Bring back the Cold War, that's what I say, and it looks as though they are. This whole terrorism thing just isn't working out;-).
Maybe it's not working out, but Cold War was even worse. It was so hopelessly outdated, that they tried rebranding it "Cool War", "Hot War" and what not, but it just wouldn't catch on.
Cyberwar and war on terror is where it's at. And war on child abuser. Who doesn't agree? You child abusers, you.
Why is it that america is always preparing for a war? a war on 'terrer', a cyberwar, a war on drugs, a war on immigrants, a war on pirates, a war on guns. When is the last time america made peace?
This is The Government. We're warning you that Terminator seems to be posting newspaper ads looking for John Cohnor and presenting himself as The Government. Do NOT call him. The real Government would never post ads in a newspaper in a fashion like that.
Hmm, wait a second. Bob, stop typing, let me call the general. Hello, General? I just realized, we can't type in a newspaper ad, that we'd never post in a newspaper ad, we'd look like damn morons. Uhuh. Uhuh.. Wait.. BOB I told you to STOP TYPING THAT!
As the government is getting ready for the upcoming cyberwar, the following ad was noticed in a local newspaper:
We're looking for a young man named John Connor, to lead our efforts in the war against the machines. We offer $1000 to anyone who has any substancial information in discovering his location. If you can help, please dial 1-800-ILL-BE-BACK.
- The Government (it's not Terminator this time, I swear)
If these particles can actually travel faster than the speed of light...does that mean they may be from "another dimension in another 'time'" where our physical laws don't apply or being sent by other scientists doing the same experiment only in reverse from this other "place"???
Ok, I want to hear from a single guy in this forum/site, who can take this "teleportation might use quantum dots" information and make some use of it.
And I don't mean Star Trek or cell phone jokes. I don't mean jokes at all (which I suspect will constitute 99% of the posts over here).
This article in fact doesn't have anything to do with the audience here, except that it's about (drum rolls) magical teleportation. Which won't happen probably in the next 50-60 years, yet we get teleportation articles over here every few days as if on schedule.
There are so many things happening right now we COULD make use of to further our knowledge, which we possibly comprehend:
Zap offers new $30000 electric automobile. Massive stock spam uses PDF-s to lure investors. New petition against Microsoft's open xml format opened at: http://www.noooxml.org/petition Critics question EPA's tighter ozone limits
More content, more white-space. The question however was improperly put. I can't support "arbitrary number of inches" monitors or not support them. I just have sites that display fine in 800x and those that need 1024x.
There is no excuse at all for having a site that requires a large display.
How about a site with table with more than modest number of columns in it. Typically in admin screens, but not only.
I know this won't be everyone's primary concern, but what happens to all of those pages carefully crafted to adhere to a specific standard eg HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1 or whatever else you may choose? Surely, unless these uninvited contributions also adhere to that specific standard, we have no hope of producing standards-compliant documents.
If I pour a lethal dose of highly radioactive material over you, you'll sue me since the green skin glow doesn't match your clothes, wouldn't you.
Re:Cost?
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Not to mention, this is a hell of alot of software, I mean, he's talking about installing several toys that will run 24/7 and of course this is gonna sap your processing power, and its not integrated, so it'll probably end up using more resources than vista.
The creators of WindowBlinds are fighting this notion of "it's integrated so it takes less resource" really hard as of late.
People seem to believe that if it's integrated, it should be better, but it's not the case. In their benefit, I downloaded and tried WindowsBlinds. It seems to indeed take less RAM and CPU than XP's theme compared (for simple themes). Then of course when you account for all the glows and transparencies running without DirectX who knows.
One things though, it misbehaved a lot and lots of artifacts where the skin authors didn't account i'll use the skin in this fashion (such as put the task bar on left vs bottom). I wished hard it'd work, since I wanted to mod the default XP skin a bit so it has smaller titlebar and taskbar (and not blue). But, not good enough. Pitty.
Looks like the best skin ever created by Microsoft is the Windows 95/2000 classic look, which I use now on XP, and will most likely use on Vista.
So if you mom is suddenly very excited on the phone about the latest washing powder or insists that you shave only with 5-blade Gillette for best results, you should know better.
