Some things are very easily communicated by pointing & grunting. ("Please pass the salt", for example.) Other things are very hard to express by pointing & grunting, and require the expressiveness of compose-able grammatical elements. Your experience with the most crude machine and command set has blinded you to the latter.
fancy rich kid with your color computer:-) I started on a TRS-80 Model I with TRS-DOS (and later LDOS)...and I liked it. But, I confess, I envied kids like you.
Interesting. So you're an atheist where Poseidon is concerned, but an agnostic where Yahweh (or whomever) is concerned? So is it fair to say that you're monotheistically agnostic, but polytheistic-ally atheistic?
In turn, I never said that you said that I said that I was agnostic.
Rather, I was referring to how you quoted my description of my atheistic self, and followed it with "This description would be more correct to say is Agnostic than Atheistic". It's not your place to correct me on how I self-identify.
However I see where the problem may be, in your "default assumption".
It's a very sane and powerful default. Without it, grown adults would have to go around admitting that they're merely agnostic about leprechauns, Poseidon, and the tooth fairy - for not knowing how to prove their non-existence.
Doesn't MS even own a large percentage of Apple's stock?
They bought 150,000 non-voting shares in 1997 as part of a cross-licensing agreement. By 2001, they had converted them all into about 18 million shares of common stock, which isn't much but would be enough for them to show up on "large block holder" lists, which they don't. So it's likely they cashed-out long ago. Details here.
Bullshit. I'll come out and say there's no god, and will not contradict what I wrote. Nowhere did I entertain that a god may exist, so don't go telling me I'm an agnostic when I know otherwise.
Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something.
As an atheist, I wasn't aware that proving the absence of something was a requirement. I had assumed that non-existence was the default assumption, and that if there is any burden of proof it falls on someone willing to entertain a hypothesis that asserts existence of something.
Why not consider agnosticism to be illegitimate instead? After all, it seems intent on forcing all people to consider all hypotheses, which is extremely retarded. I have a right to bear the principles of falsifiability and occam's razor. You'll have to pry them out of my cold, dead hands.
Am I obligated, as an atheist, to prove the absence of invisible pink unicorns too?
I should also add that you are exactly right when you say that it's bad for HTML to be extended in this way. CSS is a totally different beast, though: the manner in which the specs are extended with other specs is baked into its design, and precisely because of the lessons learned from all of the heartache caused by the evolution of HTML.
...whereas properties that have an obvious browser-specific prefix communicate clearly to the web site developer that they should beware what they're getting themselves into.
It's not bad practice. This is the way that CSS was intended to be developed. CSS3 is currently under development, and there are negative consequences when browser developers tie behaviors to properties that are still in flux: sites may become dependent upon something that might have changed name and/or behavior in the final spec. (That's why they label these things as "working drafts"...they're subject to change.)
Just some clarification, the "x" in front of the above properties is a character that I added to "comment out" (in a sense) these properties from a file I was working on. (Changing them to a name that no browser recognizes is a convenient way to dike them out, anyway.) I didn't mean to include them when I pasted them into the above post. The actual properties are: -moz-border-radius-topleft: 7px; -webkit-border-top-left-radius: 7px;
Given the KHTML/WebKit guys' reputation for actually targeting the spec (as opposed to Gecko--hello, moz-* CSS attributes), when there's a discrepancy between Gecko and WebKit, I'm going to assume that WebKit does it more correctly unless evidence to the contrary can be found.
Both WebKit and Gecko have experimental CSS properties that they safely isolate under a namespace using an obvious prefix. Here are a couple of examples.
x-moz-border-radius-topleft: 7px;
x-webkit-border-top-left-radius: 7px;
This is considered a safe way to extend CSS. Any web site with a standards-compliant CSS is unaffected by the browser's ability to do something with these properties. Furthermore, any web site that uses these experimental properties will gracefully degrade to a box with square corners when visited by a browser that does not recognize them. In the future, when rounded corners are in an official CSS spec, both Gecko and Mozilla can merely tie this behaviour to whatever the CSS spec calls this property.
This is very unlike the bad old days of exerimenting with changes to HTML. Both Gecko and WebKit are doing the right thing here.
