|
That would probably make me angry.
|
|
|
|
|
 Like
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So making you angry is what is bad in that it would make you angry, but not liking you when you are not angry will make you angry as not being liked is worth getting angry, as not getting angry is not being liked. Luckily the few that do like you when you are not angry might also agree that they will not be liking you when you are angry, not to mention those that did not like you when you were not angry will now like you being angry, the very few that liked you when you were not angry will like you more when you do get angry, ignoring those that did not like you when you are not angry and still will not be liking you when you do get angry. 
I would suggest getting angry and then liking yourself getting angry. Who knows you might just start growing bigger and bigger as you are getting blue from not breathing (Well what did you expect? Obviously you are not the Hulk or anything) 
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
I'm no longer angry, I'm confused.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm neither, I had a beer instead.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
I think you should start a new religion.
Granted, it would be the repackaging of a very old one - but I see you making good cash at it.
|
|
|
|
|
I've read "angry" so many times it doesn't look like a real word any more
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote:
I'm no longer angry, I'm confused.
I hadn't read CBadger's missive before I sent mine. I probably wouldn't have sent mine if I had. Mine is much simpler than C's but basically says the same thing in a very abbreviated form. (And you just answered my question about you being in a continual state of angry. NOT)
The Hulk is kind of strange, he can stop being The Hulk or get angrier (and stronger) when he gets confused. Depends on whether or not he is getting hurt at the same time. Like someone else said, you aren't The Hulk.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote:
That would probably make me angry.
So, liking you when you're not angry would probably make you angry. Would not liking you make you happy or are you in a continual state of angry? I'm starting to like you whether or not you're angry.
|
|
|
|
|
For me, the Internet browser is just a tool, which allows me to do various things.
I have five different browsers installed on this machine, just like I have seven different text editors, and four full-blooded word processors.
I don't expect all text editors/word processors to behave the same; in fact, the reason that I have variety is precisely because they don't all behave the same -- I use text editor 3 for doing A, because it does it better than text editor 2, etc.
I dare say that most people who subscribe to CP also have multiple text editors/IDEs/graphics apps.
But you don't hear everyone bitching because NotePad+ and TextPad do things differently!
So chrome has its own thinghy for doing whatzit.
I don't give a cr@p.
-- If I want to do whatzit, I'll open chrome.
-- If I want to do a complex document with conditional text, I'll open framemaker or Madcap Flare.
-- If I want to edit Java, I'll open Eclipse.
-- If I want to edit a photo, I'll open PaintShop Pro.
-- If I want to use saved/saveable browser sessions, I'll open Opera.
-- If I want to create a flow diagram, I'll open Visio.
-- If I want to edit C#, I'll open VS.
-- If I want to use Sharepoint I'll open IE.
-- If I want to cry, I'll open Word 2010.
Get over it, eh?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
As developers we embrace complexity.
Most people who use computers just want to do a couple of simple tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
That's not complexity.
You don't use a dishwasher for washing clothes, or a microwave for watching soap operas (although it would probably be preferable).
"If you want to play this game, you have to open this page in [browser name]" wouldn't confuse anyone.
Browsers are not idols that you have to worship at the feet of, so we -- as in us in CP, and those like us -- have to stop making it look like people have to *LOVE* one browser and *HATE* all others.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I'd agree there is no reason for snobbery.
However, my parents think Google is the name of their browser.
True story.
|
|
|
|
|
And people thought that that other browser was named Netscape and a spreadsheet app was named Lotus.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: "If you want to play this game, you have to open this page in [browser
name]" wouldn't confuse anyone.
Good point.
The same with video games and consoles -- not all games are available for all consoles.
And apps and phones/tablets.
|
|
|
|
|
But do you have one dishwasher for cleaning pots, and another dishwasher for cleaning pans?
|
|
|
|
|
Stryder_1 wrote: do you have one dishwasher for cleaning pots, and another dishwasher for
cleaning pans?
Only the polygamists have those.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Stryder_1 wrote: But do you have one dishwasher for cleaning pots, and another dishwasher for cleaning pans?
No, but if a pot doesn't fit into the dishwasher, or if the dishwasher can't clean it, I clean it with something else.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I think the analogy kinda breaks down there. Both are supposed to clean both. But if push comes to shove you can always clean by hand. But you can't render a HTML page in your head.
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't supposed to be a major, definitive, profound analogy; it was just something I threw into a forum posting.
If you want to extend it along sensible lines, try looking at the pans -- why do you need more than one? People all over the world manage with a single pot or wok, so why should your kitchen have over a dozen?
The point is that there is no "best" browser, and certainly nothing that comes close to being the best for everything, so encouraging people to install multiple browsers is preferable -- certainly preferable to the current situation, where browser-lovers are still acting like schoolboys/d1ckheads over their personal browser preferences.
It's not just HTML, any more. Expecting browsers to handle everything will result in their needing a gigabyte of memory to function at all.
Oh. It already has.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
That's not even a relevant comparison. Of course you can't wash clothes with a dishwasher or watch TV on a microwave. They're different tools for completely different problem spaces, but that's not whats being discussed. A closer comparison is you *can* open any text document with any text editor, you can open any RTF document with any RTF editor, and you can open any GIF with your choice of image editing program. You only run into "you can only open this with MS Word" when you get into MS's proprietary formats, and surely you're not advocating the web get splintered amongst proprietary formats.
This is also the argument against silverlight and flash. Giving that much control to one commercial company to control the standard is suicide. MS starts gaining grown and suddenly if they don't want to adequately support other users/browsers, tough **** for the user. Have we forgotten IE's dominance just a decade or so ago? Have we forgotten that because MS didn't want to go forward, everyone else was held back? The web was littered with "Site best browsed in FF" or "Site best browsed in IE" tags. And I know you aren't ignorant of the fact that not everyone is on, or can run, an MS browser.
