I have to disagree. The difference between X and a "rich client framework" the world is moving towards is that the latter (the framework) is supposed to be programmable so that, as applications evolve, more and more functionality is implemented on the client side - by automatically downloading and running client-side modules ("extensions", "plugins") - not just graphical ones, whereas the former (the X Window system) is far from being extensible in that same sense; with X, most of the work is still done on the server (by the X "clients"), and will be in the foreseeable future.
It is not about who is "better". There is no absolute definition of "good". There is a war of interests. The clump of cells is, obviously, too weak to be able to defend its interests, but luckily, there are those powerful ones who, just like a mother of a little child, would stand up and take on the burden of defense. Now, the point of the argument shifts to the question whether a clump of cells have any interests at all. It turns out that neither the clump or a 3-month-old child have interests. Destroying the child is against the child's mother's interests; by the same token, destroying a clump of cells as a unique living organism may, indeed, play a negative social role. So, what we observe here is a war of interests of those who want the "child's organs" donated to them and those who feel uneasy about it, despite obvious benefits. The question is, therefore, not about what is "good", what is "bad" (let alone who is "better"), but about the ways of convincing people that a clump of cells is still as far away from being a homo sapiens as a single spermatozoid nobody cares about is.
Well, belief that a human embryo IS a human has to be either naive or religious ("the embryo has the same soul as the grown-up human has or will have"). The simple idea that the soul, just like the body, is subject to growth and evolution, starting with virtually nothing, somehow can't reach the minds of religious "theorists"; unfortunately, it's not theories we have to deal with on a daily basis, but with consequences of attempts to put them into practice---by those, by the way, who are driven not by their religious ideals (whether fictional or real) but by the rules of the political game they are part of.
Are you joking? Or is it "floppiness" that you do not like? A 20GB floppy would be a nice thing to have, would it not?
Come on already...
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
In case somebody didn't notice, it's the third millennium; and you people keep chewing on some creepy crap that is of a historical insterest at most...
(OK now that I made this post, I can go back to my dumb terminal now.)
Obviously, as many others, you have been brainwashed. Being ruled by a communist party does not make a state a "communist state" (just as being ruled by, say, democrats does not automatically make a country "democratic"). In fact, in the Soviet Union the communism was officially declared a goal (as opposed to then current state of affairs, known as "socialism"). Remarkably, the communist party was even planning to dismiss itself upon reaching that goal as having fulfilled its own purpose.
How is software (I am not talking about scientific ideas or algorithms) any different from, say, a design of an internal combustion engine. Does that, too, need to be freed?
It is not to say that there should not be open designs out there, but the proclamation of some kind of human right to read whatever designs produced by industry sounds crazy.
There is no limit to one's stupidity. How more obvious could this be. Saying that KDE and Unix are essentially the same is like saying that a person and the clothes he/she wears are the same, or flying the plane (as a pilot) and flying on a plane (as a passenger) is the same.
There is no point in even comparing KDE to Unix: it makes no sense to compare the capabilities of, say, Unix shell with--what?--the style of window decorations, the desktop background color of antialiasing of fonts?
In other words, Unix (at least, in my view) is all about automation, that is, making a computer work, while KDE and such are all about people doing work on a computer. KDE users, play your games and leave the OS your eye candy happens to run on top of to the care of others. And remember: your ability to drag 'n drop does not make you a Unix user.
I own an HDTV and I shudder every time I see those ugly compression artifacts that often make the 1080i image look more like 100x100 pixels. I'd prefer a smooth, artifact-free, full-screen video signal at 640x480 to the crappy-looking 1080.
There is no such thing as a used game. All there is, is a used CD. But the cost of the game, or the price you have to pay for the right to play it, has nothing to do with the cost of the medium on which the game is published.
I think that it is the used media market that is (partially) reponsible for high initial prices on games.