Since the article was written from the perspective of someone who is upset with Josh, and therefore prone to paint him in a negative light, I'd like to offer some words that may balance the perspective. I'm no fan of people like Josh, so the following is the devil's advocate perspective:
By way of metaphor, it seems like Josh is the only Integer Unit in a CPU burdened with processing lots of integer-heavy code. He is a resource for which there is a lot of contention. Someone tried to have someone else on the team (say a floating point unit) solve an integer problem, and all they could muster was to go to the Integer Unit, who is already bogged down, and beg for help. Apparently, in this organization, Integer arithmetic is deep voodoo that nobody else can do. Everything flows through Josh. The odds that someone will relieve him of his duties long enough to generate a HowTo on adding two ints are pretty small.
Odds are that the project managers around him aren't thinking in terms of resource contention and how to alleviate it. They may make noises that sound like they understand that task B, with a lower priority than task A, will be starved until A is completed - but then tomorrow they'll still be asking why B isn't done, knowing full well that A is still in queue and they set the priorities themselves.
Even if they do understand priorities, they'll probably constantly adjust priorities eating Josh's productivity with lots of context switching and pipeline stalls.
They need more people who can do what Josh can do. Once he's no longer the only Integer Unit, he won't be able to afford to be a douche-nozzle. If this outcome is worth it to them, they'll pay for it. If it isn't, they'll whine in an editorial.
"A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government." (from Wikipedia)
This concept is not mutually exclusive to elected representatives instituting socialist policies. You're mixing orthogonal concerns.
I got further in. I think that line was from the first character we see eliza dushku playing. Turns out her EEPROM can be flashed, and that's exactly what happened about 5 minutes later - so the viewer didn't have to suffer very much of that character. I think the show has potential. I'd like to see them catch their stride with it.
That's probably their rationale, but it's probably based on an archaic stereotype, like scientists with white lab coats, a clipboard, and horn-rimmed glasses. Joss Whedon draws a much broader crowd than figurine-painters.
Amusing joke, but entirely dissimilar. It seems to me that if you want to prove that code doesn't do anything nasty, then a single-static-assignment IR could be very useful. JVM bytecode could never pull that trick. Also, LLVM imposes no runtime requirements whatsoever. None. It and Java are at opposite ends of that spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
Some things are very easily communicated by pointing & grunting. ("Please pass the salt", for example.) Other things are very hard to express by pointing & grunting, and require the expressiveness of compose-able grammatical elements. Your experience with the most crude machine and command set has blinded you to the latter.
fancy rich kid with your color computer :-) I started on a TRS-80 Model I with TRS-DOS (and later LDOS)...and I liked it. But, I confess, I envied kids like you.
LOL!
Silence! I've had enough of this wowdy webel sniggewing behaviour!
Interesting. So you're an atheist where Poseidon is concerned, but an agnostic where Yahweh (or whomever) is concerned? So is it fair to say that you're monotheistically agnostic, but polytheistic-ally atheistic?
I did not say you said you're agnostic
In turn, I never said that you said that I said that I was agnostic.
Rather, I was referring to how you quoted my description of my atheistic self, and followed it with "This description would be more correct to say is Agnostic than Atheistic". It's not your place to correct me on how I self-identify.
However I see where the problem may be, in your "default assumption".
It's a very sane and powerful default. Without it, grown adults would have to go around admitting that they're merely agnostic about leprechauns, Poseidon, and the tooth fairy - for not knowing how to prove their non-existence.
Doesn't MS even own a large percentage of Apple's stock?
They bought 150,000 non-voting shares in 1997 as part of a cross-licensing agreement. By 2001, they had converted them all into about 18 million shares of common stock, which isn't much but would be enough for them to show up on "large block holder" lists, which they don't. So it's likely they cashed-out long ago. Details here.
Bullshit. I'll come out and say there's no god, and will not contradict what I wrote. Nowhere did I entertain that a god may exist, so don't go telling me I'm an agnostic when I know otherwise.
That is comic genius.
Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something.
As an atheist, I wasn't aware that proving the absence of something was a requirement. I had assumed that non-existence was the default assumption, and that if there is any burden of proof it falls on someone willing to entertain a hypothesis that asserts existence of something.
Why not consider agnosticism to be illegitimate instead? After all, it seems intent on forcing all people to consider all hypotheses, which is extremely retarded. I have a right to bear the principles of falsifiability and occam's razor. You'll have to pry them out of my cold, dead hands.
Am I obligated, as an atheist, to prove the absence of invisible pink unicorns too?
vetos.
I should also add that you are exactly right when you say that it's bad for HTML to be extended in this way. CSS is a totally different beast, though: the manner in which the specs are extended with other specs is baked into its design, and precisely because of the lessons learned from all of the heartache caused by the evolution of HTML.
