You do realize that people are dying every day because of our indefensible foreign policies, right? As members of a purportedly free democratic society, we are accountable for the actions of our government, actions which result in the loss of life and other injustices around the world. So, no, we can't just take a break and relax and be so nonchalant about the acts of aggression carried out in our name.
Your attitude is exactly why half the world hates Americans. That kind of insouciance towards government & media corruption is exactly how these travesties are allowed to be carried out unmitigated. You act as if protests to government policies are just annoyances in our nation's political life which have no urgency of purpose. Sorry, but those of us who choose to exercise our democratic prerogative to affect government that are unjust will not rest until changes are made.
That's why he said "by european standards." Unlike, you, the GP understands that 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are subjective terms that can only be used in relative comparisons. Calling Europe 'left-wing' is just stating that they are 'left-wing' by your standards--by their standards, you would also be 'right-wing' then.
Are perhaps you think that your point of view is the universally centrist point of view which all political attitudes should be measured against?
Re:Staying Relevant
on
On The BBC 2.0
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Being pro-Palestine or simply against Israeli occupation doesn't make one 'anti-semitic'. Even ignoring the fact that Arabs are also semites, there are Jews (and even Israeli Jews) who are also against the occupation. Opposing Zionism and the state of Israel does not mean one hates Jews. In fact, the only reason Israel was established was because the British and U.S. government didn't want an influx of Jewish refugees after WWII. So the creation of the state of Israel is more anti-semetic than opposing its existence.
And simply being critical of U.S. policies does not make one anti-American or biased. Otherwise you may as well say that the entire world has an 'anti-American' bias. Have you ever considered that maybe you (and your prefered news sources) just have a pro-Bush administration bias?
Lastly, I rather think it's a good thing that BBC journalists aren't expected to conform to what American news outlets consider to be a 'centrist' point of view. Unlike in the U.S., the media is not strictly controlled by conservative elements in the U.K., and similarly, the BBC does not only present the Israel-Palestine issue from the perspective of Israel as American news outlets have a habit of doing. Perhaps you'd like to see reporters be fired just because they may have a different perspective than yours, but the rest of us like to be able to see all sides of the story.
Wikis embody many of the core concepts in Web 2.0, that is: collaboration, user-contribution, and 'radical trust'--as Tim O'Reilly puts it. 'Collaboration' certainly isn't a new concept, neither is 'user-contribution'. But it's only now that we're seeing these concepts becoming a consistent trend in a new wave of successful, mainstream web applications.
Wikipedia, Flickr, Del.ico.us, etc. all rely on user-contributed content. These web services provide a framework for users to create this content in, but it's still the users who are creating the actual content that drives the sites. The idea of 'trust' is demonstrated through Wikipedia's policy of letting pretty much anyone edit the content. In other sites, tagging replaces conventional taxonomy of site content, thus entrusting the control of content organization to the users.
I don't get it. This guy who is, IMHO, waaay too into comic books, is making fun of other people because they look a certain way? Honestly, who cares if they follow a different set of fashion trends than most people? Nerds/geeks aren't exactly the most fashionable group of people either. If dressing a particular way makes you happy, I say go for it.
I can understand criticizing Myspace users who have 2,000+ friends, use epilepsy inducing flashing graphics and too many distracting design elements, but what people look like--how they dress or wear their hair--is a pretty lame thing to bag on someone for. Slashdotters making fun of the way emo scenesters look is no different than snobby high school cheerleaders making fun of the way some nerd dresses.
Judging others by the way they look is really shallow and stuck-up no matter who you are. I mean, unless you look like Brad Pitt or Kristen Kreuk, you really have no room to talk. And even if you do look like the people mainstream society considers "beautiful," you'd still be acting really lame.
A progressive is a free-thinking individual, typically one who is ahead of mainstream society in moral/spiritual thinking. As such, Jesus of Nazareth was a progressive in his time. He espoused many progressive and subversive ideas which resulted in his persecution.
However, much of the progressive beliefs he preached have long since been incorporated into the common sense morality of most cultures, whether due to Christian or other religious influence, or other cultural forces. And unfortunately, most Christians today, as with most followers of all mainstream religions, tend to be focused on the past. They focus on the dogma and ritual rather than the philosophical ideas behind Christianity. This is the 'orthodox' way to practice most religions, but it leads to very little societal progress, and is rather hypocritical and superficial imo.
The Bible, as with most scriptures, is a static document. It does not change with time. Only interpretations can change with time, and this is the only way that religions are able to keep up with modern times. Luckily, there are individuals who don't just blindly adhere to accepted mainstream interpretations of the Bible, and instead interpret it for themselves. It is these individuals, individuals like Martin Luther (who began the Reformation) and Jesus (who created Christianity out of Jewish traditions), who are the ones that revitalize religious movements which have grown stagnant over time as all static bodies do.
So, progressive Christians are, in my opinion, those who break from orthodox beliefs, and interpret the theological teachings themselves. They approach spirituality with an open and critical mind, and listen to reason in their pursuit of spiritual growth. They do not simply follow rituals and dogma, and recite catechisms from the scriptures. Instead, they read between the lines and try to find the deeper meaning within the text. Progressive theists subvert the influence of reactionary religious institutions which dominate the spiritual culture of our society.
It's easy to interpret the Bible literally, and it's even easier to simply regurgitate oft repeated religious cliches and believe whatever you're told in church and what everyone else believes and expects you to believe. What's hard is interpreting the text for yourself, and likely coming up with a different interpretation which may get you ostricized, labeled an apostate, or persecutated for your dissentious beliefs(sound familiar?). But those individuals are the true Christians, IMHO, and I have a lot of respect for them even though I'm not a Christian.
I never said a scientist can't be religious. But in science, one must rule out the supernatural. So when you are trying to figure out how a dinosaur bone ended up 2,256 meters below the ocean floor, scientifically, you rule out supernatural explainations. And you can still be 'spiritual' without accepting 'supernatural' beliefs that mainstream religons try to conflate with spirituality. There are many ways to approach spirituality, and even religion, so it is possible to be religious but not believe in angels and demons. Most progressive individuals don't take the Bible literally these days anyways.
