Just use "Web 3.0" everywhere you'd use "Web 2.0". Argue that, "it is the natural evolution of the web after the Web 2.0 label ran into legal difficulties." In doing so, you're actually helping kill of the stupid buzzword because it starts to lose meaning.
Posts like this are exactly the reason why Linux on the desktop has a long way to go: you have the actual userbase wanting to keep it to themselves in the name of purity or licensing or other administrivia.
Propel is Gatorade's take on the whole flavored water craze. I found it to be quite good for not having much that is harmful in it. It can be a little more pricey than what you're used to, but I feel a whole lot better having dropped soft drinks from my regular diet. It isn't going to have the same amount of flavor you're used to, but on the upside, it will hydrate you, so its likely you'll feel better even if the taste isn't an immediate hook.
So you admit there is a driver problem, but then try to rationalize it by saying "the hardware's closed source so we have to reverse engineer it." End users don't care if it is technically difficult, they just want the drivers. Just because it is hard to do in no way makes the issue any less relevant.
Well said. If you think about the argument not in terms of neighbors, but in terms of friends, then you'll see why driddle's point doesn't hold water. Would you rather have a friend who just played it safe and left you alone all the time? Or would you want someone who is gonna confront you when they see you're making bad choices in your life?
And if you were around at the time you'd remember that Netscape 4.0 was a terrible release. This was right around the time that IE 4.0 came out, and it began to take over.
But, yeah, keep blaming Netscape's downfall on the evil Microsoft. Never mind that if it didn't fail, we wouldn't have Mozilla/Firefox today.
I realize this may be completely impossible to believe, but before you start saying this guy is a shill, did you ever stop to think that this just MIGHT be a real article? And there just MIGHT be people who enjoy working at Microsoft? Is it really that hard to believe?
Or are you so bound by your narrow worldview of a particular company being 'evil' that you have to figuratively cover your ears and scream, "I'M NOT LISTENING!" even when something innocent like this crops up? How naive can you get?
If Microsoft did something like this then everyone would be crying about monopolies and piecing together rants about how evil capitalism is. Whether an action is good or bad shouldn't depend on who did it, but there's no reasoning with zealots. The fact is from a consumer standpoint Apple's business model is sub-par because we can't run OS X on our hardware. That's fine with me -- I'll continue using another OS.
The obsession stems from this site's tendency to attract a certain sort of people with naively optimistic viewpoints of the world. Google spouts some tripe about not doing evil, and people need to hold up something in the world as Very Good (because we all know who is Very Evil around here) to create [a poor excuse for] a belief system.
Really, there's no other way to explain such a dogmatic (read: faith-based) defense that people put up on behalf of a faceless corporation.
MMOs are always on the cutting edge of materialism it seems.
In spending *real* money on a credit card, I can apply these benefits toward things that are *not* real? Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? You might as well just not get any benefits from your credit card!
Hey now don't get so worked up...its just my silly opinion about the game. I think Blizzard should design it so it is much more difficult to simply macro your way up through weapon skills, though, and that would involve gameplay that requires more attention from the player.
If they had put.NET into Vista, then this article would be along the lines of "OMG MS PUTS INEFFICIENT CODE IN THEIR SHELL" and then blather endlessly on about how all real applications are written in [low-level-language]. Then we'd all sit around and wax about how wonderful it is that Gnome is pure C (and ignore the fact that Mono is associated with it because of cognitive dissonance).
Really, nobody can win when you sit there and pick apart everything someone does out of sheer spite. But I suppose it is far too unreasonable to ask for informed discussion these days...
If players feel compelled to bot their way through tedium, then it says a lot more about the gameplay (or lack thereof) within WoW than it does about the players. Although, admittedly, they should be a lot more picky about what they choose to waste their time with. (I'm become bored quickly, so MMOs are about as fun as watching paint dry on the wall.) Anyway I don't see anything wrong with hitting macro keys every now and then. At least he's doing *something*, and not just having it run full auto without having to watch.
I'm sure this will take off. Let's think of a time when someone decided to market a language on the basis that anyone could understand it...oh yes, Java! It is the paragon of expressiveness and power! And super simple to boot!
Yeah, but what does speaking up for honorable companies really do? Change a couple of people's minds? In the end, they're just a company, they exist to make a profit; nothing more, nothing less.
