Unless they are attractive. Airlines want to charge overweight people more, so why not also charge ugly people more? Equal Opportunity Insults. Charge extra for crying also. 20 cents per "Wah".
On existing airlines, why couldn't they have slightly larger/longer seats and charge say $15 more for them? It's either passenger level OR first class now, nothing in between.
In fact, they could also have slightly smaller seats for a $15 discount. Same total room in the end, just better allocation per body size.
It's a plot to sell higher quantities of "updated" textbooks. "Oh rats, my book only covers up to 3 days out. You have 2 days out, and that day is on the exam."
By the way, isn't the probe to be going into "silent mode" soon? It lacks the ability to point instruments and its main antenna independently (as Voyager had). Thus, to aim its instruments it has to stop talking to Earth. There is supposed to be a "final contact" before closest approach where the probe in incommunicado for a few days, storing data in memory for later transmission.
It's scary because if it hits debris around Pluto and dies, we won't get the close-up data. That's why they took so many long exposures of the vicinity around Pluto, to see if there were any lurking moonlets or rings.
If that were actually true that saving lives or keeping people safe were their true priority, they could be vastly more effective by spending their money on reducing the highway traffic fatality...
The most effective way to do that is put more troopers on the road and better highway design/maintenance. But that requires higher taxes, and a good portion of America would rather risk death than pay more taxes. "Freedom to die".
There has been a lot of talk of another tech bubble. A lot of money is going into a lot of silly startups.
Before the other bubbles, there was a lot of speculation about "are we in a bubble"? About 2/3 the time the conclusion was "no", which turned out to be wrong.
But on the flip side there has been speculation of a college loan bubble going on for several years, but we've yet to see the popping. But maybe a tech burst would also trigger a loan bubble burst as graduates couldn't pay off their loans.
Vendors supply programmer-friendly frameworks on top.
Yes, but it usually becomes a revolving fan-boy circus with rapid generations and new frameworks-of-the-week. Plus, cross-browser/version compatibility is still tricky. If you have public-facing sites, you need to support old browsers.
We need the equivalent of a GUI-Oriented Netscape to come along and shake things up. Being a "product" tends to lock things down for long enough for a standard to catch on. JS/Dom Frameworks are too malleable to establish a de-facto standard.
If Flash weren't proprietary, it perhaps could have done something similar. Java applets tried it, but its API's were unnatural and too roundabout. What took 3 lines of code in VB classic took 40 in Java. Maybe the designers had future abstraction or flexibility in mind, but it failed to translate into here-and-now benefits. "Look, I'm using the reverse head-up-ass manager reflection lollypop visitor tourist pattern, just like the GOF!"
It's time to rework the web presentation and GUI (non) standards. There are too many layers in the current stack, and it relies on fat clients where large GUI libraries and GUI-related code have to be potentially downloaded for every site. It's very poor factoring of tools, libraries, and bandwidth. The bulk of GUI libraries should be part of the browser.
I suggest we start over with 2 new standards: one for a practical work-oriented CRUD & down-to-business browser (or browser mode); and one "eye-candy" browser (or browser mode) for store-fronts, visually gimmicky pages, style fads, and games.
New markup languages with common GUI idioms built in would be designed, reducing the amount of custom client-side code and client-side GUI's libraries needed or downloaded.
The eye-candy standard would be allowed to change faster. If your toys crash, it matters less than if your bank forms crash. Think of it kind of like an open-source Flash competitor.
There would be some overlap between the practical browser standard and the eye-candy standard where appropriate, but we don't want to hold one back to cater to the other.
CRUD-oriented GUI idioms mostly settled by the late 1980's and don't need to be redone every 3 years. By separating eye-candy from practical UI standards, the practical side doesn't have to be bumped around by web/style fads, and the styly side doesn't have to worry about crashing real work.
Call this new standards kit "The Mullet": Business in the front, party in the back. Well, actually it's the reverse for most sites: Party in the front (main page is the attention-getter) and business the back: the details once you subscribed and start doing your stuff. Thus, "Tellum", mullet in reverse.
Forget the job security of the current arcane stack: let's feel the joy of being altruistic, and blow it up and do it right. Let's build Tellum! We'll put half us of out of work, but at least feel the joy of refactoring the web world. (Bots & H1B's will replace us all soon anyhow.)
