Did the "Unibomber" ride around on a unicycle dropping bombs off?
Seriously though, that's a single incident. Big deal.
What you're saying is cops should be able to search anyone at any time if for any reason they believe the person has a concealed weapon on them, because at least one time in the history of man, someone has carried and used a concealed weapon.
And since when can I conceal a bomb in a small letter?
Anthrax? Again, what's the real risk?
In fact, what's the real risk of this supposed terrorism I just might be victim of?
It's mainly a joke and is being exploited on people to gain the power they want to do as they want.
We're not talking about guns or the second amendment here. Your comment is off topic and should be modded as so.
Why do conservative always try and change the subject when their guy (embarrassing, isn't he?) is so obviously wrong?
Anyways, last time I checked you can buy many types of guns and even carry them anywhere you want in most states. And no one is seriously challenging these laws. So why do you people keep bringing them up?
Because it's a distraction.
I give conservatives credit as they've been able to trick millions of people into running around like chicken with their heads cut off over non-issues (guns, abortions, etc) because they have no leverage on the important issues of the day.
Your party is falling apart because it doesn't stand for anything important anymore.
"Actually, to the extent that Mr. Bush is saying "if we believe there's a ticking bomb in a letter we will send the bomb squad in first and resolve the legal issues later", there is no controversey."
And I think even more importantly, I'm not too sure we have some huge problem with bombs being sent in the mail.
So, if you're a pervert who enjoys walking around in a trench coat naked underneath, is this a good way to make money and satisfy the urge and make a few bucks?
I'm wondering what a card will go for if it's advertised to *still* have pictures and data on it?
Just because it (sort of) works doesn't mean it's any good.
I know from experiance. I work in a system that I can't believe functions sometimes. But then we've throws countless thousands at hardward and maintenace rather than doing it right the first time.
In short our system is garbage and the programmers who are good (not many) know this and we crack jokes about it all the time. But it works I guess. Somehow it manages to work....sometimes anyways.
It's because of programmers with your attitude that developers like myself exist. We take little to no pride in our system because we have to deal with dicks who think that because it works without respect to anyone elses ideas that it's good. We don't care about fixing a broken system when we recommended things be done differently all along.
It's relevant to people who know. Just like how it would be relevant if he indeed did mention it took as long as finishing churning one quarter of a hogshead's worth of butter. If you don't know what the writer means, then it's your responsibility to figure it out, or ignore it all together.
If you don't know what this is and it's important to you then look it up. I don't go to Christian church (or any "Church" for that matter) but I've driven by 1000910291290 churches in my life and have seen the times masses are and it seems like it's about an hour or an hour and a half. If I really cared I query for the average time of Christmas masses or something to that effect. I think Baptists go for hours actually as I remember someone telling me that when I worked in a restaurant when I was a kid and on Sunday you would get a large group around 3:00 of people dressed nicely and referred to as the "Baptists" (not in a negative manner either) by some employees. I then learned that they often go to church for 3 or more hours. But the average Christian is around 1-1.5 hours from what I've learned
But then, I'm curious of the world around me and not just self absorbed. I like to know about things I don't know about because I was born with a curious mind, which you've eluded to you have not. I guess I feel bad for you that you need direct exposure to something to feel like you know anything about it. I guess with my apparent unique ability to think in the abstract, I also have a natural curiosity that lends itself to discovery and knowledge about non-sequitor things.
But back on topic, this isn't why the parent made the comment he did. I know this and you know this.
He did it because he's intolerant of anything "God" related and believes he has a certain right to not be exposed to the ideas or print of this God. He's intolerant much like some people on the other side of the coin are intolerant.
Real priceless, nerd. I hit an extra 'g' and didn't see it. Get over it and bring something to the conversation. Or is it that you're too nit-witted to have a valid opinion?
Everything you make in this environment is JAVASCRIPT!!!! It's not meant for people who don't have computers capable of supporting JS or people that are too iggnorant to understand JS makes for better browsing.
My Web App's I make in GWT aren't meant for Lynx users. They aren't meant for people with Pentium 2 computers. They aren't meant for anal fucks who won't turn JS on.
