Please show me where the bible references TIME at all after those first seven days, when God was creating humans, plants, and animals. There is no indication whatsoever that God snapped his fingers and life suddenly appeared.
First, I never said that I believe God snapped his fingers and made things appear, I said that creationism does NOT prevent you from believing in microevolution - that's all I said. Try not to read into everything so much next time.
Second, if you go by the bible, which is what you asked for, you'd see this, in Genesis chapter 1:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
as you may have noticed, man and beasts were all created within a timeline of days, according to the Bible. It's up to the individual whether you interpret those as millions of years or actual 24hr days, or whatever. Personally, I don't care, as it doesn't make a difference to me how or when God created the Earth, just that my personal belief is that he DID create it. I just thought you might like to know since you asked, and after all, you did say please.
As per your electron commentary, well, that's just "shockingly" stupid and has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
Also, watch this post be modded down promptly as a troll, which should tell you something of the power of long entrenched religions.
No, this is slashdot. The majority (or at least the vocal/mod majority) seems to be fairly negative towards Christians and Christian ideas. Witness any of the articles that even broach the topic of evolution, and how many posts are modded up for being anti-creationist and how many are modded down for pointing out that evolution is a theory, not a fact, etc.
Without getting into an argument about it, I just wanted to point out that it's unlikely you'll be modded down for what you said. The only time I've ever been modded Flamebait was for a sarcastic comment pointing out that you can believe in Creation AND microevolution at the same time. If it were all about the power of entrenched religions, I'd not have been modded flamebait, but instead Insightful, just because I defended Creationism.
I was thinking at first that I agree with you, but then, how many holes have been found in sendmail since its inception. You'd think with armies of open source programmers and decades of time, they'd get this thing nailed down. Evidently not that easy, or maybe the fundamental design is just flawed and the only real solution is a ground-up recode (enter postfix or exim or qmail type stuff?)
I don't presume to know it all, and I'm not pointing any fingers, it just seems to me like Microsoft is a victim of it's own legacy code and bad design. They designed windows as a single user, trusted system and then tacked on multi-user ability and unsurprisingly, have had problem after problem with untrusted code and exploits, etc. In much the same way, Linux and Unix apps even as old as sendmail can be a victim of a bad design decision (setuid binaries, too many weak points in the chain, etc)
I'm not exactly defending Microsoft, but it's not a problem unique to them, either.
Try using RTF (Rich Text Format) instead of.doc files. It's readable and writeable in any MS Office version, works fine across platforms and applications, and is supported even by TextEdit and WordPad and so forth. Much more portable than.doc files and less troublesome, at least in my experience.
I started my Linux experience by installing a dual-boot Windows XP system with Mandrake Linux.
The experience went exactly like this: 1) Boot from Mandrake CD 2) Begin installation 3) Get to the partitioning section 4) Mandrake installer detects "you have Microsoft Windows" 5) Mandrake asks if I want to "use entire disk", "install Mandrake Linux to unused space on the Windows partition", or "custom disk partitioning" 6) I choose "install to unused space on Windows partition" 7) Mandrake asks me what size I want the NTFS (Windows) partition, I choose to split it somewhere around the half mark 8) Mandrake makes the linux partitions automagically and continues the installation
That was pretty much it, it wasn't scary or hard, and both Mandrake and the Windows install worked just fine afterwards. Even better, Mandrake added "Microsoft Windows XP Professional" to my boot menu. All was very easy and convenient for a relatively experienced Windows user, and I've done it many many times since then with various distributions and never had Windows be corrupted or any other problems. I've since switched entirely to Linux and touch Windows only when absolutely necessary, but without that first experience, I'd still be using Windows. For the first time around, I recommend Mandrake(Mandriva) Linux, their installer makes it about as easy and convenient as you could expect it to be.
But I guess some people would get confused that deleting a file from their desktop makes it not playable in itunes anymore.
God, I wish you were wrong, I really do.
It all goes back to my constant raving that people need to be taught from the beginning how to use a computer, not how to use application X. To use a computer properly, you need to know what a file is, what a folder is, understand file sizes and disk storage, and how to use menus. These simple things are NOT that hard to understand if they are taught, but no one ever bothers to sit down and teach people these simple things. Instead, they teach them how to use Microsoft Word - and you get classes full of people who can only do things ONE way in ONE application. Move that menu item, and they have a brain malfunction.
