Q. I'm just wondering why Internet Explorer sucks so hard. CLEARLY any other Internet browser is superior. So I'm just wondering. Why is it so slow and crappy compared to Google Chrome and others.
A. First of all, he's not complaining about IE, he's simply asking why its inferior to the other web-browsers such as Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, Opera, and such.
Second, It isn't nearly as bad as it used to be actually.
So, throughout the 1990s, there were two competing browsers: Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer. By the late 1990s, Internet Explorer was the clear winner and it had over a 90% market share by 2001. In 2001, Microsoft released Internet Explorer version 6. At the time, it was incredibly powerful. But, over the next 5 years, Microsoft worked on completely overhauling all of their software. There were no major releases of any Microsoft software, including Internet Explorer, in that time frame. They were too busy rebuilding the entire system around a more secure foundation. In the mean time, because Internet Explorer 6 had a near-monopoly on the browser market, it was the target of all sorts of malicious attacks.
During those five years, the Netscape Navigator code was spun off into a new browser. The new browser was originally called Phoenix, because it rose from the ashes of Netscape, but the name was already taken so instead they chose to call it Firefox. They built the browser up around new standards such as CSS 2. They added support for new formats such as the Scalable Vector Graphics. And it wasn't tied to the operating system so it was inherently more secure. Then Apple forked a small Linux browser called Konqueror and released Safari. Now there were two browsers, far better with the newer standards than Internet Explorer, which couldn't even render PNG files correctly.
In 2006, Microsoft released Internet Explorer 7, but it wasn't enough. For one thing, they didn't want to break all of those pages that relied on Internet Explorer 6's quirks, so IE 7 was very quirky as well. For another, businesses take a long time to upgrade and they had spent millions of dollars on software designed specifically for IE 6. They were in no hurry to get off the outdated browser. Web Developers, faced with the prospect of having to support IE 6 until 2020 (when Windows XP finally stops being supported) were furious at this because they have to include crazy hacks to get their website to look the same on Internet Explorer as on every other browser.
Then Google released Chrome and it got even worse. Chrome started a revolution in browsers- all the sudden, web applications could be run 10 times faster than before. It was getting to the point where you could run real programs in a web browser. Apple, Mozilla, and Opera followed with their own speedy browsers. Microsoft, which is beholden to the needs of the enterprises that make up almost all of their business, had to take it slower. So right now, Internet Explorer is about 10 times slower on every benchmark than any other browser.
Internet Explorer 9 (now in beta) is actually quite good. It's got a minimal interface, inspired by Chrome. It's Javascript speed now matches all the other browsers. And it's at least as far along at implementing the fledgling HTML 5 and CSS 3 specs as Firefox or Chrome. But people are still thinking about IE 6, which they still have to support on corporate networks.
And third, I found this answer just by googling it. Why didn't you just google "Why does Internet Explorer suck?"
Second, It isn't nearly as bad as it used to be actually.
So, throughout the 1990s, there were two competing browsers: Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer. By the late 1990s, Internet Explorer was the clear winner and it had over a 90% market share by 2001. In 2001, Microsoft released Internet Explorer version 6. At the time, it was incredibly powerful. But, over the next 5 years, Microsoft worked on completely overhauling all of their software. There were no major releases of any Microsoft software, including Internet Explorer, in that time frame. They were too busy rebuilding the entire system around a more secure foundation. In the mean time, because Internet Explorer 6 had a near-monopoly on the browser market, it was the target of all sorts of malicious attacks.
During those five years, the Netscape Navigator code was spun off into a new browser. The new browser was originally called Phoenix, because it rose from the ashes of Netscape, but the name was already taken so instead they chose to call it Firefox. They built the browser up around new standards such as CSS 2. They added support for new formats such as the Scalable Vector Graphics. And it wasn't tied to the operating system so it was inherently more secure. Then Apple forked a small Linux browser called Konqueror and released Safari. Now there were two browsers, far better with the newer standards than Internet Explorer, which couldn't even render PNG files correctly.
In 2006, Microsoft released Internet Explorer 7, but it wasn't enough. For one thing, they didn't want to break all of those pages that relied on Internet Explorer 6's quirks, so IE 7 was very quirky as well. For another, businesses take a long time to upgrade and they had spent millions of dollars on software designed specifically for IE 6. They were in no hurry to get off the outdated browser. Web Developers, faced with the prospect of having to support IE 6 until 2020 (when Windows XP finally stops being supported) were furious at this because they have to include crazy hacks to get their website to look the same on Internet Explorer as on every other browser.
Then Google released Chrome and it got even worse. Chrome started a revolution in browsers- all the sudden, web applications could be run 10 times faster than before. It was getting to the point where you could run real programs in a web browser. Apple, Mozilla, and Opera followed with their own speedy browsers. Microsoft, which is beholden to the needs of the enterprises that make up almost all of their business, had to take it slower. So right now, Internet Explorer is about 10 times slower on every benchmark than any other browser.
