Gmail has always been slow, but ever since they added AJAX Google Talk into the equation I pretty much catch a good nights worth of sleep while the page loads. Obviously its more convenient than Pine because everyone has a browser and is familiar with its interface, but I'll probably switch to another kind of webmail soon because I can't take the sluggishness.
Perhaps someone oud introduce a Web 2.0 killer, that would be excellent...
Actually, Microsoft is working on this as well, it's called Avalon (aka WPF). Although it will be a few years until it hits critical mass, it should offer developers the ability to write a single interface for traditional client apps & server/web apps.
I'm not exactly sure why it would be the place of the US Government to regulate privately owned corporations this way. The article mentions the "Congressional Human Rights Caucus" but I'm not sure that uncensored internet search is a basic human right (don't get me wrong, I'm against the cencorship, but I'm also against the government meddling with the private sector).
At the very least this is definetely a change in Google policy. As noted today on Google Blogoscoped Google has removed their entry on censorship, which used to read "Google does not censor results for any search term. The order and content of our results are completely automated; we do not manipulate our search results by hand. We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in our search results...". Attempting to navigate to the page now results in a "Document Not Found". It turns out that not being evil isn't necessarily in line with the interests of a corporation, who's job is to please shareholders and not users (or the government!).
Saying that ID hinges on occurences that can't be explained by science (like bees flying) is basically just setting up a straw man, there may be some ID'ers that hold to that but its definetely not essential for some sort of Intelligent Designer to exist. A truly Intelligent Designer would probably be more apt to design a world where everything is discoverable and explainable by rational thinkers practicing good science.
"Putting a nail in the coffin" (odd expression given that I don't think ID is really "in the coffin" so to speak, it seems a bit premature) IMHO would consistute proving some of the Irreducibly Complex Systems that ID'ers have raised to be reducible. After all, Darwin himself listed Irreducibly Complex Systems as a means of proving/disproving his theory.
"...many consider Opera to not only be the best browser available, but the fastest and the one with the best page rendering engine. Opera also introduced tabbed browsing and other cool features since adopted by Firefox but not, as yet, implemented by Microsoft."
First of all, anyone who has done extensive CSS/XHTML based design knows that Opera is not the best "rendering engine". Second, this guy's whole article ignores the upcoming release of IE7, which not only has great tabbed browsing but a whole host of other features that are heads & tails above Opera (IMHO), so his whole article is osbsolete.
I don't think I've yet read an article by this Dvorak fellow that made a good point.
I agree that it's valid to criticise IE for a lull in development once they won the browser war and ousted Netscape. I also think the competition between Firefox and IE is ultimately great for the consumer, since it has sparked a new emphasis in feature development for all the major browsers. This article seems to take it to an unwarranted extreme however, as the latest IE (particularly through SP2 and the optional MSN Toolbar) developments have added a lot in terms of security, for example the new anti-phishing filter. Also, Firefox has more than its share of critical vulnerabilities listed on Secunia, including more than a few that were as big of a deal as the recent IE exploit.
This article seems to make the case that Microsoft isn't as committed to quality software as other "smaller" companies, which I don't think is the case. In fact, Microsoft has a higher ratio of Test to Dev than any of the other big software companies (and surely OSS efforts, where testing is far less secksy than writing the newest coolest feature) around, close to 1:1 for most teams, with a big emphasis on regression testing. I also think that by taking so many people off of the Longhorn effort to release XP Service Pack 2 (one of the biggest security advancements in OS ever) the company showed that it is serious about patching and security.
I'm sure there is a reason they haven't patched the recent vulnerability yet, although I wish they would get on it as much as the next guy. Its a constant decision in software, do you keep throwing skilled manpower at patching products like XP & IE6 or do you make it a priority to get Vista & IE7 out the door? If you're Microsoft its sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't decision.
Your post doesn't really make any valid points. Microsoft products ship with bugs, as do all other company products. Google's GMail, for instance, still says "beta" all over it because it's still buggy months or years after launch. The fact that software projects have deadlines and are forced ship with some bugs doesn't represent a triumph of salesmen, its just the way that creating software works in reality (and part of the challenge of being a software engineer). Also, you're dead wrong about MSR, they are extremely closely integrated into Microsoft. The team of engineers at Microsoft that I had a lot of exposure to had weekly meetings with various people from MSR about integrating new ideas into current projects.
