 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:28:02 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> Splitting hairs to that degree is making you look pointless.
>
>I was merely pointing out an incorrect statement you made. That it
>wasn't germane to the argument your making is irrelevant. Not every
>statement made on a news server, even as a follow up to one of your
>posts, must be targetted at you.
But that does not stop me from replying. Tis the nature of usenet.
Deal with it.
>
>> Come on,
>> better reasoning and arguments next time please.
>
>I find that you summarily ignore any arguments that anyone else puts
>forth, responding with insults instead, and admonitions that anyone
>disagreeing must really not be paying attention, because you're so
>obviously right. So what's the point? At this point, it's a religious
>war, and the rest of us are the heathens.
Now you are being plain silly. To call forth religion in this manner
is probably insulting those with beliefs too.
Just take a deep breath and re-read. This time, really re-read.
Quietly. To yourself. No mumbling. Understand.
Then you will see I have stated my case logically. I cannot then help
it if I have to then deal with the wave of apathy that came at me. I
call a spade a spade and there are certainly some of these around
these parts.
Besides, this is all moot. Apparently, there is no prohibition from
posting JPEG2000 after all. I - sort of - win.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 17:27:59 -0500, Tyler Eaves <tyl### [at] NOSPAMml1net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 22:24:01 +0000, IMBJR wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:03:42 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>IMBJR wrote:
>>>> PNG does indeed give large files and I feel this is maddening because
>>>> some of use still use dial-up modems.
>>>
>>>But high-speed access is available lots of places! Why would we nanny
>>>people on dial-up modems? You're just too lazy to pay for cable, obviously.
>>
>> I live in an area where the telco has seen fit not to cover properly.
>
>I think that's exactly as much of a problem as you think my choice of
>computing platform is.
Mmm, beg to differ. There's a big difference between no availability
and limited availability. One is nothing, the other is something.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:29:30 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> I live in an area where the telco has seen fit not to cover properly.
>
>What? Surely if enough consumers demand it, the telco will provide it! I
>mean, clearly the demand is there. You're just too lazy.
Hey, parrot boy. Come up with something a little more original than
that. That's just first-grade heckling.
PS. This is indeed how it works - demand targets are set by the telco,
but actually the technology will just not cover my home area.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I - sort of - win.
And you must feel very - sort of - proud now ;-)
Severi S.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:29:30 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> wrote:
>
>>IMBJR wrote:
>>> I live in an area where the telco has seen fit not to cover properly.
>>
>>What? Surely if enough consumers demand it, the telco will provide it! I
>>mean, clearly the demand is there. You're just too lazy.
>
> Hey, parrot boy. Come up with something a little more original than
> that. That's just first-grade heckling.
>
> PS. This is indeed how it works - demand targets are set by the telco,
> but actually the technology will just not cover my home area.
Looks like you drew the short straw when they were handing out broadband
coverage then.
-Eamon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 17:31:00 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:
>Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in news:404B9EDA.1637618C@pacbell.net:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Trying toning it down a bit, please.
>>
>
>
>Such restraint. Must be another gorgeous day on the west coast ;) I'll
>take the cue from you and stop feeding the troll.
So you need to be told what to do by others?
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 17:31:00 -0500, Tom Galvin <tom### [at] imporg> wrote:
>Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in news:404B9EDA.1637618C@pacbell.net:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Trying toning it down a bit, please.
>>
>
>
>Such restraint. Must be another gorgeous day on the west coast ;) I'll
>take the cue from you and stop feeding the troll.
PS. Troll indeed. Such a lazy labelling. Fine, if that's what makes
your dillusion complete - go ahead. Ignore my points, fine. They were
perfectly valid - just delivered in a tone that hurt little ears could
not take.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:41:48 +0200, Severi Salminen
<sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:
>> I - sort of - win.
>
>And you must feel very - sort of - proud now ;-)
Don't be so silly. Why must you make such silly remarks? Are you that
childish that you can't resist making such silly little pokes at
people? Grow up. Dear me. No wonder the quality of debate around here
is severely lacking if that's all you are capable of.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Mar 2004 17:50:32 -0500, Eamon Caddigan <eca### [at] uiucedu>
wrote:
>IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:29:30 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>IMBJR wrote:
>>>> I live in an area where the telco has seen fit not to cover properly.