Anyone who has worked end-user tech support knows what I mean. People think memory means how much space is on their hard drive, they have no concept how much storage is on a CD or a floppy - witness the person trying to copy a 17mb powerpoint with a floppy disk. I've lost count how many times I've seen someone save a file and not know where they saved it because they don't understand the save file dialog in IE.
Totally have to agree here. Older versions of McAfee and Norton/Symantec Antivirus weren't bad, and I used to recommend them. Current versions of both now depend on the MSIE engine, and as you pointed out, can be instantly disabled by a corrupt IE engine, or even just changed security settings.
I am the author of a small antivirus tool for Windows, and I saw first-hand how one of the viruses/worms I deal with turned up the security level on IE in all zones - making the user unable to run McAfee or Norton because they didn't have permission to use ActiveX on their own local machine.
These two programs have a reputation that was once deserved, but now is based purely on the past. I recommend AntiVir antivirus - http://free-av.com/ - now, because it's fast, free for personal use, updated at least once every 48 hours, and has a small footprint on the system - all things that McAfee and Norton fail at.
I spend my spare time making a virus/worm removal tool for viruses and worms that affect AOL Instant Messenger, and I definitely agree, they've gotten a LOT more sophisticated. I'm no antivirus expert, I've just been working with this particular area of viruses since 2003, so I've seen them progress over time. It used to be a simple executable in the root of the drive, or in the system directory, and a "Run" entry in the registry.
Now these things screw with the shell setting for Windows, add themselves to the win.ini and system.ini registry entries and run themselves as services, drivers, etc. Even more annoying, they're copying the names of real windows files now, but dropping into different directories - like find.exe but in the Windows directory instead of System32. They create multiple copies of executables that run from every autorun entry they can find, and recreate each other. They communicate with IRC, they steal passwords and usernames to AIM accounts, and in at least a few cases I've found WinPCap and other sniffing or trojan tools installed as well.
For many months, updating the AIM virus removal tool I maintain was a matter of a few seconds of updates. Then one weekend it turned into several hours of creating new functions and sections of code to handle all these new variants.
The best I can figure, it's script kiddies or zombie botnet operators just running canned and packaged code, because after the first variant appears, a hundred more follow within a few weeks, using the same techniques or filenames. Generally, the purpose of these worms tends to be to download and install spyware - bringing in income through referral programs - and then leave the system open as part of a botnet.
Lately, these techniques are being combined with common exploits on vulnerable websites, especially ones with some of the recent PHP vulnerabilities. Again, it's like botnet-in-a-can, grab some scripts and some code, change a few filenames or urls, and let 'er rip. It's certainly not getting any easier to put in the time to update the removal tool, that's for sure.
Re:Are CRTs on the way out?
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Oddly enough, the same thing happened to my dad, and it resulted in a life-long, occasionally recurring back injury. In fact, he just recently threw his back out again, AND got a possibly herniated disk this time around to go with it.
On a more serious note, the site does have some problems when viewed by links/lynx - the navigation is totally invisible to a text based browser, or a screen reader used by a disabled person.
I must agree...I've got 1920x1200 resolution right now, which is normally ridiculous for me - I prefer something like 1280x1024 - but with my current video card and monitor, that's the only non-weird setting I can use.
Subsequently, the site looks very odd and appears to have rendering problems (missing navigation links, etc).
I can sympathize totally with the desire for the site to look the way you designed it...I've spent hours and hours and hours doing this on the sites I work on, trying to make sure they look the way I intended them to, even if the person uses really big fonts, etc.
I once tried to force font sizes, etc. But eventually I came to the conclusion that people are determined to do bizarre things, like view the site on an 800x600 resolution with font size set on LARGEST for IE (maybe some new glasses are in order?), etc. So now I take the approach of designing the site to look pretty much the same no matter how absurd (from a designers point of view) your font choices or screen size. I have http://philambdaupsilon.org/ and http://jayloden.com/ both set up to work this way at the moment (at least I hope so, I can't test everything!).
I still cringe to think that someone would be viewing my site so bizarrely, but I've given up on trying to prevent it. I just try to make sure the site degrades gracefull if viewed with text browsers, huge resolution, tiny fonts, huge fonts, etc.
Psssssssst....just because you believe in Creation doesn't mean you can't believe in microevolution and evolution within species, especially since we've actually been able to witness it in observation of existing species. But I guess it's more fun to laugh at anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint, isn't it.
