What, you think it's impossible for "them" to put cameras up near pay phones? In other words, if someone wants to monitor you, it's already a done deal. Don't kid yourself into thinking that someone cannot find out who used a payphone to make a certain call. With enough resources (and I'd bet AT&T and the NSA have it) you cannot be anonymous. Do you really think those payphones at airports aren't monitored closely?
I dunno, I think getting rid of payphones isn't so bad. If there's a market for them, someone else can provide the service. I really think the market is drying up. Why should any company go to an expense to meet the demands of something there is little to no market for? Doesn't make any sense.
It is a birthright of web developers to kvetch about IE. IE is horrid. But ultimately, it's a distraction. At some point, you just have to work around it and deal with it like an adult. Complaining about IE doesn't get projects done, and it's best left for when you are having a beer after working on the project.
"I am so informed it would blow your mind" Ok, that's a very authoritative statement. Are you involved with browser development? Do you contribute to w3c standards? Run a site like alistapart.com? Not trying to be insulting, just curious as to who I am talking to.
"your selectors have to assume that each browser has a different baseline" why though? So some pages look slightly different in different browsers. html provides a fluid layout. You shouldn't have to care about slight differences in fonts, margins, etc. You are correct in that browsers all have their own default formatting and it is not "nothing", it's almost as though they have a default stylesheet. But what harm does that cause? I have been doing web dev for a long time and have never had a problem with that. Not saying that it's impossible to have an issue with that, but I am just curious why you see that as a problem.
I know you were trying to be funny. And you have a point. The guys works for yahoo, after all.
But! He also invented JSON. JSON is *extremely* useful and is sufficiently brilliant enough to at least merit giving his proposal some thought.
Many of the things he mentioned are possible, if you're willing to write your own DTD. Since nobody is, and that would defeat the purpose of having a standards anyway, might as well recognize that HTML is being used for real applications and redesign it accordingly? It's a good thought, even if the reality is that it'll NEVER get adopted.
If you were a web developer you'd hate IE (unless you were one of those crappy intranet developers who hide behind artificial standards, like corporate software standards.)
Web developers rip IE because IE makes life difficult for web developers. IE inhibits the progress of the web, because it effectively hamstrings standards adoption. Instead of spending time making their browser do things like properly support alpha blended pngs, SVG, and CSS, Microsoft spent five years jacking around with tabs and worthless anti-phishing features that will DO NOTHING to help people avoid being phished. Why? Because it markets well. They care about marketing and do not seem to care about technology or the web. The ONE thing MSFT/IE has contributed to the web (admittedly, that I can think of) in the last ten years has been the XMLHTTPRequest activeX object. That is significant and we should give credit where it's due. Even if it was born as an activeX object *gags*.
"Sure, IE development may make extra work for you -- but then again, you're being paid for that work." IE is hated by web developers for a reason. Not all web developers are anti MSFT raving lunatics. Some of us just hate having to code to standards, and then having to go back and make it work for IE. That's wasted effort. Even if you're getting paid for a job, you should still give your employer the most bang for the buck. But so much time is wasted on IE's brain damage when you could be making a better UI, adding extra features, making AJAX / Javascript degrade gracefully, writing for other platforms (pdas, etc). But then again, as you said, you're not a web developer. That pretty much disables your ability to comment on the subject with any intelligence.
"setting font attributes are done independently for things like table elements, labels, headers than from paras or spans" There is a way to set all of these in one statement. Set the body font and let everything else inherit it. Set the body to something like 0.8em, and change only elements you may need to (which should be thing like the h elements and a few others).
"there is no explicit way to get the browser to start from a default "unstyled" state" Huh? Sure there is. Don't have any CSS. That's the browser's default.
Maybe I am missing your point. Honestly, what you said comes off sounding pretty uninformed. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and think maybe you didn't mean that the way I read it.;)
I used to feel that way. Then I started using Foxit PDF reader.
