Why would you do it that way? There are multiple sites showing speed tests that demonstrate that standards-compliant dom scripting is the slowest way to dynamically create page content.
The way I'd do it is load each html snippet into an array with array.push, then join them at the end, and set innerHTML of whatever the container element is to that string. If you know the number of elements up front you can do it even faster by declaring the array with the correct size ahead of time.
Standards compliance isn't a goal of mine. Writing fast cross-browser compatible code is what matters.
It's democracy if everybody is allowed vote their canditate from several others having different agendas. And in democracy everybody is allowed to be canditate, no matter what their bank account says.
I agree.
Too bad america isn't a democracy by this standard.
Which is closer to the free market ideal described by Adam Smith - today, or 200 years ago? 200 years ago is closer. BUT - immortal corporations were not part of the picture. Corporations were granted charters for specific goals. These charters were often time limited. These charters were often revoked if the corporation wasn't meeting the goal.
Relatively short lived corporations with specific charters are not incompatible with a free market. I think they would tend to better avoid monopoly abuses and promote innovation than our current system.
Saying that a corporation is basically amoral is not attacking it. It's recognizing it for what it is. 200 years ago corporations traded in slaves. It was legal, so they were allowed to, and they found it very profitable. Today it is not legal, and therefore not profitable.
That's the point the original poster was making about corporations. They will do whatever they can in the system of laws they find themselves to make money. That's why when you object to corporate behavior you pass laws, like Sarbanes-Oxley, to try to prevent it from happening again. Since the laws should be applied relatively evenly to the corporate playing field, it will have little real impact on how one corporation does versus their competition, and just alters the playing field to constrain all corporations to follow evolving social norms. Free market doesn't mean that corporations don't have to follow laws to prevent them harming the public. It's because these laws are in place - minimum wage, employee safety, no belching toxic fumes into the surrounding city, fines for oil spills - that today's corporations are actually relatively benign; it's not the inherent morality of corporations.
You don't need to see commies under every bed you know. The cold war is over.
Please read the example in question again. This was a journalist who's now doing 10 years in Chinese jail. No he's not being gassed, but this is a million times more than censorship. He'll get out in 2014, assuming he's still alive. He was found guilty of giving top secret state secrets to the enemy. The secret he gave? A directive from the government not to cover any Tianeman stories.
If I'm not at a computer I would never IM or text message anyone. Phone keypads are fine for what they're designed for - calling a phone number. I'd no sooner use one to type than I would use a Nintendo Powerglove as a mouse. It looks like you typed this reply on your cellphone "expreienced text message users" - great. Please just use a keyboard in the future.
On a noisy subway - what? A subway with cell repeaters? Sorry, not in my city. If you're in a situation where you don't want to call - you go outside and make a call. Or you wait a few minutes. What's the problem with that? You don't sit there pecking on your phone in front of a bunch of people. Also, all your examples are for SMS text messages. There's nothing there that references the one thing that IM does that SMS doesn't - which is show whether the person is online or not.
And by the way, all the people saying 'I could IM someone while in a boring meeting' - what the hell is up with you? I wouldn't tolerate that kind of boorish behavior from anyone at a meeting I was in. The only use for SMS text messaging that I can think of that's legitimate, is that you can set some website monitoring services (or other software services) to send you a specific SMS message when condition x, y, or z happens. And that only requires regular SMS again, no need to chat with a software service.
Here's the deal. This feature is NOT for you. It's for teenagers who are used to IM as their social glue. Period. Your description didn't show any advantages of IM over email for cell phones - both are asynchronous and could cross the phone/pc divide. There aren't any advantages, for any normal adult. The only difference is you can see if the other person is 'online' - how the hell cares when you're dealing with an asynchronous medium?
But if you're a teen chatting away in study hall - different story.
Not all tech 'features' need to be defended. This is stupid with a capital stoop.
Is this some kind of meta-commentary? You manage to work in an ad for a book, a book about how ads co-opt underground culture terminology, in a discussion about how ads affect you, on geek-culture site.
