and 20 minutes later your upstream provider will kill your links and stop taking BGP announcements from you and life will go one.
Seriously Taco? Did you take a timothy pill and get retarded too? Why the fuck are you posting these retarded stories about things we've known for literally 30 years and has probably come up at least 10 times on slashdot in the last 5 years.
Might as well just redirect slashdot.org to 4chan, the IQ seems to be about the same now days.
All the reasons the guy listed for why the Arduino 'wins' are not unique to the devices. You can get all of those same things out of a radio shack basic stamp.
Arduino won because the stuck a decent microcontroller on a solid board (I'm ignoring the absolutely retarded pin spacing issue that pisses everyone off) at a decent price with a serial boot loader already burned to the chip. The ATmega chips were popular long before Arduino, so when it came out suddenly all of us who had been futzing around with ATmega's for years finally had a source for a preassembled prototype board rather than constantly cobbling our own together. I've still got several PCBs I etched with a generic prototyping layout in my shop.
They took the need for an Atmel ATmega programmer out of the equation but otherwise you get just a slightly larger than the chip itself prototyping board.
The Arduino software is complete ass, the only reason anyone uses it is because they don't know there something better... like say... entering your code from the command line with cat > filename && cc filename. The libraries, while relatively easy to use are painfully slow and bloated for no reason, which is important when your counting clock cycles on microcontroller.
Arduino didn't win because its Arduino, it won because it used a microcontroller that had already cornered the market.
There will multiple ATmega chips (the ones used in the Arduino) in every household before the Arduino came into existence.
Considering Amazon's response was 'we were going to spend 10s of millions and hire 1000 people'... I'm pretty sure the 269 million is far more beneficial than a new building and insignificant reduction in unemployment claims that Amazon is trying to use as a negotiating point.
Eventually every state will force them to pay and they'll have no where to run and it'll be over.
Right now, states simply haven't adjusted to the Internet business model. They will, and you want them too, unless you don't like the infrastructure your state provides.
1) What did berg do? What trust has he violated... where is said proof?
2)... I'm sorry... have you been living under a fucking rock? Assange LIVES to make a name for himself. He's the fucking definition of an attention/media whore. If he cared about the leaks and not attention we wouldn't know his name.
3) So a bunch of people see the way somethings work and don't like it... so they go start their own... and their the assholes? WTF? They are 'bad' just because they went and started their own site? What did they take from Wikileaks? Some documents... that were going to be leaked... and that changes anything how?
4)... okay, so you do live under a rock. Its really hard to take anything away from the 40 year old moron hiding in England because of the idea that Sweden is going to put him in a box and ship him to the US. The US REALLY DOESN'T CARE that much, yes some loud mouth politicans may be capitalizing on it, but they really haven't done any damage to the US and the recent diplomatic communications leak made it rather clear that most of the time when we look like assholes to the public of the middle easy or east... its because everyone over there doesn't have the balls to say it themselves... including the very people who hate publicly. Assange is more of a media whore than Lindsey Lohan.
5) Shutting up just for the good of the world... I'm sorry, who brought this up? Wasn't it wikileaks? You want openleaks to shut up... but Wikileaks is the one who started this latest drama fest... do you even know whats going on?
6) No, you are missing the point. It is entirely possible to get media attention without being a public spokes person and media whore. I realize you weren't around for Watergate... but it seemed to work out just fine without a figure head in the public drawing attention. He has no need for public attention, he just enjoys it.
You've pretty much gotten every single point you made backwards.
Its one thing to be a fanboy but holy shit you're Sarah Palin retarded and ignorant.
Funny, I see it the exact opposite. These guys made a massive impact on far more people than some guy shooting some 5 year olds mom and dad.
When the crime is SO large that I can't even emotionally connect to it... I REALLY can't see how you could justify being lighter on them rather than harder.
Nope, not much more than normal... because you do that all the time, its not an abnormal behavior pattern for you.
However, walking a 20 block route around the city at 2am throwing company harddrives with company documents on them into multiple dump trucks to ensure the drives are sufficiently difficult for anyone to find and recover... which you don't ever do... will probably raise some questions.
Investigators don't care about normal behavior patterns, its the ones that stick out like a sore thumb that they tend to focus on, with good reason, thats usually how they find criminals.
The government doesn't need to know, but its not really going to hurt you if they do see your data... unless you ARE a criminal.