The problem isn't with PDF in itself. PDF is perceived as a problem for two reasons:
1) Adobe Acrobat. Get rid of it, for goodness sake. Use something else. PDF isn't slow, Adobe's crappy reader is slow. 2) Web developers cannot resist putting TPPs on websites. What's a TPP, you ask? A Totally Pointless PDF. People: if you have a website, there's one way to get me to NEVER read your content. How? By putting it in PDF. The ONE exception is this: if you have a book or reference manual, then that is an appropriate use of PDF. But tell me that I am downloading a PDF. Don't disguise your PDF as another web page by just putting it behind a normal link. When I click a link, unless I am warned that it's a PDF, I expect an HTML page. PDF just interrupts the flow of the web. Don't believe me? The just google usability and PDF. You'll get lots of stuff like this: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030714.html.
PDF is like other overused "web" technologies like flash: useful when used properly, and annoying as hell when overused.
I already use Foxit. It installs in the time it takes Adobe to load. If the ads are coming from Adobe's servers, then in theory the ads are in the reader. So get a different reader.
Adobe gives PDF a bad name, and that's saying something. Adobe, what do we hate about thee?
The invasive updater software. The amount of crap it puts on your Add/Remove Programs list in Windows (like every update). The other programs it nags you about installing whenever you update it (which is *way* too often if you let it check for updates). The time it takes to load all the language options EVERYTIME it starts, as if an English speaker cares about the myriad of Asian fonts; hey Adobe, did you know that my OS knows which language I speak? The fact that it seems to forget my settings every time it updates. And so on.
I'll say it again, Adobe sucks. Why does ANYONE even use it, regardless of ads? Same reason they use windows, I guess...it's sort of a default. Poor people. I hope they enjoy their ads and their sucky PDf reader.
"If you bother reading through the actual bill text, you will see it is creating yet another secretive bogeyman-protection government agency, this time focusing on the 'homegrown terrorists.'"
That quote, and the following logical conclusions are dead on. But the article summary reads states that the US Govt is going to combat the internet. Laughable, futile, and scary all at once. Also wrong.
What this is, in fact, is more of the same. More Red Scare tactics against the New Millennium Commies, the "turrorists" (man, NMC sounds like a good band name!). More legislation that gives unspecified powers to some shadowy government entity. Surprise, surprise.
Studying 20th century history has left me with a sense that _the_ most harmful effect of communism is the extent that "free" nations will go to in order to combat the perceived red menace. The reaction is almost always as bad if not worse than the original problem. We are in a similar time period.
No, you're right. I think this gets voted as "Worst Slashdot Story Ever" or at the very least "Worst Summary Ever" or maybe even "Most Successful Troll Ever".
I am not into the usual Zonk bashing, because I don't think he's a bad editor. This one was from Taco himself. What gives here?
Not even ONE "I for one, welcome..." joke. When I read the story on cnn.com, I came over here assuming I'd see like 20 of those jokes. But not even one? C'mon, this story was tailor made for the meme!
Well...I, for one, welcome our new non meme-using slashdot readers.
Gene Simmons is not a musician. He may play an instrument, but he is no musician. Hopefully you understand the distinction. Prince is actually a very good musician and a damn good guitar player. You may not like his music due to your prejudices, but you cannot discount him as a musician.
Another contrast: Gene Simmons is a tool who just wants to make money. He has no morals or principles, he is just a self-absorbed jerk who wants to fill his pockets. Gene Simmons is the essence of a sellout -- one who uses every possible means to make money, integrity be damned. Practicality over idealism every time. Prince actually speaks out against the record industry and their draconian practices. I attended one of his shows and was given his latest CD. So was everyone else who attended. Prince embodies what people here talk about: using CDs to advertise his shows.