Look at the top of the totem poll, Steve (corporate) still answers to Bill (techie) right?;)
As a programmer, obviously I think its cool that engineers & techies who work on the product are valued at the same level (or above) the corporate company structure. I just don't see how this is so different from what has been going on at other tech companies, for instance Microsoft, where people have always been able to choose between moving up the management ladder or move up the food chain as an Independant Contributor. A lot of the Distinguished Engineers and Technical Fellows at Microsoft and specifically in MSR (and I'm sure the same is true of a lot of other companies) are really just engineers with no direct reports, and they are clearly esteemed and thought of as highly as anyone in the company.
I agree its cool, I'm just not so sold that its a new idea that applies only to Google.
If video games about killing cause kids to go out and kill people, how long would it take someone to whip up an FPS where all the baddies are Jack Thompson?
Oh come on, it would take Microsoft no time at all to write Office to use OpenDocument. Hell they've probably already written it, whether or not they're planning on releasing it. More Microsoft thinks that their format is better for a specific reason, so they're keeping it and opening it up.
But, our customer advisor people speak to people, including major customers who run both Windows and Linux, and they say it's not an issue
Are customers who run Windows and Linux really the right people to be asking these kinds of questions? Shouldn't they be commenting on Microsoft (and other companies') actions instead of random customer opinion? Seems kind of random.
What typically sets Microsoft apart from other AJAX application providers is that they do not appear to be interested in the cross-browser capabilities of AJAX applications. One can speculate that Microsoft has ample motivation to use Windows and Internet Explorer-specific features that create a dependency between their AJAX apps, IE [Internet Explorer] and the Windows platform/ecosystem. This has been the case historically.
It really isn't true at all that Microsoft isn't interested in browser compatability when it comes to AJAX. The team that worked on Start.com has spent a lot of time on browser compatability, and ultimately Live.com and other Microsoft sites will support other browsers as well. It is true that in Microsoft's dream world they would like people to only use IE, but in reality that isn't the case and they aren't turning a blind eye to it.
I think the reason that Microsoft has been so slow to implement AJAX for some of their web based offerings is that they envision a better method for the UI of web based apps that is more consistent with the way desktop apps are written. Ideally, you don't want to write an app with a desktop interface, then have to port it to the web, ensure compatability with various browsers, etc. Anyone who has tried to write AJAX code realizes that its something of a hack, and ultimately I think it will be replaced by another technology (perhaps Windows Presentation Foundation if Microsoft has its way).
I'm not trying to promote one side or the other here, but if your definition of science is such that only naturalism counts as real hard science, then of course the outcome of your science will support naturalism. If, in such a system, scientists discovered a magic bullet for the existence of a supreme omnipotent jellyfish, then those scientists are no longer doing true science. The ultimate goal is that the schools teach the best science currently available, whether it supports naturalism or otherwise, so it shouldn't be taboo to carefully examine (and from time to time alter) the definition of science.
According to the proposal cited in the/. paraphrase, the government would have to decide which software projects to fund. What reason do we have to believe that the government could better choose how to run software development than the private sector? (just look at Katrina relief for an example of how inefficiently the government uses funds)
I'd rather Microsoft (or some other entity in the private sector) oversees development of important software than the government.
Microsoft is an industry leader in terms of user privacy, internally every employee (for whom it is relevant) must undergo security/privacy training and sign statements about compliance with privacy standards (particularly in terms of how the company deals with PII, Personally Identifiable Information). Saying that the company wants a single privacy standard solely for the purpose of making money may be true in a few corner cases, but in general its not true because Microsoft already has to comply with international standards which (particularly in the EU) are much stricter than the standards of any US State. I think the biggest reason Microsoft would support standard privacy laws is because it would be easier for the company to make guarantees about third party partners (particularly those that use Passport) and make some baseline claims about the level of privacy partners must support.
Predictably there are a lot of threads already (and presumably will be many more) about how Google's intent is to either combat Microsoft by offering a free & competetive Office suite, or to further develop Open Office in the interest of some sort of Google offering of Open Office as a hosted application.