Kind of like vodeogames, they are intended for people who WANT to use these things. They are for people who WANt to experiance NEW things.
Burnout happens because we live a soulless existence working on worthless things to gain money which will be spent on worthless material things.
When you don't do anything that seem important to you, you simply stop being able to do it.
At some point, your brain figures out it only has one life to live and it's being wasted. So it "burns out" to get itself out of the current, unhealthy environment.
If you burn out, it's not really your fault entirely.
But you should recognize it as your brain and body telling you to get out now, you're killing it!
I should note before someone flips out on me that I've worked in ASP.net for way too long. I know it's not "stateless" as it might appear I implied. I understand the "Postback" idea and the Session variable as well as things to help programmers like the View State, etc.
They have.NET which is greta and all, but for the Web they leverage ASP.net which is still a dinosaur of an idea.
Google has GWT, which only about 100 people on Earth get right now. Google has an understanding for the Web, Web applications and how users should interact in the World Wide Web far surpassing MS's "reactive" method of toolkit design.
I see two companies. One which is using old methods, not innovating or developing new ideas and assuming stability in something as fast moving and cutting edge as the WWW. I see another company challenging old ideas (relatively old anyways) and proving the WWW is more than Web Pages and stateless client/server communication.
I see a company that think they get this but only see flashy UI's as the means to the end here. I see another company that understand the UI is just a view to this new idea that the Web is a series of intercommunicating applications users can access from anywhere.
But then, I don't expect many people, especially a monolith who's made their fortunes through brute strength rather than new ideas, to see this until it's apparently obvious. The search for the holy grail of the Web's next "killer app" is right in front of peoples faces.
Bugs didn't help anything but even before the bugs destroyed it, the population was small to begin with. People didn't stick around as much because the PvP was too much for most people.
I agree, I loved discovering new templates.
A friend of mine basically invented the Prelate with throwing daggers on the War server. That templates was unbeatable until they gimped daggers some.
This has been done in a game called "Shadowbane", years ago. It's actually still around for free (game and network) from what I've heard.
It was built on the idea of "Guild Warfare", where guilds and townships would defend their territory from others with largescale, epic battles.
It worked great when it was happening but you quickly saw it was a fringe thing. People didn't like risking their things they played so long to aquire.
In the end, most people are care bears and just want to chat and farm while wasting away their lives.
Most people in these games don't fit the traditional model of gamers. In fact, many of the players in these games are pathetic and are easily killed by skilled game players who've put in a fraction of the time.
You mention that now the coder has to develop the GUI and do the CSS. This is totally wrong. If the CSS classes are defined ahead of time, the programmer simply has to set them and all the different CSS states a UI object will have. this is usually done in the design segment of the software lifecycle.
Now the graphic artist can work on stylizing a Website and developing images, etc. They can also design the layout and have the programmers make sure each UI widget is in a panel that lays this out. Then, once again, the graphic designer styles the work.
And really, GWT doesn't make you do much GUI design at all. After the layout is done, a programmer only needs to create each UI object and be done with it. No different than in ASP.net or any other server side UI creation scheme.
GWT is amazing in that it forces the development to look at CSS as the designing part and Java as the logic part. The logic sets the design, but this isn't atypical by any means.
And GWT in my experiences has been successful on fairly large projects. It's fast, the easiest to debug for any Website and fairly compact.
I believe it's a radical shift in the paradigm of Website development and a great one at that.
I love the idea of a Java to Javascript/DHTML compiler, CSS centered design and wonderfully encapsulated asynchronous client/server communication. GWT allows you to make complex Web Apps that were near impossible to make a year ago.
I see the light anyways. And it's only going to get better. It makes Web programming more like programming. It's what I've dreamed of for years.
This is how I view technologies that allow you to program in a language and compile it to DHTML and Javascript. Essentially the same idea as an Applet. I think we now have the power on the client side for the bandwidth and the execution.
Mainly because GWT and Echo are way too advanced for a book such as this.
Why just tell people they could use these amazing toolkit paragdims when you can sell them a book explaining how the pipes run?