Also, religion is often something people are born into and are brought up to believe, not something one had much of a choice in. In the past, Judeo-Christian religion has been very deeply entrenched in Western culture so that it was almost inevitable that if you lived in Europe or America, you had to be a Christian. Cultural hegemony is a very powerful force in the shaping of societal attitudes. So, rational individuals might have studied science in spite of being raised a Christian, but there has historically been a conflcit between the two spheres. Many past scientists/philosophers, such as Renee Descartes, have tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the two beliefs, but most simply keep them as completely separate matters in order to deal with their innate inner conflict.
And when religious zealots overstep the domain of religion, crossing into the territory of science and rational thought, they usually end up embarassing themselves, such as in the case of Creationism and many issues which the Catholic church has held a reactionary stance on in the past. In fact, if a mainstream religion is to survive into the future, it must periodically make concessions to science and cultural progress in order to keep up with contemporary times. The Catholic church has already accepted biological evolution as an orthodox belief, but their stance on homosexuality and birth-control are still considered very culturally backward.
You don't seem to get it. Ruling out the supernatural is absolutely necessary for scientific inquiry. Belief in the supernatural directly conflicts with the epistemological basis of science, and you simply can't rely on supernatural "explainations" in science. The concept of the supernatural is completely useless to science.
Also, many reports of "supernatural" activity do not by their nature rule out logical and scientific expanations, for example, the well known story of David and Goliath (whether you believe it or not). It would seem fairly obvious that the rock embedded in Goliath's forehead would be sufficient explanation for his death, yet it does not disprove supernatural explanation. The attribution of David's victory to God didn't mean he hadn't practised alot with that sling.
First off, the story of David and Goliath is a piece of religious mythology, and science is not concerned with mythology. Secondly, if a person killed another person with a slingshot, why would you suspect any kind of supernatural involvement? That's a simply jumping to groundless conclusions lacking any kind of proof. It is completely unscientific and illogical to explain a natural phenomenon as being the result of a supernatural deity. It's just like saying that 9/11 was caused by God's wrath. There is no evidence supporting such a claim, it is not a scientific hypothesis which can be tested, and it has no value to science whatsoever.
Once again, the supernatural, by definition, cannot be explained or understood through science/reason. Such a belief runs counter to the spirit of science. Attributing a particular phenomenon to the supernatural assumes that that phenomenon simply cannot be understood/explained through science, and that is a very ignorant mentality which has been proven again and again in history to be very mislead and counter to scientific progress. As such, a true scientist must rule out supernatural explainations, always.
Ofcourse. Anyone who's got a complaint against a draconian office policy must be a whiner. Why not just label anyone who disagrees with you at all as a 'whiner.' You should also try the grade school favorite, "I know you are, but what am I?" That one's a real winner too.
Amazingly, the world survived and actually prospered prior to 1995.
Yea, and technology/the world has also changed since 1995. Making your employees work in pre-1995 conditions isn't likely to improve your business. You might as well argue that since people used to get by just fine without electricity and plumbing, that it's fine to take those amenities away as well.
I guess you've never heard of whitelists.
Umm... do you know what whitelists are? Pre-compiled/custom whitelists aren't going to list every website that one might legitimately visit at work. The GP's example of municiple government websites for handling traffic tickets are not likely to be on any whitelists. You simply can't predict what sites your employees are going to legitimately need to access. That's why he wrote "good luck identifing all those sites."
An hour of lost (paid-for) productivity, versus taking a vacation day. I'm paying you to make widgets, not surf the web.
For someone so cocky you sure aren't very good at simple reasoning. Why do you think businesses pay their employees? It's because they need those employees to work there. It's better for them to pay the employees to work, than it is to not pay them and not get the work done. An office isn't like a burger joint. Most individuals are assigned specific tasks and workloads are balanced so that everyone has a reasonable amount of work to do in an allotted amount of time. If an employee has to take time off work, it's not a simple matter of simply having someone else coming in to work for him. Sometimes that person is the only one who can complete the work assigned to him.
As such, it's much better to let the employee spend an hour or so taking care of things outside of work (which must be done during normal business hours) and have him actually complete his work for that day (which is his responsibility if he chooses to come in to work that day rather than take the day off), than it is to simply let the work get put off till another day. If you have ever been in a professional working environment where each individual has his own set of responsibilities requiring a specialized set of skills, then this should all be self-evident.
Belief in 'the supernatural', is the belief that some things just can't be explained through science and logical deduction because they do not obey the natural laws of our universe--laws which science presupposes to be absolute and universal, thus observations which contradict current scientific models always require those scientific models to be revised, rather than simply attributing the phenomena to supernatural forces.
Rejecting the belief of there being things in our universe which do not obey natural laws does not mean rejecting that there cannot be things which escape our current understanding of the natural universe. It just means that if one day we observe a phenomenon that defies our current understanding of the universe, that we do not attribute it to the supernatural, and that it simply means our understanding of the natural universe is flawed.
That doesn't mean that there can't be ghosts or demons. It just means that if there are such things, they would not be supernatural entities. That such findings would instead require us to revise our scientific models to account for these natural phenomena.
Creationism was only held to be true because people relied on religious mythos--thus inventing the supernatural--to explain what they didn't understand instead of using logic and the scientific method.
If you simply allowed things to be explained by the existence of the supernatural, then any natural phenomenon you don't understand can be attributed to supernatural forces. The entire premise behind establishing scientific models and testing them through experimentation and observations is the belief that there are absoluteuniversal rules that govern all things in the universe. When new experimentational data is found to contradict accepted scientific models, new models which fit the new observations are formulated. This is done because explaining things through the supernatural is useless in the pursuit of knowledge. Attibuting things to the supernatural has no scientific value, and is basically saying, this can't be explained/understood through science.
