Well, given that your share of the market is tiny, interface discrepancies are something you will have to live with. There will be apps that are significantly better than the alternatives, or worse yet, fundamentally unique in a way that precludes alternatives (At the time, at least). You will have to deal with things using a non-Macified interface.
Also, come the fsck on with the "A traditional Mac App uses Carbon or Cocoa" crap. You're basically saying that if a program is built well, and conforms on Mac to the HIG, but is written in a toolkit other than the standard Mac toolkit, it's not acceptable? You'd evaluate a program based solely on a slight mismatch in widget style? That is stupid. Really stupid.
To summarize: One of the reasons Mac is a real computing platform now (And yes, I am trivializing OS9 and below) is that you can now have cross-platform programs target it. This is one of the big reasons that Apple based OSX off of FreeBSD in the first place. This means developers can include the platform, without having to either develop solely for the Mac, or else spend man-years redoing it in a Mac-only toolkit. Really, I think that QT is giving you the best deal you're going to get, running through the Mac toolkits past the API level.
Because the majority of developers aren't going to look over and say "Oooh, 7% of the market! Let's learn a specialized toolkit for them, and then rewrite all our GUI code twice to take advantage of both platforms."
The real question is "Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their (subjective) lack of talent and their (reasonably objective) lack of any sort of relevance for the past (let's be charitable) decade and change (Almost a decade and a half if you cut it off at Load)."
I think my point is, this should be filed under the "Who gives a %#^& with "Axel Rose lies again about releasing Chinese Democracy."
Although, as far as I recall, there wasn't an American DDOS attack on British news sources based on the Iraq thing, government sponsored or not.
And as far as the Chinese... as long as you are going to be horrible to entire nations like that, people are going to say bad things about you. Why, look at us! Quit whining about it, either stop or accept that the world can recognize your evil actions for what they are.
I would prefer them to stop, by the way. And I wish we'd (USA) stop treating them like they're our best chums while they're violating human rights on international scales.
Now lets contrast this with teachers. Testing teachers for quality control is forbidden. Parents disagree over what 'teaching' even should be, but the State prescribes one doctrine for all. If one disagrees with WHAT is being taught it is hard to see how buying more of it will change anything. If we can't quantify quality other than waiting thirten years to see how many children out of each batch gets destroyed it is hard to get a grip on quality control, thus throwing more money at a broken design is contra indicated.
Well, to be fair, testing teachers for quality control isn't so much "Forbidden" as "questionably possible." After all, teaching is not actually a simply definable process with well understood inputs and outputs. It involves a minimum of two individuals (Something a Libertarian should be concerned with), and it depends on the interaction between them and a huge slice of external environment. You can have a bright kid, a great teacher, and oops, asshole parents, welcome to the quickie mart, son. You can have great parents, great teacher, and whoops, kid's got emotional problems unrelated to either. Fuck.
Reductionism looks great on paper. After all, who doesn't love things being simpler. But things aren't fucking simple. Things aren't always, or even often self-regulating. And the free market works great for things where the end goal is profit. The end goal of education is not profit, it is to educate individuals.
When you are ready to join me in abolishing the current system and privatizing education we can talk about whether and how much the various levels of government should subsidize education.
Honestly... are you just fishing for insults here? "When you are ready to get rid of government money for schools, we can talk about government money for schools" isn't a useful statement. You're not asking for debate or providing information, you're just posing yourself as so "obviously right" that only like opinions are valid.
My problem with Libertarianism in general is that it's just anarchy for people uncomfortable with admitting it, and who try to dismantle the protections built into our society for the bottom 90%, because they think they'll never be there.
Well, for 90% of everybody, that's not true. And frankly, too many of the libertarians I know have depended on those protections and services to make me believe that the majority of that 10% would be Libertarian.
Also: Anyone whose child is not currently chained to a desk in a sweatshop, who is not currently forced to work in a coal mine because the mine owners pay them in scrip, and who is being paid more than 3.50 and who gets vacation can shut up about "Oh my god, the evil unions." The U.S.A. has had a period with laissez-faire economic and regulatory policies for businesses. It was called the Gilded Age. It was HORRIBLE for almost everyone whose name wasn't Rockefeller or Astor. Unions were a big part of ending things like this, for example.
