Anyone can do as they're told and vote the next swindling psycho into office, imagining to themselves that they made a difference, but to actually do something has pretty much nothing to do with being suckered into the system.
Y'know, it's the scariest option, and just pointing it out can probably get a person imprisoned, or killed if he acts on it, but eventually we'll have to turn off the tv and face the facts that Stalin never changed his ways and Hitler kept it up till the idiot met his end, so Bush sure isn't going to let you free and the next president you're suckered into voting for will likely be far worse. This is the beauty of the representative democracy, everyone thinks it's all fine because the next guy will 'set them free' if they just bend over and vote.
If conformists want to obey the government and call patriots tinfoil conspiracy idiot poopyheads then that's all good and fine, they can just join the terrorists and have the government put a camera up their ass then. Politicians are the ones who said we have to fight terrorists; I say we walk right up to them and do so.
Historically, a government could do almost anything to the citizens and not face a revolt. Enough influence and conditioning and you just trap and make them think it's a good thing, and anyone who questions the authority's power is a tinfoil conspiracy alien insurgent disobedient idiot-head, and wrong. There are lots of suckers in America (evident from the fearful 'tinfoil hats destroying world!' idiots clouding this board), but look at the bright side: They spend all their time in a cubicle or watching tv, what the Hell are they gonna do? Normally the government has its way and they can be pretty sure that ten years from now, this'll have passed over and kids will forever be setting in a government-controlled History class and told how the secret police system is a good thing that keeps everyone safe. (Watch as conformists cringe here. They don't think the government controls schools.)
And yeah, I'm not anonymous. Here's my John Hancock. Heheheh
But then again, there is no way that bought and paid for state government would ever pass such consumer protection
Well it's certainly not like they've never done it before. These laws usually help the economy and give the politicians passing it a better name.
Of course, I'll be loving it when the cellular companies go and do their best to prevent this, making complete idiots of themselves and their companies and not giving a crap (I haven't caught wind of any lawsuits yet, but we can see them coming). I just can't wait to hear their defense, "Sure, today, you take away our power to rip people off and pounce on the hard-of-seeing, tomorrow, you hydrogen-bomb the world! Where does it end!?"
Heheh, yeah, we'll never run out of people who'd like to tell you what you can see and say and think. With any luck they'll take their own advice and shut their traps.
Wow, they're even worse at information-control than America. You don't freakin' tell the whole world and issue a press statement about how you have your citizens' minds in your control, you keep the whole deal under the sheets, restrict the press, have schools inform kids on how video games are evil, and only government-issued texts contain the truth, and call anyone who mentions it a conspiracy theorist tinfoil liar terrorist who's out to destroy civilization.
Go back home and play with your dollies, kiddos. Leave the citizen mind-bending to the big-shots and take notes from the Nazis like we did.
I'd go into the details of idle read/writes and current hard drive speeds burdening internet browsers, but I think this is getting a little too deep for a tangent (ish) subject... Even if I did bring it up.
I don't see anything revolutionary about using more RAM than disk memory, and of course it's going to keep a cache. It's simply minimal, discluding unnecessary elements (there's no offline surfing, but hey, whatever's quicker). Javascript for Safari goes really fast and has been more forgiving than any of the others, even though I need to use Mozilla or Netscape for Javascript debugging, and still, it doesn't do so hot with Java applets.
It all seemed pretty straightforward to me, I don't see what was so complicated about it.
It's a characteristic of IE and most other browsers and hasn't much to do with how quick the hard disk is. If your computer is busy reading and writing swaps, background apps, idle processes, all the basics, downloading pages to disk means you have to wait a little longer. Of course, having a lot of RAM solves the problem.
The difference is minimal to begin with. You should know that by now.
This was all a fairly simple javascript function I used on my non-flash page (which I'll probably remove for IE's sake):
function countdown(){ c++; it=Math.random()*10; if(it=5) {it=1.75;} else{it=1;} document.getElementById(' writing').innerHTML=outpu t.substring(0,c); if (c=output.length){
Id = window.setTimeout("countdown()",it*50); } else{c =0;}
In short, this takes string 'output' and gives it a realistic letter-by-letter typing behavior. You'd notice countdown() calls itself within itself, which is a cheap little trick and the only way to get this to work, but the real issue IE seems to have is the use of innerHTML. Its update rate with this, and most other innerHTML alterations, seems to go quite a bit slower than other browsers. (I was using a reasonably fast 2GHz PC to test this, by the way).
I haven't noticed any slow-down with Java applets or anything else, just real-time HTML updates from Javascript. (I could have been more specific, but didn't want to ramble for too long)
I just downloaded it. Nice, real quick, although it seems to have one or two javascript issues, and has the same Flash movie rendering fault Mozilla has (alignment problems, as you'd see on my website, grr). Still it's nice to have another browser around to test on.