...whereas properties that have an obvious browser-specific prefix communicate clearly to the web site developer that they should beware what they're getting themselves into.
It's not bad practice. This is the way that CSS was intended to be developed. CSS3 is currently under development, and there are negative consequences when browser developers tie behaviors to properties that are still in flux: sites may become dependent upon something that might have changed name and/or behavior in the final spec. (That's why they label these things as "working drafts"...they're subject to change.)
Just some clarification, the "x" in front of the above properties is a character that I added to "comment out" (in a sense) these properties from a file I was working on. (Changing them to a name that no browser recognizes is a convenient way to dike them out, anyway.) I didn't mean to include them when I pasted them into the above post. The actual properties are:
-moz-border-radius-topleft: 7px;
-webkit-border-top-left-radius: 7px;
Given the KHTML/WebKit guys' reputation for actually targeting the spec (as opposed to Gecko--hello, moz-* CSS attributes), when there's a discrepancy between Gecko and WebKit, I'm going to assume that WebKit does it more correctly unless evidence to the contrary can be found.
Both WebKit and Gecko have experimental CSS properties that they safely isolate under a namespace using an obvious prefix. Here are a couple of examples.
x-moz-border-radius-topleft: 7px;
x-webkit-border-top-left-radius: 7px;
This is considered a safe way to extend CSS. Any web site with a standards-compliant CSS is unaffected by the browser's ability to do something with these properties. Furthermore, any web site that uses these experimental properties will gracefully degrade to a box with square corners when visited by a browser that does not recognize them. In the future, when rounded corners are in an official CSS spec, both Gecko and Mozilla can merely tie this behaviour to whatever the CSS spec calls this property.
This is very unlike the bad old days of exerimenting with changes to HTML. Both Gecko and WebKit are doing the right thing here.
How about "Adamo: some cream and a comb'll clear that right up!"
Yeah, I kicked myself a bit shortly after submitting.
I agree with "Josh is an arrogant assole" and "the Joshes of the world need to be fired".
I'm not sure I understand the "No," however, because none of that seems to contradict anything I wrote.
Since the article was written from the perspective of someone who is upset with Josh, and therefore prone to paint him in a negative light, I'd like to offer some words that may balance the perspective. I'm no fan of people like Josh, so the following is the devil's advocate perspective:
By way of metaphor, it seems like Josh is the only Integer Unit in a CPU burdened with processing lots of integer-heavy code. He is a resource for which there is a lot of contention. Someone tried to have someone else on the team (say a floating point unit) solve an integer problem, and all they could muster was to go to the Integer Unit, who is already bogged down, and beg for help. Apparently, in this organization, Integer arithmetic is deep voodoo that nobody else can do. Everything flows through Josh. The odds that someone will relieve him of his duties long enough to generate a HowTo on adding two ints are pretty small.
Odds are that the project managers around him aren't thinking in terms of resource contention and how to alleviate it. They may make noises that sound like they understand that task B, with a lower priority than task A, will be starved until A is completed - but then tomorrow they'll still be asking why B isn't done, knowing full well that A is still in queue and they set the priorities themselves.
Even if they do understand priorities, they'll probably constantly adjust priorities eating Josh's productivity with lots of context switching and pipeline stalls.
They need more people who can do what Josh can do. Once he's no longer the only Integer Unit, he won't be able to afford to be a douche-nozzle. If this outcome is worth it to them, they'll pay for it. If it isn't, they'll whine in an editorial.
"A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government." (from Wikipedia)
This concept is not mutually exclusive to elected representatives instituting socialist policies. You're mixing orthogonal concerns.
that depends on what the definition of "is" is.
I got further in. I think that line was from the first character we see eliza dushku playing. Turns out her EEPROM can be flashed, and that's exactly what happened about 5 minutes later - so the viewer didn't have to suffer very much of that character. I think the show has potential. I'd like to see them catch their stride with it.
That's probably their rationale, but it's probably based on an archaic stereotype, like scientists with white lab coats, a clipboard, and horn-rimmed glasses. Joss Whedon draws a much broader crowd than figurine-painters.
I think it's hermaphrodites for Menage-a-trois
Amusing joke, but entirely dissimilar. It seems to me that if you want to prove that code doesn't do anything nasty, then a single-static-assignment IR could be very useful. JVM bytecode could never pull that trick. Also, LLVM imposes no runtime requirements whatsoever. None. It and Java are at opposite ends of that spectrum.