You certainly do have your own right to privacy, and the government in general has no right to it. However, as a civilized society, most of us recognize that the only reason you would go about destroying your data is if you were trying to hide something illegal... because most of us don't live in an Orwellian dystopian fantasy where you think the government is going to secretly torture you because you donated to wikileaks... which is ironic considering you're happy to blab about it on slashdot so everyone knows anyway.
When our civil rights DO actually start getting violated regularly I might change my opinion. Until then I'll have to stick with my original assessment that the only reason you would destroy your data is because you are doing something illegal. Even if you had some super secret awesome technology that was worth a whole lot of money, the government finding it isn't going to make your tech worthless, it'll still be worth SOMETHING, so destroying it isn't a business decision.
This wasn't you destroying the data because you're afraid of some personal secret getting out and making your life difficult.
This was some guys destroying records, some of which are required by law, intentionally because they knew they were about to be inspected. I don't need a trial, there is enough evidence in their behavior leading up to it to know they are guilty, its only a matter of determining the number of crimes they are guilty off. Your behavior is an indication of your guilt or innocence no matter how much you think it isn't. It can be misinterpreted of course, but this is one of those times when they only way you can say 'maybe they weren't guilty and weren't just trying to destroy evidence of their guilt' is if you're completely unaware of pretty much every detail involving the case. Even the guys living under a rock know better.
Taking a 20 block walk at 2am scattering drives between dump trucks that contain documents (some of which are legally required for their operation) is an admission of guilt in and of itself. You can try to paint it as a privacy/rights issue, but please don't, all you're doing is taking away from the real times when these issues matter. Use some damn common sense.
I don't see how Wikileaks can have more credibility, none of them have any and Wikileaks isn't supposed to especially since all they are supposed to do is be a passthrough conduit for others to leak information.
If Wikileaks has credibility then its already failed. You've already got bias before you see the leaks. You're assuming because the Wikileaks crew, or just someone involved with them puts a Wikileaks rubber stamp on it, its true, its something to be mad about and that whoever its from is an evil bastard. That makes you an idiot, not me.
If I send a leak about how you like to fuck horses to Wikileaks and they just blindly post it... will you still believe them? No? Well?
You also need to learn to detect when someone is venting.
All she did was wrote in her diary. The stupid part was that she thought:
A) Someone would be interested in reading her personal thoughts
B) Making really offensive statements about customers in a public forum is a good idea
her job is to teach and grade their work, not judge a student
Just to verify, you do realize that 'grade their work' is 'judge a student' right? Her job IS to judge students, to assess their position in the class and if they are ready to move on. Her ability to judge students directly impacts her ability to teach them. If she has no idea what they are like she can't possibly tailor her teaching to that student to be as effective as possible. Whats she supposed to do, put notes on a projector, lecture the students all day as if they were just voice recorders and assume they'll all just suck it in and know everything, and will all one day turn out to be presidents of the country, astronauts and neural surgeons... at the same time? You need to get over this silly idea that people shouldn't be judged, all its going to do is make sure you stay at the bottom of the barrel as the rest of us are going to judge you to be a pussy and walk right over you on our way to the top.
As far as thinking but not saying these things. As a general rule, if you think things but don't have the balls to say them out loud to someone, even if its just your family/close friends, THAT is generally an indication of psychological problems. Keeping things bottled up is generally what ends up making people go postal. Venting is a very natural, acceptable and healthy part of life. Bottling things up is dangerous, venting is not. How you handle it is whats important. She didn't beat the kids, which they probably deserved and would have been far more productive. She went online and ranted about it without even naming any names. She's just stupid, not mean or unbalanced.
There parents are whiney bitches who can't possibly have bad children. I mean, NOT MY CHILDREN, MY CHILDREN ARE ANGELS! When what they really mean is angles... obtuse ones at that.
Parents bitch to principle and/or school board. These people too are a bunch of pussies who won't stand up to the parents so they pass it down the line. Remember, she flows down hill, the teacher is at the bottom.
Whats sad is that the teacher wasn't bright enough to realize this themselves.
WTF is it going to take to get people to realize that posting private thoughts online is an incredible retarded thing to do?
Personally, I think anyone who uses Facebook shouldn't be allowed to teach in general. There should be a certain required level of intelligence to be a teacher and I'm pretty sure that using Facebook and Twitter are big red flags that you don't meet that level of intelligence.
It does now days when parents seem to be completely unable to comprehend that little Susie or Bobbie is a worthless pile of shit with no manners and no consideration for anyone else.
Teachers aren't holding back the class to confer with parents about students, teachers are holding back the class because they can't get anything accomplished because they spend all their time fighting students they can't control and have had all their authority to do so removed from them.