GWT and Echo and related technologies are really great. I like GWT more because of it putting everything client related on the client side. I see this as the future of Web programming and we will see more and better tools to facilitate this. One being better program caching with checksums and client/server versioning to allow for download once, run every time Websites in the EOC (Everything On Client) model.
Stop it with these nonsense books and just pick up GWT. Understand that putting it all on the client side is more powerful and in practice generally more reliable and just as fast as server side tool kits, if not more so.
I believe this is the real benefit of AJAX methods that go beyond the asynchronous client/server communication.
Now you write Java programs that are compiled into complete Javascript programs that work on IE, FF, Safari and Opera with generated DHTML, etc. You use whatever you want back on the server side. The Javascript generated for you will probably be as good as anything you can write in JS and most likely more complex and better tested.
This is such a better parigdim than having the server create these user forms and controls using minimal Javascript and then posting back for more forms. Or simply sending all the forms over in a bloated DHTML mess. Now we have actual programs on the client side that behave like Websites and rich clients.
Make a site in GWT and see how easy and fun it is. It's a whole different world of Website and very clearly the future. Maybe not GWT, but having a Javascript program as the Website and the server agnostic. I would assume we will see better Javascript caching and a client/server versioning system to make sure users have the latest version of a site making for insanely fast Websites that are downloaded once with only calls for content and no longer infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the "Unibomber" ride around on a unicycle dropping bombs off?
Seriously though, that's a single incident. Big deal.
What you're saying is cops should be able to search anyone at any time if for any reason they believe the person has a concealed weapon on them, because at least one time in the history of man, someone has carried and used a concealed weapon.
And since when can I conceal a bomb in a small letter?
Anthrax? Again, what's the real risk?
In fact, what's the real risk of this supposed terrorism I just might be victim of?
It's mainly a joke and is being exploited on people to gain the power they want to do as they want.
We're not talking about guns or the second amendment here. Your comment is off topic and should be modded as so.
Why do conservative always try and change the subject when their guy (embarrassing, isn't he?) is so obviously wrong?
Anyways, last time I checked you can buy many types of guns and even carry them anywhere you want in most states. And no one is seriously challenging these laws. So why do you people keep bringing them up?
Because it's a distraction.
I give conservatives credit as they've been able to trick millions of people into running around like chicken with their heads cut off over non-issues (guns, abortions, etc) because they have no leverage on the important issues of the day.
Your party is falling apart because it doesn't stand for anything important anymore.
"Actually, to the extent that Mr. Bush is saying "if we believe there's a ticking bomb in a letter we will send the bomb squad in first and resolve the legal issues later", there is no controversey."
And I think even more importantly, I'm not too sure we have some huge problem with bombs being sent in the mail.
What kind of example was this anyways?
So, if you're a pervert who enjoys walking around in a trench coat naked underneath, is this a good way to make money and satisfy the urge and make a few bucks?
I'm wondering what a card will go for if it's advertised to *still* have pictures and data on it?
Kind of like a mystery grab bag?
Just because it (sort of) works doesn't mean it's any good.
I know from experiance. I work in a system that I can't believe functions sometimes. But then we've throws countless thousands at hardward and maintenace rather than doing it right the first time.
In short our system is garbage and the programmers who are good (not many) know this and we crack jokes about it all the time. But it works I guess. Somehow it manages to work....sometimes anyways.
It's because of programmers with your attitude that developers like myself exist. We take little to no pride in our system because we have to deal with dicks who think that because it works without respect to anyone elses ideas that it's good. We don't care about fixing a broken system when we recommended things be done differently all along.
I have to mainly agree with this.
It's nothing more than a buzzword of sorts at this stage.
If it's surprising that the Internet would adopt new technologies and ideas, then whoever feels this way hasn't been in technology longer than a day.
But, is anything in Web 2.0 even defined? Just what is it? The ability to communicate without a postback? Surely it's much more than that, right?
I don't think this Web 2.0 thing has existed yet.
I believe some people have ideas about what the Internet could/can and will be, but there isn't anything other than experimental evidence out there.
That is, there isn't a "killer app" at this time.
I'd assume the idea of a Webpage first has to be killed...
