My mom died in 1964. So unless you've measured her semen consumption abilities by fucking her rotted carcass, I would have to assume that she can no longer gulp man spunk. As it would appear, American women are quite inept at cum guzzling, assuming your statistics are correct.
I'd tend to agree that it is more important that we look for new uses for this new technology from Apple, rather than dwell on why they made the switch. One benefit is in the gaming world. Games that use optimized x86 assembly could very possibly be ported to Mac OS X far easier. After all, a multimedia OS like Mac OS X would gain greatly from high-end, 3D games.
I mean, the decision has been made. They're going with Intel processors. At this point, I don't think it matters much why they chose to make their decision. Regardless of why they made the transition, we're all going to have to live with it. We'll have to port our software, and if we want new systems from them we'll just have to accept that they will have Intel processors inside them.
Perhaps there are better questions to be asking. Namely, what can we do with these new systems that we could not do before?
Perhaps a new term is necessary: caveat boner. It roughly translates to "beware of legal cockery up the ass", a problem that occurs oftentimes when intellectual property matters are at hand.
No, I'm serious. Can these women drink 15 or 16 litres of sperm in a single night?
Re:Often programmers know very little...
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You fail to grasp the concept of specialization. The only way for a firm to become truly effective is for individuals to focus on one task, and to do that one task extremely well. You know, like UNIX. A bunch of small, specialized tools (or individuals) are very powerful. They get the job done.
That is why there are developers who develop the code, GUI designers who develop the GUIs, intermediaries between the GUI designers and the coders, and analysts between all of them and the clients.
A properly functioning team will get all the information they need. You won't have to worry about programmers bumbling along with the clients, because the analysts who are talented at such tasks will be the ones performing them.
In any case, what we get down to is the fact that this technology from Microsoft will enable the specialization of a development team. The GUI designers will be able to work independently of the programmers. This in turn will lead to improved GUIs. That's what Microsoft will truly need if they wish to compete with the fantastic GUI designs of Mac OS X.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
"Vouche" is correct in British English. Perhaps not in American English. But then again, the respectful thing to do is write British English. Why? Because it's how English should be written.
Often programmers know very little...
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
... about designing a quality, usable GUI. That's most likely because, like programming, designing a good GUI takes a lot of skill, experience and effort. So this may actually be quite beneficial, as it lets everyone specialize. Programmers write the complex algorithms necessary to power these applications, while the GUI designers can manipulate and form the GUI without needing much effort on behalf of the programmers. Everyone is more efficient this way.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
But historical performance is in no way equivalent to an actual technical analysis (which most likely has not been performed in this case). Like it or not, Microsoft has started to take security very seriously. Their new products are built far better than their previous ones, most likely due to high-quality open-source implementations. Such historical considerations may not be very valid these days.
Re:Open source and alternative browser support?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
As an expert on such matters, have you considered writing an SVG versus Sparkle comparison? I think it would be quite a handy reference to have. You know, show the benefits and problems associated with each. Give examples of how to perform common tasks. You get the idea, I'm sure.
While advertisements might be an issue, I would hardly consider the use of this technology on personal pages a problem. Chances are there's very little that a technical user such as yourself (or myself) would find useful on the webpages of a developer using this technology as you describe. I never visit embedded Web games sites. So while Flash ads are annoying (and hence quickly blocked), I wouldn't say that other uses for Flash are necessarily all that intrusive. After all, truly technical users will rarely visit such sites.
Are some of them even willing to take three to four cocks up the anus concurrently?
How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 3, Funny
No offense, sir, but you seem quite convinced that this will become a major security flaw in Windows Vista.
Does your opinion have any technical merit? Have you inspected the source code to the implementation of this technology? Can you provide clear examples of malicious uses?
Or is your opinion based solely upon the past actions of Microsoft, with regards to similar technology?
You obviously failed to read the article. It was not a student who did this. It was a retired professor. I'd hardly believe that a retired professor would pull a Columbine-style stunt.
And I'm sorry that your father abused you, if that is what you were suggesting.
