chairface

I hate "wide screens" with a passion - I call them short screens instead. My pet theory is that the LCD manufacturers like short screens better because they can sell fewer pixels while still advertising the same diagonal length.

"Chrome Frame doesn't turn IE into Chrome, it turns IE into something similar to Chrome when on YouTube. When not browsing YouTube, it's still good old IE."

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Chrome Frame replaces Trident, and renders any page just as it would be in Chrome. It also uses Google's V8 javascript engine, again without restriction as to the site you are visiting.

http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/

It's been on the front page of the programming reddit many, many times.

There's already an implementation of hardware accelerated SVG, in IE9: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/04/07/a-closer-look-at...

There's also a toggle in Firefox's about:config that turns on hardware acceleration on Windows.

I'm in enthusiastic agreement. I tried to use Raphael for a hobby project that required efficient scaling of a lot of elements, and I thought Raphael would be ideal for this. Unfortunately, Raphael's list-like data structure (I forget exactly what it's called) doesn't take advantage of SVG's natural advantages in this area. It loops over all the elements in the list and scales them individually, rather than putting them all in one <g> node and scaling that. It's horribly slow for large groups.

edit: I should mention that I moved to jquery-svg and have been happy ever since. :)

I think this was an April Fool's joke: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2010/4/3/april-1st-post-mortem

edit: In response to the downvotes - it appears that it was an April Fool's joke, but because of the response he got, Armin decided to try it out for real. Yeesh.

The sentiment is expressed in the article's fourth paragraph, so at least it's not a misrepresentation.

It is not, however, a very interesting article.

Seems to me that the opposite is true. With an exclusive, a publisher knows they can spend more time on a story, and publish it later. Without an exclusive, publishers are running the risk of being scooped, so they rush it more.

My problem with your conjecture is that exclusives create an artificial scarcity of information, which I don't count as real value creation. Further, for the general reader, there is the added cost of having to subscribe, or at the very least check, more news sources to get the same amount of information as you would in a world without exclusives. There is also the delay before other publications start picking up the story and we get competing points of view. To me as a consumer, it looks like an overall decrease in value. I understand that it doesn't look that way to a publisher.

About my second sentence - I was imagining a story with little newsworthiness, as this is one extreme of your "only criteria". If a publisher is more likely to publish this story because of an exclusive, which is what you seem to be saying, then newsworthiness isn't the only criteria.

I did not mean to be combative or demand an answer from you - my apologies if I came off that way. I just don't agree with or don't understand your point of view, and said so. Apparently 10 other people thought that it stands on its own merits well enough to deserve an upvote. If you don't agree, that's fine, but the snark is uncalled for. If you don't think a post is worthy of a reply, then don't.

How does a reader benefit from news that is available from fewer sources?

Also, if you're more likely to print a story when given an exclusive, then newsworthiness is not your only criterion in deciding what to print.

If the law is there to help prosecute bootleggers, then why aren't the laws against bootlegging enough? The law against making copies of DVDs is superfluous, by your own reasoning. Why isn't a good idea to challenge laws like this?

I'm pretty sure that's the motivation. I'm also pretty sure it doesn't work.

Wait - I thought it was dotfiles.org? It went down a few months ago and hasn't returned. I'm not getting a response from dotfiles.com either.

True, but I'm pretty sure mapping to C-m also maps it to the enter key.

Just another vote for keeping the name. I smiled when I saw it.

I think it makes sense. Some generations are bigger than others, and the bigger ones (like the one this guy is complaining about) can throw their weight around at the expense of the others. They carry more political weight.

I, for instance, was born in a smaller generation. The baby boomers will control things for a decade or two more, and after they start dying, those younger than me will become dominant.

I'm not really that concerned about this - I came to terms with it long ago. But it's still there, and I can understand if some people get bitter about things like this.

The big thing for me that's missing from Django's ORM is being able to map a model to an arbitrary select. It offers so much flexibility.

I'm what wikipedia calls a "Cold Y" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Y_Generation ), and the only time I ever visit twitter is when someone posts a link to a particular tweet from reddit or something. It just seems like such a time investment, and there are other things I'd prefer to do.

Well, the thing about percentages in an election is that a lot of them don't _have_ last digits. Further, if the percentages came out to nice numbers like 57% and 65%, we wouldn't even be having this discussion - it would be really, really obvious.

Well, for me, it is a good point. For some reason it's just much easier for me to remember a particular language's way of doing something when there's only one way.