Contrary to popular belief it can infact be the childs fault, and it most CERTAINLY is the parents fault.
I have a particular dislike of American teachers, most of them are nothing but money grabbing morons who think they deserve to get paid more 'because they are a teacher' and their ability to teach has nothing to do with it, and if you don't give them tenure in 2 years you're an evil heartless bastard.
With that said...
The kid is probably a complete worthless pile of shit because his parents let him get by with anything he/she wants. The kid more than likely is a waste of flesh, food and oxygen.
Yes, she should expect to be fired for posting it publicly, but the reality of it is, you'd probably say the exact same thing. When teachers get in trouble for punishing their students who disrupt class, you can't blame them for hating the bastards. They've been turned into watchers. They aren't even baby sitters, baby sitters actually have some sort of authority. They basically get to sit and watch, and locally if you want to send a kid to the office, you have to wait for the campus cop to show up to escort him/her because if little Johnny in high school doesn't go to the office and instead walks off campus and gets hit by a car or abducted... its the teachers fault.
More of this sort of thing should be expected until we stop giving children more control than the adults that are responsible for them.
Without reading the article though, $100 bets the teacher is only a few years older than the students she teaches... which means she's just as much of a kid as they are.
No doubt. But, we're moving in the right direction.
If we can get all browsers with a common layer of basic SVG support, then we can at least start taking advantage of those features and avoiding flash for those bits, maybe then all browsers will get better SVG support cause lets face it, webkit and gecko are pretty shitty at anything moderately complex, but do fine for simple stuff.
We get IE9 with basic SVG, take advantage of it and avoid flash and silverlight as much as possible maybe we can move the big beasts that these organizations are in the right direction.
Might as well face it though, getting people to actually finish the code they started is WAY harder than it is to get someone to start working on some new buzzword based feature so its going to be a long slow road.
You'll still have to test on XP if you want to know how it will look on XP.
Even with the same rendering engine, subtle differences between native OS font rendering will change the page layout for instance. They simply can not share all the exact same code and still be considered a modern browser. XP for instance has no compositing manager for its graphics subsystem.
It does support Windows 7 Thin Client, which should run on a lot more older hardware.
The reality of it is, as a developer, MS doesnt' care about XP any more. Why should they? Its been over 4 years since it was replaced, and another 2 since the version that replaced it was replaced. They aren't going support old OSes forever and as a for profit company, people who aren't going to upgrade 5 year old hardware probably aren't going to be spending money on a lot of new software either, so they aren't part of MS's target audience... and why should they be, MS is a for profit company.
Its great that you can run Chrome on older hardware, but Firefox? A recent version? On hardware that won't run Win7? No thanks, I'm pretty sure that will suck far more ass than using Win7 thin client and IE9. Firefox isn't exactly slim anymore, its just the new navigator with all its glorious bloat (what do you expect, its Netscape). Chrome, sure. On that same note however, my wifes 5 year old laptop with a gig of ram runs Win7 just fine for web browsing by itself.
As far as speed... outside of Google and Slashdot, people haven't cared about 'how fast' the browser is for... oh I don't know... have they ever actually cared? I doubt it.
If you don't want to upgrade, Microsoft doesnt' care, you will have to eventually and its just a dumb business move to spend a bunch of time worrying about people who aren't going to contribute to your bottom line when the other 99.999999% of the population will.
Supporting XP is a bad move all around, for everyone involved.
Are you pissed off that no one is upgrading your gasoline car to a hybrid or all electric for free too? Thats really what you're saying...
The same way it supports plugins like Flash. It supports the.NET plugin architecture now, so it can run native.NET plugins for IE without needing a loader/shim like it used to, and like Firefox and other browsers do.
Basically, they took that plugin that Firefox users get pissed about when a.NET update installs a firefox extension without asking, and built that into IE directly instead of as a plugin using IEs older plugin mechanism. They just moved the code from a plugin for IE into the IE codebase itself.
It allows for better security (in theory, but that assumes.NET security isn't broken anywhere, which probability is unlikely) and better integration with the browser. If used correctly it would be a good thing, it makes writing an IE plugin a cakewalk if you know any.NET runtime compatible language. Its likely however to have just removed one of the barriers to make it harder to exploit IE via plugins too.
In reality, we're probably just looking at ActiveX part 2. The.NET runtime, for all intents and purposes is just OLE version 3, where as ActiveX was version 2, DCOM 1.5, and standard COM/OLE version 1.0. They all just build on the same interface.