Other examples of the horrors of excessive privatization: Look at 16th through 18th century England. Especially note that a system of privatized police basically turned England into one huge crime ghetto for multiple decades, until Henry Fielding stepped in and formed a centralized police force answerable to the magistrate's office.
I have been a teacher for several years, and attended both public and private schools as a student. Public schools have their problems: many of them caused by exactly the attempts to dismantle them that you talk about. But what, then, do you propose to replace them with? A system where, if you're poor (and or your parents decide they don't want to pay for school/homeschool), you just don't get taught? That certainly won't raise the crime and unemployment rates through the roof. Oh wait, it would. Well, fudge.
You left out "Massive Religious/Political Whackjobbery." Which I would think would cover a large range.
P.S. Having the belief that you know better than the state how to teach your kids does not magically make you able to teach calculus. Or writing. And most accreditation programs are just that: assuring basic competence at teaching fundamentals.
No public school teacher is a substitute for a parent. But by the same token, damn few parents are actually a competent substitute for the twelve to twenty teachers a kid usually has by the time they hit high school. And that's not even taking into account the associated lack of socialization homeschooled children often (though not always) suffer.
Fascism has its roots in the desire for power over others. That's a cross-platform virus if I've ever seen one. It's just that the Republican Party has it Ebola-style lately.
False and also ridiculous. Not only did Congress not approve it, claiming that there is more money in satiating a nebulous group of "Trial Lawyers" than there is in the Telcos and the Administration is obviously false. You are the weakest link, and the someone else brought up the Trilateral Commission. Goodbye, plz?
I was going to quote Franklin at you, but someone beat me to it.
Honestly, the Arab and Muslim states you're so afraid of are the best arguments for dealing harshly with Bush, and with anyone else who attempts to dismantle the privacy and civil rights of American citizens. What good is it to protect oneself from external threats, if you become a fascist state in the process? None.
The man was a crackpot and a tool, but Abbie Hoffman was right once: You judge a democracy by how it treats its dissidents. The right of dissent is the prime element for creating and maintaining freedom. And key foundations maintaining that right are free speech, a free press, habeus corpus, and the assumption of innocence. All of which Bush and Cronies have whittled away at.
That's fine in a situation where we need to maintain a status quo. But right now, concentrated and immediate actions need to be taken just to restore us to previous levels of "O.K." And with a Republican president, the likelihood of that happening essentially drops to nil, due to the nature of the veto.
Unless we do serious work undoing the damage Bush and Co. have done to the constitution, and make serious efforts at preventing it from happening again, we're only fighting a delaying action, eventually doomed to failure.
If Al Capone orders a hit, and the hitman kills my mother, who goes to jail. Guilt in this case isn't either/or, it's and. if ( isguilty($president) && areguilty(@telcos) ){
push(@guilty, $president, @telcos);
for(@guilty){
gotojail($_);
} }
Exactly! It's so bizarre that Libertarianism relies in principle on the premise that people are, in their natural, unfettered state, productive, but buys into the most selfish and nihilist policies versus people who have been ground down by circumstance or misstep.
Also, I defy anyone to honestly profess as Libertarian who knows ANYTHING about the conditions of the average American during the Gilded Age (1870s to 1900). End statement.
Just because you can sell someone the chance of great success better than the surety of comfort doesn't mean that the first is actually better than the latter.
Your theories intrigue me, and I'd love to subscribe to your newsletter.
Setting aside the question (And it is a doozy) of whether the President can be indited criminally while he's in office (I've seen it argued both ways), let's think on something much more important: the TV rights.
Imagine a TV show where, each episode, they tried to entrap the President into violating another stupid law, and he squirms out of it with the help of his kooky, Spin City style staff. It could be called "Capitol Offenses" or something like that.
I would watch it until my eyes fell out, and then I would get robot eyes put in to continue viewing it.
Proposing Things Man: Political parties to ruin your democracy? Loss of rights and freedom? Washington and Friends: DO NOT WANT! KTHXBYE! Adams (Quietly): Maaaaybe want loss of rights and freedom.... I can beez king?
This dramatization brought to you by LOLPREZZIEZ Incorporated, a division of Scummco.
We need to encourage people to work and not to have more babies so they can get fatter welfare checks. Bill Clinton may have been an idiot in my opinion, but the best thing he did in office is to sign the welfare reform bill.