The best example is Spam. Hormel actually went to court to try to defend their trademarked potted meat from being used by anti-spam software companies and lost.
They don't actually grant patents on pure software. What they grant is a patent on 'a system consisting of a computer and software that does x, y, and z'. That's how they consider software a device. You could theoretically write software code that completely infringed a dozen patents and be fine - you just couldn't run it on a computer because at that time it would be considered a device.
I think the way he would deal with turbulence is to say that it cannot be broken down into smaller calculations, the only way to find the actual outcome of a sufficiently turbulent system is to run the calculations in the real world, i.e just see what happens. It makes sense that there are some conditions that are not reducible to smaller equations, those equations are just models, and models are inherently inaccurate to some degree. Any degree of inaccuracy in modeling turbulence throws the whole result off.
I've been a libertarian for years. I believe in smaller government, legalizing victimless crimes, smaller army, and no wars of agression. On a large number of topics though I do differ in opinion from the Libertarian party's agenda, but they're the closest I've found to what I believe in.
The major two parties both believe in unlimited expansion of the federal gov't, persecuting and incarcerating people who commit victimless 'crimes', bigger army, and wars of foreign aggression.
I can't even tell the difference between dems and repubs any more to tell you the truth, except for the abortion issue, and even on that there seems to be a growing number of 'moderates' in both parties who take the opposing party's position on that issue.
The nefarious guy is actually working in the drug store, developing all the photos of the amateur photographers, and making copies of whichever will advance his sinister plans.
$100 worth of goats. It's worked before, check it out: http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/news.cfm?id=56/. It invests the recipient with a long term commitment to breeding them, short term relief from hunger thru milk, and an opportunity to advance in the local economy. Very cheap investment. Yet we continue to want to finance big infrastructure projects and the like for some reason. For $100 the above charity could provide 2.38 goats (ok that wouldn't work), 2 donkeys, or 1 camel. Owning an animal like that would make a huge difference in someone's wealth there.
I'd pick livestock over land for most developing countries. You can usually take your animals with you - you never know if your land is going to be taken from you.
1) Yes, cellphones require power. However they have massive coverage and massive use in developing countries, with skyrocketing rates of use. So that doesn't seem to be an issue.
2) The microsoft idea would be better without the tv and keyboard, true. They offer nothing to the target market - which is why the laptop idea sucks too.
3) People have been known to track herds of animals in africa with cheap cellphones that ring home every hour - the coverage is expanding like wildfire (see my earlier posts for references). The laptops would realistically be using this as their connection to the internet anyway - there are no phone/dsl/cable lines to speak of. Why hook a mesh of laptops up to a cell system, rather than having each person have a cell phone with a direct connection to that system?
4) What? I'm glad you're an apple fan, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. The best solution is the one that most efficiently deals with the required tasks to help the poor in developing nations, particularly the rural poor. What do they need? How about weather forecasts? How about being able to check on market prices? How about being able to order some farm equipment without taking a 6 hour bus ride? How about sending some money home to your family when you're working far away? All can be met with a cell phone. If anything a smart phone would have too many unneeded features. A laptop running linux would be pointless. I don't think the point is to create a generation of linux sys admins here. It's to raise the income of many families by a modest amount, say 30%.
The only bad thing MS is doing is thinking of this as needing a keyboard and screen. It doesn't. An advanced phone could be used to check the weather forecast, find the best market for your produce or cattle, and even conduct financial transactions in several countries in Africa. These are the things that a computing device needs to do in developing countries. Not graphics or games, not even really spreadsheets. For grass-roots, rural economic growth the things I've listed are sufficient and easily done with a cell phone.
There is a lot of evidence of massive cell phone use in developing nations, accomplishing much of what this laptop program is trying to accomplish. There is no evidence currently to support the laptop program.
I don't have all the details, but I have heard of rural areas in Africa where cell phone usage has transformed local economies, by allowing individuals to transfer money directly between them, to keep track of loans, by allowing them to look up prices for cattle or grain at 3 or 4 different markets, etc. You don't need all those applications to have a compelling piece of tech. Just a browser to check prices and weather is the main thing.
