That's an artificial and self-serving definition. Most religions, at one point or another, have had "secret" or esoteric status/doctrines/dogma/teachings/etc. The Christian church was, by neccessity, VERY secretive in its early years (adopting esoteric symbols like the fish in order to recognize one another while avoiding Roman scrutiny). Even "The Book of Acts" speaks of secret meetings held by the earliest members. Ditto with the Hebrew religion and the secretive Sanhedrin, the Catholic Church and its intentional obscuring of the bible by its long-standing resistance to vernacular services and biblical translations, etc, etc. Even modern Protestant denominations of Christianity will often hold secretive councils and conventions to decide theological issues (not open to public scrutiny or record).
The simple fact is that there is no easy "hard" definition of what differentiates a "cult," a "sect," and a "religion." Religious scholars have debated the issue for a long time, never to come to any useful consensus. It's simply a matter of perspective. Most religions begin as a cult or a sect (often themselves a deviation from an existing established religion) and evolve into what we generally acknowledge as a unique religion. But at what point a cult or a sect actually becomes a religion (or even at what point a deviation from a given larger religion becomes a "cult" or "sect") is not clear. Certainly, official state recognition has been a traditional marker--but in the modern age, with increasing religious/state separation and the incredible flowering of religious diversity that has produced, even that marker is no longer very useful.
IBM wasn't the antichrist, they were the John the Baptist to Messiah Jobs. IBM did recognize Jobs as the Messiah, baptizing him in the Sea of GUI--and ultimately sacrificing themselves to proclaim his glory!
An entire "technology first" thread without a single snarky post from some American-hating European claiming that some obscure European with no real proof actually was the REAL first inventor? That's got to be a first itself!
Sorry to be a little harsh here, but any kid stupid enough to sign up for the military based solely on some videogames he played in a recruiting center and the bullshit spiel of a recruiting officer is probably no big loss anyway. There are plenty of people who actually do join the military for good reasons (there are some serious advantages to military service), but morons who stumble into a recruitment center and sign up after being enthralled by some videogames are most definitely not among them.
True, but not really fair. Charter schools and Catholic schools have kids with parents who care enough to enroll them in and transport them to charter schools and Catholic schools. There is a BIG difference between a kid whose parents take an interest in them and a kid whose parent is a crackhead or a hooker who doesn't give a shit about them.
GOM is my personal favorite. Admittedly, the last version of VLC I used was a while ago--and maybe it has improved significantly since then, but it was terrible then anyway. Sure, it would play about any codec you threw at it (as will GOM), but the interface was awful. Bringing up the progress bar from fullscreen mode opened up a whole new window (instead of doing a simple pop-up window like most media players do), trying to scroll through the bar wasn't smooth (it would jump in increments), there was no easy way to adjust an anamorphically squeezed HD video to play on a widescreen monitor in the correct aspect ratio (in GOM this is a simple matter or right-clicking and selecting the option from the menu), it couldn't do simple stuff like a-b repeat/chapters/etc., and it had few configurable options.
No, but they *are* better than their open source counterparts.
And VLC sucks ass too. There are several close source counterparts that blow that clunky turd away. And I'm not being a troll here, VLC really is vastly overrated and always has been. It's useful if it's all you can use in Linux, but there are many much better alternatives on Windows.
Actually it does give an advantage to the OSS, because it allows the OSS to do something that it was never able to do before--share documents flawlessly with Word. So, right now let's say I'm looking for a software suite for home. I need to exchange complex files back and forth between work (which uses Office) and home. As the situation stands now, I *have* to buy Word (the Office file support in most OSS stuff like OpenOffice is still wonky, particularly with complex documents). But if there were a open format, able to handle complex documents the same in both Office and OSS, then I could just save all my files in THAT format and choose OSS software (which already has the big advantage of being free) for my home. MS looses a sale, OSS gains a new supporter, etc.
The same logic could apply to my office. If they can create complex documents that anyone can read in odf, why use the Office proprietary formats at all? They could start saving ALL their stuff in odf, which would lead logically to the question "Why not use free OSS in the office and save some money?" MS loses again.
So, of course MS doesn't support odf. Why would they unzip their flies and give up defacto control of the "office standard" formats to those who they see as competitors? It's giving up their biggest advantage to a competition that already has the big advantage of being free.