I would also like to point out before some idiot goes ranting about it, the security flaws with ActiveX were not because of the ActiveX interface, they were because of the way IE implemented access to ActiveX, which basically started out as a free for all where any website could do whatever it wanted by just throwing an ActiveX at you which IE blindly accepted and ran. That is no longer the case, its pretty much on par with Mozilla extensions from a security stand point now days, with the obvious caveat that bugs blow it. Its actually far easier to get an extension to work on a plugin capable Mozilla based browser than it is in IE now days, so no one needs to go spouting off about how unsafe it is... unless you intend to argue the implementation is flawed. The idea and intended implementation are more or less identical.
What? Client Apps don't need IIS, web server apps do, which has nothing to do with.NET support in the browser. If you're running IIS so you can use the app then its a server app and has 0 to do with this..NET support in a browser just means its capable of loading native.NET runtime objects as plugins without needed a loader/shim. Instead of needing the.NET plugin loader (you know, that thing MS keeps sneaking into the firefox addon list during updates that people get so irate about) like other browsers, IE can just load them directly with its native loader.
The plugins have better integration with the browser and can take advantage of the fact that.NET really is just a big plugin system with lots of built in features a browser would want anyway like built in sandboxing and security features.
Its just like saying 'it supports the Netscape plugin API (NSAPI that pretty much all other browsers use)' but instead saying 'it supports.NET plugins'
Its really no relation to what Google is doing with Chrome.
Its a safe bet this is just Microsoft preparing to move to a new plugin/extension mechanism. The.NET runtime works perfect for this purpose. I'd be happy to use it in my apps if mono wasn't such a steaming pile of crap, having the only useful implementation tied to Windows only kind of kills it unless you develop only for Windows.
How the fuck did someone that clearly has absolutely no fucking clue what he's talking about get modded to 5?
If you want to all share the same common experience than everyones names need to resolve to get to the same destination.
In order to have multiple USEFUL roots, they need to be linked... if they are linked, to avoid contention you'll need an arbitrator... which essentially becomes your new root governor. Right back to where we started from.
Also alternate roots in and of themselves offer no gains, you're simply changing the name of who is in control. Sure you can shop around... just like moving between registries now... and if you've done any amount of domain management you'll know what a hit and miss process registrar transfers are, make it multinational or multi-organizational... yea, THAT'LL work better.
The reality is, if a government does any sort of serious control of domain names, the end result is that government will simply end up killing its own economy.
Your earned the Internet? I'm pretty sure its something you pay services for, and yes, there are many times when the government takes away such things. Are you allowed to buy the services of a murderer? Are you able to buy the services of a child molester?
Obviously the Internet and Murder aren't even in the same country, but its extremely niave and ignorant to pretend that IF something were to be 'cut off' it would be new.
In reality, you're just spreading FUD. No one is going to 'flip the killswitch' It would be an economic catastrophe at this point that would hurt the politicians pockets FAR too much for them to do it. It would just be stupid.
If you had even the slightest clue what living under what is ACTUALLY bad government you'd not be spewing such things. If you have time to bitch about what might happen in some fantasy dystopian future you've created in your head 'when they turn off the Internet' then you need to recognize that you are so far away from the world of Orwell that you portray that its hard to argue you're even in the same dimension, let alone any closer.
Why? You're just picking someone else to put in the same position.
Its very idealogical to suggest using an alternate root, but it completely ignores that actual problem. Instead of Peter being the one who can turn off your domains, Paul is. Different names, same effect.
I'm less concerned with the government futzing with DNS and destroying large swaths of the economy (politicians want to make money too) than I am the OpenDNS douche bag who already futz with queries for profit.
So you clearly have absolutely no clue how DNS works...
Its already distributed, but like most things, in order to be useful there has to be some sort of hierarchy so everyone knows how to find everyone else.
Anarchy doesn't rule, doesn't matter how loudly you shout it, it doesn't work.
You are however, completely capable of running your own zone. You DNS server can use whatever roots it wants. The software doesn't care. But, if you want to share with everyone else you're going to have to play on the same page.
Slashdot Mirror
and 20 minutes later your upstream provider will kill your links and stop taking BGP announcements from you and life will go one.
Seriously Taco? Did you take a timothy pill and get retarded too? Why the fuck are you posting these retarded stories about things we've known for literally 30 years and has probably come up at least 10 times on slashdot in the last 5 years.