My favorite song on that album was always Lark's Tongue in Aspic. It's the perfect track to test out a new stereo with, it starts so quiet and then bam, huge bass which fades away into tinkling bells. Covers the whole dynamic range for music.
I couldn't believe how bad this article was either.
Why would you compare sql server express (free) to oracle standard ($20,000/year) and DB2 Express ($8000/year)? What the heck kind of comparison is that? They could get evaluation copies of oracle and db2 but not of sql server enterprise edition? Puh-leez.
And then they take pains to point out that MySql 5 which they didn't even test supports triggers, stored procs, and functions. What? If you didn't test it, don't write it up in your review called Road Test. Why not mention that the version of sql server any company would be using does support multi-process, clustering, large db sizes, etc.
This article is the worst kind of anti-MS, OSS cheering crap. You'd really like to base your company on MySql instead of Oracle if you had a choice? Given that the tested version of MySql didn't support stored procs, triggers, or functions? Fuck that.
This was approved by the French Parliament, correct? So who is the French 'government' that is vowing to fight this? Does this mean that the career bureaucrats are saying they're going to ignore the elected officials who are supposed to be running the government?
Remember the Pinnacle DVD player? Region free and let you skip all the pre-movie stuff you wanted?
I think they get you by licensing. Like to license the DVD decryption code you had to agree to support region coding and the other junk. I'm sure Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will have similar schemes. Too bad we can't just have an open standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you do it that way? There are multiple sites showing speed tests that demonstrate that standards-compliant dom scripting is the slowest way to dynamically create page content.
The way I'd do it is load each html snippet into an array with array.push, then join them at the end, and set innerHTML of whatever the container element is to that string. If you know the number of elements up front you can do it even faster by declaring the array with the correct size ahead of time.
Standards compliance isn't a goal of mine. Writing fast cross-browser compatible code is what matters.
I agree.
Too bad america isn't a democracy by this standard.
Which is closer to the free market ideal described by Adam Smith - today, or 200 years ago? 200 years ago is closer. BUT - immortal corporations were not part of the picture. Corporations were granted charters for specific goals. These charters were often time limited. These charters were often revoked if the corporation wasn't meeting the goal.
Relatively short lived corporations with specific charters are not incompatible with a free market. I think they would tend to better avoid monopoly abuses and promote innovation than our current system.
Saying that a corporation is basically amoral is not attacking it. It's recognizing it for what it is. 200 years ago corporations traded in slaves. It was legal, so they were allowed to, and they found it very profitable. Today it is not legal, and therefore not profitable.
That's the point the original poster was making about corporations. They will do whatever they can in the system of laws they find themselves to make money. That's why when you object to corporate behavior you pass laws, like Sarbanes-Oxley, to try to prevent it from happening again. Since the laws should be applied relatively evenly to the corporate playing field, it will have little real impact on how one corporation does versus their competition, and just alters the playing field to constrain all corporations to follow evolving social norms. Free market doesn't mean that corporations don't have to follow laws to prevent them harming the public. It's because these laws are in place - minimum wage, employee safety, no belching toxic fumes into the surrounding city, fines for oil spills - that today's corporations are actually relatively benign; it's not the inherent morality of corporations.
You don't need to see commies under every bed you know. The cold war is over.
Please read the example in question again. This was a journalist who's now doing 10 years in Chinese jail. No he's not being gassed, but this is a million times more than censorship. He'll get out in 2014, assuming he's still alive. He was found guilty of giving top secret state secrets to the enemy. The secret he gave? A directive from the government not to cover any Tianeman stories.
No.
If I'm not at a computer I would never IM or text message anyone. Phone keypads are fine for what they're designed for - calling a phone number. I'd no sooner use one to type than I would use a Nintendo Powerglove as a mouse. It looks like you typed this reply on your cellphone "expreienced text message users" - great. Please just use a keyboard in the future.