As a Brit, I know very little about your American party schools. Are you suggesting that this fellow would have his penis pulled on by young male students, that is, were he to be punished by the public exhibition of his genitalia?
Let them pretend they can program. Chances are what they're working on will have very little impact on the real world. They won't be designing optimizing FORTRAN compilers with this technology. So those of us who do actual programming have nothing to fear. Of course, maybe there's a smaller market for us if we choose to make shitty, embedded Web games. But then again, real developers such as ourselves shouldn't be interested in such shenaniganery.
Indeed, the lack of a unified interface under Windows will surely be confusing to non-technical users. While such a situation already exists to some degree under Mac OS X and especially X11, it hasn't really been an issue until fairly recently under Windows.
But perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing. If Windows users become used to the lack of a unified GUI look and feel, then it is quite possible that they'll be better able to adapt to Linux if they so choose to switch.
But what if support is demanded for it, in a product such as Firefox? I could see that becoming a real possibility. If Firefox wants to gain a large marketshare, then it must appeal to the masses. And, unfortunately, the masses include many people who want to watch Flash videos and play Flash games. Chances are they'll want to do the same with games and videos and such media implemented using this scheme from Microsoft. So a Firefox implementation may be necessary to continue the widespread growth and use of Firefox.
Re:What sort of security vulnerabilities..
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
No, I use Konqueror, thank you.
Re:What sort of security vulnerabilities..
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
No, I'm not sure how many Flash exploits exist. That's because I find that Flash has no practical use, and thus I never install it, and hence have never had any reason to investigate it further.
But will browsers such as Firefox even support this technology? I mean, there's no need to block it if the browser itself just plain doesn't support it.
Open source and alternative browser support?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Are there any plans to include support for this technology into Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, Safari, etc.?
What sort of security vulnerabilities..
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
.. will this expose Windows users to? Will it be as problematic as ActiveX has been, for instance?
And look what Netscape did: they gave us Mozilla. And what has Mozilla done? They've given us Firefox. And what is Firefox doing? Eating into Internet Explorer's marketshare. Remember, that's the same Internet Explorer that stole the market from Netscape.
Slashdot Mirror
My mom died in 1964. So unless you've measured her semen consumption abilities by fucking her rotted carcass, I would have to assume that she can no longer gulp man spunk. As it would appear, American women are quite inept at cum guzzling, assuming your statistics are correct.
Well, then convert litres to hogshead or whatever your American unit of volume is. Can the girls at that school gulp that much man pudding?
I'd tend to agree that it is more important that we look for new uses for this new technology from Apple, rather than dwell on why they made the switch. One benefit is in the gaming world. Games that use optimized x86 assembly could very possibly be ported to Mac OS X far easier. After all, a multimedia OS like Mac OS X would gain greatly from high-end, 3D games.
I mean, the decision has been made. They're going with Intel processors. At this point, I don't think it matters much why they chose to make their decision. Regardless of why they made the transition, we're all going to have to live with it. We'll have to port our software, and if we want new systems from them we'll just have to accept that they will have Intel processors inside them.
Perhaps there are better questions to be asking. Namely, what can we do with these new systems that we could not do before?
Perhaps a new term is necessary: caveat boner. It roughly translates to "beware of legal cockery up the ass", a problem that occurs oftentimes when intellectual property matters are at hand.
No, I'm serious. Can these women drink 15 or 16 litres of sperm in a single night?
You fail to grasp the concept of specialization. The only way for a firm to become truly effective is for individuals to focus on one task, and to do that one task extremely well. You know, like UNIX. A bunch of small, specialized tools (or individuals) are very powerful. They get the job done.
That is why there are developers who develop the code, GUI designers who develop the GUIs, intermediaries between the GUI designers and the coders, and analysts between all of them and the clients.
A properly functioning team will get all the information they need. You won't have to worry about programmers bumbling along with the clients, because the analysts who are talented at such tasks will be the ones performing them.