Might as well just redirect slashdot.org to 4chan, the IQ seems to be about the same now days.
All the reasons the guy listed for why the Arduino 'wins' are not unique to the devices. You can get all of those same things out of a radio shack basic stamp.
Arduino won because the stuck a decent microcontroller on a solid board (I'm ignoring the absolutely retarded pin spacing issue that pisses everyone off) at a decent price with a serial boot loader already burned to the chip. The ATmega chips were popular long before Arduino, so when it came out suddenly all of us who had been futzing around with ATmega's for years finally had a source for a preassembled prototype board rather than constantly cobbling our own together. I've still got several PCBs I etched with a generic prototyping layout in my shop.
They took the need for an Atmel ATmega programmer out of the equation but otherwise you get just a slightly larger than the chip itself prototyping board.
The Arduino software is complete ass, the only reason anyone uses it is because they don't know there something better ... like say ... entering your code from the command line with cat > filename && cc filename. The libraries, while relatively easy to use are painfully slow and bloated for no reason, which is important when your counting clock cycles on microcontroller.
Arduino didn't win because its Arduino, it won because it used a microcontroller that had already cornered the market.
There will multiple ATmega chips (the ones used in the Arduino) in every household before the Arduino came into existence.
Considering Amazon's response was 'we were going to spend 10s of millions and hire 1000 people' ... I'm pretty sure the 269 million is far more beneficial than a new building and insignificant reduction in unemployment claims that Amazon is trying to use as a negotiating point.
Eventually every state will force them to pay and they'll have no where to run and it'll be over.
Right now, states simply haven't adjusted to the Internet business model. They will, and you want them too, unless you don't like the infrastructure your state provides.
Israel abuses animals, not people. No people actually live in Gaza or the West Bank.
Citation needed, for all of your points.
Just because you say them doesn't make them true.
1) What did berg do? What trust has he violated ... where is said proof?
2) ... I'm sorry ... have you been living under a fucking rock? Assange LIVES to make a name for himself. He's the fucking definition of an attention/media whore. If he cared about the leaks and not attention we wouldn't know his name.
3) So a bunch of people see the way somethings work and don't like it ... so they go start their own ... and their the assholes? WTF? They are 'bad' just because they went and started their own site? What did they take from Wikileaks? Some documents ... that were going to be leaked ... and that changes anything how?
4) ... okay, so you do live under a rock. Its really hard to take anything away from the 40 year old moron hiding in England because of the idea that Sweden is going to put him in a box and ship him to the US. The US REALLY DOESN'T CARE that much, yes some loud mouth politicans may be capitalizing on it, but they really haven't done any damage to the US and the recent diplomatic communications leak made it rather clear that most of the time when we look like assholes to the public of the middle easy or east ... its because everyone over there doesn't have the balls to say it themselves ... including the very people who hate publicly. Assange is more of a media whore than Lindsey Lohan.
5) Shutting up just for the good of the world ... I'm sorry, who brought this up? Wasn't it wikileaks? You want openleaks to shut up ... but Wikileaks is the one who started this latest drama fest ... do you even know whats going on?
6) No, you are missing the point. It is entirely possible to get media attention without being a public spokes person and media whore. I realize you weren't around for Watergate ... but it seemed to work out just fine without a figure head in the public drawing attention. He has no need for public attention, he just enjoys it.
You've pretty much gotten every single point you made backwards.
Its one thing to be a fanboy but holy shit you're Sarah Palin retarded and ignorant.
It would appear that is not the case here, I don't think there will be much golf involved.
Funny, I see it the exact opposite. These guys made a massive impact on far more people than some guy shooting some 5 year olds mom and dad.
When the crime is SO large that I can't even emotionally connect to it ... I REALLY can't see how you could justify being lighter on them rather than harder.
Nope, not much more than normal ... because you do that all the time, its not an abnormal behavior pattern for you.
However, walking a 20 block route around the city at 2am throwing company harddrives with company documents on them into multiple dump trucks to ensure the drives are sufficiently difficult for anyone to find and recover ... which you don't ever do ... will probably raise some questions.
Investigators don't care about normal behavior patterns, its the ones that stick out like a sore thumb that they tend to focus on, with good reason, thats usually how they find criminals.
Yea, but you're paranoid and don't really count.
The government doesn't need to know, but its not really going to hurt you if they do see your data ... unless you ARE a criminal.