There should be a central standard, different products should implement that standard and bring their own flavor of features. But the standards organization has to move faster than the current snails pace they operate at. One step toward that will be when the major browsers are all supprting auto-update cycles so the standards can move at a faster pace and the users will move along with it. No more lagging IE 6 users preventing the dollar-conscious big sites from upgrading.
|
|
|
|
|
Jadoti wrote: Giving that much control to one commercial company to control the standard is suicide
Whatever is it that makes you think that it is so important that you bring in the idea of people taking their own lives?
For one thing, making a tool that works with stuff that you have developed is not "taking control" of anything other than the tools that you develop.
For another, forcing everyone to make programs that work exactly the same way and that are capable of exactly the same things is ridiculous.
Ever heard of competition? Ever heard of innovation? Your "Final Solution" of central standards will send them both to the gas chamber.
Having an external committee decide how companies and innovators should make their products is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, not to mention that such a committee will immediately turn into a vipers' nest (which it has), that will yet further stifle any creativity and innovation.
If you want everyone in the world to view your web pages, don't use Flash, don't use Silverlight, don't use HTML5, etc. Problem sorted.
However, anyone who wants everyone in the world to view their web pages probably needs psychiatric attention, so this "connecting everyone to everyone" concept for browser design should not be taken seriously, and the focus has to be that of connecting content providers to content consumers.
Once you get back to the demesne of supplier > customer, the whole standards argument starts to look a little childish and ridiculous, and rightly so.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Suicide wasn't literal. I'm sure you got that, though.
I didn't say force everyone to work the same way, I said a standards board and everyone implements the standards with their unique features. What your advocating is the exact opposite of competition and innovation, it's pushing for a dominant company to monopolize because of their position.
You might like have 20 browsers and choosing between them for their unique characteristics, most other people don't. If Google, being the dominant search engine, decided that they were just going to write for Chrome, then practically overnight users would end up switching to chrome because who in their right mind would want to search in one browser and switch to another browser to use the site they're going to? Who in their right mind wants to have to remember "this site uses this browser, this site uses that browser"? Once users switch to chrome, developers will switch to chrome (because yes, public facing websites DO want wide reach), and you'll have a defacto monopoly. If Google then decides to not support certain platforms with chrome, those users are hosed. Look at early Flash on Linux days, it wasn't supported (and when it was, it wasn't supported well) and the users were left out from sites dominated with Flash.
The web is not the only place that uses this concept. Could you imagine if auto manufacturers did what you propose? Every car having it's own features, roads designed for the cars that the designer likes? Apologists like you would say "I use this car for driving down this road, and I use that car for that road, my truck for this dirt road and my bike for this narrow road... who needs standards?!"
No one mandates that steering wheels go on the left side of the car, gas on the right, brake on the left, but they all adopt it because it works best for the consumers. No one mandates the size of the cars, but there's a standard, and therefor almost all vehicles can drive down almost all roads. Motorcycle manufacturers tried breaking from this many years ago, too, putting gas where they wanted, brake and clutch where they wanted, and it was chaos. They too standardized, and it didn't kill innovation.
There has to be standards, or the web gets splintered. The slow-moving W3C might not be the right group, but it doesn't mean the model is wrong. They don't have to dictate the end product, just promote and evolve the standard. Doesn't stop browsers from doing their own thing, but given browser A that supports feature X, developers can still develop to the standards and know it will work, still know that users who use browser A will be able to view their site, as well as browser B, provided they don't use the special features.
|
|
|
|
|
Jadoti wrote: If Google, being the dominant search engine, decided that they were just going to write for Chrome, then...
... No board of self-appointed experts would be able to a damned thing about it, so your argument is ridiculous.
Jadoti wrote: Apologists like you would say "I use this car for driving down this road, and I use that car for that road, my truck for this dirt road and my bike for this narrow road... who needs standards?!"
Unfortunately for your argument, that is Precisely what people do -- "I use a bike for cycle paths, an off-road machine for off road, a town car for driving around town, a limo for weddings, and a tank for invading Poland".
If cars were the same price as Internet browsers, you could bet your life that each family would have a dozen, for different purposes.
Jadoti wrote: No one mandates that steering wheels go on the left side of the car, gas on the right, brake on the left, but they all adopt it because it works best for the consumers.
Wrong.
The pedals are positioned because that is what consumers Want. No-one has decided "what is best", at all; although if some idiot decided to put the pedals in different positions, accidents would happen, and safety standards would be established -- but no-one in the industry wants yet more standards, so no-one rocks the boat (my wife spent a number of years as a project manager on high-end German cars, so she can tell you how much they desire and look forward to new standards).
How you think you can get away using that as an example to show that standards are wanted, I don't know -- the reality, in the real world, is that no-one wants standards, so they avoid doing anything that might make someone create them.
Jadoti wrote: There has to be standards, or the web gets splintered.
Say what?
What you're saying is that everyone must be able to view every web page, no matter its content, in every browser, otherwise the Internet is "splintered"?
Think hard on that concept, and try to include the real world in your thinking.
If one person predominantly uses a browser for comms (e-mail, etc.) then why should that person use a browser that is loaded down to five times its weight with libraries that optimise it for watching videos?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
What you appear to want is for all browsers to be optimal for all possible uses.
Given that a lot of idiots making browsers seem to think the same thing, the day when a browser's memory drain reaches 4Gb is probably not far away -- exceeding 1Gb is relatively normal already.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
