Does using XML in such a fashion really save time? Does it truly make a programmer more productive? I truly doubt that it does.
Typing out
<method name="setCoords" arg="x" arg="y">
// JavaScript here
</method>
when you want to write a method is surely the wrong way to go about writing code. Not only is it difficult to read, but it takes far too much typing. Basically any other OO language makes creating a method short and simple, as it's such a fundamental and oft-performed task.
What starts out as 30 or 40 unnecessary characters for one method quickly balloons up to 300000 or 400000 extra characters when you start building serious applications consisting of millions of lines of code. It takes time to type half a million unneeded characters. When time is valuable, such waste isn't acceptable.
So you end up not gaining any productivity improvement when it comes to initially developing the app. It may even take longer to develop, due to the extraneous typing that is necessary, and the code being far more difficult to read quickly. Then it's a hassle to maintain, assuming maintenance is even possible.
Sorry, languages with an XML syntax just don't cut it for real-world applications.
Taking a quick glance at the source snippets, that OpenLaszlo system looks like a major pain in the ass to use. Its misuse of XML is quite disturbing. Code like that just isn't maintainable, and for serious applications a lack of maintainability is completely unacceptable.
One doesn't want to judge a language or application framework purely by its syntax, but when one sees something like that, one just knows that it's a bad idea.
We keep hearing about how great these "rich" web-based applications are. At one point it was in the form of Java applets, then ActiveX controls, then Flash, and now this. Yet the fact remains that such technologies never prove useful beyond demos and very simple applications.
If you really want to make available crossplatform solutions, using C++ and a toolkit like wxWidgets or Qt is still often the best way to go. Of course, that doesn't rule out Python and wxPython, but then you need to ensure that at least a Python interpreter is available on your client's system.
So while many developers waste their time with these buzzword technologies, those of us developing real applications that are actually used for productive purposes will stick to using C++ and the various crossplatform toolkits.
Perhaps the developers of Opera should listen to those who have a problem with Opera's interface. Perhaps it's such a popular "myth" because it actually is a serious issue hindering the adoption of Opera.
Like it or not, Opera does appear bloated compared to a browser like Konqueror. But that's likely because Opera includes extra, non-browser functionality (ie. an email client). Many people do find Opera's interface cluttered. At least they got rid of the ads, which was a major source of clutter for many.
Konqueror doesn't run well on Windows. That's perhaps one of the reasons why it isn't as widely used as Firefox, considering that many Firefox users do run Windows.
Another reason may be that it doesn't have the media hype that Firefox has had. That leads to many people, even long-time Linux users, being ignorant of Konqueror.
Going along with the ignorance issue, it must also be considered that many of the popular Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora) and Solaris include GNOME, rather than KDE, by default. Thus people may get Galeon or Firefox installed as their default browser, rather than Konqueror. Then it becomes an issue similar to that between Firefox and IE on Windows; it can be difficult to convince an IE user to switch to Firefox, especially if they're unaware of the technical benefits of Firefox over IE.
As for the innovations of Konqueror, Opera, Amaya, OmniWeb and other browsers being mistakenly attributed to Firefox, that is likely also due to ignorance. People see tabs in Firefox for the first time, and wrongly assume that it was the first browser to include them. Meanwhile, other browsers have offered such features for years.
I wouldn't fault Microsoft for borrowing technology that works. I mean, why shouldn't they borrow better ideas from others? It can benefit everyone if they do that.
If anything, I'd be all for Microsoft borrowing directly from open source projects. Open source software is often of a higher quality. A higher-quality release of Windows may help us all out. Those who use it directly will benefit from a far more productive experience. And those of us who run servers and networks might not have our bandwidth wasted as much by software that has exploited millions upon millions of PCs running Windows.
Arguments about Microsoft borrowing from others is a petty exercise of idealogues. Those of us who have real-world concerns realize that increased productivity is far more important than whether borrowing the best technology from others is ethical.