Yeah. I know how a lot of network administrators completely lack the qualifications and computer familiarity to keep things going, and in turn need to find a way to blame all the hardware and routing devices for all the problems, but gee wiz, to go so far as to write a book to convince everyone that it's not your fault? That's going way too far. And Jesus, if you can't run a network using Macs without jerry-rigging it, you oughtta be fired right then and there.
I'm not sure where Netscape's strong-points are, but on a Mac (though things might be entirely different on Windows or others), it's one of the slowest browsers you can get, while IE for Mac goes much faster, and of course, Safari blazes past both of them with its RAM-based architecture (it doesn't waste time caching much of the web page to disk).
Although I've found IE for Windows to be incredibly slow with Javascript. I guess it's the plug-in use that determine most of the speed.
The sad part is that you could see the responses to this article coming a mile away. "Conspiracy theorists are everywhere! They're going to destroy us all! We're doomed! People who point out the painfully obvious are going to burn our houses and rape our women! And everyone who questions me wears tinfoil and is a stupid dumb stupid conspiracy moron-head!" And so on for a hundred or so pages.
The funny part is that it all turned into a massive fight over mail services.
I thought of something just as I was reading this. With the line-for-line method 3d rendering uses, and the CPU it takes to render the images, chances are, individuals would only be able to view a fraction of the lines in a frame (I find it more likely they'd have several users rendering one frame), and even the lines could be incomplete if the company decided to design the software that way. Plus the distribution could be server-side and completely random. So any hacker trying to put these frames together would be in way over his head.
As for space and bandwidth, models are extremely compact, even with textures. All the bigshot modelers will use a LOT more procedural textures than bitmaps, and most of us know that the point-for-point data on the average character model is perhaps the size of a small text file, especially now with subpatches to take care of smoothing. Add that with the use of model instancing, and the download time might match that of a moderate MPEG video clip.
Oh and the time it takes to transfer a pixel of rendered data is waaay smaller than the time it takes to render the pixel.
Most American companies are too thick to treat the consumer with respect as a route to profit, rather than squeeze them for all they have.
You're probably basing this on the idea that the study has any merit to it whatsoever, which assumes that the people involved weren't paid off (it's making the corporations look better), that their judgment wasn't biased (they're Canadians), and that the leaders of the corporations (here's a major long-shot) were telling the truth for whatever reason. So in all, I'd call this a shot in the dark and an excuse to let off steam in any random direction, because reality certainly isn't a factor here.
Another opportunity for corporations to surround you with their mindless noise and - oh gee - they're infuriated. Unless somebody plays ringtones into a concert microphone and says it's his song, these idiots have nothing to risk an ulcer over.
I'm all for stopping the production of kiddie porn, I'm against censorship.
Very good point. Much like the Matrix system and the Patriot Act destroying everything our country stands for in the name of terrorism, banning kids from pictures destroys what little free artistry we have, in the name of what? Ending child molestation? That's the biggest joke of a justification I've ever heard.
It might seem like a good idea if you haven't thought about it, or if you're some traumatized mother who wants to imprison everyone on the face of the Earth because something bad happened to your kid, but the 'pictures=molestation' link is right up there with the 'homosexuality=molestation', 'meat=murder' and 'prostitution=total destruction' throw-offs. I think ten years from now, we're rightfully going to look back on the government's censorship of kids as a low equal to the catholic church's censorship of Galileo. It sounds like an odd comparison right now, but they didn't think much of it back them either.
Yeesh. If Microsoft can come up with a better system, then great! I'll gladly design pages with it. Thanks to PHP and javascript, it's possible to alter tags and code according to which browser the user is on, and unusable tags are ignored anyway, so a skilled developer can take advantage of the qualities of all browsers. If they can come up with something better than CSS then great! Other browsers would likely catch on. Nobody's losing here.
But of course, if they don't support the standards and shape up a little, Internet Explorer will simply become less popular and other browsers will look more appealing. They've already lost some following with the lack of javascript speed, position:absolute and PNG alpha (which by the way can be solved using a DIV and filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImag eLoader() ), but if they don't include CSS, SVG and so forth, web pages simply won't display properly, everyone's going to realize 'this sucks', and they'll all use a more competent browser.
Users and developers can make their own decisions, they don't have to use something they don't like, and Microsoft isn't going to change that, so we'll win either way. If Microsoft can build a better browser, let them! If it's not up to par, then too bad. We've been playing the browser game long enough to know natural selection plays the biggest hand in it.
Evidently, the government's 'terrorists' will never be as much of a threat as the government itself. Soon enough they'll just brand barcodes into our ass-cheeks indicating what-percent terrorist we are.
How do I know this? Because my terrorist-level just went up ten points.
Slashdot Mirror
Or to quote Groundskeeper Willie: "My retirement grease! No! You thievin' grease bandits!"