Also, I'm a little obsessive about my code consistency, so I dislike having to remember that I've been using Array#size instead of Array#length, for instance.

Now, these are obviously not necessarily applicable to anyone else. However, I do feel like I can say that having only one way to do simple things is a plus, without being a "religious nutjob". Which is kind of inflammatory of you to say, by the way.

I took him to mean all the built in special variables, like $$ and $! and $?. I don't see them too often in Ruby, but I'm pretty sure the language supports pretty close to Perl's full set. Not a great argument though, unless most of the Ruby I've seen isn't really representative of the whole.

I believe the phrase he used was "materially correct". Which it was. User data that originated at last.fm was given to the RIAA. It's hard to say the original story was flat wrong.

Yes that's true, but even so, you can't fit all those characters into 8 bits, which is basically the point of that first section. Also, I don't see how mapping to the same codepoint would mean that Chinese has thousands of characters, while Japanese does not. They just share many of those thousands in common.

Also, now that I am reading focusing on your words and not trying to figure out what you mean, a lexicon is a collection of words, not a collection of characters. The concepts overlap somewhat in the case of Chinese, but katakana, for instance, is certainly not a lexicon.

(apologies for replying again, but the time for editing has passed)

I am having trouble seeing what you're claiming. Are you saying that there are not thousands of characters in Japanese and Korean because they borrowed from the Chinese? If so, I'd say your correction is misplaced. These characters must still be taken into account for a charset to be used for these languages.

In any case, I found many of your comments to be irrelevant to the question of how many characters must be used in a language. For instance, the difference between Cantonese and Mandarin pronunciation doesn't have anything to do with this issue. Nor does Chinese origin.

edit: I just spent a little time researching Korean (which I know much less of than Chinese or Japanese), and now I understand more what you were saying about it. However, it seems to me that each "super-glyph" as you call them counts as a character, as far as any charset is concerned. The fact that they can be broken up into constituent glyphs is irrelevant.

It's awkward, but I believe they intend "you're" and "people" to refer to the same entity(s).

But I see what you're saying.

Well, that's a pretty decent analysis for not having thought about it before. I agree that as a child, it seemed that adults had a penchant for denying that they are anything like children, and I think that was a mistake on their part.

Anyway, I'm not too concerned with compromising my authority as a parent. I'm currently more concerned that my kids will be more on the aggressor end of conflicts, and my approach to that has been to tell them parts of my own story, and how I felt when people did mean things to me (they're pretty young, it doesn't get too involved). I suppose they could eventually come to see me as a weakling or something, but I don't really feel that this is a danger right now.

I have a feeling that I might start to feel the need to hide my weaknesses as my kids get closer to their teenage years, but at least for now, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page.

> Either way, your response was snide and still hasn't addressed what I said in that point.

Well, for what it's worth, I wasn't trying to be snide. If the problem was solved, it really would be egalitarian bliss. I really don't know how this could be taken as "dickery".

My response to your proposed solution, if you're interested, is that it's unworkable. I actually skipped most of it my first time through, because the first thing you said about it was "First, get the other kids to realize why nerd things are cool" with no explanation as to how this could possibly be done. Convince me that you can dictate what is cool and what is not on a large scale, and then I'll give some weight to your plan.

See, even now, my talking about this comes off as confrontational, to no effect. I still think it was better for the original conversation to leave it out.

> You've stood out to me as one of the people who's most deliberately ignoring the things that I'm saying

Have I ignored something else that annoys you?

> By that standard I'm blaming the nerds for deliberately setting up a situation wherein they're persecuted, when they could easily avoid the entire situation by not being so deliberately hostile. Does that work?

Sure. The way it's written, it seems like you are referring to all nerds, but I will assume that this is not the case.

Anyway, apology accepted.

> I think it's silly of you to say it's "much more helpful" to "focus more on what is _done_ to the unpopular" when we've all been over that ad nauseam.

When I say it's more helpful to focus on what is done to the unpopular, I am speaking as a parent and an authority figure. And in that position, that focus is well within my locus of control, when it comes to children under my charge. I should have made it more clear that I was speaking from my current point of view.

Furthermore, I spent plenty of time in my youth blaming myself for being beat on, as the author seems to want us to. I assure you, this behavior is also pointless and psychologically damaging. So, to me, there is plenty people can learn from somebody saying "You are not at fault when someone hits you". I am glad you have learned this lesson. But I assure you that not everyone has.

Well, that's what discussions are made of. I think it's silly of you to suggest that I shouldn't say anything without making sure to reiterate the original author's points.