It really has little impact on me what Firefox may have done to Microsoft's monopoly of Windows web browsers. I use OpenBSD. I use Konqueror. I don't visit websites that rely on Microsoft-specific extensions.
As far as I'm concerned, Internet Explorer doesn't exist. And thus whatever Firefox does to Internet Explorer's marketshare has little effect on me. More importantly, though, it doesn't stop the Konqueror developers from providing excellent software. And that's what matters: putting out a superior product.
I know you're joking, but keep in mind that many of the innovative developments which are credited to Firefox actually appeared first in other browsers, such as Opera, Konqueror, and Amaya. Tabs, ad blocking, mouse gestures, and so forth.
Actually, fucking your not-so-distant cousin can have some very serious implications. If you manage to get her pregnant, then the baby will likely be born with various disorders and possible mental deficiencies. And if your not-so-distant cousin is a man, then he may spread a number of venereal diseases to your genitals.
I used to work with a fellow named Mike. He suffered from severe carpal tunnel syndrome, perhaps caused by the decades of typing he had done while programming. He would always drink massive amounts of water and juice while working, saying that it helped his wrists. We'd make fun of him because he had to piss every half hour, but perhaps he was on to something.
The best thing they could do would be to fund KDE development. KDE is seen by many as the premiere Linux desktop, due to its highly integrated nature. While GNOME may be preferred by certain developers and hackers, KDE provides the unified environment needed for widespread use on the desktops and laptops of average users.
The KOffice suite, for instance, could use some work. It's a good effort so far, but even two or three more full-time developers could really make it a top-notch office suite. Konqueror is already a very mature browser, often preferred to Firefox. With Apple already contributing somewhat to Konqueror, extra resources and funding from Google could quickly turn it into the most widely used browser on Linux.
Then when you consider that a port of Konqueror to Windows may be made easier with the advent of KDE 4, we see that we have a true challenger to Internet Explorer. One of the main gripes of many Firefox and Seamonkey users is that such products are far too bloated, which is partly due to their architecture. Konqueror, on the other hand, dispenses with a lot of the over-design apparent in the Mozilla software, while still offering the same (if not better) feature set.
Google's funding of KDE could truly turn Linux, and even the *BSDs, into platforms capable of competing with Mac OS X and Windows on the desktops and laptops of typical users.
The Tragedy of the Commons has nothing to do with what you're talking about, and vice versa.
The Tragedy of the Commons has to do with the inefficient allocation of common resources. We're talking about people not having any incentive to limit their consumption of fish from a lake, for instance. Not only do they not have any incentive to limit the number of fish that they catch, but they may actually be better off if they catch more fish before everyone else does.
Your talk about there always being "trolls" has nothing to do with a purely economic situation.
I have explained it to you several times over. I take it you are not illiterate, so feel free to go back and re-read my replies to you. Half of the effort is me is proving you are wrong. The other half of the effort is you reading and understanding how you are wrong.
As shown before, they already have the same stance on abortion, which is a biggie that Republicans tend to get hung up on. Their fiscal policies are nearly identical. Their foreign policy is quite the same, but that may just be because the Democrats don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans, but it is more likely that they agree with the Republican foreign policy.
The similarity is self-evident to anyone who is capable of looking at the system with a relatively unbiased view. Read our previous discussion to see how I have proven you to be incorrect. And remember, just because you don't want to read the truth, it doesn't mean that you're any less wrong.
My word, hkmwbz! You actually posted something that made sense for a change! Jolly good show, chap!
And in the end the fact remains that there are no editor conspiracies against you. If anything, the one conspiracy that appears to be present actually involves Republicans defacing Wikipedia. Funny thing, that is! For all their talk about there not being a "vast right-wing conspiracy", it seems as though there actually is one!
