet know all these things, and are still learning - but you won't be productive on the expert / 10x level we are talking about. By all means, become an expert in as many languages as you can - but don't plan on getting there in 24 hours, days or even weeks.
When hiring a temp or a consultant, you're better off hiring someone with the experience you're looking for, but when you're hiring a new employee, I really hope you're planning to keep him for longer than a few weeks. Ability pays off in the long run.
Everyone wants J2EE or.Net developers and I am interested in.Net but don't have any real experience in it. I understand it and have written several small programs, but nothing really complex. I have plenty of experience writing software for the financial industry that work, writing software that is delivered on time and on budget and recieving praise for the quality of software I write. I can't even get an interview.
I am studying to get.net certified and hopefully that will help. I'm trying to better my situation, but at this point I can't even get anyone to talk to me. I would hope my resume doesn't suck that bad, when I graduated college 8 years ago I had plenty of offers and seemed to not interview like a slobbering moron, but everyone's mindset is "I need x years of this language experience before I'll talk to you".
Employers shouldn't look just at how many years of experience you have with their favourite language, because that's meaningless. You can be bad for 15 years and remain bad. You can understand all the intricacies of the language, but not grasp the basic principles of good programming. There are a lot of programmers like that, and the HR people of big companies love hiring those people, because they have tons of experience in the skills they need.
But that's not how it should be. Smart companies want people who know what they're doing, no matter what the language or how many years they've worked with it. When I started at my current company, I didn't know a thing about XSL, Javascript or CSS, and very little about HTML and XML. I knew a bit about Java, my previous job was entirely Visual C++. Yet I was hired, because they trusted that with my background I could easily learn all I need to know.
Even so, I'd be hesitant to hire someone with only COBOL experience. I'd certainly want to make sure he's aware of the principles of OOP, the various programming paradigms, design patterns and the advantages and disadvantages of various programming languages. I'd definitely want to see some code in order to see how he solves various problems, how he deals with exceptions, and that sort of thing. (In fact, everybody at my current job had to show some of those skills before being hired.)
This guy should be ready to put his money where his mouth is: If there really is such a thing as the über-programmer, who is literally 10 times more efficient than his average [median] colleague, THEN BY ALL MEANS he ought to be paid 10 times as much in salary - maybe even more.
What's inconsistent about his argument? He says that's not how it works, and he's right. Programmers don't decide their own salary, managers do. And managers are generally incapable of distinguishing between average and excellent programmers.
The very fact that such disparities in salary don't exist means that either the über-programmer does not exist, or else there is something so screwy about the internal politics of corporations that the suits in management won't stand for some dweeb hax0r making ten times their salaries.
And that's exactly it. Suits in management make more. Kings rule over peasants, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, etc. That's simply how the world works.
My dad started working in IT in the '70s, was great at his job, got a holiday to the US disguised as business trip because they couldn't raise his salary as fast as they wanted, but his boss (who recognised his talent) managed to price my dad out of the market, until my dad made more money than his boss. Then the old boss left, a new boss appeared, realised that one of his employees earned more than he did, and raised his own salary until everything was right in the world again. A couple of other managemennt changes, and my dad's salary stagnated.
Elite had hundreds of systems on something like four galactic maps
8 galaxies, and 1000 planets per galaxy. At least on my 32K Acorn Electron. Ofcourse there was no need whatsoever to actually visit all those planets and galaxies, but it was nice to know they were there.
Elite (by David Braben and Ian Bell) probably did something similar. A 3D space flight sim with 8000 planets, each with their own government and economic system, and it ran on 64K. A stripped down version even ran on the 32K Acorn Electron (still featuring 8000 planets).
Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds will be formed, and so there will be a warmer Earth. If the sun and the solar wind are not so active, then more cosmic rays can come in. That means more clouds [reflecting away more sunlight] and a cooler Earth.
That's odd. The post-9/11 research into the effects of jet contrails suggested that they have two faint effects: mild warming and mild day/night temperature moderation. But the above quote seems to contradict that.
Jet contrails are not the same thing as regular clouds. As I understand it, low clouds keep sunlight away from the surface and cool the earth, whereas high clouds (including jet contrails) trap heat below them and heat the earth.
I am now even more suspicious of the conclusions of the contrail research, coming (as it did) in the middle of the global warming craze.
I'm not a meteorologist, so I can't judge whether it's true or complete poppycock, but don't dismiss it simply because of your own misunderstanding about the differences between jet contrails and low clouds.
