Lots of people are making the entirely reasonable and correct point that slums are not very nice places to live. Nevertheless, the article is correct in saying that slums engender efficient, low-impact living, when compared to the lifestyles of the rich (anyone reading this is almost certainly rich, in global terms).
I've heard various people say things along the lines of "you want to see an environmental disaster area - go and look at a slum". This thinking attempts to sidestep the responsibility of the rich by blaming the poor, who are in fact relatively guiltless. We might not want to live there, but we should jettison the popular idea that slums are bad ecologically, as it is the reverse of the truth.
That's not entirely true, it worked for Gandhi in combination with a) a decades-long violent struggle for independence and b) the Nazis nearly bankrupting the British empire.
I wasn't trying to do any of the above. Everything you say is true - I generally code to xhtml1-strict, then swear and fuck shit up until it works in IE.
For whatever reason, it doesn't look as if amazon.com is coded to any identifiable standard though. My guess is the html has evolved since it was considered OK to develop like that, and gets hacked about according to what problems get reported. If they were starting up now rather than in 1994 they'd probably do it in the way you suggest.
The amazon.com homepage doesn't provide a doctype, which immediately disqualifies it from being valid to any html standard. Validating against html 4.01 transitional reveals 1064 errors, largely caused by basic errors like unescaped urls. I don't believe they were trying to meet any html spec.
>>> It will only affect web developers who code to non-standards. Most of us code
>>> to a set of standards so that all our code can work well in ALL browsers not
>>> just IE.
>>
>> You've obviously never coded a page that had to display correctly on IE.
>
> Well you should tell that to Amazon and let them know just how their website doesn't work in IE.
I'm a web developer, and the only reason I use Windows is to make sure Internet Explorer renders things properly.
You probably know this already, but anyone in a similar position should definitely check out ies4linux. IE6 / 5.5 / 5.0 only so far I'm afraid, but it works very well.
Since we're on the topic of advertising, I'll take the liberty of advertising something right here: Taglit-birthright israel with Sachlav Educational Experience. This is an amazing and uplifting program. If you're eligible (check the link to find out), you could have a great time in Israel this winter.
Until quite recently, it was customary to write "MP's" and "1980's" - and in fact this convention still applies in America. British readers of The New Yorker who assume that this august publication in in constant ignorant error when it allows "1980's" evidently have no experience of how that famously punctilious periodical operates editorially.
Having said which, 1980s clearly makes more sense. It's a plural, not a possessive, innit?
Of course it's spam, that's not in question. The point is that telling your bayesian filter that lots of random English text is spam will cause it to generate more false positives, which will render it a liability rather than an asset.
As a web developer, I'd say the problem is that the majority of people use a broken browser because that's what's installed by default. That means many wasted hours and a lot of swearing for me, and inferior websites for end users. I don't believe pretty much anyone would use IE if they were making an active choice.
Microsoft gets a bad rap here on Slashdot, but for the record I'd like to publicly thank them for one of the best, most altruistic decisions in tech history.
I'm talking about the decision to discontinue Internet Explorer for Mac. As a web developer this has made my life far easier. God knows how many man-decades of work this has saved the world's html coders.
The cloud to this silver lining is that I still spend a good proportion of my working life abusing my code so that it'll work on IE without breaking on real browsers. Multiply that up by the number of web designers / developers in the world and that's got to cost a few lives.
So, Microsoft dude, when, oh when, can the world's developers expect a joyous, fully IE-free existence?
> Put Ubuntu on there, spend the 30 minutes it takes to make sure that all > their hardware is working and that multimedia will work properly (install mp3 > support, set up their printer, that kind of thing), and you're done..and lo and behold, you have a computer that runs 10x slower in just half an hour.
I really wish Ubuntu were a good choice for old computers, but the sad reality is that it runs like a dog on, say, a p233. Whereas Win98 will run just fine on the same box.
I've heard xubuntu or dsl might be better for those kind of specs, and I'd be interested to hear any experiences of them.
> Q: [...]if there is no alternative? If, say, there is no free software way of doing a
> particular job [...]
> RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.
>
> what kind of an attitude is that?
> The point is that No you can't do what you please even if you > own property. Don't like that? change 200 Years of case law, > otherwise stop whining.
If there were laws against playing CDs on devices that aren't CD players then your position would be shakey. Is it is it's just an irrelevant tangent.
Slashdot Mirror
> they, too, would be greener if they just did not exist at all Only if the people living there also didn't exist.
