This was one of interviews I was really looking forward, and I am a little disapointed.
He dodges the more difficult questions like "Let's pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer isn't the default web-browser built into Windows" with irelevant and a bit arrogant answer: if it was 1995, people would choose IE. And he goes on telling that people use IE beacuse that's what they used past 10 years. Well, duh.
About CSS support, I again cannot but notice a slight stench of arrogance: "We focused on web developers' real world problems." You stupid kids don't know how to do this, we the IE developers listen to the real world developers. I'm sorry, but that's pretty sloppy excuse for not caring about standard. About as bad as "we know what's best for the user, so we choose what to implement from the standards."
Judging from the comments, there seems to be some kind of prevalent idea in the US that being free press means beeing biased towards the liberals/democrats/whatever-you-call-them. I'm wondering if there will ever be a moment of "D'oh, how could we be so stupid" in the US? Why are you seeking political bias in everything?
Instead, I think their ranking system works like this:
* Republican in office? US rankings drop
* Democrat in office? US rankings rise
Interesting thinking, with one flaw: you are assuming that people outside of the US give a shit about the party in your government. They don't. They do however notice the actions and make assumptions of them.
Furthermore I think it's really a variation of the idea that there is some kind of plot of (supposedly Democrat) haters against the republican party who will always oppose the reps' actions no matter what. I'm not sure about the US, but I personally didn't know much about the two US parties until actions of Bush after 9/11. Plus, if you look at it from perspective, the two of your parties are so similiar, it wouldn't even make sense for an outsider to make any kind of prejudice.
The results actually showed that there was no difference in fat oxidation (fat burning) between those drinking Enviga versus a placebo. But it did show that "energy expenditure" was significantly higher for the Enviga drinkers.
So it does make you "burn" energy, but doesn't cause any weight loss. It's the perfect product!
Say you don't have stupid laws proposed and later rejected in your country, whichever that is. Aside of being against the common sense (which, I agree, is sometimes not enough of an argument to convince the lawmakers), this idea is technically nearly impossible to implement (that argument usually carries much more weight).
The majority of video "bloggers" is, I suspect, outside of the EU. They wouldn't have to comply with the regulations, and EU could do nothing about them, short of blocking all video streaming from outside of the EU. To name only one problem of many.
I think the GP meant "You all" as in the west and it's leaders, US in particular.
The problems I have with "globalism" is when companies off-shore because the other country has FEWER worker protections or environmental regulations than we do. Yeah, it's great for your CEO's bonus if you can work 10 year old kids for 12 hours a day at $5 a week making tennis shoes. But this isn't about your CEO's bonus.
No, that's not the "problem" with globalization. That's the essence of globalization. You put up a global work market. You can keep your high living standard of educated force, but only as long as you are the only one educated. Free market means exactly that - the best product for the least money wins, only this time it's on the global scale. It so happens we (the western IT work force) are not the only product any more, because globalization and effectively ended our monopoly.
Others, such as pair programming just do not work in my opinion. Programmersare solo beasts - putting two of these dragons behind one keyboard is asking for trouble.
Pair programming can be seen as a kind of code review, but with the reviewer in equal position with the programmer. Traditional code reviews tend to be frustrating for the programmers, because the reviewers are in position of authority.
But when you put two programmers with equal authority, you have one thinking about the bigger picture and the other reviewing his mind flow. At the same time the later is writing down the ideas in code, with the first one reviewing his code as he types.
Programmersare solo beasts
Where have you been the last 20 years? The stereotypical programmer, hacking his piece of kernel over night is very endangered species, and rightly so. Like any kind of engineering, software engineering needs as much face to face collaboration as possible.
I have a feeling that the chip's production generates more pollutants than the electricity needed to power to it. How about greening up the fab plant? Then I'll be impressed.
Oh, thanks for sharing that "feeling" with us, it really convinced me.
Maybe it is less a "feeling" and more a convenient rationale for not giving a shit, don't you think?
What would be nice is something like Java's API or Sun's Javascript Reference for CSS.
For who would that be? Browser developers? If there were strong enough intend to implement CSS correctly, they would've done it years ago.
For page authors? For them, bottom line is how browsers display their code. To write CSS to the standard is to miss out 90% of viewers. What they really need is book of all the dirty hacks they need to pull out. Not that I think there isn't enough books of this kind already.
Of course applying for FAFSA should not automatically give the Govt a probable cause since George W Bush clearly stated being poor does not make one a criminal by itself:
First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill.
Guessing from the summary, I don't think the changes are very good idea. When you put difference between "the latest" and "public" revision of a page, you basically loose the elegance of plain linear revision system.
Casual users won't see changes made by anons, so why exactly will their changes be there? Why bother? Editors will still see them, fine, but people like me are usual users but casual editors, they won't have the basic motivation for improving an article - their work won't be available for the public immediately.
You may say the changes are primarily intended to demoralize vandals. This might work fine with unrefined vandalizing, like replacing a page with a picture of man giving himself a blowjob, because such pages will be quickly noticed by subsequent edits. Other types of vandalizing, like adding few PR sentences here and there might not be so easilly spoted. Non-anon editor won't bother to proofread the entire article before commiting his changes and making the vandalized page revision public.
Meanwhile, in a secret NASA compound in southern Nevada...
- Yeah, shake the cam a little. We will blur and downsample the video later, it will look like real deal. Nobody will listen to these hippies anyway... Hey, we can always make it misteriously 'disappear' again, if something goes wrong, huh?
- Hehe, yeah. $100b, here we go! Lunch?