Anyone can do as they're told and vote the next swindling psycho into office, imagining to themselves that they made a difference, but to actually do something has pretty much nothing to do with being suckered into the system.
You seem pretty sure he's not doing anything. Now there's a pretty dumb conclusion.
If conformists want to obey the government and call patriots tinfoil conspiracy idiot poopyheads then that's all good and fine, they can just join the terrorists and have the government put a camera up their ass then. Politicians are the ones who said we have to fight terrorists; I say we walk right up to them and do so.
Historically, a government could do almost anything to the citizens and not face a revolt. Enough influence and conditioning and you just trap and make them think it's a good thing, and anyone who questions the authority's power is a tinfoil conspiracy alien insurgent disobedient idiot-head, and wrong. There are lots of suckers in America (evident from the fearful 'tinfoil hats destroying world!' idiots clouding this board), but look at the bright side: They spend all their time in a cubicle or watching tv, what the Hell are they gonna do? Normally the government has its way and they can be pretty sure that ten years from now, this'll have passed over and kids will forever be setting in a government-controlled History class and told how the secret police system is a good thing that keeps everyone safe. (Watch as conformists cringe here. They don't think the government controls schools.)
And yeah, I'm not anonymous. Here's my John Hancock. Heheheh
Because God knows, the greatest to fight an endlessly corrupt system is to bend over and obey it.
Well it's certainly not like they've never done it before. These laws usually help the economy and give the politicians passing it a better name.
Of course, I'll be loving it when the cellular companies go and do their best to prevent this, making complete idiots of themselves and their companies and not giving a crap (I haven't caught wind of any lawsuits yet, but we can see them coming). I just can't wait to hear their defense, "Sure, today, you take away our power to rip people off and pounce on the hard-of-seeing, tomorrow, you hydrogen-bomb the world! Where does it end!?"
Heheh, yeah, we'll never run out of people who'd like to tell you what you can see and say and think. With any luck they'll take their own advice and shut their traps.
Wow, they're even worse at information-control than America. You don't freakin' tell the whole world and issue a press statement about how you have your citizens' minds in your control, you keep the whole deal under the sheets, restrict the press, have schools inform kids on how video games are evil, and only government-issued texts contain the truth, and call anyone who mentions it a conspiracy theorist tinfoil liar terrorist who's out to destroy civilization.
Go back home and play with your dollies, kiddos. Leave the citizen mind-bending to the big-shots and take notes from the Nazis like we did.
I'd go into the details of idle read/writes and current hard drive speeds burdening internet browsers, but I think this is getting a little too deep for a tangent (ish) subject... Even if I did bring it up.
I don't see anything revolutionary about using more RAM than disk memory, and of course it's going to keep a cache. It's simply minimal, discluding unnecessary elements (there's no offline surfing, but hey, whatever's quicker). Javascript for Safari goes really fast and has been more forgiving than any of the others, even though I need to use Mozilla or Netscape for Javascript debugging, and still, it doesn't do so hot with Java applets.
It all seemed pretty straightforward to me, I don't see what was so complicated about it.
It's a characteristic of IE and most other browsers and hasn't much to do with how quick the hard disk is. If your computer is busy reading and writing swaps, background apps, idle processes, all the basics, downloading pages to disk means you have to wait a little longer. Of course, having a lot of RAM solves the problem.
The difference is minimal to begin with. You should know that by now.
>>I'd like to see some figures on that
) {it=1.75;}' writing').innerHTML=outpu t.substring(0,c);c =0;}
This was all a fairly simple javascript function I used on my non-flash page (which I'll probably remove for IE's sake):
function countdown(){
c++;
it=Math.random()*10;
if(it=5
else{it=1;}
document.getElementById(
if (c=output.length){
Id = window.setTimeout("countdown()",it*50);
}
else{
In short, this takes string 'output' and gives it a realistic letter-by-letter typing behavior. You'd notice countdown() calls itself within itself, which is a cheap little trick and the only way to get this to work, but the real issue IE seems to have is the use of innerHTML. Its update rate with this, and most other innerHTML alterations, seems to go quite a bit slower than other browsers. (I was using a reasonably fast 2GHz PC to test this, by the way).
I haven't noticed any slow-down with Java applets or anything else, just real-time HTML updates from Javascript. (I could have been more specific, but didn't want to ramble for too long)
I just downloaded it. Nice, real quick, although it seems to have one or two javascript issues, and has the same Flash movie rendering fault Mozilla has (alignment problems, as you'd see on my website, grr). Still it's nice to have another browser around to test on.
Yeah. I know how a lot of network administrators completely lack the qualifications and computer familiarity to keep things going, and in turn need to find a way to blame all the hardware and routing devices for all the problems, but gee wiz, to go so far as to write a book to convince everyone that it's not your fault? That's going way too far. And Jesus, if you can't run a network using Macs without jerry-rigging it, you oughtta be fired right then and there.