I agree. On the other hand, according to a quote recently made here on Slashdot, realistic physics in games will never catch on: Lara Croft will keep falling over forwards.
I am amazed at how little progress has been made in the game graphics and gameplay since the original Doom. It would seem that the ability to churn out hundreds of millions polygons per second should make a lot of difference compared to the Doom's no-3d-hardware-requiring graphics engine, but somehow it does not. Despite all the antialiasing, mip-mapping, landscapes in today's 3d games sometimes look less realistic and/or less interesting than some levels in Doom. This is disappointing, and I have no explanation...
In the demo of Borland's IDE, they proudly show the code containing '== false' inside an 'if'. I would not put much trust in software written by programmers who think that this is a good style.
From the scientific viewpoint, what one cannot know does not exist.
On the other hand, how "God" is different from, say, "Baba-Yaga" and other mumbo-jumbo. There may be "ideas" about what what those "words" mean, but trying to build some kind of "science" that is supposed to prove that those words denote real objects usually serves some agenda that has nothing to do with science.
Incidentally, the theory of non-existence (or non-being) is a very insteresting one. There are many different types of non-being (like having just died; having never existed (even as a fictitious object); non-being as a real object; unable to exist (even in the future) etc.)
Finally, let's not forget about anti-theists, i. e. those who think that if God existed, he should be caught and hung by His balls. (I, personally, think, that God should not be held responsible for all the suffering that humans inflicted to themselves.)
The filesystem is a hierarchical database; metadata (when stored in attributes) allow working with files in ways relational databases do.
Storing metadata in the file itself (look at the stupidest ever 'encoding="utf-8"' in XML) makes metadata non-standard, file format-dependent and, eventually, unamanageable on a global scale: you cannot use inheritance, for example, to derive new file types.
Slashdot Mirror
Why bother emulating the hardware when you can just emulate the API.
I have to disagree. The difference between X and a "rich client framework" the world is moving towards is that the latter (the framework) is supposed to be programmable so that, as applications evolve, more and more functionality is implemented on the client side - by automatically downloading and running client-side modules ("extensions", "plugins") - not just graphical ones, whereas the former (the X Window system) is far from being extensible in that same sense; with X, most of the work is still done on the server (by the X "clients"), and will be in the foreseeable future.
It is not about who is "better". There is no absolute definition of "good". There is a war of interests. The clump of cells is, obviously, too weak to be able to defend its interests, but luckily, there are those powerful ones who, just like a mother of a little child, would stand up and take on the burden of defense. Now, the point of the argument shifts to the question whether a clump of cells have any interests at all. It turns out that neither the clump or a 3-month-old child have interests. Destroying the child is against the child's mother's interests; by the same token, destroying a clump of cells as a unique living organism may, indeed, play a negative social role. So, what we observe here is a war of interests of those who want the "child's organs" donated to them and those who feel uneasy about it, despite obvious benefits. The question is, therefore, not about what is "good", what is "bad" (let alone who is "better"), but about the ways of convincing people that a clump of cells is still as far away from being a homo sapiens as a single spermatozoid nobody cares about is.
Well, belief that a human embryo IS a human has to be either naive or religious ("the embryo has the same soul as the grown-up human has or will have"). The simple idea that the soul, just like the body, is subject to growth and evolution, starting with virtually nothing, somehow can't reach the minds of religious "theorists"; unfortunately, it's not theories we have to deal with on a daily basis, but with consequences of attempts to put them into practice---by those, by the way, who are driven not by their religious ideals (whether fictional or real) but by the rules of the political game they are part of.
I'd mod you up if I hadn't lost my mod points yesterday.
Well, all I can say is that C++ is (so much) more than just a "stricter" C.
Would you care to elaborate a bit?
Are you joking? Or is it "floppiness" that you do not like? A 20GB floppy would be a nice thing to have, would it not?
In case somebody didn't notice, it's the third millennium; and you people keep chewing on some creepy crap that is of a historical insterest at most...