You can always tell a good musician by how he plays live, not how he plays on record. Why else do you think all the posers are so pro-RIAA? Because if they had to make a living performing they wouldn't be able to cut it. Real musicians, ones who can play their instruments, write songs, and express themselves, sound GREAT in concert and the CD is just a substitute for the live performance. Posers are the ones where after you have the misfortune of attending one of their shows, you feel ripped off. Real musicians stay relevant for decades, and posers fade out after a few years. If it weren't for his outspoken idiocy, Simmons and the horse he rode in on (KISS) would have faded away a LONG time ago. Even if people still know who Gene Simmons is, who gives a CRAP about the music? Even if you like the 70's thing, there are WAY better bands from the era who were doing things that were actually groundbreaking. KISS appealed to kids because it made their parents and teachers gasp. KISS is the musical equivalent of pro wrestling; a caricature of itself, just a bunch of kitsch.
Good, think for yourself. That quote's just one guy's opinion. Winston Churchill, a great leader and all yes, but still...just some guy. Why do people toss about witty quotes from some old politician as though they were universal truths? Half the time (especially 20th century and beyond), the quotes were probably written by some unnamed speechwriter trying to market an idea to the masses. In that sense many famous quotations are just glorified jingles. Sure, many of them contain wisdom. But that doesn't make a memorable quote an absolute truth.
They didn't fix that for the same reason they didn't completely fix piss poor standards support in IE7 and instead spent five years (or however long it took to get IE7 out the door) focused on making the "groundbreaking" tabs and worthless anti-phishing filter. That, and screwing with the placement of important stuff on the toolbar and menu.
MSFT focuses on stuff that is whizzbang and makes for good press releases instead of just making the damn thing work properly. Typical, and not surprising. Really, does anyone care about playlists? Well, maybe the people who have already bought the Zune, but these folks have already been parted with their money. Why should MSFT care about them?
I am on the DNC list. I get no calls, with one exception: the companies that are allowed to call me; companies I have done business with. I have a Discover card and they call me about once a month to try to sell me something else. That's pretty annoying, but still...I used to get calls all the stinking time, especially after I bought a house. The DNC list has worked well for me. So, while the scenario you describe could very well happen, it hasn't affected me.
"Well, I am the only one with the name I have,. there are 23 people with the same last name as I have in the whole world, how would you feel in that situation?"
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?! Your name is my name too!
'P.S.: Remember that "Do Not Call" list? That one shares your phone number with all telemarketers, so they'll know who not to call. It expires next year, and they've got your number.'
Any references? It was supposed to expire in the sense that people would have to re-register. I have never read that it is going to expire and become a "call-us-now-since-you-haven't-talked-to-us-in-five-years" list. But even the expiration that would require you to re-register is on thin ice. See here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/dnctestimony.shtm
"Strength tends to correlate to being in shape in general. So confusing strength with health is not entirely unreasonable."
Yes. That's why I said this: 'I was refuting the notion that as long as someone is skinny, or strong, or displaying some other "desirable" characteristic related to one's health that person is healthy. Often these characteristics are a result of good health, but it is also very possible for someone to be a normal weight and have cardiovascular issues.'
I agree with everything you said. I was merely replying to this statement by GP "It is like the overweight guy who is stronger then a regular guy."
People confuse other things, in this case strength, with good health. I was refuting the notion that as long as someone is skinny, or strong, or displaying some other "desirable" characteristic related to one's health that person is healthy. Often these characteristics are a result of good health, but it is also very possible for someone to be a normal weight and have cardiovascular issues. In fact, I think we're even saying the same thing. Overweight does not always mean unhealthy. Skinny (or strong as GP mentions) does not always mean healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you think it's impossible for "them" to put cameras up near pay phones? In other words, if someone wants to monitor you, it's already a done deal. Don't kid yourself into thinking that someone cannot find out who used a payphone to make a certain call. With enough resources (and I'd bet AT&T and the NSA have it) you cannot be anonymous. Do you really think those payphones at airports aren't monitored closely?
I dunno, I think getting rid of payphones isn't so bad. If there's a market for them, someone else can provide the service. I really think the market is drying up. Why should any company go to an expense to meet the demands of something there is little to no market for? Doesn't make any sense.