You're both right. Firefox supports html standards (though not the full CSS standard, hence the Acid2 problems). And yes, slashdot is absolute crap, the code is HTML 3.2, and it's totally non-standard. Alistapart.com did a retooling of slashdot to standards compliant XHTML and CSS, and it worked fine.
Yes, there's a bug...and yes, it's fixed in any of the nightly builds of FF, and will be fixed in FF 1.1
However, if slashdot was valid XHTML and CSS instead of nested table after nested table with invalid elements, it would go a long way toward preventing the problem. I can't say it would fix it for sure, but the problem certainly wasn't there on the retooling ALA did of/. using the standards.
So you're both right: it's a bug, but the slashcode html generation is crap, too.
"...sure xfce4 "seems" more consistent & integrated than kde but personally it seems like nothing but a Mac OS X ui hack, looks just like it dont it? I'm all for choice but after hearing so much about how crappy the Mac interface is what do we get in xfce4, same old thing. I use kde exclusively and will never change..."
- just pointing out what has to be said: there's only so many ways to go in UI without a radical redesign of the computing world in general, and either you're going to look to someone like you're copying Windows, or copying Mac OS, or copying BeOS, or copying an Amiga. I like KDE, and I like xfce4, but let's face it, they BOTH have a lot in common with what's come before, but so what? Sure, fine, you can argue KDE is a lot like Windows, but you know what? I'll take my KDE over Windows any day of the week, and the more they improve, the happier I'll be.
-Jay
Re:We need to teach programming earlier and better
on
Johnny Can So Program
·
· Score: 1
As much as I love Paul Graham's essays, and as much as I enjoyed his book, this is his one flaw in my opinion. He was one of the lucky, talented few that kicked some tail in a startup company, made a fortune, and in general took the fast lane to success through a startup.
He emphasizes again and again how much he believes in startups, but I really think his perspective is heavily skewed by what worked for him. The reality is, as you say, almost all startups will fail. Everyone - not even every smart/talented person - can go into a startup.
Let's not forget: PG made his money because his startup was purchased by a big corporation (Yahoo) and without the "old model" of business, the startup model doesn't work either. That's not to say he doesn't have good, insightful points, or that his writing isn't well worth reading...I think maybe it just needs to be tempered with a little more of the reality of the startup process.
-Jay
Re:We need to teach programming earlier and better
on
Johnny Can So Program
·
· Score: 1
Whoops, good catch...well, I guess that points out just how little I use C++;)
-Jay
Re:We need to teach programming earlier and better
on
Johnny Can So Program
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I have to agree...starting programming with Java and C++ was the worst thing that ever happened to my programming. It never really clicked with me until I recently started with Python. I was able to churn out some useful, working programs almost immediately, and now when I DO go back and read C++ code, or update my C++ apps, it makes a whole lot more sense. The logical, simple syntax of Python made me able to understand underlying precepts so that moving to the lower level language becomes a small step instead of a huge hurdle.
If I ever had my say, I would definitely support using Python (or Ruby, from what little I've seen) for teaching introductory programming. There's plenty of things that are hard enough for most people to understand in programming, the language itself doesn't need to make it even harder.
#!/usr/bin/env python print "Hello World"
sure makes more sense to a young budding programmer than
There's nothing wrong with learning C++, but I can definitely attest that at least in my case, it wasn't conducive to a rapid learnign experience. Discovering Python literally renewed my interest in programming because it made it so accessible.
I totally agree, even though I've never heard of either of these things until just now. The very first thought I had in reading the summary was "wait, what? What does the Real ID thing have to do with Iraq spending? What?"
Any idea who the kid is (last name, etc)? I'm just curious because I maintain an anti-virus tool, and one of the virus writers whose crap I remove is named Adam, and it'd be a kind of funny coincidence if it was the same Adam, especially as I got an email from a script kiddie today defending how "leet" the guy is.
oddly enough, those kinds of comments still get to you sometimes. I'm not much of a programmer, but I do have one piece of software that gets used a lot - it's a virus removal tool for Windows - and I occasionally get those types of comments in my email. Things like "your program ruined my computer, asshole" with no valid return address and no way for me to even respond to it.