Lots of people are making the entirely reasonable and correct point that slums are not very nice places to live. Nevertheless, the article is correct in saying that slums engender efficient, low-impact living, when compared to the lifestyles of the rich (anyone reading this is almost certainly rich, in global terms). I've heard various people say things along the lines of "you want to see an environmental disaster area - go and look at a slum". This thinking attempts to sidestep the responsibility of the rich by blaming the poor, who are in fact relatively guiltless. We might not want to live there, but we should jettison the popular idea that slums are bad ecologically, as it is the reverse of the truth.
You don't actually have to imagine, you can look at the International Solidarity Movement. It turns out this is what happens.
That's not entirely true, it worked for Gandhi in combination with a) a decades-long violent struggle for independence and b) the Nazis nearly bankrupting the British empire.
I presume from the summary that the proposed laws are actually about copyright enforcement rather than piracy, which is covered by maritime law.
> I recently read a bio written about my g-g-grandfather
That's a pretty bad stammer you have there
Abacuses are extremely reliable. You can always count on them.
> Are you people trolling, astroturfing, or what?
I wasn't trying to do any of the above. Everything you say is true - I generally code to xhtml1-strict, then swear and fuck shit up until it works in IE.
For whatever reason, it doesn't look as if amazon.com is coded to any identifiable standard though. My guess is the html has evolved since it was considered OK to develop like that, and gets hacked about according to what problems get reported. If they were starting up now rather than in 1994 they'd probably do it in the way you suggest.
The amazon.com homepage doesn't provide a doctype, which immediately disqualifies it from being valid to any html standard. Validating against html 4.01 transitional reveals 1064 errors, largely caused by basic errors like unescaped urls. I don't believe they were trying to meet any html spec.
>>> It will only affect web developers who code to non-standards. Most of us code
>>> to a set of standards so that all our code can work well in ALL browsers not
>>> just IE.
>>
>> You've obviously never coded a page that had to display correctly on IE.
>
> Well you should tell that to Amazon and let them know just how their website doesn't work in IE.
Which standard does amazon.com code to then?
You probably know this already, but anyone in a similar position should definitely check out ies4linux. IE6 / 5.5 / 5.0 only so far I'm afraid, but it works very well.
> dunno if this new oral theme will fly with my gf...
Get yourself a Windows box. It'll go down much more often than your gf.
I think it was about a week ago.
By way of balance: http://www.birthrightunplugged.org/
If you're going to accept a grant to go to Israel, you should really take a look at what the country does to its neighbours too.
The whole world of free software has been squabbling with Jorg Schilling for years. Debian has finally done something decisive to put a stop to it.
Is it, though?
According to Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves:
Having said which, 1980s clearly makes more sense. It's a plural, not a possessive, innit?
Patch available here.
Of course it's spam, that's not in question. The point is that telling your bayesian filter that lots of random English text is spam will cause it to generate more false positives, which will render it a liability rather than an asset.
As a web developer, I'd say the problem is that the majority of people use a broken browser because that's what's installed by default. That means many wasted hours and a lot of swearing for me, and inferior websites for end users. I don't believe pretty much anyone would use IE if they were making an active choice.
Microsoft gets a bad rap here on Slashdot, but for the record I'd like to publicly thank them for one of the best, most altruistic decisions in tech history.
I'm talking about the decision to discontinue Internet Explorer for Mac. As a web developer this has made my life far easier. God knows how many man-decades of work this has saved the world's html coders.
The cloud to this silver lining is that I still spend a good proportion of my working life abusing my code so that it'll work on IE without breaking on real browsers. Multiply that up by the number of web designers / developers in the world and that's got to cost a few lives.
So, Microsoft dude, when, oh when, can the world's developers expect a joyous, fully IE-free existence?
> Put Ubuntu on there, spend the 30 minutes it takes to make sure that all ..and lo and behold, you have a computer that runs 10x slower in just half an hour.
> their hardware is working and that multimedia will work properly (install mp3
> support, set up their printer, that kind of thing), and you're done
I really wish Ubuntu were a good choice for old computers, but the sad reality is that it runs like a dog on, say, a p233. Whereas Win98 will run just fine on the same box.
I've heard xubuntu or dsl might be better for those kind of specs, and I'd be interested to hear any experiences of them.
Um, I think the parent is being sarcastic. But then maybe the 4 - insightful rating is sarcastic too.
We're all too postmodern to be sure these days.
A realistic and commendable one.
> "Winter of" can only be followed by obviously bad things
Seen in the window of a British camping shop during the winter sales:
"Now is the winter of our discount tent"
> Unless your a criminal you have nothing to worrie about.
If, on the other hand, you are a criminal then you do.
> What fuck-asses.
What's a fuck-ass?
> The point is that No you can't do what you please even if you
> own property. Don't like that? change 200 Years of case law,
> otherwise stop whining.
If there were laws against playing CDs on devices that aren't CD players then your position would be shakey. Is it is it's just an irrelevant tangent.