As for what GR wanted: I don't mean to sound callous, but who cares? I'm sure the creator of MacGyver didn't want the series to turn into the piece of shit
I'm sure GR cares. I'm sure his family cares, and anyone who understands the underlying theme of Star Trek will care. This is what I mean when I say Star Trek is bad SF: its turned into pulp escapism that never challenges its audience and never will. Rodenbury was a libertarian idealist. He had the first regular black, female character on any American network ever. Now everyone buys into the strangely posesive yet supposedly money-free society of the Federation where every has a job, everyone is happy and healthy: sounds strangely fascist to me.
Oh, and MacGyver has always been shit.
I have to disagree with you comments about homosexuality in ST: A lot of dramas have gay charcters in them, certainly a lot of those in Enlightened England. I can only assume Star Trek TM probably decided after GR's death that it wouldn't sell so well so ditched it. Or maybe they figure it will be eradicated in the future... scary!
BTW: Thanks for the nomination. I was impresssed myself.
Just what the world needs: another moralistic, SF TV series. The theme I've noticed throughout the posts in this topic is that ST episodes are rehashed versions of episodes from the original series, the aliens (and characters) are shallow and two-dimensional.
What is worse is that it is bad science fiction. Aliens that coinicidentaly look like humans and parallel cultures from our own world. Pseudo-scientific explanations run amok (its all quantum physics you know) as if it were some kind of New Age Scientist meeting. Maybe this was all quite sophisicated stuff during the sixties and seventies but this is the post-Alien nineties. Do we need to be patronised like this?
What is worse, I feel that the latest Star Trek series (DS9, Voyager, whatever) betray the original vision of the great liberatarian, Gene Rodenbury. The mordern federation has become a disturbing vision of a vaguely fascistic utopia. Did you know that GR intended to have gay characters in the next series of ST:TNG, just before he died. I don't see them in any of the new series? I guess it didn't fit the whole Star Trek corporate identity.
I totally disagree that memory allocation is an unnessecary complication. If you are writing Perl code, how can you guarantee that it will run regardless of the amount of memory on the machine running it? Even if it does gracefully exit from the code, can you control the execution? What happens if it is some security critical application (e.g. credit card transaction) and you have no idea where the transaction was terminated? If you cannot decide where a memory allocation failed then you have not programmed for all eventualities. I see this is the main weakness of Perl.
Yes, dammit, I am a snob. Why shouldn't I be: I've spent a year on GCSE Computer Science, 2 years doing CS A-level, and four years at university studying CS. Now I work fulltime, developing with ASP, Perl, Java, C++, etc.
I'm not saying that you need all that education and experience to be a good programmer. Plenty of the best never even opened a book on programming. I'm not saying that Perl doesn't have its place in web development, either. But the reason there is so much bad code around is simply because there are so many poorly trained (or not trained at all) programmers out there.
Is it me, or is this the kind of attitude programmers really shouldn't have. I agree, for quick solutions to simple problems Perl is perfect.
But not all programs are simple, and I've seen the Dante-esque code written for complicated web applications. Not only is the syntax unreadable, but because of the loose scoping and typing rules, its faulty and a nightmare to reverse-engineer.
True, its good that you don't have to worry about memory allocation, exception, etc.. But these constructs are there for a very good reason: what happens when your Perl code runs out of memory. It will probably crash irrecovarably. Whereas, with low-level languages such as C++ you can program to deal with such eventualities. And you say this is a bad thing?
Finally, as CS student I spent many years studying algorithms, languages, etc., not to have some graphic designer take up a job he is not even properly trained for. Am I alone on this one?
What a lengthy argument: most impressive. But, in the end, it appears that you agree with me, Mac OS is way behind on the whole OS sweepstakes. I'm not including the obvious clap-trap about how people only surf OS-related sites. The whole point of the internet is that who is supposed to know?
Personal Note: I don't care that you don't care so Nyah Nyah!