I don't know about the guys at Sun, but that kind of stuff really pisses me off, because I KNOW it's not true, and that millions of people before that have used my program, and I want to set the record straight. Anonymous troll or not, I sure as hell have to fight the urge to respond to something like that. I imagine it has to be the same type of thing; you're working your ass off trying to get something ready, to give away to people for free, no less, and they're complaining about it, or accusing you of things that aren't true.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I never said that I believe God snapped his fingers and made things appear, I said that creationism does NOT prevent you from believing in microevolution - that's all I said. Try not to read into everything so much next time.
Second, if you go by the bible, which is what you asked for, you'd see this, in Genesis chapter 1:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
as you may have noticed, man and beasts were all created within a timeline of days, according to the Bible. It's up to the individual whether you interpret those as millions of years or actual 24hr days, or whatever. Personally, I don't care, as it doesn't make a difference to me how or when God created the Earth, just that my personal belief is that he DID create it. I just thought you might like to know since you asked, and after all, you did say please.
As per your electron commentary, well, that's just "shockingly" stupid and has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
No, this is slashdot. The majority (or at least the vocal/mod majority) seems to be fairly negative towards Christians and Christian ideas. Witness any of the articles that even broach the topic of evolution, and how many posts are modded up for being anti-creationist and how many are modded down for pointing out that evolution is a theory, not a fact, etc.
Without getting into an argument about it, I just wanted to point out that it's unlikely you'll be modded down for what you said. The only time I've ever been modded Flamebait was for a sarcastic comment pointing out that you can believe in Creation AND microevolution at the same time. If it were all about the power of entrenched religions, I'd not have been modded flamebait, but instead Insightful, just because I defended Creationism.
Just a thought
I was thinking at first that I agree with you, but then, how many holes have been found in sendmail since its inception. You'd think with armies of open source programmers and decades of time, they'd get this thing nailed down. Evidently not that easy, or maybe the fundamental design is just flawed and the only real solution is a ground-up recode (enter postfix or exim or qmail type stuff?)
I don't presume to know it all, and I'm not pointing any fingers, it just seems to me like Microsoft is a victim of it's own legacy code and bad design. They designed windows as a single user, trusted system and then tacked on multi-user ability and unsurprisingly, have had problem after problem with untrusted code and exploits, etc. In much the same way, Linux and Unix apps even as old as sendmail can be a victim of a bad design decision (setuid binaries, too many weak points in the chain, etc)
I'm not exactly defending Microsoft, but it's not a problem unique to them, either.
-Jay
Try using RTF (Rich Text Format) instead of .doc files. It's readable and writeable in any MS Office version, works fine across platforms and applications, and is supported even by TextEdit and WordPad and so forth. Much more portable than .doc files and less troublesome, at least in my experience.
-Jay
I started my Linux experience by installing a dual-boot Windows XP system with Mandrake Linux.
The experience went exactly like this:
1) Boot from Mandrake CD
2) Begin installation
3) Get to the partitioning section
4) Mandrake installer detects "you have Microsoft Windows"
5) Mandrake asks if I want to "use entire disk", "install Mandrake Linux to unused space on the Windows partition", or "custom disk partitioning"
6) I choose "install to unused space on Windows partition"
7) Mandrake asks me what size I want the NTFS (Windows) partition, I choose to split it somewhere around the half mark
8) Mandrake makes the linux partitions automagically and continues the installation
That was pretty much it, it wasn't scary or hard, and both Mandrake and the Windows install worked just fine afterwards. Even better, Mandrake added "Microsoft Windows XP Professional" to my boot menu. All was very easy and convenient for a relatively experienced Windows user, and I've done it many many times since then with various distributions and never had Windows be corrupted or any other problems. I've since switched entirely to Linux and touch Windows only when absolutely necessary, but without that first experience, I'd still be using Windows. For the first time around, I recommend Mandrake(Mandriva) Linux, their installer makes it about as easy and convenient as you could expect it to be.
Hope that helps,
-Jay
God, I wish you were wrong, I really do.
It all goes back to my constant raving that people need to be taught from the beginning how to use a computer, not how to use application X. To use a computer properly, you need to know what a file is, what a folder is, understand file sizes and disk storage, and how to use menus. These simple things are NOT that hard to understand if they are taught, but no one ever bothers to sit down and teach people these simple things. Instead, they teach them how to use Microsoft Word - and you get classes full of people who can only do things ONE way in ONE application. Move that menu item, and they have a brain malfunction.