In any case, what we get down to is the fact that this technology from Microsoft will enable the specialization of a development team. The GUI designers will be able to work independently of the programmers. This in turn will lead to improved GUIs. That's what Microsoft will truly need if they wish to compete with the fantastic GUI designs of Mac OS X.
"Vouche" is correct in British English. Perhaps not in American English. But then again, the respectful thing to do is write British English. Why? Because it's how English should be written.
... about designing a quality, usable GUI. That's most likely because, like programming, designing a good GUI takes a lot of skill, experience and effort. So this may actually be quite beneficial, as it lets everyone specialize. Programmers write the complex algorithms necessary to power these applications, while the GUI designers can manipulate and form the GUI without needing much effort on behalf of the programmers. Everyone is more efficient this way.
But historical performance is in no way equivalent to an actual technical analysis (which most likely has not been performed in this case). Like it or not, Microsoft has started to take security very seriously. Their new products are built far better than their previous ones, most likely due to high-quality open-source implementations. Such historical considerations may not be very valid these days.
As an expert on such matters, have you considered writing an SVG versus Sparkle comparison? I think it would be quite a handy reference to have. You know, show the benefits and problems associated with each. Give examples of how to perform common tasks. You get the idea, I'm sure.
While advertisements might be an issue, I would hardly consider the use of this technology on personal pages a problem. Chances are there's very little that a technical user such as yourself (or myself) would find useful on the webpages of a developer using this technology as you describe. I never visit embedded Web games sites. So while Flash ads are annoying (and hence quickly blocked), I wouldn't say that other uses for Flash are necessarily all that intrusive. After all, truly technical users will rarely visit such sites.
Are some of them even willing to take three to four cocks up the anus concurrently?
No offense, sir, but you seem quite convinced that this will become a major security flaw in Windows Vista.
Does your opinion have any technical merit? Have you inspected the source code to the implementation of this technology? Can you provide clear examples of malicious uses?
Or is your opinion based solely upon the past actions of Microsoft, with regards to similar technology?
You obviously failed to read the article. It was not a student who did this. It was a retired professor. I'd hardly believe that a retired professor would pull a Columbine-style stunt.
And I'm sorry that your father abused you, if that is what you were suggesting.
As a Brit, I know very little about your American party schools. Are you suggesting that this fellow would have his penis pulled on by young male students, that is, were he to be punished by the public exhibition of his genitalia?
Let them pretend they can program. Chances are what they're working on will have very little impact on the real world. They won't be designing optimizing FORTRAN compilers with this technology. So those of us who do actual programming have nothing to fear. Of course, maybe there's a smaller market for us if we choose to make shitty, embedded Web games. But then again, real developers such as ourselves shouldn't be interested in such shenaniganery.
Indeed, the lack of a unified interface under Windows will surely be confusing to non-technical users. While such a situation already exists to some degree under Mac OS X and especially X11, it hasn't really been an issue until fairly recently under Windows.
But perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing. If Windows users become used to the lack of a unified GUI look and feel, then it is quite possible that they'll be better able to adapt to Linux if they so choose to switch.
But what if support is demanded for it, in a product such as Firefox? I could see that becoming a real possibility. If Firefox wants to gain a large marketshare, then it must appeal to the masses. And, unfortunately, the masses include many people who want to watch Flash videos and play Flash games. Chances are they'll want to do the same with games and videos and such media implemented using this scheme from Microsoft. So a Firefox implementation may be necessary to continue the widespread growth and use of Firefox.
No, I use Konqueror, thank you.
No, I'm not sure how many Flash exploits exist. That's because I find that Flash has no practical use, and thus I never install it, and hence have never had any reason to investigate it further.
But will browsers such as Firefox even support this technology? I mean, there's no need to block it if the browser itself just plain doesn't support it.
Are there any plans to include support for this technology into Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, Safari, etc.?
.. will this expose Windows users to? Will it be as problematic as ActiveX has been, for instance?
And look what Netscape did: they gave us Mozilla. And what has Mozilla done? They've given us Firefox. And what is Firefox doing? Eating into Internet Explorer's marketshare. Remember, that's the same Internet Explorer that stole the market from Netscape.