Nothing attributed to the supernatural has ever been found to be incapable of being understood from a logical and scientific standpoint. It has always been due to a lack of understanding of natural phenomena. Even if one cannot adequately explain a phenomenon with current understanding of science, one still shouldn't attribute those phenomena to the supernatural, as that runs counter to the very spirit of scientific learning.
'The supernatural' is defined as that which does not obey the natural laws governing our universe--thus it cannot be explained or understood through science. This precludes any usefulness of incorporating the concept of the supernatural into scientific models or theories.
The concept of the supernatural is an artifact of religious and cultural traditions of relying on mythos rather than logos to explain natural phenomena. It creates an artificial division of reality into the supernatural and the natural, where the first is imbued with all the qualities of awe and wonder, and the second is regarded as base and mundane. Subsequently, this view also treats priests and clerics as holders of true knowledge, whereas scientists/mathematicians/etc. are simply squanderng their life on trivial 'worldly' matters.
Scientific models, on the other hand, attempt to explain the universe using 'natural laws' deduced from observations and careful reasoning. Science relies on the fundamental assumption that all things in our universe follow a set of knowable, absolute, and logically consistent rules. That is the very basis of the scientific process. That is why when observations do not match currently accepted scientific models, the model is revised or a new model is proposed to account for those disparate observations.
If we simply believed in the supernatural, then there would be no point in scientific pursuit. Everything which cannot be explained by conventional knowledge would simply be regarded as supernatural, and thus unknowable. If observational data doesn't correspond to the predictions of current scientific models, then a supernatural force must be at work. That is simply an intellectual cop out.
Science and belief in the supernatural are two diametrically opposed ideas. So it seems to me that you are the one making ridiculous claims.
Compton Community College has also recently lost its accreditation as a nationally recognized educational institution.
Yes, a fine place to raise a family indeed...
Re:Reinventing the wheel again and again and again
on
WebOS Market Review
·
· Score: 1
I agree that these Web Desktops that are trying to emulate the features and functionality of a local Operating System are ultimately pointless. I mean, why would anyone want to use a primitive, clumsy Javascript/DHTML desktop isntead of the one that's already built into their operating system.
However, AJAX applications which simply emulate the feel of a desktop environment to provide useful web services are a step in the right direction, IMHO. Web applications have slowly evolved better and more advanced UIs to take advantage of new development tools and techniques, which is only natural.
A lot of Slashdotters complain about Web 2.0, and other buzzword technologies associated with emerging web development trends. And, yes, there has been a lot of hype surrounding these topics--the 'Web OS' tripe is a prime example--but at the same time, there are truly innovative concepts involved that are worth looking into. As a web developer, I'm pretty excited about being able to implement smarter, more usabable interfaces in my web applications through the use of AJAX. Social networking/software is also an area of development which the web is a particularly well-suited platform. And despite their many critics, tagging/folksonomy, and other semantic-web-related technologies such as XML, XHTML, and RDF, have presented information system architects with revolutionary new ways of managing/organizing their data.
As its been stated before, most of these concepts are based on technology which has been around for a while now. But what's exciting about Web 2.0 is that we're finally seeing many of these existing technologies culminating in useful and innovative applications. Having gone through many evolutionary cycles without producing very interesting results, the technology has finally matured and techniques on combining them to deliever useful services have also finally been developed.
Frankly, all the people who are comaplaining that, the web was designed only for this; it's not designed to do that, are just short-sighted and counter-progressive. Technology evolves, and the web is still a budding area of technological development. People complaining about web applications today not ressembling the simple and crude static web pages of the past are really just complaining about progress being made in web development. People have found new uses and applications for web technologies, just as ideas the web is unsuited for have been dropped. So what's the point of complaining about web innovations which are successful? It seems like most of the people complaining about all the hype surrounding this Web 2.0 business are people who aren't capable of coming up with their own innovations and are just bitter that they aren't involved in all the excitement.
You're still not understanding what AJAX is. 99% of the processing load is still done by the server. All AJAX does is manipulate/update the user interface asynchronously instead of having to refresh each page. AJAX does not shift the server load to the client. I'd advise you to read the wikipedia entry on AJAX or TFA to get a better understanding of what AJAX is. These are user-interface enhancements, not a load-balancing/distributing strategy.
Have you never used gmail or other web apps that use AJAX in their interface? AJAX is specifically designed so that only the section of the page you're applying changes to is updated when you perform a browser action on it. AJAX interfaces act much like desktop applications in that an action on a particular section of the page does not interupt other sections of the page. So I can attach a file to an e-mail I'm composing and it won't affect the composition box that I'm still working on, or Gmail can auto-save a draft of my e-mail in progress without interrupting my typing.
I would urge you to actually visit sites like Gmail, Flickr, Google Maps, Amazon, etc. to see what AJAX does before you start making uninformed comments about the technique.
Also, the workload required to make an XMLHttpRequest call and parse the XML data returned from it is insignificant compared to the processing resources required to render a normal web page with images, or run a Java applet or Flash plugin. It's no more resource-intensive than javascript form-validation or drop down menus. So worrying about AJAX being a processor hog is a completely moot point.
What load is being diverted to the client by AJAX? All AJAX does is use some simple javascript to update DOM objects with XML data requested from the server. This doesn't take any more processing power than javascript form-validation. Client-side scripting is not anything new to the web. If the client can render a webpage, it should have no problems executing some simple javascript to parse XML data.
Exactly. There seems to be a lot of arrogant, short-sighted web developers on Slashdot who have started a trend of bashing on anything Web 2.0-related. Most of the web services/applications the term describes are of pretty high complexity having taken many years to mature, and many innovative technologies/techniques have thus been developed in the processes of creating these second generation web applications and services. But a lot of Slashdotters can't seem to get over the superficial image of the 'buzzwords' used to describe these techs, and find it fashionable to dismiss them off the bat and bash on any application which employs them.