I don't think so... if they wanted to do this, why wouldn't they build the browser around gecko from the start? It would save them half the work. Also using gecko means they have to release source code under MPL.
I wonder if the reason why they use a MS platform and not Linux is that they want full support for MS Word document files?
Anyway, it seems quite similiar to other colaboration software out there, but the.doc format support is nice and might as well be the deciding feature on the market.
Re:Free Wifi? How about free Tibet?
on
Tibet's Mesh
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Oh no, here we go again.
"Instead of technology, we should [provide food for the starving children / free the oppressed people / solve everyones problems]."
I know this will generate many doh's, but you are missing the point: with access to the internet comes actual freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
This was one of interviews I was really looking forward, and I am a little disapointed.
He dodges the more difficult questions like "Let's pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer isn't the default web-browser built into Windows" with irelevant and a bit arrogant answer: if it was 1995, people would choose IE. And he goes on telling that people use IE beacuse that's what they used past 10 years. Well, duh.
About CSS support, I again cannot but notice a slight stench of arrogance: "We focused on web developers' real world problems." You stupid kids don't know how to do this, we the IE developers listen to the real world developers. I'm sorry, but that's pretty sloppy excuse for not caring about standard. About as bad as "we know what's best for the user, so we choose what to implement from the standards."
Parent is right.
Judging from the comments, there seems to be some kind of prevalent idea in the US that being free press means beeing biased towards the liberals/democrats/whatever-you-call-them. I'm wondering if there will ever be a moment of "D'oh, how could we be so stupid" in the US? Why are you seeking political bias in everything?
Furthermore I think it's really a variation of the idea that there is some kind of plot of (supposedly Democrat) haters against the republican party who will always oppose the reps' actions no matter what. I'm not sure about the US, but I personally didn't know much about the two US parties until actions of Bush after 9/11. Plus, if you look at it from perspective, the two of your parties are so similiar, it wouldn't even make sense for an outsider to make any kind of prejudice.
Now that you mention it, I think maybe Tim Buckley had it right...
0 808
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=2005
Or why not just use a real operating system?
According to this, there is no FF version. There are third party plugins for monitoring only.
So it does make you "burn" energy, but doesn't cause any weight loss. It's the perfect product!
Say you don't have stupid laws proposed and later rejected in your country, whichever that is. Aside of being against the common sense (which, I agree, is sometimes not enough of an argument to convince the lawmakers), this idea is technically nearly impossible to implement (that argument usually carries much more weight).
The majority of video "bloggers" is, I suspect, outside of the EU. They wouldn't have to comply with the regulations, and EU could do nothing about them, short of blocking all video streaming from outside of the EU. To name only one problem of many.
Interestingly enough, BSD sucks, and OpenBSD and FreeBSD both suck (says the people from the other BSD camp, of course).
But when you put two programmers with equal authority, you have one thinking about the bigger picture and the other reviewing his mind flow. At the same time the later is writing down the ideas in code, with the first one reviewing his code as he types.
Where have you been the last 20 years? The stereotypical programmer, hacking his piece of kernel over night is very endangered species, and rightly so. Like any kind of engineering, software engineering needs as much face to face collaboration as possible.
Maybe it is less a "feeling" and more a convenient rationale for not giving a shit, don't you think?
For page authors? For them, bottom line is how browsers display their code. To write CSS to the standard is to miss out 90% of viewers. What they really need is book of all the dirty hacks they need to pull out. Not that I think there isn't enough books of this kind already.
Anyone wanna bet what's gonna come first?
Hmm, a can of ./ ? I don't think I will be trying that any time soon. Still, I have to admit, I've seen weirder stuff in our grocery store...
I so hope you are making this up.
Guessing from the summary, I don't think the changes are very good idea. When you put difference between "the latest" and "public" revision of a page, you basically loose the elegance of plain linear revision system.
Casual users won't see changes made by anons, so why exactly will their changes be there? Why bother? Editors will still see them, fine, but people like me are usual users but casual editors, they won't have the basic motivation for improving an article - their work won't be available for the public immediately.
You may say the changes are primarily intended to demoralize vandals. This might work fine with unrefined vandalizing, like replacing a page with a picture of man giving himself a blowjob, because such pages will be quickly noticed by subsequent edits. Other types of vandalizing, like adding few PR sentences here and there might not be so easilly spoted. Non-anon editor won't bother to proofread the entire article before commiting his changes and making the vandalized page revision public.
Meanwhile, in a secret NASA compound in southern Nevada...
- Yeah, shake the cam a little. We will blur and downsample the video later, it will look like real deal. Nobody will listen to these hippies anyway... Hey, we can always make it misteriously 'disappear' again, if something goes wrong, huh?
- Hehe, yeah. $100b, here we go! Lunch?
I don't think so... if they wanted to do this, why wouldn't they build the browser around gecko from the start? It would save them half the work. Also using gecko means they have to release source code under MPL.
Quick check with process explorer shows that it uses mshtml.dll as well as MFC.
"Coming soon" to linux indeed.
Pandas are still around because of "survival of the cutest". Much like OSX.
I wonder if the reason why they use a MS platform and not Linux is that they want full support for MS Word document files?
.doc format support is nice and might as well be the deciding feature on the market.
Anyway, it seems quite similiar to other colaboration software out there, but the
Oh no, here we go again.
"Instead of technology, we should [provide food for the starving children / free the oppressed people / solve everyones problems]."
I know this will generate many doh's, but you are missing the point: with access to the internet comes actual freedom.