Hey, maybe Kasparov and Putin will patch things up after all!
I absolutely agree. Hence my use of "" around web; I meant that sarcastically.
It is most certainly not a web technology. Yet far too many people think PDF and html are interchangeable.
No worries, and you make a fair point.
It is a birthright of web developers to kvetch about IE. IE is horrid. But ultimately, it's a distraction. At some point, you just have to work around it and deal with it like an adult. Complaining about IE doesn't get projects done, and it's best left for when you are having a beer after working on the project.
Point taken.
Nice, you got me :)
Thanks for the reply and the clarification.
"I am so informed it would blow your mind"
Ok, that's a very authoritative statement. Are you involved with browser development? Do you contribute to w3c standards? Run a site like alistapart.com? Not trying to be insulting, just curious as to who I am talking to.
"your selectors have to assume that each browser has a different baseline"
why though? So some pages look slightly different in different browsers. html provides a fluid layout. You shouldn't have to care about slight differences in fonts, margins, etc. You are correct in that browsers all have their own default formatting and it is not "nothing", it's almost as though they have a default stylesheet. But what harm does that cause? I have been doing web dev for a long time and have never had a problem with that. Not saying that it's impossible to have an issue with that, but I am just curious why you see that as a problem.
I know you were trying to be funny. And you have a point. The guys works for yahoo, after all.
But! He also invented JSON. JSON is *extremely* useful and is sufficiently brilliant enough to at least merit giving his proposal some thought.
Many of the things he mentioned are possible, if you're willing to write your own DTD. Since nobody is, and that would defeat the purpose of having a standards anyway, might as well recognize that HTML is being used for real applications and redesign it accordingly? It's a good thought, even if the reality is that it'll NEVER get adopted.
"Admittedly, I'm not a web developer"
With all due respect, I think that says it all.
If you were a web developer you'd hate IE (unless you were one of those crappy intranet developers who hide behind artificial standards, like corporate software standards.)
Web developers rip IE because IE makes life difficult for web developers. IE inhibits the progress of the web, because it effectively hamstrings standards adoption. Instead of spending time making their browser do things like properly support alpha blended pngs, SVG, and CSS, Microsoft spent five years jacking around with tabs and worthless anti-phishing features that will DO NOTHING to help people avoid being phished. Why? Because it markets well. They care about marketing and do not seem to care about technology or the web. The ONE thing MSFT/IE has contributed to the web (admittedly, that I can think of) in the last ten years has been the XMLHTTPRequest activeX object. That is significant and we should give credit where it's due. Even if it was born as an activeX object *gags*.
"Sure, IE development may make extra work for you -- but then again, you're being paid for that work."
IE is hated by web developers for a reason. Not all web developers are anti MSFT raving lunatics. Some of us just hate having to code to standards, and then having to go back and make it work for IE. That's wasted effort. Even if you're getting paid for a job, you should still give your employer the most bang for the buck. But so much time is wasted on IE's brain damage when you could be making a better UI, adding extra features, making AJAX / Javascript degrade gracefully, writing for other platforms (pdas, etc). But then again, as you said, you're not a web developer. That pretty much disables your ability to comment on the subject with any intelligence.
"setting font attributes are done independently for things like table elements, labels, headers than from paras or spans"
;)
There is a way to set all of these in one statement. Set the body font and let everything else inherit it. Set the body to something like 0.8em, and change only elements you may need to (which should be thing like the h elements and a few others).
"there is no explicit way to get the browser to start from a default "unstyled" state"
Huh? Sure there is. Don't have any CSS. That's the browser's default.
Maybe I am missing your point. Honestly, what you said comes off sounding pretty uninformed. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and think maybe you didn't mean that the way I read it.
I used to feel that way. Then I started using Foxit PDF reader.
The problem isn't with PDF in itself. PDF is perceived as a problem for two reasons:
1) Adobe Acrobat. Get rid of it, for goodness sake. Use something else. PDF isn't slow, Adobe's crappy reader is slow.
