I really like how/. runs one of these articles every few weeks or so... Helps keep the community's teeth sharp, so to speak. We come here, see the negative comments from Microsoft, or ZD, etc, and read the highly ranked responses from our fellow/.ers. It helps us keep informed as to the latest attack and what responses to give if we ever hear anything like this in real life.
The automobile line is a cop-out. Do automobiles serve a purpose? Is that purpose worth the loss of human life? Are peoples' lives enriched/improved by having automobiles?
Yes, yes, and yes. Can you argue the same for cigarettes? They are absolutely useless. Addicts no longer smoke because of the flavor, or because they like to. They smoke because they're addicted.
If I drive an automobile, I can say "hmm... I dont like cars, I'll walk." If I smoke a pack of cigarettes, can I say the anolog, with just as much ease?
People are idiots, and you can't stop them from finding a way to kill themselves.
Then why is heroin illegal? cocaine? LSD? By your argument, we should allow all these things, and when people are dying and living in gutters, addicted to black tar, well, hey, people are stupid, they should have known better. The only reason cigarette companies exist is because they were here a long time ago--before any of these other drugs were prevalant, and before the dangers of such things were known. Now, they are big and huge, and have lots of money for politicians, who like getting elected.
anomalous violation of supply and demand s/demand/addiction
Is it right to make billions of dollars off of a product that serves no purpose other than pacifying addictions?
The difference is that those indians didn't know any better, and a few thousand of them got addicted. Cigarette companies knew (or at least found out real quick) that cigarettes were addictive and lethal, and chose to hide the facts, and sometimes just directly lied about them to millions of people. So my point was not that tobacco companies supplied tobacco. It was that they supplied tobacco and lies about it's health risks at the same time to a populous(sp?) that was not yet educated enough to know better. Is that right?
Hopefully my children will never attend the same schools you attended. My schools taught me that cigarettes kill. I hope whatever school your kids attend teaches them that.
I don't understand this mentality at all. Someone prove this wrong for me, so I can understand:
If there were no tobacco companies, all those who have died from tobacco related ailments would not have. Bottom line.
I just want a browser. A simple browser that runs on UNIX / Linux.
You do?? Shit, I don't think netscape/aol got word of this, I'll get on the horn to them right away. I'll say, "damn it, josepha48 just wants a browser, what are you guys doing!!"
Netscape does not follow the average hacker's agenda or requirements. It has a design, that includes a mail client, composer, etc, and thats what they make. Does it matter that the mozilla includes these things? If you dont like them, dont use them. It's not as though the mail client is resident in memory if you're not using it, just the browser is. If you're going to argue that they are wasting development effort on the other things, thats wrong too, because they have plenty of people working on each component. If everyone at netscape was working on just the browser, jack shit would get done.
As for the plugins, Edit, Preferences, Navigator, Helper Applications. Configure your normal apps for those things. Additionally, the Netscape 4.x flash plugin works under mozilla. Just copy it to the plugins/ directory.
(I'm not blind to mozilla's performance woes, however. But blame that on lack of usage of native widgetry, and usage of XUL.)
I now expect to lose Karma for criticizing Slashdot. Of course, if I cared about Karma, I wouldn't post this response...
Why is it that every response that has something to the effect of "Now, I know I'll be modded down for this..." always get modded up? Am I the only guy who noticed this, or did ChaoticCoyote know it too? And if he did know it, doesnt that mean that he does care about karma?
Secondly, "excellent" and "knowledge base" have never followed each other in a sentence that I have ever seen. The knowledge base SUCKS. Which leads me to another point: people in IT tend to believe what they're told and not think for themselves, which is what pisses off most linux advocates the most, because they wont even try anything non-MS, despite the PROVEN cost/work-done ratio.
seriously though, is there a site that promotes windows and talks smack about linux, the way/. promotes open-source OS's and talks smack about windows?
One thing to realize is that this will doubtfully ever change. That's because 4.x's main goal when rendering a page was to throw the page onto the screen as fast as possible. This means there was hardly any DOM support, as mozilla has, and it also meant that resizing your browser window required a reload, at least from cache, of the web page. If you've noticed, mozilla dynamically moves the elements around now, when you resize your browser window.
It's give and take, people. Performance was sacrificed, at least somewhat, for DOM support.