OK, so 'AJAX', 'Tags', 'Web 2.0', 'Blogs', 'Social Networking', etc. are all buzzwords... So are: 'P2P', 'XML', 'WiFi', 'RSS', 'OOP', 'Open Source', etc. The "trend" of using Web 2.0 buzzwords in an article (about Web 2.0 apps) isn't any more pathetic than following the trend of bashing anything Web 2.0-relate just because it's become fashionable to do so.
Most people seem to just dismiss these techniques off hand based on their slashdot image without even investigating what their potential benefits (and potential drawbacks) are, and then try to come up with excuses as to why these ideas aren't worth considering after they've already made up their minds about it. That's why the criticisms posted usually have nothing to do with the technical merits of the technology.
This isn't Pitchfork-Media-dot. You wouldn't judge a political candidate based on his haircut, so why would you judge a tech based on its popularity or image. Its success and widespread adoption by services like Flickr, Gmail, Google Maps should be more important than how unfashionable the use of buzzwords is. A simple look at the arguments (or lack thereof) against most of the techs these buzzwords describe should demonstrate that most of these people have no idea what they are talking about.
None of those features need AJAX per se, but an AJAX interface enhances their usability, and in the case of auto-complete, is the only real elegant way to implement it.
I've developed tons of web applications without the use of AJAX too in the past, but I can recognize the potential benefits of an AJAX interface. So rather than dismissing it off hand because it's become fashionable on Slashdot to bash anything Web 2.0-related, I'm learning as much as I can about AJAX so I can implement it in my next project.
So you're not clever, you're just arrogant and short-sighted.
Even this is not true. Some web browsers that implement script and useful parts of the HTML DOM do not have an XMLHttpRequest object. Or are you talking about requests in hidden iframe elements?
That has nothing to do with the discussion about anti-spyware and anti-virus programs conflicting with AJAX. The only way that security policies would conflict with AJAX is if scripting were disabled, therefore, it is a more general problem not specific to AJAX.
Besides, all major browsers support XMLHttpRequest, XMLHTTP, or equivalent methods by now, including: Internet Explorer 5.0+, Mozilla 1.0+, Safari 1.2+, Opera 7.6+, iCab 3.0b352+, OpenLaszlo 3.1+, Konqueror 3.3+, and IceBrowser. So what popular browser supports javascript but not XMLHTTP/XMLHttpRequest?
Whether you like it or not, AJAX is here to stay. This is apparent from the widespread adoption of AJAX interfaces by popular web applications/services. If Gmail, Google Maps, Amazon, Flickr, etc. are all implementing AJAX, then cross-browser compatibility probably isn't a huge issue. In fact, the W3C is already working on standardizing the XMLHttpRequest object API.
It seems to have become fashionable to bitch and moan every time AJAX or some other Web 2.0 technology is mentioned on Slashdot, and usually the gripe people have is with the terms used to describe the technology/technique. But, honestly, dismissing a technology or web development technique because you think the name of the tech is stupid is like not voting for a particular political candidate because you think he has ugly hair. So what if it's become a buzzword? Shouldn't development techniques be evaluated based on their technical merits, not on whether it's become too passe to be uttered on Slashdot?
A lot of people here like to criticize journalists/marketers for their trend of using Web 2.0 buzzwords, but how is it any less stupid to dismiss Web 2.0 tech just because it's become trendy to do so? Oh, that app implements tags? It must be lame! WEB 2.0 SUX!!! 99% of the time when AJAX is brought up in an article, it's an informative piece which actually evaluates the technique, or in this case, is a guide to AJAX development. It has nothing to do with marketing or throwing around buzzwords to fake knowledgeability, yet people are still coming up with the most strained reasons as to why AJAX is just a fad that has no practical value.
The point of the article isn't to entertain you with a slideshow. It's an intro guide/tutorial to AJAX for developers interested in the technique. Personally, I found the article to be very informative, and a good exercise for learning the basics of AJAX. Now I can go on and implement AJAX in the interface of my real web applications, which are much more complex and have a purpose other than to simply demonstrate how AJAX works.
It's kinda like when you first start programming you might begin with a simple "hello world" program. That doesn't mean C/Perl/whatever language you're learning is useless just because the hello world application was designed as a simple programming exercise.
So you can stop complaining everytime AJAX is mentioned. If you're not a web developer, then it might not interest you, but that doesn't make it pointless; you just don't have any use for it. Instead of looking for stupid things to complain about, just skip the article and go read your books or something.
Re:Group Blog(web2.0 for forum) Named Slashdot
on
Slashdot Bookmarks
·
· Score: 1
Your browser doesn't provide features such as link-sharing, or tagging, therefore, it is not a substitute for del.icio.us or Slashdot bookmarks. Whether you like those features or not is irrelevant. Local bookmarks don't provide those features, del.icio.us and Slashdot bookmarks do.
And how is carrying around a floppy on your person at all times more convenient than simply accessing Slashdot? That argument is even more half-baked. It simply demonstrates the need for bookmark-sharing sites since local bookmarks won't allow you to access your bookmarks anywhere you go without having to carry around another physical medium.
And I never claimed that people rely on link-sharing sites to meet others. That has nothing to do with the argument. That is why your response that there are better places to meet people is irrelevant. My argument was that link-sharing sites provide social features that local bookmarks don't. You don't have to rely on it to meet people for the online community aspect of the site to enhance your experience. I don't rely on my car-stereo to listen to music, and the sound quality of my home system is much better. But a car stereo provides me with the ability to listen to music while I drive, whereas my home system doesn't. It doesn't need to be better sounding than my home system for it to be useful.
What is wrong with using software that fits my needs? You can advertise Open Office twenty times a day but i won't budge a finger.
Wtf? And you're telling me to work on my reading comprehension skills?