Hmm... It's interesting that you quote science in your reply to my message: on what grounds do you base your assumption that just because a server is running an certain operating system that this will have anything but the most minimal affect on the OS statistics of visiting browsers?
Perhaps you might veto the servers you visit when browsing, but the average user (which is the majority group) probably doesn't.
BTW I can guarantee that even Slashdot will have more hits from Windows OS than it will from Mac OS.
Personal Note: I think that is a good thing. It doesn't matter how evil Bill Gates is, Windows shits all over Mac OS any day of the weeek.
In a way I find the whole Troll posting thing amusing. They are all childishly-obvious in their attempts at provocation. If these people truly held these beliefs (instead of just finding the whole issue of homophobia as some kind of joke) would they post AC?
I would argue that the majority of these posts are from hormonal adolescents (or hormonal adolescents in the bodies of grown-ups) who think they are being funny. Take it from me, real homophobes are more public and use less swearing.
If the market share has increased then how do you explain this? It seems that no matter how many of those tacky Imacs they sell, there seems to be no change in the number of Mac Users on the internet (and if you look closely you will see that the line is ever-so-slightly decreasing). If this is Macintosh's big break into the internet, I'm not impressed.
I do apologise: you seem to have mistaken my last message as some sort of offer of friendship. I really must stop misleading the strange and alone. I mean, you even had the spare time to correct my grammar and spelling. How utterly charming!
And you still seem to be denying that the Odean (oops, I really must learn to care about my spelling) web page uses Flash. I am utterly impressed: I wish I could lie to myself so convincingly just for the sake of an argument. You even stooped to the level of playing mere semantic games. Wow, this is life! I really feel I am slumming it with the plebs.
Love and kisses (please don't misinterpret: this isn't any kind of offer)...
While the Odean web-site is only viewable when JavaScript is enabled, it is, nevertheless, a Flash page. You can tell in a very simple way, so pay attention. First select View Page Source and you'll see this text window pop-up (don't be frightened, now). This contains the HTML tags that define the document.
Inside you'll notice an EMBED tag. Now, if I am not mistaken, this mean that the document contains executable content, i.e. a plug-in. With me so far? You'll also notice that the EMBED tag calls a file with the.SWF suffix. Now, here is the crux of my argument: SWF files are flash files! Hence, a flash page. You see, there is an application called AfterShock that inserts a SWF file in HTML for you and its work is noticable by the HTML comments it produces. (You could take a coffee break here if this is all too strenous).
Oh, BTW thank-you for your offer from teaching me some JavaScript. If you need some basic lessons in web-page content, however, you'll know exactly where to find me.
I would disagree with all three points you made about JavaScript:
Scoping in JavaScript is relatively simple: if you declare outside a function then the variable is global. Within a function the variable is local. If you need more clarification, buy a book.
I use JavaScript to write ASP pages all the time and its great for the job: quick, dirty code that usually works first time due to JavaScript's loose structure. Its much better than VBScript, anyway.
I'll agree that JavaScript implementations vary between browsers and you often have to carefully test each page. But this is nothing that we don't have to do with HTML. In fact I have trouble writing browser compatible HTML than I do worrying about my client-side scripting.
To run Flash you need aftershock which uses some JavaScript. Nevertheless, the mouseovers and funny visual effects are all Flash. Hence the following line:
Not dangerous at all. I'll be the first to agree with you that Active X is a volatile technology. But I've been programming with JavaScript for a while and, as far as I can tell, the worst you are looking at is being involuntarily sent to someone else's smutty site. Which in itself isn't particularly dangerous (unless your company logs browser connections).
Maybe you could perform a denial of service attack by with an infinite loop but that is pretty tame in comparison to the types of things you can get up to with Active X
He seems like just another cheesey, smiley corporate lackey. That article is just filled with office-anxiety: like that crappy 'cover-your-arse factor' phrase. He has his own column on ZDNet, you'd think he would be more self-secure. BTW, isn't it people like him that are the reason people started developing Linux in the first place?