There could be some truth in both of these, however I think the main reason Google shows some token support for open source initiatives like this is simply so that developers (/.'ers included) will sit around and talk about how cool Google is, since OSS is very en vogue helping it is a very way to stay hip. Why else would Google (and other companies) fund/support initiatives like Wikipedia, etc. Its a method of low cost, and fairly effective, brand advertising.
I'm constantly frustrated with the way that both sides innacurately portray Intelligent Design. The point the founders of ID were trying to make isn't that something contrary to science should be taught, its simply that the prevailing scientific view of evolution (among other things) and the existence of a God are separate issues. There are bright theists who embrace evolution, the two views are in not necessarily in opposition. Darwinism is a slightly different matter, if by Darwinism we mean the view that all of life's complexity is a product of random chance (e.g. genetic mutation) and natural laws (e.g. natural selection). ID holds that there are systems in nature for which it is irrational to believe that they were produced by mere chance and necessity. Specified Complexity is the probability theory that deals with the "chance" part. Irreducible Complexity deals with the "necessity" part.
There is some very interesting work being done in both of these areas in science right now that can not be ignored. Darwin gave a concrete way to test his evolutionary theory in terms of Irreducible Complexity, and Michael Behe has done a lot to show instances of trouble cases for evolution when it comes to Irreducibly Complex systems.
All of the technical issues aside, the debate in Kansas is ridiculous anyway because there is no reason a judge should be asked "Is ID good enough science so that it should be taught in public schools?". From a legal perspective, the debate should be "Does the Constitution prohibit the teaching of ID in public schools?". The only direct Consitutional application is really that it forbids teaching of religion, but as I mentioned above the main point of ID is not to be associated with religion, but to suggest that it is a separate issue and not defeated by or opposed to prevailing scientific views. The issue of what should be taught is a great discussion, but it should be happening in the school boards and not the court room.
Slashdot Mirror
Gmail has always been slow, but ever since they added AJAX Google Talk into the equation I pretty much catch a good nights worth of sleep while the page loads. Obviously its more convenient than Pine because everyone has a browser and is familiar with its interface, but I'll probably switch to another kind of webmail soon because I can't take the sluggishness.
Perhaps someone oud introduce a Web 2.0 killer, that would be excellent...
Actually, Microsoft is working on this as well, it's called Avalon (aka WPF). Although it will be a few years until it hits critical mass, it should offer developers the ability to write a single interface for traditional client apps & server/web apps.
I'm not exactly sure why it would be the place of the US Government to regulate privately owned corporations this way. The article mentions the "Congressional Human Rights Caucus" but I'm not sure that uncensored internet search is a basic human right (don't get me wrong, I'm against the cencorship, but I'm also against the government meddling with the private sector).
At the very least this is definetely a change in Google policy. As noted today on Google Blogoscoped Google has removed their entry on censorship, which used to read "Google does not censor results for any search term. The order and content of our results are completely automated; we do not manipulate our search results by hand. We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in our search results...". Attempting to navigate to the page now results in a "Document Not Found". It turns out that not being evil isn't necessarily in line with the interests of a corporation, who's job is to please shareholders and not users (or the government!).
Saying that ID hinges on occurences that can't be explained by science (like bees flying) is basically just setting up a straw man, there may be some ID'ers that hold to that but its definetely not essential for some sort of Intelligent Designer to exist. A truly Intelligent Designer would probably be more apt to design a world where everything is discoverable and explainable by rational thinkers practicing good science.
"Putting a nail in the coffin" (odd expression given that I don't think ID is really "in the coffin" so to speak, it seems a bit premature) IMHO would consistute proving some of the Irreducibly Complex Systems that ID'ers have raised to be reducible. After all, Darwin himself listed Irreducibly Complex Systems as a means of proving/disproving his theory.
Typo... apparently:
;)
"/" != "/i"
(duh) I need to start using preview.
"...many consider Opera to not only be the best browser available, but the fastest and the one with the best page rendering engine. Opera also introduced tabbed browsing and other cool features since adopted by Firefox but not, as yet, implemented by Microsoft."