I'm not sure where Netscape's strong-points are, but on a Mac (though things might be entirely different on Windows or others), it's one of the slowest browsers you can get, while IE for Mac goes much faster, and of course, Safari blazes past both of them with its RAM-based architecture (it doesn't waste time caching much of the web page to disk).
Although I've found IE for Windows to be incredibly slow with Javascript. I guess it's the plug-in use that determine most of the speed.
The sad part is that you could see the responses to this article coming a mile away. "Conspiracy theorists are everywhere! They're going to destroy us all! We're doomed! People who point out the painfully obvious are going to burn our houses and rape our women! And everyone who questions me wears tinfoil and is a stupid dumb stupid conspiracy moron-head!" And so on for a hundred or so pages.
The funny part is that it all turned into a massive fight over mail services.
I thought of something just as I was reading this. With the line-for-line method 3d rendering uses, and the CPU it takes to render the images, chances are, individuals would only be able to view a fraction of the lines in a frame (I find it more likely they'd have several users rendering one frame), and even the lines could be incomplete if the company decided to design the software that way. Plus the distribution could be server-side and completely random. So any hacker trying to put these frames together would be in way over his head.
As for space and bandwidth, models are extremely compact, even with textures. All the bigshot modelers will use a LOT more procedural textures than bitmaps, and most of us know that the point-for-point data on the average character model is perhaps the size of a small text file, especially now with subpatches to take care of smoothing. Add that with the use of model instancing, and the download time might match that of a moderate MPEG video clip.
Oh and the time it takes to transfer a pixel of rendered data is waaay smaller than the time it takes to render the pixel.
Most American companies are too thick to treat the consumer with respect as a route to profit, rather than squeeze them for all they have.
You're probably basing this on the idea that the study has any merit to it whatsoever, which assumes that the people involved weren't paid off (it's making the corporations look better), that their judgment wasn't biased (they're Canadians), and that the leaders of the corporations (here's a major long-shot) were telling the truth for whatever reason. So in all, I'd call this a shot in the dark and an excuse to let off steam in any random direction, because reality certainly isn't a factor here.
Another opportunity for corporations to surround you with their mindless noise and - oh gee - they're infuriated. Unless somebody plays ringtones into a concert microphone and says it's his song, these idiots have nothing to risk an ulcer over.
position:absolute
Sorry, I meant to say position:fixed.
I'm all for stopping the production of kiddie porn, I'm against censorship.
Very good point. Much like the Matrix system and the Patriot Act destroying everything our country stands for in the name of terrorism, banning kids from pictures destroys what little free artistry we have, in the name of what? Ending child molestation? That's the biggest joke of a justification I've ever heard.
It might seem like a good idea if you haven't thought about it, or if you're some traumatized mother who wants to imprison everyone on the face of the Earth because something bad happened to your kid, but the 'pictures=molestation' link is right up there with the 'homosexuality=molestation', 'meat=murder' and 'prostitution=total destruction' throw-offs. I think ten years from now, we're rightfully going to look back on the government's censorship of kids as a low equal to the catholic church's censorship of Galileo. It sounds like an odd comparison right now, but they didn't think much of it back them either.
Yeesh. If Microsoft can come up with a better system, then great! I'll gladly design pages with it. Thanks to PHP and javascript, it's possible to alter tags and code according to which browser the user is on, and unusable tags are ignored anyway, so a skilled developer can take advantage of the qualities of all browsers. If they can come up with something better than CSS then great! Other browsers would likely catch on. Nobody's losing here.
g eLoader() ), but if they don't include CSS, SVG and so forth, web pages simply won't display properly, everyone's going to realize 'this sucks', and they'll all use a more competent browser.
But of course, if they don't support the standards and shape up a little, Internet Explorer will simply become less popular and other browsers will look more appealing. They've already lost some following with the lack of javascript speed, position:absolute and PNG alpha (which by the way can be solved using a DIV and filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaIma
Users and developers can make their own decisions, they don't have to use something they don't like, and Microsoft isn't going to change that, so we'll win either way. If Microsoft can build a better browser, let them! If it's not up to par, then too bad. We've been playing the browser game long enough to know natural selection plays the biggest hand in it.
Evidently, the government's 'terrorists' will never be as much of a threat as the government itself. Soon enough they'll just brand barcodes into our ass-cheeks indicating what-percent terrorist we are.
How do I know this? Because my terrorist-level just went up ten points.
I'm gonna go to my window and moon the cameras.
On the bright side, if they can make a law against it in China, it'll ensure long, torturous deaths for spammers.
Can Star Wars Episode III Be Saved?
That's like asking if Superman needs to be saved from falling off a tall building.