(I don't know how much of the "new window" lag is due to the building of the DOM, and how much is the damn scripted UI. I'm not sure that I agree with the use of XUL/JS for the UI, I have a feeling it causes 80% of the lag times, although that number is completely out of my ass.)
The burden of proving that OO is better is on you, not me.
You've said this a bunch of times in other posts so far. I don't see how this is true at all. YOU are the one who wrote the paper, and you want the reader to go disprove YOUR points?
That's like me saying:
Oh, by the way, I think non-OO programming sucks. Go prove me wrong, and give me 3 examples! Otherwise, I'm right.
Developing generic libraries is a much slower process than developing application specific code to do the deed.
This might be true if you're developing one thing, and then quitting. But taking to the time to generalize, and put functionality that you might user in other products into libs is clearly advantageous. It might take more time but it pays off if you have other projects to worry about.
You are right though, that it's all about the discipline. For me, I just find it easier to be a disciplined developer in OO languages.
Those are very good pictures, and they really tell the story of the disaster. My question is, how did people take those pictures? Isn't the place still contaminated/radioactive?
This has happened at UCLA too. The OS course now uses linux for it's projects. Unfortunately, I took it a couple years ago when they were still using MINIX!
Well... imagine how far away you could get from all your problems with a reactionless space drive! Or, at least run over your girlfriend at tremendous speed...
Slashdot Mirror
I really like how /. runs one of these articles every few weeks or so... Helps keep the community's teeth sharp, so to speak. We come here, see the negative comments from Microsoft, or ZD, etc, and read the highly ranked responses from our fellow /.ers. It helps us keep informed as to the latest attack and what responses to give if we ever hear anything like this in real life.
--
I wish this was my quote, but it isnt, and I don't remember whose it is:
Microsoft is an advertising company that just happens to sell software.
--
It also has a much greater cool factor than Linux, which is important when in college.
Oh yeah, using the exact same shell UI that's been around for 6 years is way, way cooler than, say, KDE2.
OOH! but Windows 2000 has fady menus!!
Please.....
--
How many of you think this story got posted just to use that cool icon?
--
The automobile line is a cop-out. Do automobiles serve a purpose? Is that purpose worth the loss of human life? Are peoples' lives enriched/improved by having automobiles?
Yes, yes, and yes. Can you argue the same for cigarettes? They are absolutely useless. Addicts no longer smoke because of the flavor, or because they like to. They smoke because they're addicted.
If I drive an automobile, I can say "hmm... I dont like cars, I'll walk." If I smoke a pack of cigarettes, can I say the anolog, with just as much ease?
--
People are idiots, and you can't stop them from finding a way to kill themselves.
Then why is heroin illegal? cocaine? LSD? By your argument, we should allow all these things, and when people are dying and living in gutters, addicted to black tar, well, hey, people are stupid, they should have known better. The only reason cigarette companies exist is because they were here a long time ago--before any of these other drugs were prevalant, and before the dangers of such things were known. Now, they are big and huge, and have lots of money for politicians, who like getting elected.
anomalous violation of supply and demand
s/demand/addiction
Is it right to make billions of dollars off of a product that serves no purpose other than pacifying addictions?
--
The difference is that those indians didn't know any better, and a few thousand of them got addicted. Cigarette companies knew (or at least found out real quick) that cigarettes were addictive and lethal, and chose to hide the facts, and sometimes just directly lied about them to millions of people. So my point was not that tobacco companies supplied tobacco. It was that they supplied tobacco and lies about it's health risks at the same time to a populous(sp?) that was not yet educated enough to know better. Is that right?
Hopefully my children will never attend the same schools you attended. My schools taught me that cigarettes kill. I hope whatever school your kids attend teaches them that.
--
I don't understand this mentality at all. Someone prove this wrong for me, so I can understand:
If there were no tobacco companies, all those who have died from tobacco related ailments would not have. Bottom line.
--
You're calling 150 million americans brain-dead morons? YOU are "more intelligent" than those 150 million?
It's a football game. It's ads that make most people laugh. And it's Brittney Spears. It's when we loosen our ties, and have some fun with friends.
Elitism makes me puke. You don't like something, say you don't like it, but don't insult everyone else who might enjoy it.
--
I just want a browser. A simple browser that runs on UNIX / Linux.
You do?? Shit, I don't think netscape/aol got word of this, I'll get on the horn to them right away. I'll say, "damn it, josepha48 just wants a browser, what are you guys doing!!"