Re:DEAR GOD, What the hell does this even SAY?
on
Practical Mono
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hisham Mardam Bey, the reviewer, may not be a native speaker of English. While that doesn't excuse such obvious errors by any means, it may help explain why they are present. But don't let errors like that prevent you from reading what he has to say about this book. If in the end you disagree, that is fine. But to not read the review at all is a mistake.
Re:Is it just a .Net book?
on
Practical Mono
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It could very well just be an attempt to squeeze more sales out of an existing.NET book by including a small amount of Mono-specific information.
Then again, such extensions may not be overly practical. Developers writing software for the general public will often want their applications to also run on Windows, and hence they will ignore the Mono-specific capabilities.
But also, if it takes much effort to move programs from.NET to Mono, many might just stick with targetting.NET. Others might say to hell with both, and use Java instead.
Indeed, I would not purchase this book if it is 95% generic.NET material, and 5% Mono-specific. It'd be far better to get a book that is 100% Mono-specific, with perhaps a page or two introduction to.NET (and recommendations on books covering only.NET).
I'd hardly consider Fedora representative of the typical Linux distribution. Many people have reported relatively severe performance problems with it, and it often includes non-standard releases of various software. That's not new for Red Hat, however. They were the ones who included the unofficial and unsanctioned 2.96 branch of GCC with earlier products, which ended up causing massive problems for a lot of people.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Fedora installation you were using wasn't actually using a native binary. They may very well have been using the bytecode interpreter included with GCC. That would explain why it ran so slow for you, even slower than with Sun's JRE.
If Fedora did the correct thing and included a native build of Eclipse, you likely would have found it to run much faster, and with better memory usage. That is indeed what I found when I used a more mature distribution (such as Ubuntu or SuSE).
There are many open source Java implementations available, even if they're not derived from Sun's.
There are SableVM, JamVM, GCJ, and many others. Along with GNU Classpath and Jikes, you've got a rather complete J2SE implementation available to you. GCJ can compile to native code on certain platforms. Even with all the talk about JIT compiled code potentially being faster than native binaries (due to runtime optimizations and so forth), many people have found that code compiled with GCJ is far faster than when executed under a Java VM.
The only one who considers the truth to be "bullshit" is he who is a cockfool.
Like it or not, Democrats are the same as Republicans. I commend your attempts to prove me wrong, but alas, I am resorting to the truth and to fact fact. And when one relies on the truth and fact, one always wins a debate. Thus I am victorious!
You're told that the wars are about providing you with "security". Of course, anyone with half a brain realizes the recent wars have little to do with that. Taliban this, and Saddam that all you want. The fact remains that Republicans (and Democrats) actively supported (and still do support) action which they knew would (and has) lead to the deaths of many, many babies. That would contradict fully with the supposed Republican stance against abortion, especially if the stance is based around killing being immoral.
As I just proved, any Republican who supported either of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actively supported in actions they knew would kill babies. Thus they support abortion. I'm sorry if you don't like that ugly fact, as a supporter of such wars yourself. By supporting those wars you support abortion just as much as any Democrat does.
I wasn't suggesting that the British system is any better than the American system. It often isn't. You seem to think of this as a game worth bragging about. A "my unchosen political system isn't as shitty as yours!" deal. It's obviously not a game like that. It's about realizing how you are being manipulated by the system that is already in place.
Sure, let's look at these topics, and how little the Democrats and Republicans really differ.
Abortion: Remember, Republicans were the main force behind the War in Iraq (let alone the war in Afghanistan). Do you know what has happened during that war? The killing of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent Iraqis, including pregnant women, babies, and children. Of course, most Democrats are pro-abortion, and supported the various recent wars.
Foreign policy: It basically comes down to the Democrats supporting whatever the Republicans do. If the Republicans want war in the Middle East, then the Democrats are right behind them in support of it. Of course, they don't seem to realize either how much they're both contributing to a very negative image of the US in the rest of the world.