My stuff is writen to XHTML 1.0 Strict standards. If it doesn't work on the iPhone, it's not my problem.
Exactly. That's what I've beens aying for years and years now: write to standards, make sure it validates, and if it still won't work, to hell with it.
I would let my kid do the layout, content, design, business model, I don't care!
But it *should be coded to standards*. XHTML 1.0 Strict. Of course, the biggest browser on the market (IE6/7) doesn't understand xhtml, especially when served as xhtml, but is this my problem?
No. I don't use IE. It's a problem for my visitors. And I don't care about any of those.
We should definitely make sure the best ever experience for the iPhone! Right!
Some stats based upon web client hype as of late:
1. iPhone: 5 million publications of iPhone taking over the world 2. Safari for Win: 3.2 million benchmarks proving Safari is teh greatest Windows browser ever. 3. Firefox: 2.1 million "take the web back" propaganda blog posts. ... ... ... ... 612. IE6: 1 positive article and 40 million "I hate IE" quotes from IRC Efnet.
And now, let's see the web client stats:
1. IE6: 448 million people 2. IE7: 128 million people 3. Firefox: 96 million people ... ... ... ... 821. iPhone: 11 people (including Steve Jobs)
He didn't say take the hover out of websites. Just make it non-essential. For instance, if you have a menu, have them respond to both hover AND click.
If I target desktop devices, and hover is perfectly intuitive and usable for my target public, I'll use it as much as I want.
Just because there's some new fancy device which can't perform rollover and 0.5% of my visitors will use it, doesn't matter I should wreck the desktop users experience.
Instead, the proper approach would be proper fallback. If touchscreen devices report their input method, I could provide alternative means of accessing the information.
Usability experts seem to forget: yes sites should be accessible to everyone (mostly), but this doesn't need to be at the expense of probably 90% of the site visitors out there, which use desktop machines as of yet.
Most people here won't go out of their way to make a site work with Internet Explorer, and IE has 70% of the market... and you want to know of they'll accommodate the quirks of a cel phone?
Most people here wouldn't? So the majority of people here are unemployed, basically. So sad.
So, since this article kinda gives me the authority to speak on smart topics (see, I'm SMART, right, I'm firstborn). And my opinion is this is all a bunch of crap.
So now we have two options here:
A) I'm totally wrong, which means I don't have the brains, which means the study is wrong, which means I'm actually totally right. I'm right and wrong at the same time.
B) I'm actually right, which means the study is wrong, which however means I'm dumb and I can't be right, so the study should be right. Which means the study is right and wrong at the same time.
The mind boggles...
Now seriously: biology 101, genes of both parents get combined randomly to produce an offspring. Where is this "magical" intelligence coming from? The genetical mental faculties from a kid come either come from the father, mother or (almost always) a mix of both. There aren't any phantom "brain" genes that get depleted when the second kid comes around.
So if this study has anything real going on, it means the link isn't genetical at all. It's probably cultural, it's the way firstborn kids are treated. But then it's not about "getting the brains", it's about "obtaining the brains" during your life. So the study is bull again.
But wait, the study uses IQ, the infamously wrong factor about predicting real life intelligence. You'll find people wijth high IQ that drove trucks their entire life and can't put 2+2 together. But they just like crosswords, and hence like solving IQ puzzles. Great (no offense to the truck drivers, just needed an example).
And even then, it's about 2 points. Yea. Like the diff between 80 and 82. Or 100 and 102. Or whatever. Could be a statistical error for what I know.
Is there anything correct going on in this study at all? Nothing I can see.
With virtualization, I'll shell out for a copy of Windows every time I buy a Mac
Uhm, dude, how *often* do you buy a Mac. It sounds almost as if you buy a Mac every few days or so. And to think that Mac users are making fun of us for having to restart or reinstall Windows.
When you buy one Windows license, and you have that sudden urge to buy a Mac this morning, you just deactivate the copy and move it to your new Mac. As simple as that.
"MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright"
Wow, that'd be pretty bold of Microsoft, if it were true. How do you know he is right? But of course! He said "Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either"! He must be right. Let's mod him up!
Of course, actually Microsoft didn't include Stacker "itself", they licensed and included Vertisoft's DoubleDisk, a product competing with Stacker.
Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al
No, they sued for *patent* infringement on the compression algorithm. I say, however: copyright infringement, patent infringement, it's all the same, who'd notice, right. Microsoft was ordered to remove DoubleDisk, and later on they created DriveSpace, which used different compression method.
I saw, bravo, about contributing to the Microsoft FUD some more. We ought to fight them using any means at all: they're EVIL, right.
So a lot of us, myself included, object to this redefinition of the term. It's not like Open didn't mean anything to the computing community before.
Maybe you didn't get it the first time: he originated the "Open Source" phrase. The phrase wasn't in common use today.
It's hard to accept that, since you were probably still peeing your pants at the time OSI came into existence, but it's the fact of life. That they lost control of the phrase and it became generalized later on, is a completely different issue.
How do you think new words happen? People define them. So, I took that authority. And I helped to build a community behind it. And IMO, that community has a really strong interest in making it clear that anything that does not comply with the Open Source Definition isn't Open Source at all.
Bruce, my friendly advice to you, is don't waste your time explaining all of this on Slashdot (check my sig). They simply won't understand where the phrase "open source" originated from, even if you repeat it non-stop until you're blue in the face, since they just now the current, more generalized meaning of the phrase.
It doesn't matter what they think, however, since what matters is the current meaning. No company even got its lost trademark back, and the fact OSI has a very noble cause doesn't change that simple fact.
Let's face it: open source will never mean again what it meant in the beginning. What OSI needs, is a new phrase, and to apply your original definition to THAT phrase. And then, they better work hard on keeping that one, or the situation will end up just like last time.
Slashdot Mirror
Bring back the Cold War, that's what I say, and it looks as though they are. This whole terrorism thing just isn't working out ;-).
Maybe it's not working out, but Cold War was even worse. It was so hopelessly outdated, that they tried rebranding it "Cool War", "Hot War" and what not, but it just wouldn't catch on.
Cyberwar and war on terror is where it's at. And war on child abuser. Who doesn't agree? You child abusers, you.
>> a war on 'terrer'
What about the war on grammar?
How about war on grammar nazies, and nazies in general (I'm sure Steven Spielberg would even make a movie about it).
And that's a typo, not a grammatical error.
Why is it that america is always preparing for a war? a war on 'terrer', a cyberwar, a war on drugs, a war on immigrants, a war on pirates, a war on guns. When is the last time america made peace?
Amen. Let's declare war on war!
How does it feel to reply to your own post?
Makes me feel Slashdot had an edit post button, so I wouldn't have to ammend myself in an entire new post.
The next day another ad was printed:
This is The Government. We're warning you that Terminator seems to be posting newspaper ads looking for John Cohnor and presenting himself as The Government. Do NOT call him. The real Government would never post ads in a newspaper in a fashion like that.
Hmm, wait a second. Bob, stop typing, let me call the general. Hello, General? I just realized, we can't type in a newspaper ad, that we'd never post in a newspaper ad, we'd look like damn morons. Uhuh. Uhuh.. Wait.. BOB I told you to STOP TYPING THAT!
As the government is getting ready for the upcoming cyberwar, the following ad was noticed in a local newspaper:
We're looking for a young man named John Connor, to lead our efforts in the war against the machines. We offer $1000 to anyone who has any substancial information in discovering his location. If you can help, please dial 1-800-ILL-BE-BACK.
- The Government (it's not Terminator this time, I swear)
If these particles can actually travel faster than the speed of light...does that mean they may be from "another dimension in another 'time'" where our physical laws don't apply or being sent by other scientists doing the same experiment only in reverse from this other "place"???
Well, thanks for confirming my original point...
Ok, I want to hear from a single guy in this forum/site, who can take this "teleportation might use quantum dots" information and make some use of it.
And I don't mean Star Trek or cell phone jokes. I don't mean jokes at all (which I suspect will constitute 99% of the posts over here).
This article in fact doesn't have anything to do with the audience here, except that it's about (drum rolls) magical teleportation. Which won't happen probably in the next 50-60 years, yet we get teleportation articles over here every few days as if on schedule.
There are so many things happening right now we COULD make use of to further our knowledge, which we possibly comprehend:
Zap offers new $30000 electric automobile.