I suppose it bothers me because I see a large proportion of people who are zealous (far more than you) about some facet of technology when it doesn't make a significant impact on human existence. Suppose 1% of the advocacy directed toward Linux was funneled toward a cause such as human rights? However, I think part of the allure of advocating things like Linux is that one can do so very easily and without much risk.
I'm curious why people feel like they need to speak up on behalf of some faceless corporation? Their 'online reputation' among fickle folk like those on/. is largely a result of actions.
Please refrain from commenting if you have no clue what you are talking about. There is no need to optimize a program 100%. In fact, it isn't desirable to do so, because optimization usually produces code that is not as intuitive or clear as the original. Additionally, some 'optimizations' that people tout actually prevent the compiler from doing optimizations, and end up harder to read. (Pointer arithmetic is a good example - again, this is compiler dependent). The majority of a program's lifecycle is spent in maintenance, and it should be tailored toward that. Additionally, profilers can be used to pinpoint bottlenecks in the code.
I don't recall C++ making any claims about binary compatibility in the standard. It just happens that most compilers implement things in a very similar way and we know what makes and breaks binary compatibility. Heck, you break binary compatibility when you change the virtual-ness of a function, this doesn't mean that we must force all functions to be virtual in the name of binary compatibility.
You're likely to be putting a severe dent into some people's belief systems and world views by asserting that Microsoft is not a monopoly anymore! They'll be forced to see that there's a world out there beyond technology companies, involving...gasp...people!!! Oh the horrors!
We don't want hyper-enthusiasts. These are the type of people that recommend a single technology for *every* problem and believe it to be the absolute saving grace. Usually, they have a poor grip on reality. What has probably happened is the delusion that Java will nullify platform differences may finally be starting to wear thin on these people.
I can't see how anyone would lament the loss of zealots, however. They always do more harm for their cause than good.
Slashdot Mirror
Just use "Web 3.0" everywhere you'd use "Web 2.0". Argue that, "it is the natural evolution of the web after the Web 2.0 label ran into legal difficulties." In doing so, you're actually helping kill of the stupid buzzword because it starts to lose meaning.
Except one shouldn't have to research anything to do basic* things in an operating system.
* Most users consider things like browsing webpages that use Flash pretty basic.
Posts like this are exactly the reason why Linux on the desktop has a long way to go: you have the actual userbase wanting to keep it to themselves in the name of purity or licensing or other administrivia.
Talk about sad.
Propel is Gatorade's take on the whole flavored water craze. I found it to be quite good for not having much that is harmful in it. It can be a little more pricey than what you're used to, but I feel a whole lot better having dropped soft drinks from my regular diet. It isn't going to have the same amount of flavor you're used to, but on the upside, it will hydrate you, so its likely you'll feel better even if the taste isn't an immediate hook.
So you admit there is a driver problem, but then try to rationalize it by saying "the hardware's closed source so we have to reverse engineer it." End users don't care if it is technically difficult, they just want the drivers. Just because it is hard to do in no way makes the issue any less relevant.
Well said. If you think about the argument not in terms of neighbors, but in terms of friends, then you'll see why driddle's point doesn't hold water. Would you rather have a friend who just played it safe and left you alone all the time? Or would you want someone who is gonna confront you when they see you're making bad choices in your life?
And if you were around at the time you'd remember that Netscape 4.0 was a terrible release. This was right around the time that IE 4.0 came out, and it began to take over.
But, yeah, keep blaming Netscape's downfall on the evil Microsoft. Never mind that if it didn't fail, we wouldn't have Mozilla/Firefox today.
I realize this may be completely impossible to believe, but before you start saying this guy is a shill, did you ever stop to think that this just MIGHT be a real article? And there just MIGHT be people who enjoy working at Microsoft? Is it really that hard to believe?
Or are you so bound by your narrow worldview of a particular company being 'evil' that you have to figuratively cover your ears and scream, "I'M NOT LISTENING!" even when something innocent like this crops up? How naive can you get?
If Microsoft did something like this then everyone would be crying about monopolies and piecing together rants about how evil capitalism is. Whether an action is good or bad shouldn't depend on who did it, but there's no reasoning with zealots. The fact is from a consumer standpoint Apple's business model is sub-par because we can't run OS X on our hardware. That's fine with me -- I'll continue using another OS.