It's become obvious that I'm just wasting my time trying to debate with you as you can't even understand what I'm saying (on a linguistic/semantic level). Your interpretations don't even come close to hitting on what I'm saying. I mean, why would I be trying to argue that Open Office is better than whatever text-editor you use, or try to get you to switch to Open Office? That doesn't even have anything to do with this discussion. I don't know what you're used to, but I'm not in the habit of going off on completely unrelated tangents during a debate.
So until you can read and type better/more accurately and learn to stay on topic, I've got better things to attend to.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that people are dying every day because of our indefensible foreign policies, right? As members of a purportedly free democratic society, we are accountable for the actions of our government, actions which result in the loss of life and other injustices around the world. So, no, we can't just take a break and relax and be so nonchalant about the acts of aggression carried out in our name.
Your attitude is exactly why half the world hates Americans. That kind of insouciance towards government & media corruption is exactly how these travesties are allowed to be carried out unmitigated. You act as if protests to government policies are just annoyances in our nation's political life which have no urgency of purpose. Sorry, but those of us who choose to exercise our democratic prerogative to affect government that are unjust will not rest until changes are made.
That's why he said "by european standards." Unlike, you, the GP understands that 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are subjective terms that can only be used in relative comparisons. Calling Europe 'left-wing' is just stating that they are 'left-wing' by your standards--by their standards, you would also be 'right-wing' then.
Are perhaps you think that your point of view is the universally centrist point of view which all political attitudes should be measured against?
Being pro-Palestine or simply against Israeli occupation doesn't make one 'anti-semitic'. Even ignoring the fact that Arabs are also semites, there are Jews (and even Israeli Jews) who are also against the occupation. Opposing Zionism and the state of Israel does not mean one hates Jews. In fact, the only reason Israel was established was because the British and U.S. government didn't want an influx of Jewish refugees after WWII. So the creation of the state of Israel is more anti-semetic than opposing its existence.
And simply being critical of U.S. policies does not make one anti-American or biased. Otherwise you may as well say that the entire world has an 'anti-American' bias. Have you ever considered that maybe you (and your prefered news sources) just have a pro-Bush administration bias?
Lastly, I rather think it's a good thing that BBC journalists aren't expected to conform to what American news outlets consider to be a 'centrist' point of view. Unlike in the U.S., the media is not strictly controlled by conservative elements in the U.K., and similarly, the BBC does not only present the Israel-Palestine issue from the perspective of Israel as American news outlets have a habit of doing. Perhaps you'd like to see reporters be fired just because they may have a different perspective than yours, but the rest of us like to be able to see all sides of the story.
Wikis embody many of the core concepts in Web 2.0, that is: collaboration, user-contribution, and 'radical trust'--as Tim O'Reilly puts it. 'Collaboration' certainly isn't a new concept, neither is 'user-contribution'. But it's only now that we're seeing these concepts becoming a consistent trend in a new wave of successful, mainstream web applications.
Wikipedia, Flickr, Del.ico.us, etc. all rely on user-contributed content. These web services provide a framework for users to create this content in, but it's still the users who are creating the actual content that drives the sites. The idea of 'trust' is demonstrated through Wikipedia's policy of letting pretty much anyone edit the content. In other sites, tagging replaces conventional taxonomy of site content, thus entrusting the control of content organization to the users.
It might be helpful if you read Tim O'Reilly's explaination of what Web 2.0 is.
I don't get it. This guy who is, IMHO, waaay too into comic books, is making fun of other people because they look a certain way? Honestly, who cares if they follow a different set of fashion trends than most people? Nerds/geeks aren't exactly the most fashionable group of people either. If dressing a particular way makes you happy, I say go for it.
I can understand criticizing Myspace users who have 2,000+ friends, use epilepsy inducing flashing graphics and too many distracting design elements, but what people look like--how they dress or wear their hair--is a pretty lame thing to bag on someone for. Slashdotters making fun of the way emo scenesters look is no different than snobby high school cheerleaders making fun of the way some nerd dresses.
Judging others by the way they look is really shallow and stuck-up no matter who you are. I mean, unless you look like Brad Pitt or Kristen Kreuk, you really have no room to talk. And even if you do look like the people mainstream society considers "beautiful," you'd still be acting really lame.
Chandelier
Ennui
If you can't read the phonetics crap (which I can't), just click on the speaker button and it'll play a sound clip of each pronounciation.
That's not how it's pronounced. 'Ennui' is pronounced sorta like 'on-we'--I'm guessing cuz it's French or something.
A progressive is a free-thinking individual, typically one who is ahead of mainstream society in moral/spiritual thinking. As such, Jesus of Nazareth was a progressive in his time. He espoused many progressive and subversive ideas which resulted in his persecution.
However, much of the progressive beliefs he preached have long since been incorporated into the common sense morality of most cultures, whether due to Christian or other religious influence, or other cultural forces. And unfortunately, most Christians today, as with most followers of all mainstream religions, tend to be focused on the past. They focus on the dogma and ritual rather than the philosophical ideas behind Christianity. This is the 'orthodox' way to practice most religions, but it leads to very little societal progress, and is rather hypocritical and superficial imo.
The Bible, as with most scriptures, is a static document. It does not change with time. Only interpretations can change with time, and this is the only way that religions are able to keep up with modern times. Luckily, there are individuals who don't just blindly adhere to accepted mainstream interpretations of the Bible, and instead interpret it for themselves. It is these individuals, individuals like Martin Luther (who began the Reformation) and Jesus (who created Christianity out of Jewish traditions), who are the ones that revitalize religious movements which have grown stagnant over time as all static bodies do.
So, progressive Christians are, in my opinion, those who break from orthodox beliefs, and interpret the theological teachings themselves. They approach spirituality with an open and critical mind, and listen to reason in their pursuit of spiritual growth. They do not simply follow rituals and dogma, and recite catechisms from the scriptures. Instead, they read between the lines and try to find the deeper meaning within the text. Progressive theists subvert the influence of reactionary religious institutions which dominate the spiritual culture of our society.