2) Web developers cannot resist putting TPPs on websites. What's a TPP, you ask? A Totally Pointless PDF. People: if you have a website, there's one way to get me to NEVER read your content. How? By putting it in PDF. The ONE exception is this: if you have a book or reference manual, then that is an appropriate use of PDF. But tell me that I am downloading a PDF. Don't disguise your PDF as another web page by just putting it behind a normal link. When I click a link, unless I am warned that it's a PDF, I expect an HTML page. PDF just interrupts the flow of the web. Don't believe me? The just google usability and PDF. You'll get lots of stuff like this: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030714.html.
PDF is like other overused "web" technologies like flash: useful when used properly, and annoying as hell when overused.
Spot on.
I already use Foxit. It installs in the time it takes Adobe to load. If the ads are coming from Adobe's servers, then in theory the ads are in the reader. So get a different reader.
Adobe gives PDF a bad name, and that's saying something. Adobe, what do we hate about thee?
The invasive updater software. The amount of crap it puts on your Add/Remove Programs list in Windows (like every update). The other programs it nags you about installing whenever you update it (which is *way* too often if you let it check for updates). The time it takes to load all the language options EVERYTIME it starts, as if an English speaker cares about the myriad of Asian fonts; hey Adobe, did you know that my OS knows which language I speak? The fact that it seems to forget my settings every time it updates. And so on.
I'll say it again, Adobe sucks. Why does ANYONE even use it, regardless of ads? Same reason they use windows, I guess...it's sort of a default. Poor people. I hope they enjoy their ads and their sucky PDf reader.
"If you bother reading through the actual bill text, you will see it is creating yet another secretive bogeyman-protection government agency, this time focusing on the 'homegrown terrorists.'"
That quote, and the following logical conclusions are dead on. But the article summary reads states that the US Govt is going to combat the internet. Laughable, futile, and scary all at once. Also wrong.
What this is, in fact, is more of the same. More Red Scare tactics against the New Millennium Commies, the "turrorists" (man, NMC sounds like a good band name!). More legislation that gives unspecified powers to some shadowy government entity. Surprise, surprise.
Studying 20th century history has left me with a sense that _the_ most harmful effect of communism is the extent that "free" nations will go to in order to combat the perceived red menace. The reaction is almost always as bad if not worse than the original problem. We are in a similar time period.
No, you're right. I think this gets voted as "Worst Slashdot Story Ever" or at the very least "Worst Summary Ever" or maybe even "Most Successful Troll Ever".
I am not into the usual Zonk bashing, because I don't think he's a bad editor. This one was from Taco himself. What gives here?
I think you are talking about risk compensation.
I don't see how that applies here. Radiation, in relatively small doses, may not cause death. But radiation sickness is some pretty nasty stuff.
He's right. It happened to my father when he was a boy.
I am SO telling the truth.
What?!
Duh! eMusic is totally a no brainer.
Their dozens have introduced me to loads of new groups. I have discovered some of my favorite bands there.
I do hate that they have lost several labels lately, though. Ryko and Hellcat come to mind immediately.
Still a very good place to discover new music.
Not even ONE "I for one, welcome..." joke. When I read the story on cnn.com, I came over here assuming I'd see like 20 of those jokes. But not even one? C'mon, this story was tailor made for the meme!
Well...I, for one, welcome our new non meme-using slashdot readers.
What?!
Gene Simmons is not a musician. He may play an instrument, but he is no musician. Hopefully you understand the distinction. Prince is actually a very good musician and a damn good guitar player. You may not like his music due to your prejudices, but you cannot discount him as a musician.
Another contrast: Gene Simmons is a tool who just wants to make money. He has no morals or principles, he is just a self-absorbed jerk who wants to fill his pockets. Gene Simmons is the essence of a sellout -- one who uses every possible means to make money, integrity be damned. Practicality over idealism every time. Prince actually speaks out against the record industry and their draconian practices. I attended one of his shows and was given his latest CD. So was everyone else who attended. Prince embodies what people here talk about: using CDs to advertise his shows.