I made the assumptions because you and the AC painted them clear as day.
Cheers!
It's relevant to people who know. Just like how it would be relevant if he indeed did mention it took as long as finishing churning one quarter of a hogshead's worth of butter. If you don't know what the writer means, then it's your responsibility to figure it out, or ignore it all together.
If you don't know what this is and it's important to you then look it up. I don't go to Christian church (or any "Church" for that matter) but I've driven by 1000910291290 churches in my life and have seen the times masses are and it seems like it's about an hour or an hour and a half. If I really cared I query for the average time of Christmas masses or something to that effect. I think Baptists go for hours actually as I remember someone telling me that when I worked in a restaurant when I was a kid and on Sunday you would get a large group around 3:00 of people dressed nicely and referred to as the "Baptists" (not in a negative manner either) by some employees. I then learned that they often go to church for 3 or more hours. But the average Christian is around 1-1.5 hours from what I've learned
But then, I'm curious of the world around me and not just self absorbed. I like to know about things I don't know about because I was born with a curious mind, which you've eluded to you have not. I guess I feel bad for you that you need direct exposure to something to feel like you know anything about it. I guess with my apparent unique ability to think in the abstract, I also have a natural curiosity that lends itself to discovery and knowledge about non-sequitor things.
But back on topic, this isn't why the parent made the comment he did. I know this and you know this.
He did it because he's intolerant of anything "God" related and believes he has a certain right to not be exposed to the ideas or print of this God. He's intolerant much like some people on the other side of the coin are intolerant.
I guess I'd assume he's saying the download took about the time it takes to go to church for Christmas.
Are you scared that someone went to church? Does it bother you someone mentioned church?
I find it perfectly relevant as it gave me a range of time it took to download the file, but then I can think in the abstract.
Bugs are gross. We should focus all our efforts on destroying this vile form of life.
Chalk another one up for the Human race! If only I could drink the blood of our eco-enemies!
Real priceless, nerd. I hit an extra 'g' and didn't see it. Get over it and bring something to the conversation. Or is it that you're too nit-witted to have a valid opinion?
Looks like the classic nit-wit....
Everything you make in this environment is JAVASCRIPT!!!! It's not meant for people who don't have computers capable of supporting JS or people that are too iggnorant to understand JS makes for better browsing.
My Web App's I make in GWT aren't meant for Lynx users. They aren't meant for people with Pentium 2 computers. They aren't meant for anal fucks who won't turn JS on.
Kind of like vodeogames, they are intended for people who WANT to use these things. They are for people who WANt to experiance NEW things.
Burnout happens because we live a soulless existence working on worthless things to gain money which will be spent on worthless material things.
When you don't do anything that seem important to you, you simply stop being able to do it.
At some point, your brain figures out it only has one life to live and it's being wasted. So it "burns out" to get itself out of the current, unhealthy environment.
If you burn out, it's not really your fault entirely.
But you should recognize it as your brain and body telling you to get out now, you're killing it!
this is just my theory, of course.
I bet you are.
I want robots working for me.
C'mon, that stuff makes you think abstractly and solve problems.
Any programmer I've worked with with a degree in CS is almost always invariably smarter than ones without one.
Maybe I made that abundantly clear in my above post.
I should note before someone flips out on me that I've worked in ASP.net for way too long. I know it's not "stateless" as it might appear I implied. I understand the "Postback" idea and the Session variable as well as things to help programmers like the View State, etc.
These ideas are, as I implied, dinosaurs.
They have .NET which is greta and all, but for the Web they leverage ASP.net which is still a dinosaur of an idea.
Google has GWT, which only about 100 people on Earth get right now. Google has an understanding for the Web, Web applications and how users should interact in the World Wide Web far surpassing MS's "reactive" method of toolkit design.
I see two companies. One which is using old methods, not innovating or developing new ideas and assuming stability in something as fast moving and cutting edge as the WWW. I see another company challenging old ideas (relatively old anyways) and proving the WWW is more than Web Pages and stateless client/server communication.
I see a company that think they get this but only see flashy UI's as the means to the end here. I see another company that understand the UI is just a view to this new idea that the Web is a series of intercommunicating applications users can access from anywhere.