First of all, anyone who has done extensive CSS/XHTML based design knows that Opera is not the best "rendering engine". Second, this guy's whole article ignores the upcoming release of IE7, which not only has great tabbed browsing but a whole host of other features that are heads & tails above Opera (IMHO), so his whole article is osbsolete.
I don't think I've yet read an article by this Dvorak fellow that made a good point.
I ripped 150 CDs in a row, drive is still running like a champ...
I agree that it's valid to criticise IE for a lull in development once they won the browser war and ousted Netscape. I also think the competition between Firefox and IE is ultimately great for the consumer, since it has sparked a new emphasis in feature development for all the major browsers. This article seems to take it to an unwarranted extreme however, as the latest IE (particularly through SP2 and the optional MSN Toolbar) developments have added a lot in terms of security, for example the new anti-phishing filter. Also, Firefox has more than its share of critical vulnerabilities listed on Secunia, including more than a few that were as big of a deal as the recent IE exploit.
This article seems to make the case that Microsoft isn't as committed to quality software as other "smaller" companies, which I don't think is the case. In fact, Microsoft has a higher ratio of Test to Dev than any of the other big software companies (and surely OSS efforts, where testing is far less secksy than writing the newest coolest feature) around, close to 1:1 for most teams, with a big emphasis on regression testing. I also think that by taking so many people off of the Longhorn effort to release XP Service Pack 2 (one of the biggest security advancements in OS ever) the company showed that it is serious about patching and security.
I'm sure there is a reason they haven't patched the recent vulnerability yet, although I wish they would get on it as much as the next guy. Its a constant decision in software, do you keep throwing skilled manpower at patching products like XP & IE6 or do you make it a priority to get Vista & IE7 out the door? If you're Microsoft its sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't decision.
Your post doesn't really make any valid points. Microsoft products ship with bugs, as do all other company products. Google's GMail, for instance, still says "beta" all over it because it's still buggy months or years after launch. The fact that software projects have deadlines and are forced ship with some bugs doesn't represent a triumph of salesmen, its just the way that creating software works in reality (and part of the challenge of being a software engineer). Also, you're dead wrong about MSR, they are extremely closely integrated into Microsoft. The team of engineers at Microsoft that I had a lot of exposure to had weekly meetings with various people from MSR about integrating new ideas into current projects.
;)
Look at the top of the totem poll, Steve (corporate) still answers to Bill (techie) right?
As a programmer, obviously I think its cool that engineers & techies who work on the product are valued at the same level (or above) the corporate company structure. I just don't see how this is so different from what has been going on at other tech companies, for instance Microsoft, where people have always been able to choose between moving up the management ladder or move up the food chain as an Independant Contributor. A lot of the Distinguished Engineers and Technical Fellows at Microsoft and specifically in MSR (and I'm sure the same is true of a lot of other companies) are really just engineers with no direct reports, and they are clearly esteemed and thought of as highly as anyone in the company.
I agree its cool, I'm just not so sold that its a new idea that applies only to Google.
Than just adding the advertiser's phone number so that somebody can call them on their own terms?
If video games about killing cause kids to go out and kill people, how long would it take someone to whip up an FPS where all the baddies are Jack Thompson?
Oh come on, it would take Microsoft no time at all to write Office to use OpenDocument. Hell they've probably already written it, whether or not they're planning on releasing it. More Microsoft thinks that their format is better for a specific reason, so they're keeping it and opening it up.
They should add they're rootkit software to the Blu-Ray standard!
But, our customer advisor people speak to people, including major customers who run both Windows and Linux, and they say it's not an issue
Are customers who run Windows and Linux really the right people to be asking these kinds of questions? Shouldn't they be commenting on Microsoft (and other companies') actions instead of random customer opinion? Seems kind of random.
What typically sets Microsoft apart from other AJAX application providers is that they do not appear to be interested in the cross-browser capabilities of AJAX applications. One can speculate that Microsoft has ample motivation to use Windows and Internet Explorer-specific features that create a dependency between their AJAX apps, IE [Internet Explorer] and the Windows platform/ecosystem. This has been the case historically.