Slashdot Mirror
XSLT should only be used to transform backend XML into different XML or HTML. It should not be used for any kind of logic, processing, etc, because it doesn't perform nearly as well as a real programming language, and becomes very unreadable as soon as you deviate from simply applying templates and doing straightforward transformations.
I program in XSLT every single day, and I use a framework (Apache Cocoon) that is basically designed around XSLT transformations, and the most common problems I see, are caused by people trying to do complex stuff in XSLT. XSLT is really great. Really. But it's no substitute for Java.
Oh yeah, the highly effective "if you don't do what we want, we'll kill ourselves!" threat that's apparently an important feature of Starfleet training. I thought only TNG used it, but I recently saw a TOS episode that did exactly the same.
Once Upon A Time In The West starts with waiting, and yet it's a very gripping scene that sets the mood for the rest of the story.
Waiting can work if you do it right. The problem is that most writers don't. Good writers can get away with anything. Bad writers would do best to stick to the interesting bits and keep the action going. I've read really badly written books that were still entertaining because the author knew he'd better stick to his few strong points.
I have no problem with people believing something different than I do. I even don't have a problem with people believing outright crazy nonsense. I do have a problem with people supporting and defending a criminal organisation that threatens and oppresses people.
I don't care much for most of the listed celebs, but I'm a bit disappointed in Beck and Juliette Lewis. I really liked them.
Probably because they didn't want the people to know what was really in the bible, as that would undermine their power. Let's face it, medieval christianity was as corrupt as scientology, but that doesn't mean modern christianity is, or that it started out that way. It got perverted and abused by medieval power mongers.
Although this is beside the point of paying for access to their beliefs (as is the case with Scientology), I'd still like to see you back up this claim. It happened in the middle ages, yes, and it was the main reason for the reformation. No doubt there are still corrupt cults claiming this, but I doubt you'll be able to find any mainstream christian church claiming you need to pay for salvation.
You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?
That's not the same as revealing their beliefs.
Could be (I'm not that familiar with islam myself), but you don't have to pay that tithe in order to learn what they believe. Apparently the Quran and the Torah need to be in ancient languages to be appreciated properly, but they aren't trade secrets.
Quite clearly not, as the bible is frequently given away for free. Individual translations are copyrighted, and even those are easily accessible. And they're certainly not protected as trade secrets.
My suggestion is to use your god-given brain. Different bits have very different histories, and are written in very different ways. Some parts have been handed down as oral history for a thousand years, others are eye-witness accounts.
Well, Christ died poor and persecuted, and didn't wield any kind of worldly power. If he'd been a con man of the first caliber, surely he'd have gotten something out of it, right? You've got a stronger case with Mohammed, who conquered entire nations and was quite successful in any worldly sense.
That ofcourse brings us to the question: are religions only credible if they've been started by someone who died young and poor?
I don't really see the moral problem here. If all FPS players go off too get themselves killed in distant wars, perhaps we'll finally get some interesting games on the market again.
But Shadowrun is created by the same company that created Vista. MS doesn't care about Shadowrun nearly as much as they care about Vista, so if even one gamer buys Vista in order to play Shadowrun, that's a win for them.
Were the entire RPG hobby to vanish from the face of the earth, WotC might be shocked, but they wouldn't be seriously inconvenienced. Remember: WotC got big from Magic the Gathering. That's what made them big enough to buy TSR, and even if D&D dies, they've got more than enouh to keep them in business, not the least of which is being owned by Hasbro.
Ofcourse as long as there is an RPG industry, WotC would prefer to stay on top of it. But personally I'd prefer some of the better RPGs to get a bit more limelight.
The D&D = Windows analogy is often made in my RPG group, and we're all linux, OSS or Apple enthousiasts.
Our only problem is that we can't agree on what other RPG is the best. GURPS was popular in the distant past, then we tried CORPS, Shadowrun, WFRP, and eventually we ended up playing Earthdawn for over 10 years. And now, with their excellent 4th edition out, I'm pushing GURPS again. But it's good to have a choice at least.
Yeah, it would be nice if people stopped titling articles with "Fallout" if they weren't actually about Fallout.
Are we still talking about Neanderthal versus Homo sapiens? Because that difference is quite a lot bigger than that between a Chinese and a European, in many different ways. Europeans and Chinese are more similar genetically than two random Africans, whereas Neanderthals had a different skull, different skeletal and muscle structure, etc. I'm not an expert on this, but a lot of people who are don't think Neanderthal and H. sapiens were even interfertile. And that would mean it's really two different species.
That's a coincidence! It's the same in Darwin's theory of evolution! (Ofcourse you have to realise that you don't fit anymore once someone else eats your food before you get the chance to.)