Haven't you heard? The latest and greatest contractor fad is non-lethal weapons. The results of the $400 million pumped in so far are, of course, wildly successful.
Come on, we all know how comfortable the elderly are with high tech gadgets. Now all we need is a bunch of skateboarding teenagers at the entrance to greet them so they'll REALLY feel at home.
The financial incentive to port to a console is very strong these days. With PC piracy and more and more people turning to consoles (it's a lot cheaper to buy a console than to try and keep a gaming PC upgraded, and times are tough), companies are basically facing two options: either you do an MMO (which is piracy resistant) or you port to consoles. And any MMO requires a HUGE investment and has to face the mighty shadow of WoW. So console ports are just irresistible to a lot of developers.
Wouldn't that make it impossible to position elements precisely though? Without absolute positioning, the graphics and layout drift all over the place.
The last time I tried going to CSS from table layout, the thing that really frustrated me was that I couldn't do what seemed like a very simple thing. I couldn't center my page. With table layouts, laying out my page on a 700 or 1000-pixel-wide table, all I had to do was center said table to account for higher resolution desktops. I never could figure out how to do that with the absolute positioning in CSS. I could put the elements together with a nice layout, but I had to do that by absolute pixel specifications. There was no way to "group" the page together and then center it for higher resolutions. The result was a left-lopsided page at higher resolutions (as opposed to a nice centered page with a table layout).
Now maybe I was just missing something or maybe something has come along to fix that since. But that was one of the reasons I stuck with table layouts, pain in the ass that they are. If anyone can enlighten me on how to do this in CSS, I'm all ears for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
But do they represent a paradigm shift?
That's an artificial and self-serving definition. Most religions, at one point or another, have had "secret" or esoteric status/doctrines/dogma/teachings/etc. The Christian church was, by neccessity, VERY secretive in its early years (adopting esoteric symbols like the fish in order to recognize one another while avoiding Roman scrutiny). Even "The Book of Acts" speaks of secret meetings held by the earliest members. Ditto with the Hebrew religion and the secretive Sanhedrin, the Catholic Church and its intentional obscuring of the bible by its long-standing resistance to vernacular services and biblical translations, etc, etc. Even modern Protestant denominations of Christianity will often hold secretive councils and conventions to decide theological issues (not open to public scrutiny or record).
The simple fact is that there is no easy "hard" definition of what differentiates a "cult," a "sect," and a "religion." Religious scholars have debated the issue for a long time, never to come to any useful consensus. It's simply a matter of perspective. Most religions begin as a cult or a sect (often themselves a deviation from an existing established religion) and evolve into what we generally acknowledge as a unique religion. But at what point a cult or a sect actually becomes a religion (or even at what point a deviation from a given larger religion becomes a "cult" or "sect") is not clear. Certainly, official state recognition has been a traditional marker--but in the modern age, with increasing religious/state separation and the incredible flowering of religious diversity that has produced, even that marker is no longer very useful.
IBM wasn't the antichrist, they were the John the Baptist to Messiah Jobs. IBM did recognize Jobs as the Messiah, baptizing him in the Sea of GUI--and ultimately sacrificing themselves to proclaim his glory!
An entire "technology first" thread without a single snarky post from some American-hating European claiming that some obscure European with no real proof actually was the REAL first inventor? That's got to be a first itself!
Sorry to be a little harsh here, but any kid stupid enough to sign up for the military based solely on some videogames he played in a recruiting center and the bullshit spiel of a recruiting officer is probably no big loss anyway. There are plenty of people who actually do join the military for good reasons (there are some serious advantages to military service), but morons who stumble into a recruitment center and sign up after being enthralled by some videogames are most definitely not among them.
True, but not really fair. Charter schools and Catholic schools have kids with parents who care enough to enroll them in and transport them to charter schools and Catholic schools. There is a BIG difference between a kid whose parents take an interest in them and a kid whose parent is a crackhead or a hooker who doesn't give a shit about them.
I always thought it was the highest number of characters a teenage girl could read or type without becoming distracted.
My uncle used to have goats on his farm, and they were right bastards. Of course, so was he.