It really isn't true at all that Microsoft isn't interested in browser compatability when it comes to AJAX. The team that worked on Start.com has spent a lot of time on browser compatability, and ultimately Live.com and other Microsoft sites will support other browsers as well. It is true that in Microsoft's dream world they would like people to only use IE, but in reality that isn't the case and they aren't turning a blind eye to it.
I think the reason that Microsoft has been so slow to implement AJAX for some of their web based offerings is that they envision a better method for the UI of web based apps that is more consistent with the way desktop apps are written. Ideally, you don't want to write an app with a desktop interface, then have to port it to the web, ensure compatability with various browsers, etc. Anyone who has tried to write AJAX code realizes that its something of a hack, and ultimately I think it will be replaced by another technology (perhaps Windows Presentation Foundation if Microsoft has its way).
The issue here is that they redefine science.
I'm not trying to promote one side or the other here, but if your definition of science is such that only naturalism counts as real hard science, then of course the outcome of your science will support naturalism. If, in such a system, scientists discovered a magic bullet for the existence of a supreme omnipotent jellyfish, then those scientists are no longer doing true science. The ultimate goal is that the schools teach the best science currently available, whether it supports naturalism or otherwise, so it shouldn't be taboo to carefully examine (and from time to time alter) the definition of science.
According to the proposal cited in the /. paraphrase, the government would have to decide which software projects to fund. What reason do we have to believe that the government could better choose how to run software development than the private sector? (just look at Katrina relief for an example of how inefficiently the government uses funds)
I'd rather Microsoft (or some other entity in the private sector) oversees development of important software than the government.
Microsoft is an industry leader in terms of user privacy, internally every employee (for whom it is relevant) must undergo security/privacy training and sign statements about compliance with privacy standards (particularly in terms of how the company deals with PII, Personally Identifiable Information). Saying that the company wants a single privacy standard solely for the purpose of making money may be true in a few corner cases, but in general its not true because Microsoft already has to comply with international standards which (particularly in the EU) are much stricter than the standards of any US State. I think the biggest reason Microsoft would support standard privacy laws is because it would be easier for the company to make guarantees about third party partners (particularly those that use Passport) and make some baseline claims about the level of privacy partners must support.
Predictably there are a lot of threads already (and presumably will be many more) about how Google's intent is to either combat Microsoft by offering a free & competetive Office suite, or to further develop Open Office in the interest of some sort of Google offering of Open Office as a hosted application. There could be some truth in both of these, however I think the main reason Google shows some token support for open source initiatives like this is simply so that developers (/.'ers included) will sit around and talk about how cool Google is, since OSS is very en vogue helping it is a very way to stay hip. Why else would Google (and other companies) fund/support initiatives like Wikipedia, etc. Its a method of low cost, and fairly effective, brand advertising.
I'm constantly frustrated with the way that both sides innacurately portray Intelligent Design. The point the founders of ID were trying to make isn't that something contrary to science should be taught, its simply that the prevailing scientific view of evolution (among other things) and the existence of a God are separate issues. There are bright theists who embrace evolution, the two views are in not necessarily in opposition. Darwinism is a slightly different matter, if by Darwinism we mean the view that all of life's complexity is a product of random chance (e.g. genetic mutation) and natural laws (e.g. natural selection). ID holds that there are systems in nature for which it is irrational to believe that they were produced by mere chance and necessity. Specified Complexity is the probability theory that deals with the "chance" part. Irreducible Complexity deals with the "necessity" part.
There is some very interesting work being done in both of these areas in science right now that can not be ignored. Darwin gave a concrete way to test his evolutionary theory in terms of Irreducible Complexity, and Michael Behe has done a lot to show instances of trouble cases for evolution when it comes to Irreducibly Complex systems.
All of the technical issues aside, the debate in Kansas is ridiculous anyway because there is no reason a judge should be asked "Is ID good enough science so that it should be taught in public schools?". From a legal perspective, the debate should be "Does the Constitution prohibit the teaching of ID in public schools?". The only direct Consitutional application is really that it forbids teaching of religion, but as I mentioned above the main point of ID is not to be associated with religion, but to suggest that it is a separate issue and not defeated by or opposed to prevailing scientific views. The issue of what should be taught is a great discussion, but it should be happening in the school boards and not the court room.