Civil liberties: Both are more than eager to forbid privacy and civil rights in favour of "security". Of course, neither have the balls to truly protect freedom and liberty in America from legislation and people willing to curtail such ideals.
As an exercise for you, go though the other issues you listed and observe the very similar, if not exactly the same, policies displayed by both the Democrats and the Republicans.
Don't blame me for anything America has done lately; it was all done by Democrats and Republicans! And why don't I vote in America? Because I'm British. The best I can do is wake up fools like yourself who have fallen victim to a very manipulative system.
I always browse here at -1. I like to consider everyone's opinion, even those who wish to talk about the Penisbird, link to Goatse, write Slashdot editor erotica, and post random gibberish. Even the most moronic postings found here far exceed the childish fecal matter you'll find at the GameFAQs.com forums.
And before anyone becomes mistaken, no, I'm not the CyricZ who reportedly posts there. We are different people. I am Cyric Zndovzny. He is Scott somebody, if I'm not mistaken.
It has always worked fine for me using Opera and Konqueror. The only times I have run into problems is when I've been using Firefox, both 1.0.x and 1.5. I haven't tried Seamonkey, but I suspect that it may not work either, if recent versions of Firefox fail to work.
The first problem may be that a capital punishment system never works correctly. It is often inherently flawed, in that it forces certain people in society to carry out murder, an activity that is often deemed worthy of execution in societies with capital punishment.
The second problem may be when it comes to the definition of what an error is. A subjective "error" to one person is a subjective "non-error" to another. Take Republicans and the War in Iraq, for instance. Some think that it is not an error to bomb innocent Iraqi women and children, while others realize it is an error to do so.
While detecting the "errors" is important, a more important ability may be to see what others have deemed to be errors. When such an ability is present, one can get a greater sense of what may be in err, and who thinks it is an error. Knowing such information can help one filter through all of the information that has been presented so far.
We're clearly talking about different kinds of errors. In the case of Wikipedia, any errors are easily remedied. As of now, it is not possible to bring to life somebody who was wrongly executed. Wikipedia errors can be reversed; execution errors cannot.
Slashdot Mirror
Does using XML in such a fashion really save time? Does it truly make a programmer more productive? I truly doubt that it does.
// JavaScript here
Typing out
<method name="setCoords" arg="x" arg="y">
</method>
when you want to write a method is surely the wrong way to go about writing code. Not only is it difficult to read, but it takes far too much typing. Basically any other OO language makes creating a method short and simple, as it's such a fundamental and oft-performed task.
What starts out as 30 or 40 unnecessary characters for one method quickly balloons up to 300000 or 400000 extra characters when you start building serious applications consisting of millions of lines of code. It takes time to type half a million unneeded characters. When time is valuable, such waste isn't acceptable.
So you end up not gaining any productivity improvement when it comes to initially developing the app. It may even take longer to develop, due to the extraneous typing that is necessary, and the code being far more difficult to read quickly. Then it's a hassle to maintain, assuming maintenance is even possible.
Sorry, languages with an XML syntax just don't cut it for real-world applications.
Taking a quick glance at the source snippets, that OpenLaszlo system looks like a major pain in the ass to use. Its misuse of XML is quite disturbing. Code like that just isn't maintainable, and for serious applications a lack of maintainability is completely unacceptable.
One doesn't want to judge a language or application framework purely by its syntax, but when one sees something like that, one just knows that it's a bad idea.
We keep hearing about how great these "rich" web-based applications are. At one point it was in the form of Java applets, then ActiveX controls, then Flash, and now this. Yet the fact remains that such technologies never prove useful beyond demos and very simple applications.
If you really want to make available crossplatform solutions, using C++ and a toolkit like wxWidgets or Qt is still often the best way to go. Of course, that doesn't rule out Python and wxPython, but then you need to ensure that at least a Python interpreter is available on your client's system.
So while many developers waste their time with these buzzword technologies, those of us developing real applications that are actually used for productive purposes will stick to using C++ and the various crossplatform toolkits.