On a noisy subway - what? A subway with cell repeaters? Sorry, not in my city. If you're in a situation where you don't want to call - you go outside and make a call. Or you wait a few minutes. What's the problem with that? You don't sit there pecking on your phone in front of a bunch of people. Also, all your examples are for SMS text messages. There's nothing there that references the one thing that IM does that SMS doesn't - which is show whether the person is online or not.
And by the way, all the people saying 'I could IM someone while in a boring meeting' - what the hell is up with you? I wouldn't tolerate that kind of boorish behavior from anyone at a meeting I was in. The only use for SMS text messaging that I can think of that's legitimate, is that you can set some website monitoring services (or other software services) to send you a specific SMS message when condition x, y, or z happens. And that only requires regular SMS again, no need to chat with a software service.
Here's the deal. This feature is NOT for you. It's for teenagers who are used to IM as their social glue. Period. Your description didn't show any advantages of IM over email for cell phones - both are asynchronous and could cross the phone/pc divide. There aren't any advantages, for any normal adult. The only difference is you can see if the other person is 'online' - how the hell cares when you're dealing with an asynchronous medium?
But if you're a teen chatting away in study hall - different story.
Not all tech 'features' need to be defended. This is stupid with a capital stoop.
I just don't get this.
Why do you send or receive text messages? Why not use the phone as a phone?
Could someone please explain to me why I would want to spend 2 minutes typing out what would take 15 seconds to say?
Is this some kind of meta-commentary? You manage to work in an ad for a book, a book about how ads co-opt underground culture terminology, in a discussion about how ads affect you, on geek-culture site.
I'm kind of dizzy, but I salute you anyway.
The best example is Spam. Hormel actually went to court to try to defend their trademarked potted meat from being used by anti-spam software companies and lost.
They don't actually grant patents on pure software. What they grant is a patent on 'a system consisting of a computer and software that does x, y, and z'. That's how they consider software a device. You could theoretically write software code that completely infringed a dozen patents and be fine - you just couldn't run it on a computer because at that time it would be considered a device.
Crapola.
I think the way he would deal with turbulence is to say that it cannot be broken down into smaller calculations, the only way to find the actual outcome of a sufficiently turbulent system is to run the calculations in the real world, i.e just see what happens. It makes sense that there are some conditions that are not reducible to smaller equations, those equations are just models, and models are inherently inaccurate to some degree. Any degree of inaccuracy in modeling turbulence throws the whole result off.
I've been a libertarian for years. I believe in smaller government, legalizing victimless crimes, smaller army, and no wars of agression. On a large number of topics though I do differ in opinion from the Libertarian party's agenda, but they're the closest I've found to what I believe in.
The major two parties both believe in unlimited expansion of the federal gov't, persecuting and incarcerating people who commit victimless 'crimes', bigger army, and wars of foreign aggression.
I can't even tell the difference between dems and repubs any more to tell you the truth, except for the abortion issue, and even on that there seems to be a growing number of 'moderates' in both parties who take the opposing party's position on that issue.
The nefarious guy is actually working in the drug store, developing all the photos of the amateur photographers, and making copies of whichever will advance his sinister plans.
$100 worth of goats. It's worked before, check it out: http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/news.cfm?id=56/. It invests the recipient with a long term commitment to breeding them, short term relief from hunger thru milk, and an opportunity to advance in the local economy. Very cheap investment. Yet we continue to want to finance big infrastructure projects and the like for some reason. For $100 the above charity could provide 2.38 goats (ok that wouldn't work), 2 donkeys, or 1 camel. Owning an animal like that would make a huge difference in someone's wealth there.
I'd pick livestock over land for most developing countries. You can usually take your animals with you - you never know if your land is going to be taken from you.
1) Yes, cellphones require power. However they have massive coverage and massive use in developing countries, with skyrocketing rates of use. So that doesn't seem to be an issue.
2) The microsoft idea would be better without the tv and keyboard, true. They offer nothing to the target market - which is why the laptop idea sucks too.