>>>
>>>What? Surely if enough consumers demand it, the telco will provide it! I
>>>mean, clearly the demand is there. You're just too lazy.
>>
>> Hey, parrot boy. Come up with something a little more original than
>> that. That's just first-grade heckling.
>>
>> PS. This is indeed how it works - demand targets are set by the telco,
>> but actually the technology will just not cover my home area.
>
>Looks like you drew the short straw when they were handing out broadband
>coverage then.
Damn straight I did. I'm ever so slightly out of range. It's a pain in
the bum for sure - otherwise I'd be able to publish much large
projects involving animation.
>
>-Eamon
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <5msm409n7fsv43fi2uj8ge1miv2oalorbe@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere
says...
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:50:36 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim.nikias (@)
> nolights.de> wrote:
> >"Ease of use" - that's
> >what standards are for, you know? That's why some comply to them, and others
> >try to define new ones to introduce advancements.
>
> Ease of use in standards? - oh, boy, are you ever way off the mark. I
> work in the software industry and the numerous standards I come into
> contact with certainly do not feature ease of use as their main drive.
>
The real problem here is that companies like Microsoft equate "Ease of
Use" with dumming things down to a point where a chimpanzee can use the
basics of a program, but preventing anyone that knows what the hell they
are doing from accomplishing real work that requires real and *stable*
features. The result is it actually gets harder to do anything creative
or useful with the software, not easier. Case in point - I had a test
project in VB I wanted to design. VB handles all the maintenance and
complicated BS like making sure memory is freed when classes go out of
scope and other matters that require 2-3 times as much time to code and
debug, but MS also left out most basic API support, requiring that you
link it externally and have the C++ headers to find values for things
like flags. Nothing they make that provides API library documentation
bothers to tell you what the hell any of those values are.
The entire program once I tracked down all the stuff I needed was maybe
200 lines. Had I tried to code it in C++ I would have had to fight with
GCC or the free Borland, which would have made the task 20 times harder
than using VC++. I could use VC++, but the version I have was made back
when Windows 95 first came out and I can't afford a new version, so I am
screwed out of most simple ATL solutions I could have employed to make my
life easier. But the time I finished I would have had 2000 lines of code
and half of it I wouldn't have the slightly clue how it worked or if I
missed some memory leak or other problem.
I am also still trying to find some way to get around the fact that VB
intentionally hides the Invoke and QueryInterface functions that allow
you to do simple things like switching a window and its controls between
design and run mode. All in all, I love VB for the ease of design, but
the implementation and artificial limitations they put into it because of
the "VB programmer won't need or want this" mentality makes anything
beyond die cast, one size fits all program designs difficult to the point
of near impossibility. There is no valid excuse for this, save for the
belief that MS has that it should cater its efforts to the lowest common
denominator, all of whom are apparently too stupid to code real software
or use the Windows API properly.
Sadly, much of the computer industry you talk about being a part of take
their own cues from the 'stupid is better' philosophy that MS uses, so it
isn't surprising that "Ease of Use" means "practically useless" and
"versatile" tends to be an alias for "complicated and hard to use".
Claiming that this is normal, expected or somehow unavoidable imho
implies your association with the wrong crowd of people, not a law of
nature.
BTW, most of the *standards* MS comes up with are by their own admittance
designed to be intentionally difficult, overly complicated and badly
implemented. They believe designing such things will give them an edge
over Linux and other open source projects, by making it impractical or
too complicated to provide compatibility. I.e., screw the customer and
developers by making it harder for them to use things, so that they have
no choice but to consult with you or buy your solution. If you use simple
standards that make sense, anyone can design with them, and there is no
reason for your customer to buy the latest version of *your* database,
spreadsheet, <place type of product here> solution. Don't believe me?:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
MS' description of how to deal with people using 'simple' protocols like
HTTP or anything else people can actually figure out makes for a very
interesting read.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