But then, I don't expect many people, especially a monolith who's made their fortunes through brute strength rather than new ideas, to see this until it's apparently obvious. The search for the holy grail of the Web's next "killer app" is right in front of peoples faces.
Bugs didn't help anything but even before the bugs destroyed it, the population was small to begin with. People didn't stick around as much because the PvP was too much for most people.
I agree, I loved discovering new templates.
A friend of mine basically invented the Prelate with throwing daggers on the War server. That templates was unbeatable until they gimped daggers some.
No one made Prelates before that.
This has been done in a game called "Shadowbane", years ago. It's actually still around for free (game and network) from what I've heard.
It was built on the idea of "Guild Warfare", where guilds and townships would defend their territory from others with largescale, epic battles.
It worked great when it was happening but you quickly saw it was a fringe thing. People didn't like risking their things they played so long to aquire.
In the end, most people are care bears and just want to chat and farm while wasting away their lives.
Most people in these games don't fit the traditional model of gamers. In fact, many of the players in these games are pathetic and are easily killed by skilled game players who've put in a fraction of the time.
I have to respectfully disagree.
You mention that now the coder has to develop the GUI and do the CSS. This is totally wrong. If the CSS classes are defined ahead of time, the programmer simply has to set them and all the different CSS states a UI object will have. this is usually done in the design segment of the software lifecycle.
Now the graphic artist can work on stylizing a Website and developing images, etc. They can also design the layout and have the programmers make sure each UI widget is in a panel that lays this out. Then, once again, the graphic designer styles the work.
And really, GWT doesn't make you do much GUI design at all. After the layout is done, a programmer only needs to create each UI object and be done with it. No different than in ASP.net or any other server side UI creation scheme.
GWT is amazing in that it forces the development to look at CSS as the designing part and Java as the logic part. The logic sets the design, but this isn't atypical by any means.
And GWT in my experiences has been successful on fairly large projects. It's fast, the easiest to debug for any Website and fairly compact.
I believe it's a radical shift in the paradigm of Website development and a great one at that.
I love the idea of a Java to Javascript/DHTML compiler, CSS centered design and wonderfully encapsulated asynchronous client/server communication. GWT allows you to make complex Web Apps that were near impossible to make a year ago.
I see the light anyways. And it's only going to get better. It makes Web programming more like programming. It's what I've dreamed of for years.
This is how I view technologies that allow you to program in a language and compile it to DHTML and Javascript. Essentially the same idea as an Applet. I think we now have the power on the client side for the bandwidth and the execution.
Mainly because GWT and Echo are way too advanced for a book such as this.
Why just tell people they could use these amazing toolkit paragdims when you can sell them a book explaining how the pipes run?
GWT and Echo and related technologies are really great. I like GWT more because of it putting everything client related on the client side. I see this as the future of Web programming and we will see more and better tools to facilitate this. One being better program caching with checksums and client/server versioning to allow for download once, run every time Websites in the EOC (Everything On Client) model.
Stop it with these nonsense books and just pick up GWT. Understand that putting it all on the client side is more powerful and in practice generally more reliable and just as fast as server side tool kits, if not more so.
I believe this is the real benefit of AJAX methods that go beyond the asynchronous client/server communication.
Now you write Java programs that are compiled into complete Javascript programs that work on IE, FF, Safari and Opera with generated DHTML, etc. You use whatever you want back on the server side. The Javascript generated for you will probably be as good as anything you can write in JS and most likely more complex and better tested.
This is such a better parigdim than having the server create these user forms and controls using minimal Javascript and then posting back for more forms. Or simply sending all the forms over in a bloated DHTML mess. Now we have actual programs on the client side that behave like Websites and rich clients.
Make a site in GWT and see how easy and fun it is. It's a whole different world of Website and very clearly the future. Maybe not GWT, but having a Javascript program as the Website and the server agnostic. I would assume we will see better Javascript caching and a client/server versioning system to make sure users have the latest version of a site making for insanely fast Websites that are downloaded once with only calls for content and no longer infrastructure.