Perhaps the developers of Opera should listen to those who have a problem with Opera's interface. Perhaps it's such a popular "myth" because it actually is a serious issue hindering the adoption of Opera.
Like it or not, Opera does appear bloated compared to a browser like Konqueror. But that's likely because Opera includes extra, non-browser functionality (ie. an email client). Many people do find Opera's interface cluttered. At least they got rid of the ads, which was a major source of clutter for many.
Konqueror doesn't run well on Windows. That's perhaps one of the reasons why it isn't as widely used as Firefox, considering that many Firefox users do run Windows.
Another reason may be that it doesn't have the media hype that Firefox has had. That leads to many people, even long-time Linux users, being ignorant of Konqueror.
Going along with the ignorance issue, it must also be considered that many of the popular Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora) and Solaris include GNOME, rather than KDE, by default. Thus people may get Galeon or Firefox installed as their default browser, rather than Konqueror. Then it becomes an issue similar to that between Firefox and IE on Windows; it can be difficult to convince an IE user to switch to Firefox, especially if they're unaware of the technical benefits of Firefox over IE.
As for the innovations of Konqueror, Opera, Amaya, OmniWeb and other browsers being mistakenly attributed to Firefox, that is likely also due to ignorance. People see tabs in Firefox for the first time, and wrongly assume that it was the first browser to include them. Meanwhile, other browsers have offered such features for years.
I wouldn't fault Microsoft for borrowing technology that works. I mean, why shouldn't they borrow better ideas from others? It can benefit everyone if they do that.
If anything, I'd be all for Microsoft borrowing directly from open source projects. Open source software is often of a higher quality. A higher-quality release of Windows may help us all out. Those who use it directly will benefit from a far more productive experience. And those of us who run servers and networks might not have our bandwidth wasted as much by software that has exploited millions upon millions of PCs running Windows.
Arguments about Microsoft borrowing from others is a petty exercise of idealogues. Those of us who have real-world concerns realize that increased productivity is far more important than whether borrowing the best technology from others is ethical.
It really has little impact on me what Firefox may have done to Microsoft's monopoly of Windows web browsers. I use OpenBSD. I use Konqueror. I don't visit websites that rely on Microsoft-specific extensions.
As far as I'm concerned, Internet Explorer doesn't exist. And thus whatever Firefox does to Internet Explorer's marketshare has little effect on me. More importantly, though, it doesn't stop the Konqueror developers from providing excellent software. And that's what matters: putting out a superior product.
I know you're joking, but keep in mind that many of the innovative developments which are credited to Firefox actually appeared first in other browsers, such as Opera, Konqueror, and Amaya. Tabs, ad blocking, mouse gestures, and so forth.
Actually, fucking your not-so-distant cousin can have some very serious implications. If you manage to get her pregnant, then the baby will likely be born with various disorders and possible mental deficiencies. And if your not-so-distant cousin is a man, then he may spread a number of venereal diseases to your genitals.
I used to work with a fellow named Mike. He suffered from severe carpal tunnel syndrome, perhaps caused by the decades of typing he had done while programming. He would always drink massive amounts of water and juice while working, saying that it helped his wrists. We'd make fun of him because he had to piss every half hour, but perhaps he was on to something.
The best thing they could do would be to fund KDE development. KDE is seen by many as the premiere Linux desktop, due to its highly integrated nature. While GNOME may be preferred by certain developers and hackers, KDE provides the unified environment needed for widespread use on the desktops and laptops of average users.
The KOffice suite, for instance, could use some work. It's a good effort so far, but even two or three more full-time developers could really make it a top-notch office suite. Konqueror is already a very mature browser, often preferred to Firefox. With Apple already contributing somewhat to Konqueror, extra resources and funding from Google could quickly turn it into the most widely used browser on Linux.