Internet Explorer 9 (now in beta) is actually quite good. It's got a minimal interface, inspired by Chrome. It's Javascript speed now matches all the other browsers. And it's at least as far along at implementing the fledgling HTML 5 and CSS 3 specs as Firefox or Chrome. But people are still thinking about IE 6, which they still have to support on corporate networks.
And third, I found this answer just by googling it. Why didn't you just google "Why does Internet Explorer suck?"
Why would an anti-socialist republican use Gnu/Linux and boast about it in their avatar?
Q. Don't they realize that Gnu/Linux is copyleft not copyright. Free Software foundation's GPL Licenced? That Linus Torvald himself is an admitted socialist.
My computer was build by me. My operating system is FreeBSD, and Gnu/Linux.
Socialism is not anti-free market, it is anti-capitalism. And I'm pro coorporatism. which is the balance of both.
My computer was build by me. My operating system is FreeBSD, and Gnu/Linux.
Socialism is not anti-free market, it is anti-capitalism. And I'm pro coorporatism. which is the balance of both.
A. the GPL is not socialist.
What is actual says is "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it."
It then goes on to say (paraphrase) that if certain things may not be done legally where you live, work, play, do bussiness in, require you to have the persimssion of copyright holders to do certain things, we give you permission so long as certain guidelines are followed.
I sum the GPL is just a hack of the current copyright system that allows people who want to share thier code, to share it in such a way that access to it will never be abridged by copyright laws. Copyright laws are just a monopoly granted by a government. (not a market phenomena)
This is also why I find criticisms of the GPL as not free enough as absurd. Because it's like saying I want to use X code in a way that the copyright holders don't want be to, but I still plan on using copyright to protect my modifications of X code.
There are of course reasons why the BSD license might be a better license for any given project, like if you value quick adoption or widespread use, or want to build/improve a standard protocol (like TCP/IP). And you have the resources to build and improve it faster or as fast as anyone else might.
Socialism (with a capital s) is state control of the means of production, a dictatorship or the proletariat, supposedly a bridge to a communist society (for each according to his ability, to each according to his need)
Linux certainly isn't the capital s Socialism. Linux certainly has a communal element to it (just as FreeBSD does. However it doesn't cost anything to replicate and idea. (software/ source code is just a series of ideas/statement). Sharing it really can lead to better software. Everyone trying to make it more useful for themselves will make it more useful for everyone. For instance the real-time stuff the navy helped fund, proved to be very useful to the stock exchanges.
Ideas are not properly economic goods. They have no marginal value. You will never exhaust your source code when you are selling cd's with binaries +source on them. Eventually you may run out of CD's or hit a limit on how fast you can burn them, but your source code isn't expended in the process. Thus there is no economic reason why why need copyright to allocate and restrict ideas.
(your probably at least vaugely are of everything I just said)
But anyways to take a chunk out of your confustion. Republicans are not against groups and communities. Republicans will join churches, which is a community that will quite often help it's members when they are in need. They may coach a little league team, give to charity, and so on. It's not like they are or want to be mountain men.
It's somewhat paradoxical, but individualism is the one way that lasting, benificial cooperative structures. Herbert Spencer wrote:
"[The person] is self-conscious; that is, he recognizes his own individuality. ⦠[W]hat we call the moral law â the law of equal freedom â is the law under which individuation becomes perfect, and that ability to act up to this law is the final endowment of humanityâ¦. The increasing assertion of personal rights is an increasing demand that the external conditions needful to a complete unfolding of the individuality shall be respected. Not only is there now a consciousness of individuality and an intelligence whereby individuality may be preserved, but there is a perception that the sphere of action requisite for due development of the individuality may be claimed, and a correlative desire to claim it. And when the change at present going on is complete â when each possesses an active instinct of freedom, together with an active sympathy â then will all the still existing limitations to individuality, be they governmental restraints or be they the aggressions of men on one another, cease. Then none will be hindered from duly unfolding their natures.
...
Yet must this higher individuation be joined with the greatest mutual dependence. Paradoxical though the assertion looks, the progress is at once toward complete separateness and complete union. But the separateness is of a kind consistent with the most complex combinations for fulfilling social wants; and the union is of a kind that does not hinder entire development of each personality. Civilization is evolving a state of things and a kind of character in which two apparently conflicting requirements are reconciled."
What is actual says is "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it."
It then goes on to say (paraphrase) that if certain things may not be done legally where you live, work, play, do bussiness in, require you to have the persimssion of copyright holders to do certain things, we give you permission so long as certain guidelines are followed.