The very first public wiki: it goes by the aliases "Wiki Wiki Web", "C2 wiki", and "Portland Pattern Repository".
It's a combination wiki, blog, and discussions on the philosophies of software design. It's messy, but often messy in a good way.
There is a tension between what may be called "practitioners" and "academics" that I find fascinating (and have helped fuel, I must say). The practitioner stance is that human (coder) nature/perception and economics (bottom line) are the key factors, while the academics tend to argue that symbolic parsimony and mathematical provability/analyzability are the keys.
You will generally NOT find definitive/consensus answers, but you will find interesting questions and a wide variety of opinions on various software design and IT topics. It's fuel for thought in the sense of "Why is technique X better than technique Y?", or "can you objectively prove that technique X is better than Y, and if not, what's holding you back?"
However, lately it's only in read-only mode, and being redone into a "distributive" wiki, in part driven by vandals and spammers. The future direction is unknown.
UI work is often like interior decorating: people shuffle stuff all around until they are happy, and THEN change their mind again, sometimes out of whim or sometimes because they asked for something impractical and had to learn the hard way because they don't like receiving advice from the experienced.
If you work from home, you are competing with inexpensive overseas labor at "3rd-world" rates, and have to price yourself as such.
It's unfortunate it's come to that, and is largely why commute traffic exists. Imagine all the fuel saved and reduced pollution if most could work from home. It's a shame.
Slashdot Mirror
If the probe finds a big enough body, like a burnt-out brown dwarf, can it make a U-turn and visit the other side of Pluto?
Then again, such a discovery would probably change the focus to the brown dwarf such that re-visiting Pluto would become a secondary goal.
Just marry a doctor, problem solved.
Just expand into Microsoft's buildings: they're still laying off.
Khaaaaaaan!
You mean icicles; we're gonna freeze our butts off. Panic in 3...2...1...
Unless they are attractive. Airlines want to charge overweight people more, so why not also charge ugly people more? Equal Opportunity Insults. Charge extra for crying also. 20 cents per "Wah".
On existing airlines, why couldn't they have slightly larger/longer seats and charge say $15 more for them? It's either passenger level OR first class now, nothing in between.
In fact, they could also have slightly smaller seats for a $15 discount. Same total room in the end, just better allocation per body size.
I think you got the order backward in this case.
It's a plot to sell higher quantities of "updated" textbooks. "Oh rats, my book only covers up to 3 days out. You have 2 days out, and that day is on the exam."
By the way, isn't the probe to be going into "silent mode" soon? It lacks the ability to point instruments and its main antenna independently (as Voyager had). Thus, to aim its instruments it has to stop talking to Earth. There is supposed to be a "final contact" before closest approach where the probe in incommunicado for a few days, storing data in memory for later transmission.
It's scary because if it hits debris around Pluto and dies, we won't get the close-up data. That's why they took so many long exposures of the vicinity around Pluto, to see if there were any lurking moonlets or rings.
Hell, even Pluto wants to be a Kardashian gal? You'd think traveling that far out could get away from all that crap.
The most effective way to do that is put more troopers on the road and better highway design/maintenance. But that requires higher taxes, and a good portion of America would rather risk death than pay more taxes. "Freedom to die".
It's a "binary dwarf planet system" (perhaps "multi-" if you add the other moons.) Sorry, but still no capital "P". Deal.
Enjoy the show regardless. Both are interesting worlds even if they were classified as "snarfpukers". They are beautiful worlds.
There has been a lot of talk of another tech bubble. A lot of money is going into a lot of silly startups.
Before the other bubbles, there was a lot of speculation about "are we in a bubble"? About 2/3 the time the conclusion was "no", which turned out to be wrong.
But on the flip side there has been speculation of a college loan bubble going on for several years, but we've yet to see the popping. But maybe a tech burst would also trigger a loan bubble burst as graduates couldn't pay off their loans.
Caveat Emptor.
But you'd need to have fairly different builds each for Apple, Linux, and Windows.
Which may be tricky for OS's that have decades of cruft for backwards compatibility or archaic conventions that are too established.
Yes, but it usually becomes a revolving fan-boy circus with rapid generations and new frameworks-of-the-week. Plus, cross-browser/version compatibility is still tricky. If you have public-facing sites, you need to support old browsers.