You certainly do have your own right to privacy, and the government in general has no right to it. However, as a civilized society, most of us recognize that the only reason you would go about destroying your data is if you were trying to hide something illegal ... because most of us don't live in an Orwellian dystopian fantasy where you think the government is going to secretly torture you because you donated to wikileaks ... which is ironic considering you're happy to blab about it on slashdot so everyone knows anyway.
When our civil rights DO actually start getting violated regularly I might change my opinion. Until then I'll have to stick with my original assessment that the only reason you would destroy your data is because you are doing something illegal. Even if you had some super secret awesome technology that was worth a whole lot of money, the government finding it isn't going to make your tech worthless, it'll still be worth SOMETHING, so destroying it isn't a business decision.
This wasn't you destroying the data because you're afraid of some personal secret getting out and making your life difficult.
This was some guys destroying records, some of which are required by law, intentionally because they knew they were about to be inspected. I don't need a trial, there is enough evidence in their behavior leading up to it to know they are guilty, its only a matter of determining the number of crimes they are guilty off. Your behavior is an indication of your guilt or innocence no matter how much you think it isn't. It can be misinterpreted of course, but this is one of those times when they only way you can say 'maybe they weren't guilty and weren't just trying to destroy evidence of their guilt' is if you're completely unaware of pretty much every detail involving the case. Even the guys living under a rock know better.
Taking a 20 block walk at 2am scattering drives between dump trucks that contain documents (some of which are legally required for their operation) is an admission of guilt in and of itself. You can try to paint it as a privacy/rights issue, but please don't, all you're doing is taking away from the real times when these issues matter. Use some damn common sense.
Call me an idiot then ...
I don't see how Wikileaks can have more credibility, none of them have any and Wikileaks isn't supposed to especially since all they are supposed to do is be a passthrough conduit for others to leak information.
If Wikileaks has credibility then its already failed. You've already got bias before you see the leaks. You're assuming because the Wikileaks crew, or just someone involved with them puts a Wikileaks rubber stamp on it, its true, its something to be mad about and that whoever its from is an evil bastard. That makes you an idiot, not me.
If I send a leak about how you like to fuck horses to Wikileaks and they just blindly post it ... will you still believe them? No? Well?
Furthermore, many site rendering issues have been fixed, although we can't say that it's working perfectly.
I hope you're not using slashdot as a test page for the rendering issues.
I can assure you, slashdot has rendering issues in every browser since this latest redesign went into place, notepad included.
You need some perspective.
You also need to learn to detect when someone is venting.
All she did was wrote in her diary. The stupid part was that she thought:
A) Someone would be interested in reading her personal thoughts
B) Making really offensive statements about customers in a public forum is a good idea
her job is to teach and grade their work, not judge a student
Just to verify, you do realize that 'grade their work' is 'judge a student' right? Her job IS to judge students, to assess their position in the class and if they are ready to move on. Her ability to judge students directly impacts her ability to teach them. If she has no idea what they are like she can't possibly tailor her teaching to that student to be as effective as possible. Whats she supposed to do, put notes on a projector, lecture the students all day as if they were just voice recorders and assume they'll all just suck it in and know everything, and will all one day turn out to be presidents of the country, astronauts and neural surgeons ... at the same time? You need to get over this silly idea that people shouldn't be judged, all its going to do is make sure you stay at the bottom of the barrel as the rest of us are going to judge you to be a pussy and walk right over you on our way to the top.
As far as thinking but not saying these things. As a general rule, if you think things but don't have the balls to say them out loud to someone, even if its just your family/close friends, THAT is generally an indication of psychological problems. Keeping things bottled up is generally what ends up making people go postal. Venting is a very natural, acceptable and healthy part of life. Bottling things up is dangerous, venting is not. How you handle it is whats important. She didn't beat the kids, which they probably deserved and would have been far more productive. She went online and ranted about it without even naming any names. She's just stupid, not mean or unbalanced.
There parents are whiney bitches who can't possibly have bad children. I mean, NOT MY CHILDREN, MY CHILDREN ARE ANGELS! When what they really mean is angles ... obtuse ones at that.
Parents bitch to principle and/or school board. These people too are a bunch of pussies who won't stand up to the parents so they pass it down the line. Remember, she flows down hill, the teacher is at the bottom.
Whats sad is that the teacher wasn't bright enough to realize this themselves.
WTF is it going to take to get people to realize that posting private thoughts online is an incredible retarded thing to do?
Personally, I think anyone who uses Facebook shouldn't be allowed to teach in general. There should be a certain required level of intelligence to be a teacher and I'm pretty sure that using Facebook and Twitter are big red flags that you don't meet that level of intelligence.