You can always tell a good musician by how he plays live, not how he plays on record. Why else do you think all the posers are so pro-RIAA? Because if they had to make a living performing they wouldn't be able to cut it. Real musicians, ones who can play their instruments, write songs, and express themselves, sound GREAT in concert and the CD is just a substitute for the live performance. Posers are the ones where after you have the misfortune of attending one of their shows, you feel ripped off. Real musicians stay relevant for decades, and posers fade out after a few years. If it weren't for his outspoken idiocy, Simmons and the horse he rode in on (KISS) would have faded away a LONG time ago. Even if people still know who Gene Simmons is, who gives a CRAP about the music? Even if you like the 70's thing, there are WAY better bands from the era who were doing things that were actually groundbreaking. KISS appealed to kids because it made their parents and teachers gasp. KISS is the musical equivalent of pro wrestling; a caricature of itself, just a bunch of kitsch.
Good, think for yourself. That quote's just one guy's opinion. Winston Churchill, a great leader and all yes, but still...just some guy. Why do people toss about witty quotes from some old politician as though they were universal truths? Half the time (especially 20th century and beyond), the quotes were probably written by some unnamed speechwriter trying to market an idea to the masses. In that sense many famous quotations are just glorified jingles. Sure, many of them contain wisdom. But that doesn't make a memorable quote an absolute truth.
They didn't fix that for the same reason they didn't completely fix piss poor standards support in IE7 and instead spent five years (or however long it took to get IE7 out the door) focused on making the "groundbreaking" tabs and worthless anti-phishing filter. That, and screwing with the placement of important stuff on the toolbar and menu.
MSFT focuses on stuff that is whizzbang and makes for good press releases instead of just making the damn thing work properly. Typical, and not surprising. Really, does anyone care about playlists? Well, maybe the people who have already bought the Zune, but these folks have already been parted with their money. Why should MSFT care about them?
I'll trade you an anecdote for an anecdote.
I am on the DNC list. I get no calls, with one exception: the companies that are allowed to call me; companies I have done business with. I have a Discover card and they call me about once a month to try to sell me something else. That's pretty annoying, but still...I used to get calls all the stinking time, especially after I bought a house. The DNC list has worked well for me. So, while the scenario you describe could very well happen, it hasn't affected me.
"Well, I am the only one with the name I have,. there are 23 people with the same last name as I have in the whole world, how would you feel in that situation?"
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt?! Your name is my name too!
'P.S.: Remember that "Do Not Call" list? That one shares your phone number with all telemarketers, so they'll know who not to call. It expires next year, and they've got your number.'
Any references? It was supposed to expire in the sense that people would have to re-register. I have never read that it is going to expire and become a "call-us-now-since-you-haven't-talked-to-us-in-five-years" list. But even the expiration that would require you to re-register is on thin ice. See here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/dnctestimony.shtm
"Strength tends to correlate to being in shape in general.
So confusing strength with health is not entirely unreasonable."
Yes. That's why I said this:
'I was refuting the notion that as long as someone is skinny, or strong, or displaying some other "desirable" characteristic related to one's health that person is healthy. Often these characteristics are a result of good health, but it is also very possible for someone to be a normal weight and have cardiovascular issues.'
I think you misunderstood.
I agree with everything you said. I was merely replying to this statement by GP "It is like the overweight guy who is stronger then a regular guy."
People confuse other things, in this case strength, with good health. I was refuting the notion that as long as someone is skinny, or strong, or displaying some other "desirable" characteristic related to one's health that person is healthy. Often these characteristics are a result of good health, but it is also very possible for someone to be a normal weight and have cardiovascular issues. In fact, I think we're even saying the same thing. Overweight does not always mean unhealthy. Skinny (or strong as GP mentions) does not always mean healthy.