It's easy to interpret the Bible literally, and it's even easier to simply regurgitate oft repeated religious cliches and believe whatever you're told in church and what everyone else believes and expects you to believe. What's hard is interpreting the text for yourself, and likely coming up with a different interpretation which may get you ostricized, labeled an apostate, or persecutated for your dissentious beliefs(sound familiar?). But those individuals are the true Christians, IMHO, and I have a lot of respect for them even though I'm not a Christian.
I never said a scientist can't be religious. But in science, one must rule out the supernatural. So when you are trying to figure out how a dinosaur bone ended up 2,256 meters below the ocean floor, scientifically, you rule out supernatural explainations. And you can still be 'spiritual' without accepting 'supernatural' beliefs that mainstream religons try to conflate with spirituality. There are many ways to approach spirituality, and even religion, so it is possible to be religious but not believe in angels and demons. Most progressive individuals don't take the Bible literally these days anyways.
Also, religion is often something people are born into and are brought up to believe, not something one had much of a choice in. In the past, Judeo-Christian religion has been very deeply entrenched in Western culture so that it was almost inevitable that if you lived in Europe or America, you had to be a Christian. Cultural hegemony is a very powerful force in the shaping of societal attitudes. So, rational individuals might have studied science in spite of being raised a Christian, but there has historically been a conflcit between the two spheres. Many past scientists/philosophers, such as Renee Descartes, have tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the two beliefs, but most simply keep them as completely separate matters in order to deal with their innate inner conflict.
And when religious zealots overstep the domain of religion, crossing into the territory of science and rational thought, they usually end up embarassing themselves, such as in the case of Creationism and many issues which the Catholic church has held a reactionary stance on in the past. In fact, if a mainstream religion is to survive into the future, it must periodically make concessions to science and cultural progress in order to keep up with contemporary times. The Catholic church has already accepted biological evolution as an orthodox belief, but their stance on homosexuality and birth-control are still considered very culturally backward.
You don't seem to get it. Ruling out the supernatural is absolutely necessary for scientific inquiry. Belief in the supernatural directly conflicts with the epistemological basis of science, and you simply can't rely on supernatural "explainations" in science. The concept of the supernatural is completely useless to science.
First off, the story of David and Goliath is a piece of religious mythology, and science is not concerned with mythology. Secondly, if a person killed another person with a slingshot, why would you suspect any kind of supernatural involvement? That's a simply jumping to groundless conclusions lacking any kind of proof. It is completely unscientific and illogical to explain a natural phenomenon as being the result of a supernatural deity. It's just like saying that 9/11 was caused by God's wrath. There is no evidence supporting such a claim, it is not a scientific hypothesis which can be tested, and it has no value to science whatsoever.
Once again, the supernatural, by definition, cannot be explained or understood through science/reason. Such a belief runs counter to the spirit of science. Attributing a particular phenomenon to the supernatural assumes that that phenomenon simply cannot be understood/explained through science, and that is a very ignorant mentality which has been proven again and again in history to be very mislead and counter to scientific progress. As such, a true scientist must rule out supernatural explainations, always.
Ofcourse. Anyone who's got a complaint against a draconian office policy must be a whiner. Why not just label anyone who disagrees with you at all as a 'whiner.' You should also try the grade school favorite, "I know you are, but what am I?" That one's a real winner too.
Yea, and technology/the world has also changed since 1995. Making your employees work in pre-1995 conditions isn't likely to improve your business. You might as well argue that since people used to get by just fine without electricity and plumbing, that it's fine to take those amenities away as well.
Umm... do you know what whitelists are? Pre-compiled/custom whitelists aren't going to list every website that one might legitimately visit at work. The GP's example of municiple government websites for handling traffic tickets are not likely to be on any whitelists. You simply can't predict what sites your employees are going to legitimately need to access. That's why he wrote "good luck identifing all those sites."
For someone so cocky you sure aren't very good at simple reasoning. Why do you think businesses pay their employees? It's because they need those employees to work there. It's better for them to pay the employees to work, than it is to not pay them and not get the work done. An office isn't like a burger joint. Most individuals are assigned specific tasks and workloads are balanced so that everyone has a reasonable amount of work to do in an allotted amount of time. If an employee has to take time off work, it's not a simple matter of simply having someone else coming in to work for him. Sometimes that person is the only one who can complete the work assigned to him.
As such, it's much better to let the employee spend an hour or so taking care of things outside of work (which must be done during normal business hours) and have him actually complete his work for that day (which is his responsibility if he chooses to come in to work that day rather than take the day off), than it is to simply let the work get put off till another day. If you have ever been in a professional working environment where each individual has his own set of responsibilities requiring a specialized set of skills, then this should all be self-evident.
Belief in 'the supernatural', is the belief that some things just can't be explained through science and logical deduction because they do not obey the natural laws of our universe--laws which science presupposes to be absolute and universal, thus observations which contradict current scientific models always require those scientific models to be revised, rather than simply attributing the phenomena to supernatural forces.
Rejecting the belief of there being things in our universe which do not obey natural laws does not mean rejecting that there cannot be things which escape our current understanding of the natural universe. It just means that if one day we observe a phenomenon that defies our current understanding of the universe, that we do not attribute it to the supernatural, and that it simply means our understanding of the natural universe is flawed.
That doesn't mean that there can't be ghosts or demons. It just means that if there are such things, they would not be supernatural entities. That such findings would instead require us to revise our scientific models to account for these natural phenomena.
Creationism was only held to be true because people relied on religious mythos--thus inventing the supernatural--to explain what they didn't understand instead of using logic and the scientific method.
If you simply allowed things to be explained by the existence of the supernatural, then any natural phenomenon you don't understand can be attributed to supernatural forces. The entire premise behind establishing scientific models and testing them through experimentation and observations is the belief that there are absolute universal rules that govern all things in the universe. When new experimentational data is found to contradict accepted scientific models, new models which fit the new observations are formulated. This is done because explaining things through the supernatural is useless in the pursuit of knowledge. Attibuting things to the supernatural has no scientific value, and is basically saying, this can't be explained/understood through science.