It does now days when parents seem to be completely unable to comprehend that little Susie or Bobbie is a worthless pile of shit with no manners and no consideration for anyone else.
Teachers aren't holding back the class to confer with parents about students, teachers are holding back the class because they can't get anything accomplished because they spend all their time fighting students they can't control and have had all their authority to do so removed from them.
Contrary to popular belief it can infact be the childs fault, and it most CERTAINLY is the parents fault.
I have a particular dislike of American teachers, most of them are nothing but money grabbing morons who think they deserve to get paid more 'because they are a teacher' and their ability to teach has nothing to do with it, and if you don't give them tenure in 2 years you're an evil heartless bastard.
With that said ...
The kid is probably a complete worthless pile of shit because his parents let him get by with anything he/she wants. The kid more than likely is a waste of flesh, food and oxygen.
Yes, she should expect to be fired for posting it publicly, but the reality of it is, you'd probably say the exact same thing. When teachers get in trouble for punishing their students who disrupt class, you can't blame them for hating the bastards. They've been turned into watchers. They aren't even baby sitters, baby sitters actually have some sort of authority. They basically get to sit and watch, and locally if you want to send a kid to the office, you have to wait for the campus cop to show up to escort him/her because if little Johnny in high school doesn't go to the office and instead walks off campus and gets hit by a car or abducted ... its the teachers fault.
More of this sort of thing should be expected until we stop giving children more control than the adults that are responsible for them.
Without reading the article though, $100 bets the teacher is only a few years older than the students she teaches ... which means she's just as much of a kid as they are.
No doubt. But, we're moving in the right direction.
If we can get all browsers with a common layer of basic SVG support, then we can at least start taking advantage of those features and avoiding flash for those bits, maybe then all browsers will get better SVG support cause lets face it, webkit and gecko are pretty shitty at anything moderately complex, but do fine for simple stuff.
We get IE9 with basic SVG, take advantage of it and avoid flash and silverlight as much as possible maybe we can move the big beasts that these organizations are in the right direction.
Might as well face it though, getting people to actually finish the code they started is WAY harder than it is to get someone to start working on some new buzzword based feature so its going to be a long slow road.
You'll still have to test on XP if you want to know how it will look on XP.
Even with the same rendering engine, subtle differences between native OS font rendering will change the page layout for instance. They simply can not share all the exact same code and still be considered a modern browser. XP for instance has no compositing manager for its graphics subsystem.
It does support Windows 7 Thin Client, which should run on a lot more older hardware.
The reality of it is, as a developer, MS doesnt' care about XP any more. Why should they? Its been over 4 years since it was replaced, and another 2 since the version that replaced it was replaced. They aren't going support old OSes forever and as a for profit company, people who aren't going to upgrade 5 year old hardware probably aren't going to be spending money on a lot of new software either, so they aren't part of MS's target audience ... and why should they be, MS is a for profit company.
Its great that you can run Chrome on older hardware, but Firefox? A recent version? On hardware that won't run Win7? No thanks, I'm pretty sure that will suck far more ass than using Win7 thin client and IE9. Firefox isn't exactly slim anymore, its just the new navigator with all its glorious bloat (what do you expect, its Netscape). Chrome, sure. On that same note however, my wifes 5 year old laptop with a gig of ram runs Win7 just fine for web browsing by itself.
As far as speed ... outside of Google and Slashdot, people haven't cared about 'how fast' the browser is for ... oh I don't know ... have they ever actually cared? I doubt it.
If you don't want to upgrade, Microsoft doesnt' care, you will have to eventually and its just a dumb business move to spend a bunch of time worrying about people who aren't going to contribute to your bottom line when the other 99.999999% of the population will.
Supporting XP is a bad move all around, for everyone involved.
Are you pissed off that no one is upgrading your gasoline car to a hybrid or all electric for free too? Thats really what you're saying ...
The same way it supports plugins like Flash. It supports the .NET plugin architecture now, so it can run native .NET plugins for IE without needing a loader/shim like it used to, and like Firefox and other browsers do.
Basically, they took that plugin that Firefox users get pissed about when a .NET update installs a firefox extension without asking, and built that into IE directly instead of as a plugin using IEs older plugin mechanism. They just moved the code from a plugin for IE into the IE codebase itself.
It allows for better security (in theory, but that assumes .NET security isn't broken anywhere, which probability is unlikely) and better integration with the browser. If used correctly it would be a good thing, it makes writing an IE plugin a cakewalk if you know any .NET runtime compatible language. Its likely however to have just removed one of the barriers to make it harder to exploit IE via plugins too.