The "Welfare queen" is a myth. Individual welfare is, in fact, not a huge problem, or even a large problem, or even a problem. The level of poverty required to receive welfare monies is so far below the poverty line that no-one would voluntarily remain there. Having seen firsthand what living on slightly under $10,000 a year is like, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that people are opting for the sweet life of living on MAX PAYOUT of $7,000. Oh yeah, for a family of four. Keep in mind, that $10,000 is barely stretching (And in fact, is not currently not stretching, due to a month's illness) far enough to cover one person, living with a roommate.
Read The Myth of the Welfare Queen by David Zucchino, for more information, or simply google till you find something that actually quotes statistics. Example:
Questions of class warfare aside, there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with welfare cheating. In 1991 less than 5 percent of all welfare benefits went to persons who were not entitled to them, and this figure includes errors committed by the welfare agency. (1)
Nor are people getting rich off welfare. The two largest welfare programs are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps. In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. (2) In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. (3) Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job. There are other welfare programs, of course, but they either pay a minuscule fraction of these two programs, or, if larger, are collected by only a small percentage of welfare recipients. The typical welfare recipient remains among the poorest members of society.
1. Figures provided to the 1994 Green Book, U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, by the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2. AFDC figures from U.S. Social Security Administration. Food Stamp figures from U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Annual Historical Review of FNS Programs" and unpublished data.
3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States, Series P-60, No. 185, 1993.
There are a lot of people who write code who couldn't think a big problem through logically to save their lives.
Your premise is taken as granted, but I think ignores the question of whether a lot of people who've created antimatter in particle accelerators are unable to think through problems logically. I'm guessing he'll be alright for smarts.
Except that the social/business meanings of network, as "group of connected individuals" is, and has been since before the 80s, a well-understood and recognized meaning of the word. Hence, "networking" as "meeting people to form connections."
This definition of "network" and "networking" is both more apt than the tubes metaphor and better targeted at the kind of person who works in politics. This version of "networking" is a staple of political and legal circles, and has been for 30+ years.
Slashdot Mirror
You could maybe mail them to the less fortunate, C.O.D... Maybe Zoidberg could use a laptop, perhaps?
Seriously, donating them to poor slashers might not be a bad idea. And if it's C.O.D., that takes care of the delivery.
Nah... Windows For MicrowavesTM has a BSoS (Blue Screen of Sterility).
Well, given that your share of the market is tiny, interface discrepancies are something you will have to live with. There will be apps that are significantly better than the alternatives, or worse yet, fundamentally unique in a way that precludes alternatives (At the time, at least). You will have to deal with things using a non-Macified interface.
Also, come the fsck on with the "A traditional Mac App uses Carbon or Cocoa" crap. You're basically saying that if a program is built well, and conforms on Mac to the HIG, but is written in a toolkit other than the standard Mac toolkit, it's not acceptable? You'd evaluate a program based solely on a slight mismatch in widget style? That is stupid. Really stupid.
To summarize: One of the reasons Mac is a real computing platform now (And yes, I am trivializing OS9 and below) is that you can now have cross-platform programs target it. This is one of the big reasons that Apple based OSX off of FreeBSD in the first place. This means developers can include the platform, without having to either develop solely for the Mac, or else spend man-years redoing it in a Mac-only toolkit. Really, I think that QT is giving you the best deal you're going to get, running through the Mac toolkits past the API level.
Because the majority of developers aren't going to look over and say "Oooh, 7% of the market! Let's learn a specialized toolkit for them, and then rewrite all our GUI code twice to take advantage of both platforms."
The real question is "Would you buy a Metallica online album despite their (subjective) lack of talent and their (reasonably objective) lack of any sort of relevance for the past (let's be charitable) decade and change (Almost a decade and a half if you cut it off at Load)."
I think my point is, this should be filed under the "Who gives a %#^& with "Axel Rose lies again about releasing Chinese Democracy."
How is a scripting language not a programmer's tool?
And how, in that case, does PHP not have the same caveat attached, since (in capability) it resembles a sped-up but limited subset of Perl?
But Worms 2 or Worms Armageddon seem to match the bill pretty well.