We need the equivalent of a GUI-Oriented Netscape to come along and shake things up. Being a "product" tends to lock things down for long enough for a standard to catch on. JS/Dom Frameworks are too malleable to establish a de-facto standard.
If Flash weren't proprietary, it perhaps could have done something similar. Java applets tried it, but its API's were unnatural and too roundabout. What took 3 lines of code in VB classic took 40 in Java. Maybe the designers had future abstraction or flexibility in mind, but it failed to translate into here-and-now benefits. "Look, I'm using the reverse head-up-ass manager reflection lollypop visitor tourist pattern, just like the GOF!"
This can go wrong is soooo many ways...
It's time to rework the web presentation and GUI (non) standards. There are too many layers in the current stack, and it relies on fat clients where large GUI libraries and GUI-related code have to be potentially downloaded for every site. It's very poor factoring of tools, libraries, and bandwidth. The bulk of GUI libraries should be part of the browser.
I suggest we start over with 2 new standards: one for a practical work-oriented CRUD & down-to-business browser (or browser mode); and one "eye-candy" browser (or browser mode) for store-fronts, visually gimmicky pages, style fads, and games.
New markup languages with common GUI idioms built in would be designed, reducing the amount of custom client-side code and client-side GUI's libraries needed or downloaded.
The eye-candy standard would be allowed to change faster. If your toys crash, it matters less than if your bank forms crash. Think of it kind of like an open-source Flash competitor.
There would be some overlap between the practical browser standard and the eye-candy standard where appropriate, but we don't want to hold one back to cater to the other.
CRUD-oriented GUI idioms mostly settled by the late 1980's and don't need to be redone every 3 years. By separating eye-candy from practical UI standards, the practical side doesn't have to be bumped around by web/style fads, and the styly side doesn't have to worry about crashing real work.
Call this new standards kit "The Mullet": Business in the front, party in the back. Well, actually it's the reverse for most sites: Party in the front (main page is the attention-getter) and business the back: the details once you subscribed and start doing your stuff. Thus, "Tellum", mullet in reverse.
Forget the job security of the current arcane stack: let's feel the joy of being altruistic, and blow it up and do it right. Let's build Tellum! We'll put half us of out of work, but at least feel the joy of refactoring the web world. (Bots & H1B's will replace us all soon anyhow.)
Test it on this:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap03...
No, it comes that way already: it has Windows.
The very first public wiki: it goes by the aliases "Wiki Wiki Web", "C2 wiki", and "Portland Pattern Repository".
It's a combination wiki, blog, and discussions on the philosophies of software design. It's messy, but often messy in a good way.
There is a tension between what may be called "practitioners" and "academics" that I find fascinating (and have helped fuel, I must say). The practitioner stance is that human (coder) nature/perception and economics (bottom line) are the key factors, while the academics tend to argue that symbolic parsimony and mathematical provability/analyzability are the keys.
You will generally NOT find definitive/consensus answers, but you will find interesting questions and a wide variety of opinions on various software design and IT topics. It's fuel for thought in the sense of "Why is technique X better than technique Y?", or "can you objectively prove that technique X is better than Y, and if not, what's holding you back?"
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?Welcome...
However, lately it's only in read-only mode, and being redone into a "distributive" wiki, in part driven by vandals and spammers. The future direction is unknown.
It's like a junkyard for idea-tinkerers.
It would get flooded by people with a lisp* looking for Facebook.
* The speech feature, not the language.
UI work is often like interior decorating: people shuffle stuff all around until they are happy, and THEN change their mind again, sometimes out of whim or sometimes because they asked for something impractical and had to learn the hard way because they don't like receiving advice from the experienced.
"As you can see in my PowerPoint slide, the...ah, ah, Aaachoooo!... Hey, where's my laptop?"
If you work from home, you are competing with inexpensive overseas labor at "3rd-world" rates, and have to price yourself as such.
It's unfortunate it's come to that, and is largely why commute traffic exists. Imagine all the fuel saved and reduced pollution if most could work from home. It's a shame.
I still click the bottom "Share" link out of habit because that's where the "Read" link used to be. Get off my lawn, Dice! I ain't sharing it.