Nothing attributed to the supernatural has ever been found to be incapable of being understood from a logical and scientific standpoint. It has always been due to a lack of understanding of natural phenomena. Even if one cannot adequately explain a phenomenon with current understanding of science, one still shouldn't attribute those phenomena to the supernatural, as that runs counter to the very spirit of scientific learning.
'The supernatural' is defined as that which does not obey the natural laws governing our universe--thus it cannot be explained or understood through science. This precludes any usefulness of incorporating the concept of the supernatural into scientific models or theories.
The concept of the supernatural is an artifact of religious and cultural traditions of relying on mythos rather than logos to explain natural phenomena. It creates an artificial division of reality into the supernatural and the natural, where the first is imbued with all the qualities of awe and wonder, and the second is regarded as base and mundane. Subsequently, this view also treats priests and clerics as holders of true knowledge, whereas scientists/mathematicians/etc. are simply squanderng their life on trivial 'worldly' matters.
Scientific models, on the other hand, attempt to explain the universe using 'natural laws' deduced from observations and careful reasoning. Science relies on the fundamental assumption that all things in our universe follow a set of knowable, absolute, and logically consistent rules. That is the very basis of the scientific process. That is why when observations do not match currently accepted scientific models, the model is revised or a new model is proposed to account for those disparate observations.
If we simply believed in the supernatural, then there would be no point in scientific pursuit. Everything which cannot be explained by conventional knowledge would simply be regarded as supernatural, and thus unknowable. If observational data doesn't correspond to the predictions of current scientific models, then a supernatural force must be at work. That is simply an intellectual cop out.
Science and belief in the supernatural are two diametrically opposed ideas. So it seems to me that you are the one making ridiculous claims.
Compton Community College has also recently lost its accreditation as a nationally recognized educational institution.
Yes, a fine place to raise a family indeed...
I agree that these Web Desktops that are trying to emulate the features and functionality of a local Operating System are ultimately pointless. I mean, why would anyone want to use a primitive, clumsy Javascript/DHTML desktop isntead of the one that's already built into their operating system.
However, AJAX applications which simply emulate the feel of a desktop environment to provide useful web services are a step in the right direction, IMHO. Web applications have slowly evolved better and more advanced UIs to take advantage of new development tools and techniques, which is only natural.
A lot of Slashdotters complain about Web 2.0, and other buzzword technologies associated with emerging web development trends. And, yes, there has been a lot of hype surrounding these topics--the 'Web OS' tripe is a prime example--but at the same time, there are truly innovative concepts involved that are worth looking into. As a web developer, I'm pretty excited about being able to implement smarter, more usabable interfaces in my web applications through the use of AJAX. Social networking/software is also an area of development which the web is a particularly well-suited platform. And despite their many critics, tagging/folksonomy, and other semantic-web-related technologies such as XML, XHTML, and RDF, have presented information system architects with revolutionary new ways of managing/organizing their data.
As its been stated before, most of these concepts are based on technology which has been around for a while now. But what's exciting about Web 2.0 is that we're finally seeing many of these existing technologies culminating in useful and innovative applications. Having gone through many evolutionary cycles without producing very interesting results, the technology has finally matured and techniques on combining them to deliever useful services have also finally been developed.
Frankly, all the people who are comaplaining that, the web was designed only for this; it's not designed to do that, are just short-sighted and counter-progressive. Technology evolves, and the web is still a budding area of technological development. People complaining about web applications today not ressembling the simple and crude static web pages of the past are really just complaining about progress being made in web development. People have found new uses and applications for web technologies, just as ideas the web is unsuited for have been dropped. So what's the point of complaining about web innovations which are successful? It seems like most of the people complaining about all the hype surrounding this Web 2.0 business are people who aren't capable of coming up with their own innovations and are just bitter that they aren't involved in all the excitement.
You're still not understanding what AJAX is. 99% of the processing load is still done by the server. All AJAX does is manipulate/update the user interface asynchronously instead of having to refresh each page. AJAX does not shift the server load to the client. I'd advise you to read the wikipedia entry on AJAX or TFA to get a better understanding of what AJAX is. These are user-interface enhancements, not a load-balancing/distributing strategy.
Have you never used gmail or other web apps that use AJAX in their interface? AJAX is specifically designed so that only the section of the page you're applying changes to is updated when you perform a browser action on it. AJAX interfaces act much like desktop applications in that an action on a particular section of the page does not interupt other sections of the page. So I can attach a file to an e-mail I'm composing and it won't affect the composition box that I'm still working on, or Gmail can auto-save a draft of my e-mail in progress without interrupting my typing.
I would urge you to actually visit sites like Gmail, Flickr, Google Maps, Amazon, etc. to see what AJAX does before you start making uninformed comments about the technique.
Also, the workload required to make an XMLHttpRequest call and parse the XML data returned from it is insignificant compared to the processing resources required to render a normal web page with images, or run a Java applet or Flash plugin. It's no more resource-intensive than javascript form-validation or drop down menus. So worrying about AJAX being a processor hog is a completely moot point.
What load is being diverted to the client by AJAX? All AJAX does is use some simple javascript to update DOM objects with XML data requested from the server. This doesn't take any more processing power than javascript form-validation. Client-side scripting is not anything new to the web. If the client can render a webpage, it should have no problems executing some simple javascript to parse XML data.
Exactly. There seems to be a lot of arrogant, short-sighted web developers on Slashdot who have started a trend of bashing on anything Web 2.0-related. Most of the web services/applications the term describes are of pretty high complexity having taken many years to mature, and many innovative technologies/techniques have thus been developed in the processes of creating these second generation web applications and services. But a lot of Slashdotters can't seem to get over the superficial image of the 'buzzwords' used to describe these techs, and find it fashionable to dismiss them off the bat and bash on any application which employs them.