If you like strategy games, the Civ series or its (in my preference, superior) offshoot, Alpha Centauri are excellent, and turn-based goodness.
Although, as far as I recall, there wasn't an American DDOS attack on British news sources based on the Iraq thing, government sponsored or not.
And as far as the Chinese... as long as you are going to be horrible to entire nations like that, people are going to say bad things about you. Why, look at us! Quit whining about it, either stop or accept that the world can recognize your evil actions for what they are.
I would prefer them to stop, by the way. And I wish we'd (USA) stop treating them like they're our best chums while they're violating human rights on international scales.
Well, to be fair, testing teachers for quality control isn't so much "Forbidden" as "questionably possible." After all, teaching is not actually a simply definable process with well understood inputs and outputs. It involves a minimum of two individuals (Something a Libertarian should be concerned with), and it depends on the interaction between them and a huge slice of external environment. You can have a bright kid, a great teacher, and oops, asshole parents, welcome to the quickie mart, son. You can have great parents, great teacher, and whoops, kid's got emotional problems unrelated to either. Fuck.
Reductionism looks great on paper. After all, who doesn't love things being simpler. But things aren't fucking simple. Things aren't always, or even often self-regulating. And the free market works great for things where the end goal is profit. The end goal of education is not profit, it is to educate individuals.
When you are ready to join me in abolishing the current system and privatizing education we can talk about whether and how much the various levels of government should subsidize education.Honestly... are you just fishing for insults here? "When you are ready to get rid of government money for schools, we can talk about government money for schools" isn't a useful statement. You're not asking for debate or providing information, you're just posing yourself as so "obviously right" that only like opinions are valid.
My problem with Libertarianism in general is that it's just anarchy for people uncomfortable with admitting it, and who try to dismantle the protections built into our society for the bottom 90%, because they think they'll never be there.
Well, for 90% of everybody, that's not true. And frankly, too many of the libertarians I know have depended on those protections and services to make me believe that the majority of that 10% would be Libertarian.
Also: Anyone whose child is not currently chained to a desk in a sweatshop, who is not currently forced to work in a coal mine because the mine owners pay them in scrip, and who is being paid more than 3.50 and who gets vacation can shut up about "Oh my god, the evil unions." The U.S.A. has had a period with laissez-faire economic and regulatory policies for businesses. It was called the Gilded Age. It was HORRIBLE for almost everyone whose name wasn't Rockefeller or Astor. Unions were a big part of ending things like this, for example.
Other examples of the horrors of excessive privatization: Look at 16th through 18th century England. Especially note that a system of privatized police basically turned England into one huge crime ghetto for multiple decades, until Henry Fielding stepped in and formed a centralized police force answerable to the magistrate's office.
I have been a teacher for several years, and attended both public and private schools as a student. Public schools have their problems: many of them caused by exactly the attempts to dismantle them that you talk about. But what, then, do you propose to replace them with? A system where, if you're poor (and or your parents decide they don't want to pay for school/homeschool), you just don't get taught? That certainly won't raise the crime and unemployment rates through the roof. Oh wait, it would. Well, fudge.
You left out "Massive Religious/Political Whackjobbery." Which I would think would cover a large range.
P.S. Having the belief that you know better than the state how to teach your kids does not magically make you able to teach calculus. Or writing. And most accreditation programs are just that: assuring basic competence at teaching fundamentals.
No public school teacher is a substitute for a parent. But by the same token, damn few parents are actually a competent substitute for the twelve to twenty teachers a kid usually has by the time they hit high school. And that's not even taking into account the associated lack of socialization homeschooled children often (though not always) suffer.
Conceded to as clarified.
Though I would add that heated discussion may be seen to have value as an entertainment, which is a separate case. ;-)
Fascism has its roots in the desire for power over others. That's a cross-platform virus if I've ever seen one. It's just that the Republican Party has it Ebola-style lately.
Is not open discussion and frank talk the soil of such action?
And is not a request of those whose duty it is to deal with such matters the first step upon that road?
Determine a course of action, by all means. But silence seems less useful than measured speech.
Your head is in a dark place. A place the sun doesn't shine. You are likely to be eaten by Godwin's Law.
