It's not an "entitlement mentality" to expect to be paid for work. It's an "entitlement mentality" for a business to expect work to be done for free by manipulating workers' fear of a bad economy.
Those of us who have lived in humid environments as well as more arid environments often hate air conditioning, but find it a necessary evil when visiting humid places. Speaking for myself, I would never run air conditioning in a hot, dry climate; shade and a breeze do just fine.
Web mail has the benefit of not (generally) needing to accommodate both history *and* exchanging links. I don't know Hotmail's solution intimately, but Gmail's solution uses the location hash for tracking history/bookmarking and presumably so does Hotmail. This works fine in a JS environment, but you can't pass the links around and expect them to work in non-JS environments, because browsers don't send the hash to the server. In contrast, Flickr has adopted the newer (HTML5) history solution, which allows modification of the location path, but that only works in the newest versions of browsers.
It won't be a solved problem until the older browsers are out of common use.
I can't say this for Hulu, but I haven't used Flash on Youtube for a long time. In fact, in my case, the Youtube videos I've watched are rendered in Quicktime. HTML5 video doesn't have the same extensibility as Flash video does, but for most purposes that's just fine. Unfortunately, H.264 had to win to make that possible... but it has, again unfortunately, won.
Also, with JS libraries and AJAX, one should be able to build pages that load the overall template once, but don't require pulling large HTML files for updates (rather just pull content with AJAX).
It's really not possible to do this correctly, yet, unless you can ignore a significant usage share of browsers. At the very best, you end up with a history mechanism that works entirely correctly for some new browsers but not for older browsers which are still in wide use, and a broken history mechanism on those older browsers that cannot work for users with JS disabled. And if you get that far, your libraries are probably pretty big and that first page load is enormous in contrast with the gains you get for subsequent page loads.
And more often than not people are using commonly used JavaScript files (like jQuery) from CDN servers where, hopefully, the request will be cached on the first page load anyway. In the case of jQuery(/UI), that's anywhere from 31KB to 605KB.
I appreciate the clamor for correctness, but at a certain point what web developers expect of a browser is that we can write code and it can appear and work the same in every browser, and then that we can do powerful things with that code that appears and works the same in every browser. Edge cases definitely hit us from time to time, and those implementation details do matter, but more often than not those aren't the complaints we have. We want basic things like display: inline-block or text-overflow: ellipsis or box-shadow: inset to work without weird hacks. (And since I'm not feeling particularly loyal, the last complaint is directed at Chrome, the second at Firefox, and the first at Firefox and IE; I'd have included a complaint directed at Safari but I can't think of one, and that's not an endorsement of Safari I'm just drawing a blank at the moment; and I'd have included one for Opera but I can't be bothered).
I think you'll find we measure compatibility by how much special care we need to coax a given browser to do what it's told. You can claim WebKit is lacking, and it might technically be, but it certainly lives up to that expectation better than the competition.
Google is trying (with some success and some failure) to introduce improvements to the web technologies in browsers. None of the "Google-only" things you mention are things Google wants to be limited to Chrome. Their strategy is not to have the best browser or the largest usage share of browsers, their goal is to improve all browsers, so that they can do more with the web.
The problem is that any philosophy that claims to have a God-given truth inevitably turns evil because you can't question God-given truth.
Here is the problem with the "all religions are bad" brand of atheism and its argument's logical conclusions. Buddhism doesn't claim to have a God-given truth. You have to be extremely ignorant to believe that it does.
Hitchens himself criticized Buddhism in "God is not Great". You should read that book.
Maybe you can share some of his ideas on the subject with us so that you're contributing ideas to the discussion instead of advertisements? Because frankly I've always found it annoying that in talks and debates he would always avoid sharing any such ideas and instead would say, I have things to say about this in my book. He shared quite a lot of his thoughts about much easier targets.