Netscape does not follow the average hacker's agenda or requirements. It has a design, that includes a mail client, composer, etc, and thats what they make. Does it matter that the mozilla includes these things? If you dont like them, dont use them. It's not as though the mail client is resident in memory if you're not using it, just the browser is. If you're going to argue that they are wasting development effort on the other things, thats wrong too, because they have plenty of people working on each component. If everyone at netscape was working on just the browser, jack shit would get done.
As for the plugins, Edit, Preferences, Navigator, Helper Applications. Configure your normal apps for those things. Additionally, the Netscape 4.x flash plugin works under mozilla. Just copy it to the plugins/ directory.
(I'm not blind to mozilla's performance woes, however. But blame that on lack of usage of native widgetry, and usage of XUL.)
--
handle any existing protocols (like finger)
Actually, in mozilla, that's built in. Try finger:raduffy@idsoftware.com
--
She's not that hot, in my opinion.
Well, you have to think about it in context. In the U.S., she might not draw a second glance, but for a Brit, she's pretty hot.
It might be that I'm fascinated by her shiny clothing though...
--
Sorry, I'm paying more attention to Cathy Rogers. She's pretty hot.
I can't find a damn picture of her anywhere on the web though.
--
If the code was hard to write, I'm going to damn well make it hard to read!
--
see a 360-degree stop action view of that receiver's foot on the line in the end zone.
I dont care, unless said reciever is Carrie-Anne Moss
--
I now expect to lose Karma for criticizing Slashdot. Of course, if I cared about Karma, I wouldn't post this response...
Why is it that every response that has something to the effect of "Now, I know I'll be modded down for this..." always get modded up? Am I the only guy who noticed this, or did ChaoticCoyote know it too? And if he did know it, doesnt that mean that he does care about karma?
Secondly, "excellent" and "knowledge base" have never followed each other in a sentence that I have ever seen. The knowledge base SUCKS. Which leads me to another point: people in IT tend to believe what they're told and not think for themselves, which is what pisses off most linux advocates the most, because they wont even try anything non-MS, despite the PROVEN cost/work-done ratio.
--
seriously though, is there a site that promotes windows and talks smack about linux, the way /. promotes open-source OS's and talks smack about windows?
--
Looks like a game of centipede to me... that or any other 80's arcade game.
--
- still slower than ns 4.x.
One thing to realize is that this will doubtfully ever change. That's because 4.x's main goal when rendering a page was to throw the page onto the screen as fast as possible. This means there was hardly any DOM support, as mozilla has, and it also meant that resizing your browser window required a reload, at least from cache, of the web page. If you've noticed, mozilla dynamically moves the elements around now, when you resize your browser window.
It's give and take, people. Performance was sacrificed, at least somewhat, for DOM support.
(I don't know how much of the "new window" lag is due to the building of the DOM, and how much is the damn scripted UI. I'm not sure that I agree with the use of XUL/JS for the UI, I have a feeling it causes 80% of the lag times, although that number is completely out of my ass.)
--
The burden of proving that OO is better is on you, not me.
You've said this a bunch of times in other posts so far. I don't see how this is true at all. YOU are the one who wrote the paper, and you want the reader to go disprove YOUR points?
That's like me saying:
Oh, by the way, I think non-OO programming sucks. Go prove me wrong, and give me 3 examples! Otherwise, I'm right.
--
Developing generic libraries is a much slower process than developing application specific code to do the deed.
This might be true if you're developing one thing, and then quitting. But taking to the time to generalize, and put functionality that you might user in other products into libs is clearly advantageous. It might take more time but it pays off if you have other projects to worry about.
You are right though, that it's all about the discipline. For me, I just find it easier to be a disciplined developer in OO languages.
--
Those are very good pictures, and they really tell the story of the disaster. My question is, how did people take those pictures? Isn't the place still contaminated/radioactive?
--
It's actually doing pretty good:
[dimator@chernobyl dimator]$ uptime
11:35am up 18 days, 12:14, 8 users, load average: 2.23, 2.14, 2.23
--
This has happened at UCLA too. The OS course now uses linux for it's projects. Unfortunately, I took it a couple years ago when they were still using MINIX!
--
Well... imagine how far away you could get from all your problems with a reactionless space drive! Or, at least run over your girlfriend at tremendous speed...
--