False and also ridiculous. Not only did Congress not approve it, claiming that there is more money in satiating a nebulous group of "Trial Lawyers" than there is in the Telcos and the Administration is obviously false. You are the weakest link, and the someone else brought up the Trilateral Commission. Goodbye, plz?
I was going to quote Franklin at you, but someone beat me to it.
Honestly, the Arab and Muslim states you're so afraid of are the best arguments for dealing harshly with Bush, and with anyone else who attempts to dismantle the privacy and civil rights of American citizens. What good is it to protect oneself from external threats, if you become a fascist state in the process? None.
The man was a crackpot and a tool, but Abbie Hoffman was right once: You judge a democracy by how it treats its dissidents. The right of dissent is the prime element for creating and maintaining freedom. And key foundations maintaining that right are free speech, a free press, habeus corpus, and the assumption of innocence. All of which Bush and Cronies have whittled away at.
That's fine in a situation where we need to maintain a status quo. But right now, concentrated and immediate actions need to be taken just to restore us to previous levels of "O.K." And with a Republican president, the likelihood of that happening essentially drops to nil, due to the nature of the veto.
Unless we do serious work undoing the damage Bush and Co. have done to the constitution, and make serious efforts at preventing it from happening again, we're only fighting a delaying action, eventually doomed to failure.
If Al Capone orders a hit, and the hitman kills my mother, who goes to jail.
Guilt in this case isn't either/or, it's and.
if ( isguilty($president) && areguilty(@telcos) ){
push(@guilty, $president, @telcos);
for(@guilty){
gotojail($_);
}
}
Exactly! It's so bizarre that Libertarianism relies in principle on the premise that people are, in their natural, unfettered state, productive, but buys into the most selfish and nihilist policies versus people who have been ground down by circumstance or misstep.
Also, I defy anyone to honestly profess as Libertarian who knows ANYTHING about the conditions of the average American during the Gilded Age (1870s to 1900). End statement.
Just because you can sell someone the chance of great success better than the surety of comfort doesn't mean that the first is actually better than the latter.
Your theories intrigue me, and I'd love to subscribe to your newsletter.
Setting aside the question (And it is a doozy) of whether the President can be indited criminally while he's in office (I've seen it argued both ways), let's think on something much more important: the TV rights.
Imagine a TV show where, each episode, they tried to entrap the President into violating another stupid law, and he squirms out of it with the help of his kooky, Spin City style staff. It could be called "Capitol Offenses" or something like that.
I would watch it until my eyes fell out, and then I would get robot eyes put in to continue viewing it.
Proposing Things Man: Political parties to ruin your democracy? Loss of rights and freedom?
Washington and Friends: DO NOT WANT! KTHXBYE!
Adams (Quietly): Maaaaybe want loss of rights and freedom.... I can beez king?
This dramatization brought to you by LOLPREZZIEZ Incorporated, a division of Scummco.
To be fair, this is the way ANY tax system is designed, oversimplified. A more realized loop is:
for(;;){tax(AMOUNT_GOT_BY_INCREDIBLY_COMPLICATED_METRICS);
spend(TOO_MUCH_BY_HALF);
sleep(31536000);
}
Still leaves him with:
The "Welfare queen" is a myth. Individual welfare is, in fact, not a huge problem, or even a large problem, or even a problem. The level of poverty required to receive welfare monies is so far below the poverty line that no-one would voluntarily remain there. Having seen firsthand what living on slightly under $10,000 a year is like, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that people are opting for the sweet life of living on MAX PAYOUT of $7,000. Oh yeah, for a family of four. Keep in mind, that $10,000 is barely stretching (And in fact, is not currently not stretching, due to a month's illness) far enough to cover one person, living with a roommate.
Read The Myth of the Welfare Queen by David Zucchino, for more information, or simply google till you find something that actually quotes statistics. Example:
Your premise is taken as granted, but I think ignores the question of whether a lot of people who've created antimatter in particle accelerators are unable to think through problems logically. I'm guessing he'll be alright for smarts.
Except that the social/business meanings of network, as "group of connected individuals" is, and has been since before the 80s, a well-understood and recognized meaning of the word. Hence, "networking" as "meeting people to form connections."
This definition of "network" and "networking" is both more apt than the tubes metaphor and better targeted at the kind of person who works in politics. This version of "networking" is a staple of political and legal circles, and has been for 30+ years.