OK, so 'AJAX', 'Tags', 'Web 2.0', 'Blogs', 'Social Networking', etc. are all buzzwords... So are: 'P2P', 'XML', 'WiFi', 'RSS', 'OOP', 'Open Source', etc. The "trend" of using Web 2.0 buzzwords in an article (about Web 2.0 apps) isn't any more pathetic than following the trend of bashing anything Web 2.0-relate just because it's become fashionable to do so.
Most people seem to just dismiss these techniques off hand based on their slashdot image without even investigating what their potential benefits (and potential drawbacks) are, and then try to come up with excuses as to why these ideas aren't worth considering after they've already made up their minds about it. That's why the criticisms posted usually have nothing to do with the technical merits of the technology.
This isn't Pitchfork-Media-dot. You wouldn't judge a political candidate based on his haircut, so why would you judge a tech based on its popularity or image. Its success and widespread adoption by services like Flickr, Gmail, Google Maps should be more important than how unfashionable the use of buzzwords is. A simple look at the arguments (or lack thereof) against most of the techs these buzzwords describe should demonstrate that most of these people have no idea what they are talking about.
None of those features need AJAX per se, but an AJAX interface enhances their usability, and in the case of auto-complete, is the only real elegant way to implement it.
I've developed tons of web applications without the use of AJAX too in the past, but I can recognize the potential benefits of an AJAX interface. So rather than dismissing it off hand because it's become fashionable on Slashdot to bash anything Web 2.0-related, I'm learning as much as I can about AJAX so I can implement it in my next project.
So you're not clever, you're just arrogant and short-sighted.
That has nothing to do with the discussion about anti-spyware and anti-virus programs conflicting with AJAX. The only way that security policies would conflict with AJAX is if scripting were disabled, therefore, it is a more general problem not specific to AJAX.
Besides, all major browsers support XMLHttpRequest, XMLHTTP, or equivalent methods by now, including: Internet Explorer 5.0+, Mozilla 1.0+, Safari 1.2+, Opera 7.6+, iCab 3.0b352+, OpenLaszlo 3.1+, Konqueror 3.3+, and IceBrowser. So what popular browser supports javascript but not XMLHTTP/XMLHttpRequest?
Whether you like it or not, AJAX is here to stay. This is apparent from the widespread adoption of AJAX interfaces by popular web applications/services. If Gmail, Google Maps, Amazon, Flickr, etc. are all implementing AJAX, then cross-browser compatibility probably isn't a huge issue. In fact, the W3C is already working on standardizing the XMLHttpRequest object API.
It seems to have become fashionable to bitch and moan every time AJAX or some other Web 2.0 technology is mentioned on Slashdot, and usually the gripe people have is with the terms used to describe the technology/technique. But, honestly, dismissing a technology or web development technique because you think the name of the tech is stupid is like not voting for a particular political candidate because you think he has ugly hair. So what if it's become a buzzword? Shouldn't development techniques be evaluated based on their technical merits, not on whether it's become too passe to be uttered on Slashdot?
A lot of people here like to criticize journalists/marketers for their trend of using Web 2.0 buzzwords, but how is it any less stupid to dismiss Web 2.0 tech just because it's become trendy to do so? Oh, that app implements tags? It must be lame! WEB 2.0 SUX!!! 99% of the time when AJAX is brought up in an article, it's an informative piece which actually evaluates the technique, or in this case, is a guide to AJAX development. It has nothing to do with marketing or throwing around buzzwords to fake knowledgeability, yet people are still coming up with the most strained reasons as to why AJAX is just a fad that has no practical value.
The point of the article isn't to entertain you with a slideshow. It's an intro guide/tutorial to AJAX for developers interested in the technique. Personally, I found the article to be very informative, and a good exercise for learning the basics of AJAX. Now I can go on and implement AJAX in the interface of my real web applications, which are much more complex and have a purpose other than to simply demonstrate how AJAX works.
It's kinda like when you first start programming you might begin with a simple "hello world" program. That doesn't mean C/Perl/whatever language you're learning is useless just because the hello world application was designed as a simple programming exercise.
So you can stop complaining everytime AJAX is mentioned. If you're not a web developer, then it might not interest you, but that doesn't make it pointless; you just don't have any use for it. Instead of looking for stupid things to complain about, just skip the article and go read your books or something.
The first type.
Your browser doesn't provide features such as link-sharing, or tagging, therefore, it is not a substitute for del.icio.us or Slashdot bookmarks. Whether you like those features or not is irrelevant. Local bookmarks don't provide those features, del.icio.us and Slashdot bookmarks do.
And how is carrying around a floppy on your person at all times more convenient than simply accessing Slashdot? That argument is even more half-baked. It simply demonstrates the need for bookmark-sharing sites since local bookmarks won't allow you to access your bookmarks anywhere you go without having to carry around another physical medium.
And I never claimed that people rely on link-sharing sites to meet others. That has nothing to do with the argument. That is why your response that there are better places to meet people is irrelevant. My argument was that link-sharing sites provide social features that local bookmarks don't. You don't have to rely on it to meet people for the online community aspect of the site to enhance your experience. I don't rely on my car-stereo to listen to music, and the sound quality of my home system is much better. But a car stereo provides me with the ability to listen to music while I drive, whereas my home system doesn't. It doesn't need to be better sounding than my home system for it to be useful.
Wtf? And you're telling me to work on my reading comprehension skills?
It's become obvious that I'm just wasting my time trying to debate with you as you can't even understand what I'm saying (on a linguistic/semantic level). Your interpretations don't even come close to hitting on what I'm saying. I mean, why would I be trying to argue that Open Office is better than whatever text-editor you use, or try to get you to switch to Open Office? That doesn't even have anything to do with this discussion. I don't know what you're used to, but I'm not in the habit of going off on completely unrelated tangents during a debate.
So until you can read and type better/more accurately and learn to stay on topic, I've got better things to attend to.