In reality, we're probably just looking at ActiveX part 2. The .NET runtime, for all intents and purposes is just OLE version 3, where as ActiveX was version 2, DCOM 1.5, and standard COM/OLE version 1.0. They all just build on the same interface.
I would also like to point out before some idiot goes ranting about it, the security flaws with ActiveX were not because of the ActiveX interface, they were because of the way IE implemented access to ActiveX, which basically started out as a free for all where any website could do whatever it wanted by just throwing an ActiveX at you which IE blindly accepted and ran. That is no longer the case, its pretty much on par with Mozilla extensions from a security stand point now days, with the obvious caveat that bugs blow it. Its actually far easier to get an extension to work on a plugin capable Mozilla based browser than it is in IE now days, so no one needs to go spouting off about how unsafe it is ... unless you intend to argue the implementation is flawed. The idea and intended implementation are more or less identical.
What? Client Apps don't need IIS, web server apps do, which has nothing to do with .NET support in the browser. If you're running IIS so you can use the app then its a server app and has 0 to do with this. .NET support in a browser just means its capable of loading native .NET runtime objects as plugins without needed a loader/shim. Instead of needing the .NET plugin loader (you know, that thing MS keeps sneaking into the firefox addon list during updates that people get so irate about) like other browsers, IE can just load them directly with its native loader.
The plugins have better integration with the browser and can take advantage of the fact that .NET really is just a big plugin system with lots of built in features a browser would want anyway like built in sandboxing and security features.
Its just like saying 'it supports the Netscape plugin API (NSAPI that pretty much all other browsers use)' but instead saying 'it supports .NET plugins'
Its really no relation to what Google is doing with Chrome.
Its a safe bet this is just Microsoft preparing to move to a new plugin/extension mechanism. The .NET runtime works perfect for this purpose. I'd be happy to use it in my apps if mono wasn't such a steaming pile of crap, having the only useful implementation tied to Windows only kind of kills it unless you develop only for Windows.
How the fuck did someone that clearly has absolutely no fucking clue what he's talking about get modded to 5?
The law of practicality says otherwise.
If you want to all share the same common experience than everyones names need to resolve to get to the same destination.
In order to have multiple USEFUL roots, they need to be linked ... if they are linked, to avoid contention you'll need an arbitrator ... which essentially becomes your new root governor. Right back to where we started from.
Also alternate roots in and of themselves offer no gains, you're simply changing the name of who is in control. Sure you can shop around ... just like moving between registries now ... and if you've done any amount of domain management you'll know what a hit and miss process registrar transfers are, make it multinational or multi-organizational ... yea, THAT'LL work better.
The reality is, if a government does any sort of serious control of domain names, the end result is that government will simply end up killing its own economy.
Your earned the Internet? I'm pretty sure its something you pay services for, and yes, there are many times when the government takes away such things. Are you allowed to buy the services of a murderer? Are you able to buy the services of a child molester?
Obviously the Internet and Murder aren't even in the same country, but its extremely niave and ignorant to pretend that IF something were to be 'cut off' it would be new.
In reality, you're just spreading FUD. No one is going to 'flip the killswitch' It would be an economic catastrophe at this point that would hurt the politicians pockets FAR too much for them to do it. It would just be stupid.
If you had even the slightest clue what living under what is ACTUALLY bad government you'd not be spewing such things. If you have time to bitch about what might happen in some fantasy dystopian future you've created in your head 'when they turn off the Internet' then you need to recognize that you are so far away from the world of Orwell that you portray that its hard to argue you're even in the same dimension, let alone any closer.
Why? You're just picking someone else to put in the same position.
Its very idealogical to suggest using an alternate root, but it completely ignores that actual problem. Instead of Peter being the one who can turn off your domains, Paul is. Different names, same effect.
I'm less concerned with the government futzing with DNS and destroying large swaths of the economy (politicians want to make money too) than I am the OpenDNS douche bag who already futz with queries for profit.
So you clearly have absolutely no clue how DNS works ...
Its already distributed, but like most things, in order to be useful there has to be some sort of hierarchy so everyone knows how to find everyone else.
Anarchy doesn't rule, doesn't matter how loudly you shout it, it doesn't work.
You are however, completely capable of running your own zone. You DNS server can use whatever roots it wants. The software doesn't care. But, if you want to share with everyone else you're going to have to play on the same page.