The obsession stems from this site's tendency to attract a certain sort of people with naively optimistic viewpoints of the world. Google spouts some tripe about not doing evil, and people need to hold up something in the world as Very Good (because we all know who is Very Evil around here) to create [a poor excuse for] a belief system.
Really, there's no other way to explain such a dogmatic (read: faith-based) defense that people put up on behalf of a faceless corporation.
Why should you get paid $10 because you hit a level cap in a crappy computer game?
MMOs are always on the cutting edge of materialism it seems.
In spending *real* money on a credit card, I can apply these benefits toward things that are *not* real? Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? You might as well just not get any benefits from your credit card!
Hey now don't get so worked up...its just my silly opinion about the game. I think Blizzard should design it so it is much more difficult to simply macro your way up through weapon skills, though, and that would involve gameplay that requires more attention from the player.
If they had put .NET into Vista, then this article would be along the lines of "OMG MS PUTS INEFFICIENT CODE IN THEIR SHELL" and then blather endlessly on about how all real applications are written in [low-level-language]. Then we'd all sit around and wax about how wonderful it is that Gnome is pure C (and ignore the fact that Mono is associated with it because of cognitive dissonance).
Really, nobody can win when you sit there and pick apart everything someone does out of sheer spite. But I suppose it is far too unreasonable to ask for informed discussion these days...
If players feel compelled to bot their way through tedium, then it says a lot more about the gameplay (or lack thereof) within WoW than it does about the players. Although, admittedly, they should be a lot more picky about what they choose to waste their time with. (I'm become bored quickly, so MMOs are about as fun as watching paint dry on the wall.) Anyway I don't see anything wrong with hitting macro keys every now and then. At least he's doing *something*, and not just having it run full auto without having to watch.
I'm sure this will take off. Let's think of a time when someone decided to market a language on the basis that anyone could understand it...oh yes, Java! It is the paragon of expressiveness and power! And super simple to boot!
The thread is about the .NET programming market. Not why you think Java is better. But, hey, you're badmouthing the evil Microsoft so you're at +5.
Yeah, but what does speaking up for honorable companies really do? Change a couple of people's minds? In the end, they're just a company, they exist to make a profit; nothing more, nothing less.
I suppose it bothers me because I see a large proportion of people who are zealous (far more than you) about some facet of technology when it doesn't make a significant impact on human existence. Suppose 1% of the advocacy directed toward Linux was funneled toward a cause such as human rights? However, I think part of the allure of advocating things like Linux is that one can do so very easily and without much risk.
I'm curious why people feel like they need to speak up on behalf of some faceless corporation? Their 'online reputation' among fickle folk like those on /. is largely a result of actions.
Glad to hear that materialism is alive and well in MMOs as well as real life!
This would improve the overall quality of communication anywhere, especially here.
Please refrain from commenting if you have no clue what you are talking about. There is no need to optimize a program 100%. In fact, it isn't desirable to do so, because optimization usually produces code that is not as intuitive or clear as the original. Additionally, some 'optimizations' that people tout actually prevent the compiler from doing optimizations, and end up harder to read. (Pointer arithmetic is a good example - again, this is compiler dependent). The majority of a program's lifecycle is spent in maintenance, and it should be tailored toward that. Additionally, profilers can be used to pinpoint bottlenecks in the code.
I don't recall C++ making any claims about binary compatibility in the standard. It just happens that most compilers implement things in a very similar way and we know what makes and breaks binary compatibility. Heck, you break binary compatibility when you change the virtual-ness of a function, this doesn't mean that we must force all functions to be virtual in the name of binary compatibility.
You're likely to be putting a severe dent into some people's belief systems and world views by asserting that Microsoft is not a monopoly anymore! They'll be forced to see that there's a world out there beyond technology companies, involving...gasp...people!!! Oh the horrors!
We don't want hyper-enthusiasts. These are the type of people that recommend a single technology for *every* problem and believe it to be the absolute saving grace. Usually, they have a poor grip on reality. What has probably happened is the delusion that Java will nullify platform differences may finally be starting to wear thin on these people.
I can't see how anyone would lament the loss of zealots, however. They always do more harm for their cause than good.