Then when you consider that a port of Konqueror to Windows may be made easier with the advent of KDE 4, we see that we have a true challenger to Internet Explorer. One of the main gripes of many Firefox and Seamonkey users is that such products are far too bloated, which is partly due to their architecture. Konqueror, on the other hand, dispenses with a lot of the over-design apparent in the Mozilla software, while still offering the same (if not better) feature set.
Google's funding of KDE could truly turn Linux, and even the *BSDs, into platforms capable of competing with Mac OS X and Windows on the desktops and laptops of typical users.
The Tragedy of the Commons has nothing to do with what you're talking about, and vice versa.
The Tragedy of the Commons has to do with the inefficient allocation of common resources. We're talking about people not having any incentive to limit their consumption of fish from a lake, for instance. Not only do they not have any incentive to limit the number of fish that they catch, but they may actually be better off if they catch more fish before everyone else does.
Your talk about there always being "trolls" has nothing to do with a purely economic situation.
I have explained it to you several times over. I take it you are not illiterate, so feel free to go back and re-read my replies to you. Half of the effort is me is proving you are wrong. The other half of the effort is you reading and understanding how you are wrong.
As shown before, they already have the same stance on abortion, which is a biggie that Republicans tend to get hung up on. Their fiscal policies are nearly identical. Their foreign policy is quite the same, but that may just be because the Democrats don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans, but it is more likely that they agree with the Republican foreign policy.
The similarity is self-evident to anyone who is capable of looking at the system with a relatively unbiased view. Read our previous discussion to see how I have proven you to be incorrect. And remember, just because you don't want to read the truth, it doesn't mean that you're any less wrong.
My word, hkmwbz! You actually posted something that made sense for a change! Jolly good show, chap!
And in the end the fact remains that there are no editor conspiracies against you. If anything, the one conspiracy that appears to be present actually involves Republicans defacing Wikipedia. Funny thing, that is! For all their talk about there not being a "vast right-wing conspiracy", it seems as though there actually is one!
Hisham Mardam Bey, the reviewer, may not be a native speaker of English. While that doesn't excuse such obvious errors by any means, it may help explain why they are present. But don't let errors like that prevent you from reading what he has to say about this book. If in the end you disagree, that is fine. But to not read the review at all is a mistake.
It could very well just be an attempt to squeeze more sales out of an existing .NET book by including a small amount of Mono-specific information.
.NET to Mono, many might just stick with targetting .NET. Others might say to hell with both, and use Java instead.
.NET material, and 5% Mono-specific. It'd be far better to get a book that is 100% Mono-specific, with perhaps a page or two introduction to .NET (and recommendations on books covering only .NET).
Then again, such extensions may not be overly practical. Developers writing software for the general public will often want their applications to also run on Windows, and hence they will ignore the Mono-specific capabilities.
But also, if it takes much effort to move programs from
Indeed, I would not purchase this book if it is 95% generic
I'd hardly consider Fedora representative of the typical Linux distribution. Many people have reported relatively severe performance problems with it, and it often includes non-standard releases of various software. That's not new for Red Hat, however. They were the ones who included the unofficial and unsanctioned 2.96 branch of GCC with earlier products, which ended up causing massive problems for a lot of people.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Fedora installation you were using wasn't actually using a native binary. They may very well have been using the bytecode interpreter included with GCC. That would explain why it ran so slow for you, even slower than with Sun's JRE.
If Fedora did the correct thing and included a native build of Eclipse, you likely would have found it to run much faster, and with better memory usage. That is indeed what I found when I used a more mature distribution (such as Ubuntu or SuSE).
There are many open source Java implementations available, even if they're not derived from Sun's.
There are SableVM, JamVM, GCJ, and many others. Along with GNU Classpath and Jikes, you've got a rather complete J2SE implementation available to you. GCJ can compile to native code on certain platforms. Even with all the talk about JIT compiled code potentially being faster than native binaries (due to runtime optimizations and so forth), many people have found that code compiled with GCJ is far faster than when executed under a Java VM.