3) People have been known to track herds of animals in africa with cheap cellphones that ring home every hour - the coverage is expanding like wildfire (see my earlier posts for references). The laptops would realistically be using this as their connection to the internet anyway - there are no phone/dsl/cable lines to speak of. Why hook a mesh of laptops up to a cell system, rather than having each person have a cell phone with a direct connection to that system?
4) What? I'm glad you're an apple fan, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. The best solution is the one that most efficiently deals with the required tasks to help the poor in developing nations, particularly the rural poor. What do they need? How about weather forecasts? How about being able to check on market prices? How about being able to order some farm equipment without taking a 6 hour bus ride? How about sending some money home to your family when you're working far away? All can be met with a cell phone. If anything a smart phone would have too many unneeded features. A laptop running linux would be pointless. I don't think the point is to create a generation of linux sys admins here. It's to raise the income of many families by a modest amount, say 30%.
The only bad thing MS is doing is thinking of this as needing a keyboard and screen. It doesn't. An advanced phone could be used to check the weather forecast, find the best market for your produce or cattle, and even conduct financial transactions in several countries in Africa. These are the things that a computing device needs to do in developing countries. Not graphics or games, not even really spreadsheets. For grass-roots, rural economic growth the things I've listed are sufficient and easily done with a cell phone.
There is a lot of evidence of massive cell phone use in developing nations, accomplishing much of what this laptop program is trying to accomplish. There is no evidence currently to support the laptop program.
s echangeslifeinafrica/ - that they use to find sellers or buyers of their crops.
8 -28-cell-banks-africa_x.htm/
e _phone_as.html/ and the "pocket answer to the digital divide" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4446966.stm/
Over 10 million people in Nigeria have cell phones: http://fellows.rdvp.org/davidlehr/blog/cellphoneu
Cell phones are providing a way to do low-cost banking in South Africa: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2005-0
They've been called a "lifter from poverty" - http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2005/11/26/mobil
The only thing stupid that MS is doing here is assuming that you need a keyboard and a tv. You don't. You just need a very capable phone.
I don't have all the details, but I have heard of rural areas in Africa where cell phone usage has transformed local economies, by allowing individuals to transfer money directly between them, to keep track of loans, by allowing them to look up prices for cattle or grain at 3 or 4 different markets, etc. You don't need all those applications to have a compelling piece of tech. Just a browser to check prices and weather is the main thing.
What does this have to do with tiny violins?
Your description reminds of Wyld Stallyns from Bill & Ted :)
My favorite song on that album was always Lark's Tongue in Aspic. It's the perfect track to test out a new stereo with, it starts so quiet and then bam, huge bass which fades away into tinkling bells. Covers the whole dynamic range for music.
Of course they don't ever mention the issue of getting developers who know the product.
How many DB2 developers are there out there compared to the other platforms?
I couldn't believe how bad this article was either.
Why would you compare sql server express (free) to oracle standard ($20,000/year) and DB2 Express ($8000/year)? What the heck kind of comparison is that? They could get evaluation copies of oracle and db2 but not of sql server enterprise edition? Puh-leez.
And then they take pains to point out that MySql 5 which they didn't even test supports triggers, stored procs, and functions. What? If you didn't test it, don't write it up in your review called Road Test. Why not mention that the version of sql server any company would be using does support multi-process, clustering, large db sizes, etc.
This article is the worst kind of anti-MS, OSS cheering crap. You'd really like to base your company on MySql instead of Oracle if you had a choice? Given that the tested version of MySql didn't support stored procs, triggers, or functions? Fuck that.
This was approved by the French Parliament, correct? So who is the French 'government' that is vowing to fight this? Does this mean that the career bureaucrats are saying they're going to ignore the elected officials who are supposed to be running the government?
Remember the Pinnacle DVD player? Region free and let you skip all the pre-movie stuff you wanted?
I think they get you by licensing. Like to license the DVD decryption code you had to agree to support region coding and the other junk. I'm sure Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will have similar schemes. Too bad we can't just have an open standard.