I sum the GPL is just a hack of the current copyright system that allows people who want to share thier code, to share it in such a way that access to it will never be abridged by copyright laws. Copyright laws are just a monopoly granted by a government. (not a market phenomena)
This is also why I find criticisms of the GPL as not free enough as absurd. Because it's like saying I want to use X code in a way that the copyright holders don't want be to, but I still plan on using copyright to protect my modifications of X code.
There are of course reasons why the BSD license might be a better license for any given project, like if you value quick adoption or widespread use, or want to build/improve a standard protocol (like TCP/IP). And you have the resources to build and improve it faster or as fast as anyone else might.
Socialism (with a capital s) is state control of the means of production, a dictatorship or the proletariat, supposedly a bridge to a communist society (for each according to his ability, to each according to his need)
Linux certainly isn't the capital s Socialism. Linux certainly has a communal element to it (just as FreeBSD does. However it doesn't cost anything to replicate and idea. (software/ source code is just a series of ideas/statement). Sharing it really can lead to better software. Everyone trying to make it more useful for themselves will make it more useful for everyone. For instance the real-time stuff the navy helped fund, proved to be very useful to the stock exchanges.
Ideas are not properly economic goods. They have no marginal value. You will never exhaust your source code when you are selling cd's with binaries +source on them. Eventually you may run out of CD's or hit a limit on how fast you can burn them, but your source code isn't expended in the process. Thus there is no economic reason why why need copyright to allocate and restrict ideas.
(your probably at least vaugely are of everything I just said)
But anyways to take a chunk out of your confustion. Republicans are not against groups and communities. Republicans will join churches, which is a community that will quite often help it's members when they are in need. They may coach a little league team, give to charity, and so on. It's not like they are or want to be mountain men.
It's somewhat paradoxical, but individualism is the one way that lasting, benificial cooperative structures. Herbert Spencer wrote:
"[The person] is self-conscious; that is, he recognizes his own individuality. ⦠[W]hat we call the moral law â the law of equal freedom â is the law under which individuation becomes perfect, and that ability to act up to this law is the final endowment of humanityâ¦. The increasing assertion of personal rights is an increasing demand that the external conditions needful to a complete unfolding of the individuality shall be respected. Not only is there now a consciousness of individuality and an intelligence whereby individuality may be preserved, but there is a perception that the sphere of action requisite for due development of the individuality may be claimed, and a correlative desire to claim it. And when the change at present going on is complete â when each possesses an active instinct of freedom, together with an active sympathy â then will all the still existing limitations to individuality, be they governmental restraints or be they the aggressions of men on one another, cease. Then none will be hindered from duly unfolding their natures.
...
Yet must this higher individuation be joined with the greatest mutual dependence. Paradoxical though the assertion looks, the progress is at once toward complete separateness and complete union. But the separateness is of a kind consistent with the most complex combinations for fulfilling social wants; and the union is of a kind that does not hinder entire development of each personality. Civilization is evolving a state of things and a kind of character in which two apparently conflicting requirements are reconciled."
How can I become a programmer?
Q. What tips are there for me to become a programmer? thanks
A. Start by.... programming?
Honestly there are all different types of programming opportunities, and the best way to become engaged in programming is to do something you enjoy.
I started programming by writing games, and then started writing utilities and tools to help do something useful for my friends and family, and eventually got to where I was getting paid for it, but everything I wrote at first was just for my enjoyment and family and friends.
It is useful to have some examples of programs that include source code as part of your learning experience. I recommend Linux / Open Source community as a basic foundation. Using linux, gcc you have a compiler that can be extended to support many languages and platforms, and its free. If you have smart phone you can make games for that.
And if you go the games approach, start simple, 2D graphics like Lunar Lander, Space Invaders, Pong or Asteroids.
Also knowledge of algebra and physics is helpful, particularly if you are shooting guns or flying rockets you want to trace parabolic trajectories for proper ballistics.
Honestly there are all different types of programming opportunities, and the best way to become engaged in programming is to do something you enjoy.
I started programming by writing games, and then started writing utilities and tools to help do something useful for my friends and family, and eventually got to where I was getting paid for it, but everything I wrote at first was just for my enjoyment and family and friends.
It is useful to have some examples of programs that include source code as part of your learning experience. I recommend Linux / Open Source community as a basic foundation. Using linux, gcc you have a compiler that can be extended to support many languages and platforms, and its free. If you have smart phone you can make games for that.
And if you go the games approach, start simple, 2D graphics like Lunar Lander, Space Invaders, Pong or Asteroids.
Also knowledge of algebra and physics is helpful, particularly if you are shooting guns or flying rockets you want to trace parabolic trajectories for proper ballistics.
Nec Projector Review
Plastic Shed Reviews
Ati Graphic Reviews
Nurse Uniforms Reviews
Cabochons Reviews
Inflatable Water Slides Reviews
Barcode Scanner Reviews