It isn't really fair to say that Hitchens, in arguing for the Iraq war, had ever wanted what the Iraq war became and the consequences that left Iraqis to contend with. It might be fair to say he was ignorant for not seeing it coming though.
Whether or not you agree with his stance on the Iraq War, it is a grotesque oversimplification to say that he was a shameless shill.
I disagree with his stance on the Iraq War (and the whole neoconservative agenda he got in on), but a lot of his reasoning resonated with me, and it shouldn't be surprising: it carried much of the moral reasoning that he had previously used in confronting totalitarianism while speaking out against imperial wars. In that sense, and in the sense that you seem to have identified a subtext in "shameless shill" that may or may not be necessary there, I agree that it would be an oversimplification. But in the sense that he was never willing or able to confront his abandoned anti-imperialist views with any level of reasoning beyond dismissal, and putting aside subtext, his shilling did often feel shameless.
It seems to me that he couldn't reconcile his views on Islam with all of the views he had held which might temper them, the former won, and he eventually just picked a side and stuck with it. His moral motivations never changed, and he rarely seemed to lose sense of the gravity of his positions (except when he started discussing frankly just what kind of toll in other people's lives he was willing to accept in order to save them from their oppressors), but it's hard not to see his position as half-hearted in its internal conflict, and in that a certain sense of shamelessness.
Since this is a Hitchens post, I think Hitchens' answer to Pascal's wager should be relevant. "... it demands of us that we think of this god as a cynical, rather credulous, rather capricious opportunist, easily flattered, and of ourselves as the raw material for a pretty cruel and meaningless experiment." I don't think anyone choosing to identify with a belief they don't hold in their heart would gain any favor with any conceivably good god. Pascal seems to have a point, until you think about the implications about his god and about what it expects of us.
What problems do you have with Netflix streaming on Chrome? I use Safari as my primary browser, but I use Chrome for Netflix and it has no serious issues for me.
I'd be a lot more inclined to take Ron Paul and his advocates seriously if the advocates were a lot more realistic about both his potential and his intentions. In the best case scenario, he would be extremely limited in terms of implementing the positive changes he's proposed, and he would also be forced to clarify vaguely positive-sounding ideas into coherent policy that would be, well, problematical.
That's putting aside serious inconsistencies and problems in his platform and political approach.
At worst, the AC is harmless. More than likely, they are also a handy person to have around in a bind. But keep mocking people for Slashdot funny points, it makes you look so cool.
since Leopard, which is really pretty decent, Apple's been producing poorer and poorer OSX and IOS releases
Really? Granted I didn't upgrade to "Lion" until 10.7.2, but I've never experienced a smoother OS upgrade, and I never upgrade to a 10.x.0 release. Basically my experience was that everything I cared about worked as well or better, with the exception single-app Exposé, which I rarely used anyway.
And while I won't dismiss reliance on 5+ year old software out of hand, anyone with a workflow where they can't or won't update that software should be researching new OS upgrades beforehand; and if that's your primary complaint about "Lion", it doesn't seem like there's a lot to complain about.
Re:The culprit is gonna be associated with Android
on
Siri Protocol Cracked
·
· Score: 1
Apple will simply tack on a requirement to register a 4S with serial number, original purchase receipt and a plan verification from the cell provider
No way in hell. They'd sooner find a way to monetize officially opening up Siri cross-platform. All of this onerous treat-customers-like-criminals stuff is something Apple has consciously avoided in their business strategies for a long, long time—presumably observing that customers don't like to be treated like criminals, and don't like to give money to companies that make them feel bad.
No, the point made was that under-representation of white people in professional basketball is racism, and that it's racist to suggest that one career where black people are benefited disproportionately is not a counterpoint to systemic racism.
Slashdot Mirror
Real journalists are supposed to push their own views. That is an integral part of journalism.
It's not an "entitlement mentality" to expect to be paid for work. It's an "entitlement mentality" for a business to expect work to be done for free by manipulating workers' fear of a bad economy.