Is formal algorithmic proof actually a waste of time? I spent a lot of time studying at degree level and although I have never found any use for it in a commercial situation (I have never worked on safety critical systems, for example) but I am sure it has some use... doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
As for what GR wanted: I don't mean to sound callous, but who cares? I'm sure the creator of MacGyver didn't want the series to turn into the piece of shit
I'm sure GR cares. I'm sure his family cares, and anyone who understands the underlying theme of Star Trek will care. This is what I mean when I say Star Trek is bad SF: its turned into pulp escapism that never challenges
its audience and never will. Rodenbury was a libertarian idealist. He had the first regular black, female character on any American network ever. Now everyone buys into the strangely posesive yet supposedly money-free society of the Federation where every has a job, everyone is happy and healthy: sounds strangely fascist to me.
Oh, and MacGyver has always been shit.
I have to disagree with you comments about homosexuality in ST: A lot of dramas have gay charcters in them, certainly a lot of those in Enlightened England. I can only assume Star Trek TM probably decided after GR's death that it wouldn't sell so well so ditched it. Or maybe they figure it will be eradicated in the future... scary!
BTW: Thanks for the nomination. I was impresssed myself.
Just what the world needs: another moralistic, SF TV series. The theme I've noticed throughout the posts in this topic is that ST episodes are rehashed versions of episodes from the original series, the aliens (and characters) are shallow and two-dimensional.
What is worse is that it is bad science fiction. Aliens that coinicidentaly look like humans and parallel cultures from our own world. Pseudo-scientific explanations run amok (its all quantum physics you know) as if it were some kind of New Age Scientist meeting. Maybe this was all quite sophisicated stuff during the sixties and seventies but this is the post-Alien nineties. Do we need to be patronised like this?
What is worse, I feel that the latest Star Trek series (DS9, Voyager, whatever) betray the original vision of the great liberatarian, Gene Rodenbury. The mordern federation has become a disturbing vision of a vaguely fascistic utopia. Did you know that GR intended to have gay characters in the next series of ST:TNG, just before he died. I don't see them in any of the new series? I guess it didn't fit the whole Star Trek corporate identity.
Are you being serious?
I totally agree: is it me or has it gone all corporate. Its more adverts than content (which mirrors the net, so that is okay!).
I totally disagree that memory allocation is an unnessecary complication. If you are writing Perl code, how can you guarantee that it will run regardless of the amount of memory on the machine running it? Even if it does gracefully exit from the code, can you control the execution? What happens if it is some security critical application (e.g. credit card transaction) and you have no idea where the transaction was terminated?
If you cannot decide where a memory allocation failed then you have not programmed for all eventualities. I see this is the main weakness of Perl.
Yes, dammit, I am a snob. Why shouldn't I be: I've spent a year on GCSE Computer Science, 2 years doing CS A-level, and four years at university studying CS. Now I work fulltime, developing with ASP, Perl, Java, C++, etc.
I'm not saying that you need all that education and experience to be a good programmer. Plenty of the best never even opened a book on programming. I'm not saying that Perl doesn't have its place in web development, either. But the reason there is so much bad code around is simply because there are so many poorly trained (or not trained at all) programmers out there.
Is it me, or is this the kind of attitude programmers really shouldn't have. I agree, for quick solutions to simple problems Perl is perfect.
But not all programs are simple, and I've seen the Dante-esque code written for complicated web applications. Not only is the syntax unreadable, but because of the loose scoping and typing rules, its faulty and a nightmare to reverse-engineer.
True, its good that you don't have to worry about memory allocation, exception, etc.. But these constructs are there for a very good reason: what happens when your Perl code runs out of memory. It will probably crash irrecovarably. Whereas, with low-level languages such as C++ you can program to deal with such eventualities. And you say this is a bad thing?
Finally, as CS student I spent many years studying algorithms, languages, etc., not to have some graphic designer take up a job he is not even properly trained for. Am I alone on this one?
What a lengthy argument: most impressive. But, in the end, it appears that you agree with me, Mac OS is way behind on the whole OS sweepstakes. I'm not including the obvious clap-trap about how people only surf OS-related sites. The whole point of the internet is that who is supposed to know?