It's not illegal for a company to refuse to support a given format. Is it illegal for Apple to make iPods that don't support ogg or wma?
GOM is my personal favorite. Admittedly, the last version of VLC I used was a while ago--and maybe it has improved significantly since then, but it was terrible then anyway. Sure, it would play about any codec you threw at it (as will GOM), but the interface was awful. Bringing up the progress bar from fullscreen mode opened up a whole new window (instead of doing a simple pop-up window like most media players do), trying to scroll through the bar wasn't smooth (it would jump in increments), there was no easy way to adjust an anamorphically squeezed HD video to play on a widescreen monitor in the correct aspect ratio (in GOM this is a simple matter or right-clicking and selecting the option from the menu), it couldn't do simple stuff like a-b repeat/chapters/etc., and it had few configurable options.
I've never made a motion picture before, but I still feel qualified to give my opinion that the Hannah Montana movie sucks ass.
Closing in on a lawsuit from 3D Realms' duped investors, I imagine.
No, but they *are* better than their open source counterparts.
And VLC sucks ass too. There are several close source counterparts that blow that clunky turd away. And I'm not being a troll here, VLC really is vastly overrated and always has been. It's useful if it's all you can use in Linux, but there are many much better alternatives on Windows.
For posting that link on /. I hereby bow before you and acknowledge that, you sir, indeed have balls of extraordinary magnitude.
Actually it does give an advantage to the OSS, because it allows the OSS to do something that it was never able to do before--share documents flawlessly with Word. So, right now let's say I'm looking for a software suite for home. I need to exchange complex files back and forth between work (which uses Office) and home. As the situation stands now, I *have* to buy Word (the Office file support in most OSS stuff like OpenOffice is still wonky, particularly with complex documents). But if there were a open format, able to handle complex documents the same in both Office and OSS, then I could just save all my files in THAT format and choose OSS software (which already has the big advantage of being free) for my home. MS looses a sale, OSS gains a new supporter, etc.
The same logic could apply to my office. If they can create complex documents that anyone can read in odf, why use the Office proprietary formats at all? They could start saving ALL their stuff in odf, which would lead logically to the question "Why not use free OSS in the office and save some money?" MS loses again.
So, of course MS doesn't support odf. Why would they unzip their flies and give up defacto control of the "office standard" formats to those who they see as competitors? It's giving up their biggest advantage to a competition that already has the big advantage of being free.
Haven't you heard? The latest and greatest contractor fad is non-lethal weapons. The results of the $400 million pumped in so far are, of course, wildly successful.
MS, a for-profit company, refuses to embrace a format that gives an advantage to their open-source free competitors? Surely not!
"Get a life"?
How dare you question our geek status symbol!
That sounds a lot less impressive when you realize he means months, not years.
Screw all that complicated stuff. I have two words for them: gold toilets.
Come on, we all know how comfortable the elderly are with high tech gadgets. Now all we need is a bunch of skateboarding teenagers at the entrance to greet them so they'll REALLY feel at home.
The financial incentive to port to a console is very strong these days. With PC piracy and more and more people turning to consoles (it's a lot cheaper to buy a console than to try and keep a gaming PC upgraded, and times are tough), companies are basically facing two options: either you do an MMO (which is piracy resistant) or you port to consoles. And any MMO requires a HUGE investment and has to face the mighty shadow of WoW. So console ports are just irresistible to a lot of developers.
Wouldn't that make it impossible to position elements precisely though? Without absolute positioning, the graphics and layout drift all over the place.
The last time I tried going to CSS from table layout, the thing that really frustrated me was that I couldn't do what seemed like a very simple thing. I couldn't center my page. With table layouts, laying out my page on a 700 or 1000-pixel-wide table, all I had to do was center said table to account for higher resolution desktops. I never could figure out how to do that with the absolute positioning in CSS. I could put the elements together with a nice layout, but I had to do that by absolute pixel specifications. There was no way to "group" the page together and then center it for higher resolutions. The result was a left-lopsided page at higher resolutions (as opposed to a nice centered page with a table layout).
Now maybe I was just missing something or maybe something has come along to fix that since. But that was one of the reasons I stuck with table layouts, pain in the ass that they are. If anyone can enlighten me on how to do this in CSS, I'm all ears for sure.