Anyone who has worked end-user tech support knows what I mean. People think memory means how much space is on their hard drive, they have no concept how much storage is on a CD or a floppy - witness the person trying to copy a 17mb powerpoint with a floppy disk. I've lost count how many times I've seen someone save a file and not know where they saved it because they don't understand the save file dialog in IE.
-Jay
Totally have to agree here. Older versions of McAfee and Norton/Symantec Antivirus weren't bad, and I used to recommend them. Current versions of both now depend on the MSIE engine, and as you pointed out, can be instantly disabled by a corrupt IE engine, or even just changed security settings.
I am the author of a small antivirus tool for Windows, and I saw first-hand how one of the viruses/worms I deal with turned up the security level on IE in all zones - making the user unable to run McAfee or Norton because they didn't have permission to use ActiveX on their own local machine.
These two programs have a reputation that was once deserved, but now is based purely on the past. I recommend AntiVir antivirus - http://free-av.com/ - now, because it's fast, free for personal use, updated at least once every 48 hours, and has a small footprint on the system - all things that McAfee and Norton fail at.
-Jay
I spend my spare time making a virus/worm removal tool for viruses and worms that affect AOL Instant Messenger, and I definitely agree, they've gotten a LOT more sophisticated. I'm no antivirus expert, I've just been working with this particular area of viruses since 2003, so I've seen them progress over time. It used to be a simple executable in the root of the drive, or in the system directory, and a "Run" entry in the registry.
Now these things screw with the shell setting for Windows, add themselves to the win.ini and system.ini registry entries and run themselves as services, drivers, etc. Even more annoying, they're copying the names of real windows files now, but dropping into different directories - like find.exe but in the Windows directory instead of System32. They create multiple copies of executables that run from every autorun entry they can find, and recreate each other. They communicate with IRC, they steal passwords and usernames to AIM accounts, and in at least a few cases I've found WinPCap and other sniffing or trojan tools installed as well.
For many months, updating the AIM virus removal tool I maintain was a matter of a few seconds of updates. Then one weekend it turned into several hours of creating new functions and sections of code to handle all these new variants.
The best I can figure, it's script kiddies or zombie botnet operators just running canned and packaged code, because after the first variant appears, a hundred more follow within a few weeks, using the same techniques or filenames. Generally, the purpose of these worms tends to be to download and install spyware - bringing in income through referral programs - and then leave the system open as part of a botnet.
Lately, these techniques are being combined with common exploits on vulnerable websites, especially ones with some of the recent PHP vulnerabilities. Again, it's like botnet-in-a-can, grab some scripts and some code, change a few filenames or urls, and let 'er rip. It's certainly not getting any easier to put in the time to update the removal tool, that's for sure.
-Jay
http://jayloden.com/aimfix.htm
Oddly enough, the same thing happened to my dad, and it resulted in a life-long, occasionally recurring back injury. In fact, he just recently threw his back out again, AND got a possibly herniated disk this time around to go with it.
-Jay
Right, that's just us Americans. Everyone else on the planet knows everything about everything so would never need clarification on anything. Ever.
On a more serious note, the site does have some problems when viewed by links/lynx - the navigation is totally invisible to a text based browser, or a screen reader used by a disabled person.
see http://jayloden.com/scottleonard.png for a screenshot of what you'd get in a text based browser.
This is the problem with jscript DHTML menus, they're no good if you intend compatibility with accessibility standards or text browsing.
-Jay
I must agree...I've got 1920x1200 resolution right now, which is normally ridiculous for me - I prefer something like 1280x1024 - but with my current video card and monitor, that's the only non-weird setting I can use.
Subsequently, the site looks very odd and appears to have rendering problems (missing navigation links, etc).
I can sympathize totally with the desire for the site to look the way you designed it...I've spent hours and hours and hours doing this on the sites I work on, trying to make sure they look the way I intended them to, even if the person uses really big fonts, etc.
I once tried to force font sizes, etc. But eventually I came to the conclusion that people are determined to do bizarre things, like view the site on an 800x600 resolution with font size set on LARGEST for IE (maybe some new glasses are in order?), etc. So now I take the approach of designing the site to look pretty much the same no matter how absurd (from a designers point of view) your font choices or screen size. I have http://philambdaupsilon.org/ and http://jayloden.com/ both set up to work this way at the moment (at least I hope so, I can't test everything!).
I still cringe to think that someone would be viewing my site so bizarrely, but I've given up on trying to prevent it. I just try to make sure the site degrades gracefull if viewed with text browsers, huge resolution, tiny fonts, huge fonts, etc.