Personal Note: I don't care that you don't care so Nyah Nyah!
Hmm... It's interesting that you quote science in your reply to my message: on what grounds do you base your assumption that just because a server is running an certain operating system that this will have anything but the most minimal affect on the OS statistics of visiting browsers?
Perhaps you might veto the servers you visit when browsing, but the average user (which is the majority group) probably doesn't.
BTW I can guarantee that even Slashdot will have more hits from Windows OS than it will from Mac OS.
Personal Note: I think that is a good thing. It doesn't matter how evil Bill Gates is, Windows shits all over Mac OS any day of the weeek.
In a way I find the whole Troll posting thing amusing. They are all childishly-obvious in their attempts at provocation. If these people truly held these beliefs (instead of just finding the whole issue of homophobia as some kind of joke) would they post AC?
I would argue that the majority of these posts are from hormonal adolescents (or hormonal adolescents in the bodies of grown-ups) who think they are being funny. Take it from me, real homophobes are more public and use less swearing.
If the market share has increased then how do you explain this? It seems that no matter how many of those tacky Imacs they sell, there seems to be no change in the number of Mac Users on the internet (and if you look closely you will see that the line is ever-so-slightly decreasing). If this is Macintosh's big break into the internet, I'm not impressed.
I do apologise: you seem to have mistaken my last message as some sort of offer of friendship. I really must stop misleading the strange and alone. I mean, you even had the spare time to correct my grammar and spelling. How utterly charming!
...
And you still seem to be denying that the Odean (oops, I really must learn to care about my spelling) web page uses Flash. I am utterly impressed: I wish I could lie to myself so convincingly just for the sake of an argument. You even stooped to the level of playing mere semantic games. Wow, this is life! I really feel I am slumming it with the plebs.
Love and kisses (please don't misinterpret: this isn't any kind of offer)
No, if you make a var variable declaration outside a function then its scope is global.
Hey, Coward!
.SWF suffix. Now, here is the crux of my argument: SWF files are flash files! Hence, a flash page. You see, there is an application called AfterShock that inserts a SWF file in HTML for you and its work is noticable by the HTML comments it produces. (You could take a coffee break here if this is all too strenous).
While the Odean web-site is only viewable when JavaScript is enabled, it is, nevertheless, a Flash page. You can tell in a very simple way, so pay attention. First select View Page Source and you'll see this text window pop-up (don't be frightened, now). This contains the HTML tags that define the document.
Inside you'll notice an EMBED tag. Now, if I am not mistaken, this mean that the document contains executable content, i.e. a plug-in. With me so far? You'll also notice that the EMBED tag calls a file with the
Oh, BTW thank-you for your offer from teaching me some JavaScript. If you need some basic lessons in web-page content, however, you'll know exactly where to find me.
Love and kisses...
I did read the source, Coward!
To run Flash you need aftershock which uses some JavaScript. Nevertheless, the mouseovers and funny visual effects are all Flash. Hence the following line:
<!-- EndAftershock filmticker8.swf -->
Not dangerous at all. I'll be the first to agree with you that Active X is a volatile technology. But I've been programming with JavaScript for a while and, as far as I can tell, the worst you are looking at is being involuntarily sent to someone else's smutty site. Which in itself isn't particularly dangerous (unless your company logs browser connections).
Maybe you could perform a denial of service attack by with an infinite loop but that is pretty tame in comparison to the types of things you can get up to with Active X
...not that I would know!
He seems like just another cheesey, smiley corporate lackey. That article is just filled with office-anxiety: like that crappy 'cover-your-arse factor' phrase. He has his own column on ZDNet, you'd think he would be more self-secure. BTW, isn't it people like him that are the reason people started developing Linux in the first place?
Is formal algorithmic proof actually a waste of time? I spent a lot of time studying at degree level and although I have never found any use for it in a commercial situation (I have never worked on safety critical systems, for example) but I am sure it has some use... doesn't it?