Those that are benefitted by themselves, others and the environment survive. Being nice to creatures that are eating your kids is not going to help your survival.
You're thinking of rats. They will outlive us, whereas most monkeys (and especially apes) really depend on jungle, forest, that sort of stuff. Keep chopping down trees and eventually monkeys will disappear. We're one of the few primates, and definitely the only ape, that thrives on plains. Or anywhere else, really.
Actually, humans are (one of?) the best long distance runners in the animal kingdom. Why would fishers need to be able to run for days on the plains? Maybe somewhere some human ancestors mucked about in or near water, but there can be hardly any doubt that for most of our recent evolution, hunting dominated, and I'm pretty sure that's what's shaped our feet. Paddling has little to do with it.
It is true that we're excellent swimmers as well, but so are elephants, tigers and lots of other animals. Actually, we're amazingly good all rounders. But if there's any one area where we truly shine, it's running. And thinking, obviously. Our only real disadvantage is that we need tools in order to kill.
I do. As I understand it, it's extremely unlikely that homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred successfully.
Even even if they did integrate in, and interbred with, homo sapiens, then their genes would still have gone extinct if their descendents weren't as fit for their environment as pure homo sapiens was.
And something similar must have happened with earlier hominids. If they were fit enough to survive for millions of years, and after the arrival of a newer hominid they suddenly disappear, something must have changed in their environment to cause that extinction. The obvious culprit here is the arrival of the newer, better adapted hominid. And this doesn't have to be due to violent competition. Even the most peaceful species can cause another species' extinction by being just a little bit more effective at finding and eating the same resources.
The only way this kind of extinction may have been prevented is if there never was more than a single population of hominids that evolved as a whole into the new species. This sounds a bit unlikely to me.
Someone with tons of Java experience may not know all of that either. The thing is, a great programmer will be albe to learn them, appreciate their value and understand their shortcomings, while a mediocre programmer won't. A good programmer with no Java experience will be able to learn the basics of Java in two weeks, and will then be able to learn the basics of various libraries and frameworks. In a couple of months he may understand the intricacies of various J2EE implementations, when to use hibernate, the advantages and disadvantages of various web frameworks, etc. Experience with a few existing frameworks won't help you if you're unable to understand why a new one might be better.
When hiring a temp or a consultant, you're better off hiring someone with the experience you're looking for, but when you're hiring a new employee, I really hope you're planning to keep him for longer than a few weeks. Ability pays off in the long run.
Employers shouldn't look just at how many years of experience you have with their favourite language, because that's meaningless. You can be bad for 15 years and remain bad. You can understand all the intricacies of the language, but not grasp the basic principles of good programming. There are a lot of programmers like that, and the HR people of big companies love hiring those people, because they have tons of experience in the skills they need.
But that's not how it should be. Smart companies want people who know what they're doing, no matter what the language or how many years they've worked with it. When I started at my current company, I didn't know a thing about XSL, Javascript or CSS, and very little about HTML and XML. I knew a bit about Java, my previous job was entirely Visual C++. Yet I was hired, because they trusted that with my background I could easily learn all I need to know.
Even so, I'd be hesitant to hire someone with only COBOL experience. I'd certainly want to make sure he's aware of the principles of OOP, the various programming paradigms, design patterns and the advantages and disadvantages of various programming languages. I'd definitely want to see some code in order to see how he solves various problems, how he deals with exceptions, and that sort of thing. (In fact, everybody at my current job had to show some of those skills before being hired.)
What's inconsistent about his argument? He says that's not how it works, and he's right. Programmers don't decide their own salary, managers do. And managers are generally incapable of distinguishing between average and excellent programmers.
And that's exactly it. Suits in management make more. Kings rule over peasants, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, etc. That's simply how the world works.
My dad started working in IT in the '70s, was great at his job, got a holiday to the US disguised as business trip because they couldn't raise his salary as fast as they wanted, but his boss (who recognised his talent) managed to price my dad out of the market, until my dad made more money than his boss. Then the old boss left, a new boss appeared, realised that one of his employees earned more than he did, and raised his own salary until everything was right in the world again. A couple of other managemennt changes, and my dad's salary stagnated.
8 galaxies, and 1000 planets per galaxy. At least on my 32K Acorn Electron. Ofcourse there was no need whatsoever to actually visit all those planets and galaxies, but it was nice to know they were there.
Elite (by David Braben and Ian Bell) probably did something similar. A 3D space flight sim with 8000 planets, each with their own government and economic system, and it ran on 64K. A stripped down version even ran on the 32K Acorn Electron (still featuring 8000 planets).