The only one who considers the truth to be "bullshit" is he who is a cockfool.
Like it or not, Democrats are the same as Republicans. I commend your attempts to prove me wrong, but alas, I am resorting to the truth and to fact fact. And when one relies on the truth and fact, one always wins a debate. Thus I am victorious!
You're told that the wars are about providing you with "security". Of course, anyone with half a brain realizes the recent wars have little to do with that. Taliban this, and Saddam that all you want. The fact remains that Republicans (and Democrats) actively supported (and still do support) action which they knew would (and has) lead to the deaths of many, many babies. That would contradict fully with the supposed Republican stance against abortion, especially if the stance is based around killing being immoral.
As I just proved, any Republican who supported either of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actively supported in actions they knew would kill babies. Thus they support abortion. I'm sorry if you don't like that ugly fact, as a supporter of such wars yourself. By supporting those wars you support abortion just as much as any Democrat does.
I wasn't suggesting that the British system is any better than the American system. It often isn't. You seem to think of this as a game worth bragging about. A "my unchosen political system isn't as shitty as yours!" deal. It's obviously not a game like that. It's about realizing how you are being manipulated by the system that is already in place.
Sure, let's look at these topics, and how little the Democrats and Republicans really differ.
Abortion: Remember, Republicans were the main force behind the War in Iraq (let alone the war in Afghanistan). Do you know what has happened during that war? The killing of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent Iraqis, including pregnant women, babies, and children. Of course, most Democrats are pro-abortion, and supported the various recent wars.
Foreign policy: It basically comes down to the Democrats supporting whatever the Republicans do. If the Republicans want war in the Middle East, then the Democrats are right behind them in support of it. Of course, they don't seem to realize either how much they're both contributing to a very negative image of the US in the rest of the world.
Civil liberties: Both are more than eager to forbid privacy and civil rights in favour of "security". Of course, neither have the balls to truly protect freedom and liberty in America from legislation and people willing to curtail such ideals.
As an exercise for you, go though the other issues you listed and observe the very similar, if not exactly the same, policies displayed by both the Democrats and the Republicans.
Don't blame me for anything America has done lately; it was all done by Democrats and Republicans! And why don't I vote in America? Because I'm British. The best I can do is wake up fools like yourself who have fallen victim to a very manipulative system.
I always browse here at -1. I like to consider everyone's opinion, even those who wish to talk about the Penisbird, link to Goatse, write Slashdot editor erotica, and post random gibberish. Even the most moronic postings found here far exceed the childish fecal matter you'll find at the GameFAQs.com forums.
And before anyone becomes mistaken, no, I'm not the CyricZ who reportedly posts there. We are different people. I am Cyric Zndovzny. He is Scott somebody, if I'm not mistaken.
It has always worked fine for me using Opera and Konqueror. The only times I have run into problems is when I've been using Firefox, both 1.0.x and 1.5. I haven't tried Seamonkey, but I suspect that it may not work either, if recent versions of Firefox fail to work.
The first problem may be that a capital punishment system never works correctly. It is often inherently flawed, in that it forces certain people in society to carry out murder, an activity that is often deemed worthy of execution in societies with capital punishment.
The second problem may be when it comes to the definition of what an error is. A subjective "error" to one person is a subjective "non-error" to another. Take Republicans and the War in Iraq, for instance. Some think that it is not an error to bomb innocent Iraqi women and children, while others realize it is an error to do so.
While detecting the "errors" is important, a more important ability may be to see what others have deemed to be errors. When such an ability is present, one can get a greater sense of what may be in err, and who thinks it is an error. Knowing such information can help one filter through all of the information that has been presented so far.
We're clearly talking about different kinds of errors. In the case of Wikipedia, any errors are easily remedied. As of now, it is not possible to bring to life somebody who was wrongly executed. Wikipedia errors can be reversed; execution errors cannot.