(OK now that I made this post, I can go back to my dumb terminal now.)
- Because they are so tired of calling themselves "a totalitarian dictatorship with pseudo-Marxist rules imposed".
Obviously, as many others, you have been brainwashed. Being ruled by a communist party does not make a state a "communist state" (just as being ruled by, say, democrats does not automatically make a country "democratic"). In fact, in the Soviet Union the communism was officially declared a goal (as opposed to then current state of affairs, known as "socialism"). Remarkably, the communist party was even planning to dismiss itself upon reaching that goal as having fulfilled its own purpose.
How is software (I am not talking about scientific ideas or algorithms) any different from, say, a design of an internal combustion engine. Does that, too, need to be freed?
It is not to say that there should not be open designs out there, but the proclamation of some kind of human right to read whatever designs produced by industry sounds crazy.
There is no limit to one's stupidity. How more obvious could this be. Saying that KDE and Unix are essentially the same is like saying that a person and the clothes he/she wears are the same, or flying the plane (as a pilot) and flying on a plane (as a passenger) is the same.
There is no point in even comparing KDE to Unix: it makes no sense to compare the capabilities of, say, Unix shell with--what?--the style of window decorations, the desktop background color of antialiasing of fonts?
In other words, Unix (at least, in my view) is all about automation, that is, making a computer work, while KDE and such are all about people doing work on a computer. KDE users, play your games and leave the OS your eye candy happens to run on top of to the care of others. And remember: your ability to drag 'n drop does not make you a Unix user.
I have another question: why violence (think FPS) is one of the most popular form of entertainment?
I own an HDTV and I shudder every time I see those ugly compression artifacts that often make the 1080i image look more like 100x100 pixels. I'd prefer a smooth, artifact-free, full-screen video signal at 640x480 to the crappy-looking 1080.
I think that it is the used media market that is (partially) reponsible for high initial prices on games.
I agree. On the other hand, according to a quote recently made here on Slashdot, realistic physics in games will never catch on: Lara Croft will keep falling over forwards.
I am amazed at how little progress has been made in the game graphics and gameplay since the original Doom. It would seem that the ability to churn out hundreds of millions polygons per second should make a lot of difference compared to the Doom's no-3d-hardware-requiring graphics engine, but somehow it does not. Despite all the antialiasing, mip-mapping, landscapes in today's 3d games sometimes look less realistic and/or less interesting than some levels in Doom. This is disappointing, and I have no explanation...
RealBasic is for idiots and/or written by idiots. "while cur.eof = false", my ass. Whoever codes like this must be an idiot.
What's a virius?
Idiots are the best evidence against intelligent design.
In the demo of Borland's IDE, they proudly show the code containing '== false' inside an 'if'. I would not put much trust in software written by programmers who think that this is a good style.
Dropping an A-bomb onto a city is a well-known case of terrorism.
From the scientific viewpoint, what one cannot know does not exist.
On the other hand, how "God" is different from, say, "Baba-Yaga" and other mumbo-jumbo. There may be "ideas" about what what those "words" mean, but trying to build some kind of "science" that is supposed to prove that those words denote real objects usually serves some agenda that has nothing to do with science.
Incidentally, the theory of non-existence (or non-being) is a very insteresting one. There are many different types of non-being (like having just died; having never existed (even as a fictitious object); non-being as a real object; unable to exist (even in the future) etc.)
Finally, let's not forget about anti-theists, i. e. those who think that if God existed, he should be caught and hung by His balls. (I, personally, think, that God should not be held responsible for all the suffering that humans inflicted to themselves.)
The filesystem is a hierarchical database; metadata (when stored in attributes) allow working with files in ways relational databases do.
Storing metadata in the file itself (look at the stupidest ever 'encoding="utf-8"' in XML) makes metadata non-standard, file format-dependent and, eventually, unamanageable on a global scale: you cannot use inheritance, for example, to derive new file types.