Those of us who have lived in humid environments as well as more arid environments often hate air conditioning, but find it a necessary evil when visiting humid places. Speaking for myself, I would never run air conditioning in a hot, dry climate; shade and a breeze do just fine.
Web mail has the benefit of not (generally) needing to accommodate both history *and* exchanging links. I don't know Hotmail's solution intimately, but Gmail's solution uses the location hash for tracking history/bookmarking and presumably so does Hotmail. This works fine in a JS environment, but you can't pass the links around and expect them to work in non-JS environments, because browsers don't send the hash to the server. In contrast, Flickr has adopted the newer (HTML5) history solution, which allows modification of the location path, but that only works in the newest versions of browsers.
It won't be a solved problem until the older browsers are out of common use.
I can't say this for Hulu, but I haven't used Flash on Youtube for a long time. In fact, in my case, the Youtube videos I've watched are rendered in Quicktime. HTML5 video doesn't have the same extensibility as Flash video does, but for most purposes that's just fine. Unfortunately, H.264 had to win to make that possible... but it has, again unfortunately, won.
People also use jQuery UI, which has a significantly larger footprint (a very small part of which is images).
Also, with JS libraries and AJAX, one should be able to build pages that load the overall template once, but don't require pulling large HTML files for updates (rather just pull content with AJAX).
It's really not possible to do this correctly, yet, unless you can ignore a significant usage share of browsers. At the very best, you end up with a history mechanism that works entirely correctly for some new browsers but not for older browsers which are still in wide use, and a broken history mechanism on those older browsers that cannot work for users with JS disabled. And if you get that far, your libraries are probably pretty big and that first page load is enormous in contrast with the gains you get for subsequent page loads.
Set absolute heights and widths of your elements (tables, for example)
Or make better design decisions that don't require that kind of rigidity and abuse of table elements.
And more often than not people are using commonly used JavaScript files (like jQuery) from CDN servers where, hopefully, the request will be cached on the first page load anyway. In the case of jQuery(/UI), that's anywhere from 31KB to 605KB.
I appreciate the clamor for correctness, but at a certain point what web developers expect of a browser is that we can write code and it can appear and work the same in every browser, and then that we can do powerful things with that code that appears and works the same in every browser. Edge cases definitely hit us from time to time, and those implementation details do matter, but more often than not those aren't the complaints we have. We want basic things like display: inline-block or text-overflow: ellipsis or box-shadow: inset to work without weird hacks. (And since I'm not feeling particularly loyal, the last complaint is directed at Chrome, the second at Firefox, and the first at Firefox and IE; I'd have included a complaint directed at Safari but I can't think of one, and that's not an endorsement of Safari I'm just drawing a blank at the moment; and I'd have included one for Opera but I can't be bothered).
I think you'll find we measure compatibility by how much special care we need to coax a given browser to do what it's told. You can claim WebKit is lacking, and it might technically be, but it certainly lives up to that expectation better than the competition.
Google is trying (with some success and some failure) to introduce improvements to the web technologies in browsers. None of the "Google-only" things you mention are things Google wants to be limited to Chrome. Their strategy is not to have the best browser or the largest usage share of browsers, their goal is to improve all browsers, so that they can do more with the web.
The problem is that any philosophy that claims to have a God-given truth inevitably turns evil because you can't question God-given truth.
Here is the problem with the "all religions are bad" brand of atheism and its argument's logical conclusions. Buddhism doesn't claim to have a God-given truth. You have to be extremely ignorant to believe that it does.
Hitchens himself criticized Buddhism in "God is not Great". You should read that book.
Maybe you can share some of his ideas on the subject with us so that you're contributing ideas to the discussion instead of advertisements? Because frankly I've always found it annoying that in talks and debates he would always avoid sharing any such ideas and instead would say, I have things to say about this in my book. He shared quite a lot of his thoughts about much easier targets.