Massive stock spam uses PDF-s to lure investors.
New petition against Microsoft's open xml format opened at: http://www.noooxml.org/petition
Critics question EPA's tighter ozone limits
Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka .... Come on everyone, it's getting better as you keep saying it.
...
Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka Halamka
Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock.
So basically the entire Desktop change is criticized. That's basically ALL that changed in Desktop: the menu and the dock.
It's kinda funny as well since it's the first time I've seen Mac lift "look and feel" straight from a Windows release (Vista).
Why?
More content, more white-space. The question however was improperly put. I can't support "arbitrary number of inches" monitors or not support them. I just have sites that display fine in 800x and those that need 1024x.
There is no excuse at all for having a site that requires a large display.
How about a site with table with more than modest number of columns in it. Typically in admin screens, but not only.
Does your site support 14" monitors, or do you require the new fancy 17" devices?
The latter.
I know this won't be everyone's primary concern, but what happens to all of those pages carefully crafted to adhere to a specific standard eg HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.1 or whatever else you may choose? Surely, unless these uninvited contributions also adhere to that specific standard, we have no hope of producing standards-compliant documents.
If I pour a lethal dose of highly radioactive material over you, you'll sue me since the green skin glow doesn't match your clothes, wouldn't you.
Not to mention, this is a hell of alot of software, I mean, he's talking about installing several toys that will run 24/7 and of course this is gonna sap your processing power, and its not integrated, so it'll probably end up using more resources than vista.
The creators of WindowBlinds are fighting this notion of "it's integrated so it takes less resource" really hard as of late.
People seem to believe that if it's integrated, it should be better, but it's not the case. In their benefit, I downloaded and tried WindowsBlinds. It seems to indeed take less RAM and CPU than XP's theme compared (for simple themes). Then of course when you account for all the glows and transparencies running without DirectX who knows.
One things though, it misbehaved a lot and lots of artifacts where the skin authors didn't account i'll use the skin in this fashion (such as put the task bar on left vs bottom). I wished hard it'd work, since I wanted to mod the default XP skin a bit so it has smaller titlebar and taskbar (and not blue). But, not good enough. Pitty.
Looks like the best skin ever created by Microsoft is the Windows 95/2000 classic look, which I use now on XP, and will most likely use on Vista.
So if you mom is suddenly very excited on the phone about the latest washing powder or insists that you shave only with 5-blade Gillette for best results, you should know better.
My stuff is writen to XHTML 1.0 Strict standards. If it doesn't work on the iPhone, it's not my problem.
Exactly. That's what I've beens aying for years and years now: write to standards, make sure it validates, and if it still won't work, to hell with it.
I would let my kid do the layout, content, design, business model, I don't care!
But it *should be coded to standards*. XHTML 1.0 Strict. Of course, the biggest browser on the market (IE6/7) doesn't understand xhtml, especially when served as xhtml, but is this my problem?
No. I don't use IE. It's a problem for my visitors. And I don't care about any of those.
We should definitely make sure the best ever experience for the iPhone! Right!
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Some stats based upon web client hype as of late:
1. iPhone: 5 million publications of iPhone taking over the world
2. Safari for Win: 3.2 million benchmarks proving Safari is teh greatest Windows browser ever.
3. Firefox: 2.1 million "take the web back" propaganda blog posts.
612. IE6: 1 positive article and 40 million "I hate IE" quotes from IRC Efnet.
And now, let's see the web client stats:
1. IE6: 448 million people
2. IE7: 128 million people
3. Firefox: 96 million people
821. iPhone: 11 people (including Steve Jobs)
Puts things in perspective.
He didn't say take the hover out of websites. Just make it non-essential. For instance, if you have a menu, have them respond to both hover AND click.
If I target desktop devices, and hover is perfectly intuitive and usable for my target public, I'll use it as much as I want.
Just because there's some new fancy device which can't perform rollover and 0.5% of my visitors will use it, doesn't matter I should wreck the desktop users experience.
Instead, the proper approach would be proper fallback. If touchscreen devices report their input method, I could provide alternative means of accessing the information.
Usability experts seem to forget: yes sites should be accessible to everyone (mostly), but this doesn't need to be at the expense of probably 90% of the site visitors out there, which use desktop machines as of yet.