-Jay
see, and now I wish there was a "hilarious" mod
Psssssssst....just because you believe in Creation doesn't mean you can't believe in microevolution and evolution within species, especially since we've actually been able to witness it in observation of existing species. But I guess it's more fun to laugh at anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint, isn't it.
You're both right. Firefox supports html standards (though not the full CSS standard, hence the Acid2 problems). And yes, slashdot is absolute crap, the code is HTML 3.2, and it's totally non-standard. Alistapart.com did a retooling of slashdot to standards compliant XHTML and CSS, and it worked fine.
/. using the standards.
Yes, there's a bug...and yes, it's fixed in any of the nightly builds of FF, and will be fixed in FF 1.1
However, if slashdot was valid XHTML and CSS instead of nested table after nested table with invalid elements, it would go a long way toward preventing the problem. I can't say it would fix it for sure, but the problem certainly wasn't there on the retooling ALA did of
So you're both right: it's a bug, but the slashcode html generation is crap, too.
-Jay
to paraphrase:
"...sure xfce4 "seems" more consistent & integrated than kde but personally it seems like nothing but a Mac OS X ui hack, looks just like it dont it? I'm all for choice but after hearing so much about how crappy the Mac interface is what do we get in xfce4, same old thing. I use kde exclusively and will never change..."
- just pointing out what has to be said: there's only so many ways to go in UI without a radical redesign of the computing world in general, and either you're going to look to someone like you're copying Windows, or copying Mac OS, or copying BeOS, or copying an Amiga. I like KDE, and I like xfce4, but let's face it, they BOTH have a lot in common with what's come before, but so what? Sure, fine, you can argue KDE is a lot like Windows, but you know what? I'll take my KDE over Windows any day of the week, and the more they improve, the happier I'll be.
-Jay
hahahah! That was great, thanks.
As much as I love Paul Graham's essays, and as much as I enjoyed his book, this is his one flaw in my opinion. He was one of the lucky, talented few that kicked some tail in a startup company, made a fortune, and in general took the fast lane to success through a startup.
He emphasizes again and again how much he believes in startups, but I really think his perspective is heavily skewed by what worked for him. The reality is, as you say, almost all startups will fail. Everyone - not even every smart/talented person - can go into a startup.
Let's not forget: PG made his money because his startup was purchased by a big corporation (Yahoo) and without the "old model" of business, the startup model doesn't work either. That's not to say he doesn't have good, insightful points, or that his writing isn't well worth reading...I think maybe it just needs to be tempered with a little more of the reality of the startup process.
-Jay
Whoops, good catch...well, I guess that points out just how little I use C++ ;)
-Jay
If I ever had my say, I would definitely support using Python (or Ruby, from what little I've seen) for teaching introductory programming. There's plenty of things that are hard enough for most people to understand in programming, the language itself doesn't need to make it even harder.sure makes more sense to a young budding programmer thanThere's nothing wrong with learning C++, but I can definitely attest that at least in my case, it wasn't conducive to a rapid learnign experience. Discovering Python literally renewed my interest in programming because it made it so accessible.
-Jay
I totally agree, even though I've never heard of either of these things until just now. The very first thought I had in reading the summary was "wait, what? What does the Real ID thing have to do with Iraq spending? What?"
-Jay
...like it would really suck.
Any idea who the kid is (last name, etc)? I'm just curious because I maintain an anti-virus tool, and one of the virus writers whose crap I remove is named Adam, and it'd be a kind of funny coincidence if it was the same Adam, especially as I got an email from a script kiddie today defending how "leet" the guy is.
-Jay
oddly enough, those kinds of comments still get to you sometimes. I'm not much of a programmer, but I do have one piece of software that gets used a lot - it's a virus removal tool for Windows - and I occasionally get those types of comments in my email. Things like "your program ruined my computer, asshole" with no valid return address and no way for me to even respond to it.
I don't know about the guys at Sun, but that kind of stuff really pisses me off, because I KNOW it's not true, and that millions of people before that have used my program, and I want to set the record straight. Anonymous troll or not, I sure as hell have to fight the urge to respond to something like that. I imagine it has to be the same type of thing; you're working your ass off trying to get something ready, to give away to people for free, no less, and they're complaining about it, or accusing you of things that aren't true.
-Jay
Cars that can't crash? How about an Operating System that can't crash first...
-Jay