It isn't really fair to say that Hitchens, in arguing for the Iraq war, had ever wanted what the Iraq war became and the consequences that left Iraqis to contend with. It might be fair to say he was ignorant for not seeing it coming though.
Whether or not you agree with his stance on the Iraq War, it is a grotesque oversimplification to say that he was a shameless shill.
I disagree with his stance on the Iraq War (and the whole neoconservative agenda he got in on), but a lot of his reasoning resonated with me, and it shouldn't be surprising: it carried much of the moral reasoning that he had previously used in confronting totalitarianism while speaking out against imperial wars. In that sense, and in the sense that you seem to have identified a subtext in "shameless shill" that may or may not be necessary there, I agree that it would be an oversimplification. But in the sense that he was never willing or able to confront his abandoned anti-imperialist views with any level of reasoning beyond dismissal, and putting aside subtext, his shilling did often feel shameless.
It seems to me that he couldn't reconcile his views on Islam with all of the views he had held which might temper them, the former won, and he eventually just picked a side and stuck with it. His moral motivations never changed, and he rarely seemed to lose sense of the gravity of his positions (except when he started discussing frankly just what kind of toll in other people's lives he was willing to accept in order to save them from their oppressors), but it's hard not to see his position as half-hearted in its internal conflict, and in that a certain sense of shamelessness.
Since this is a Hitchens post, I think Hitchens' answer to Pascal's wager should be relevant. "... it demands of us that we think of this god as a cynical, rather credulous, rather capricious opportunist, easily flattered, and of ourselves as the raw material for a pretty cruel and meaningless experiment." I don't think anyone choosing to identify with a belief they don't hold in their heart would gain any favor with any conceivably good god. Pascal seems to have a point, until you think about the implications about his god and about what it expects of us.
So are you saying that it's inaccurate because it isn't exactly the definition of a psychopath? We can work on it.
I'm assuming your site is either Mac-centric/focused or mobile-centric/focused? That's a huge Safari figure.
Of course. A browser on Windows should probably not be more "Mac-like". On a Mac it most certainly should be.
What problems do you have with Netflix streaming on Chrome? I use Safari as my primary browser, but I use Chrome for Netflix and it has no serious issues for me.
I'd be a lot more inclined to take Ron Paul and his advocates seriously if the advocates were a lot more realistic about both his potential and his intentions. In the best case scenario, he would be extremely limited in terms of implementing the positive changes he's proposed, and he would also be forced to clarify vaguely positive-sounding ideas into coherent policy that would be, well, problematical.
That's putting aside serious inconsistencies and problems in his platform and political approach.
At worst, the AC is harmless. More than likely, they are also a handy person to have around in a bind. But keep mocking people for Slashdot funny points, it makes you look so cool.
since Leopard, which is really pretty decent, Apple's been producing poorer and poorer OSX and IOS releases
Really? Granted I didn't upgrade to "Lion" until 10.7.2, but I've never experienced a smoother OS upgrade, and I never upgrade to a 10.x.0 release. Basically my experience was that everything I cared about worked as well or better, with the exception single-app Exposé, which I rarely used anyway.
And while I won't dismiss reliance on 5+ year old software out of hand, anyone with a workflow where they can't or won't update that software should be researching new OS upgrades beforehand; and if that's your primary complaint about "Lion", it doesn't seem like there's a lot to complain about.
Apple will simply tack on a requirement to register a 4S with serial number, original purchase receipt and a plan verification from the cell provider
No way in hell. They'd sooner find a way to monetize officially opening up Siri cross-platform. All of this onerous treat-customers-like-criminals stuff is something Apple has consciously avoided in their business strategies for a long, long time—presumably observing that customers don't like to be treated like criminals, and don't like to give money to companies that make them feel bad.
Right. So vague innuendo it is!
The point hes trying to make however
No, the point made was that under-representation of white people in professional basketball is racism, and that it's racist to suggest that one career where black people are benefited disproportionately is not a counterpoint to systemic racism.