Most people here won't go out of their way to make a site work with Internet Explorer, and IE has 70% of the market... and you want to know of they'll accommodate the quirks of a cel phone?
Most people here wouldn't? So the majority of people here are unemployed, basically. So sad.
>Kinda of funny to post THAT on the wrong article, isn't it.
That was the joke. Hence the
We have our first trans-article Slashdot joke. Party tonight
I'm the firstborn son of two sons in my family.
So, since this article kinda gives me the authority to speak on smart topics (see, I'm SMART, right, I'm firstborn). And my opinion is this is all a bunch of crap.
So now we have two options here:
A) I'm totally wrong, which means I don't have the brains, which means the study is wrong, which means I'm actually totally right. I'm right and wrong at the same time.
B) I'm actually right, which means the study is wrong, which however means I'm dumb and I can't be right, so the study should be right. Which means the study is right and wrong at the same time.
The mind boggles...
Now seriously: biology 101, genes of both parents get combined randomly to produce an offspring. Where is this "magical" intelligence coming from? The genetical mental faculties from a kid come either come from the father, mother or (almost always) a mix of both. There aren't any phantom "brain" genes that get depleted when the second kid comes around.
So if this study has anything real going on, it means the link isn't genetical at all. It's probably cultural, it's the way firstborn kids are treated. But then it's not about "getting the brains", it's about "obtaining the brains" during your life. So the study is bull again.
But wait, the study uses IQ, the infamously wrong factor about predicting real life intelligence. You'll find people wijth high IQ that drove trucks their entire life and can't put 2+2 together. But they just like crosswords, and hence like solving IQ puzzles. Great (no offense to the truck drivers, just needed an example).
And even then, it's about 2 points. Yea. Like the diff between 80 and 82. Or 100 and 102. Or whatever. Could be a statistical error for what I know.
Is there anything correct going on in this study at all? Nothing I can see.
With virtualization, I'll shell out for a copy of Windows every time I buy a Mac
Uhm, dude, how *often* do you buy a Mac. It sounds almost as if you buy a Mac every few days or so. And to think that Mac users are making fun of us for having to restart or reinstall Windows.
When you buy one Windows license, and you have that sudden urge to buy a Mac this morning, you just deactivate the copy and move it to your new Mac. As simple as that.
"MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright"
Wow, that'd be pretty bold of Microsoft, if it were true. How do you know he is right? But of course! He said "Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either"! He must be right. Let's mod him up!
Of course, actually Microsoft didn't include Stacker "itself", they licensed and included Vertisoft's DoubleDisk, a product competing with Stacker.
Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al
No, they sued for *patent* infringement on the compression algorithm. I say, however: copyright infringement, patent infringement, it's all the same, who'd notice, right. Microsoft was ordered to remove DoubleDisk, and later on they created DriveSpace, which used different compression method.
I saw, bravo, about contributing to the Microsoft FUD some more. We ought to fight them using any means at all: they're EVIL, right.
So a lot of us, myself included, object to this redefinition of the term. It's not like Open didn't mean anything to the computing community before.
Maybe you didn't get it the first time: he originated the "Open Source" phrase. The phrase wasn't in common use today.
It's hard to accept that, since you were probably still peeing your pants at the time OSI came into existence, but it's the fact of life. That they lost control of the phrase and it became generalized later on, is a completely different issue.
How do you think new words happen? People define them. So, I took that authority. And I helped to build a community behind it. And IMO, that community has a really strong interest in making it clear that anything that does not comply with the Open Source Definition isn't Open Source at all.
Bruce, my friendly advice to you, is don't waste your time explaining all of this on Slashdot (check my sig). They simply won't understand where the phrase "open source" originated from, even if you repeat it non-stop until you're blue in the face, since they just now the current, more generalized meaning of the phrase.
It doesn't matter what they think, however, since what matters is the current meaning. No company even got its lost trademark back, and the fact OSI has a very noble cause doesn't change that simple fact.
Let's face it: open source will never mean again what it meant in the beginning. What OSI needs, is a new phrase, and to apply your original definition to THAT phrase. And then, they better work hard on keeping that one, or the situation will end up just like last time.