Messages

It's not so much a stopping point, as there are noticeably more articles dated from 2005. Which is understandable, as AJAX changed the idea of what a web page could do (even though it was possible before the coined phrase).

Browser differences really aren't part of the language. If you're communicating with the DOM, I just use an (up-to-date) library, that handles most of the everyday problems that come up.

I'm attracted to the language itself. Part of the reason being that is more free than most languages I've dealt with. It's dynamic, weakly-typed, and I feel I can customize how my code looks/feels more than I can in many other languages I've dealt with. It's by no means a perfect language, but I don't think there's a language that can make that claim, anyway.

-MillsJROSS

Over the past year I've been really getting into web development/design. (Mostly because it's my job). In that year I've grown an intense love for all things JavaScript. At first glance it was very familiar to me, being a C++/Java programmer, but when I began to breech its depths, I soon discovered that it was entirely a different beast. It did things I wasn't expected, and worked in ways I was unfamiliar with. This made me uncomfortable.

I was immersed in a language I couldn't articulate very well, and I was surrounded by poorly written code (which I didn't know at the time). It probably didn't help that most of the people who use JavaScript consider it a bastard language, not worth their time or energy. So most of what I was trying to learn from was mangled code just eking out an existence. This made me more uncomfortable.

I don't like feeling uncomfortable, nor do I like coding in something where I'm not exactly sure how everything works. So I took to learning as much about JavaScript as I could. I read several technical books, blogs, forums...wherever I could find information (and then make sure it was valid to this day). I soon began to grow some respect for the language, and then just really began to enjoy programming in it.

The one thing I noticed, when trying to find information, is that most JavaScript articles were published in 2005 (which is right about the time the phrase AJAX was introduced). I find its very difficult to find much of anything after this. There are still a few people blogging, here or there, and I tried it myself (however, I found it difficult to blog when I was the only one reading it).

There's not much point to this other than seeing if anyone else has a passion for JavaScript, and perhaps, finding out some new JS websites.

-MillsJROSS

So you're screwed if you're trying to build a website using tables for object positioning.

Actually, if you're using tables for anything other than tabular data, you're not using them correctly (use div tags instead).

I use Firefox at home, and IE at work. I don't hold a preference to either one. With IE8 on the horizon, and apparently an effort to create a more standard compliant browser, I might switch back to IE (Probably not, I don't like change).

IE does have a few things that make it difficult to design web pages, but I've found firefox to be just as difficult to work with.

-Justin

I've always found this to work

"I'm <insert name here>...Adventunare!"

-MillsJROSS

All better now.

-MillsJROSS

I had the time approved by my boss several months ago. So, I'm in, as well. I just need to update my passport.

-MillsJROSS

I agree that time is relative, in that my perception of time might be different then yours. Regardless of whether or not time exists or doesn't exist, what time does measure is change. So the question is how to natural forces of the universe deal with something that isn't changing at a normal speed? I am not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject, but this is how I perceive the ability to move "outside" or normal time.

In a normal universe, assuming everyone was oblivious to me robbing the store, let's say it would take me 2 minutes to rob from the store. Minutes are being measured by a clock on the wall, so assume it's 2 minutes at a global scope to the room and everyone else's normal perceptions. Now, we give ourselves the ability to perform the same actions in 1 second. using the same clock.

So we have a change of 1:120. So lets just look at something simple, like velocity. If we performed the same actions, total distance wouldn't change. Velocity equals change in distance divided by change in time. So normal velocity would be equal to x/120s, x being some constant distance, s being seconds.  You're sped up time would be x/1s. It's fairly obvious, and probably didn't even need to go into math, so see that x > x/120. So we can assume that if we're going to a certain speed we'll be hitting things at a much higher rate. I can speculate that regardless of time, assuming that my atoms are colliding with other atoms rather than just slipping past each other, it would be much harder to move.

Now let's say we look at something else. Force which is equal to mass times acceleration. I am assuming that my mass remains constant in both trials. Now without getting into numbers, I know that I am accelerating, relative to the room, much faster in the second scenario. So there will be much more force involved with every acceleration I make. Now I know gravity is a force, constantly pulling on us at 9.8 meters per second(squared). Now every action I do in the second scenario has much greater force. Since I am assuming my mass is constant, if I jump earth should be pulling me back at the same speed, relative to earth. so I should conceivably be able to leap, since I'm using more force in all of my actions, much higher than normally. So gravity is kind of offset by the amount of force it takes for all my actions.

Then we look at something like heat. Now our body gives of a certain amount of heat per our own relative time. The clock on the wall does not help us here. Our slower selves would be giving off the same amount of heat as our faster selves. And while one might argue you could freeze, assuming internally, your metabolism was moving at the same rate as you, so it's quite possible to avoid being frozen. Relative to the room though, there would be two minutes of your heat entering the room, not considering the heat produced by extra force and collisions of atoms, that would appear in one second. You'd essentially leave a heat wave.

Is any of this accurate? Perhaps. I assume that the universe is not going to change drastically just because your time is relative. You will either be changing things at a faster rate or won't. I think there are certain things that we can come to reasonable conclusions to. Of course, we have to assume certain things. We can go many routes in our assumptions. Maybe we can assume our mass changes. Regardless, we just need to make certain things constants, plug in formula's and take a stance that this is how things would be affected. I assume most things are relative to each other.

I don't think there's any use arguing on the existence of time. Even if time is an object, but for some reason nothing in the universe was moving, time wouldn't really have much meaning. It's only when we consider is purely change that it takes on some scope. We're bound to the earth, that rotates once a day. We see night we see day, we see change. If the earth didn't rotate on it's own axis (let's not consider how that would affect the weather), our perception of time might be vastly different, or at least based on some other regular happenings.

-MillsJROSS

I think, given the fact we're talking about the ability to freeze time, that we might as well forgo some of the harsh realities that stopping time would entail. The idea of stopping time has never sat well with me. I prefer to think of it as speeding up your own localized time. It's essentially the same thing, but I find it more difficult to believe someone has the ability to freeze all of time, the earth, solar system, etc...Either way, it's the same side affects. Gravity would probably be less, but by the same token everything around you would take a lot of energy to move. I'm not sure how you're body would regulate it's heat. However, I'm willing to suspend my belief of these things, because I'm allowing myself to believe a person can speed up his own time.

As far as the camera's concern. If you stop time completely, it shouldn't catch you in the act, though you'd have to be careful to be in the same position when you turned time back on. If you slowed down time, the CCTV could show a blurred version of you, depending on how much you slowed time down. I'd be more interested to see how a infrared camera would show everything.

-MillsJROSS   

I think what we're missing is antics. It seemed like in ye old days there were plenty of people making joke threads and such. When the community got big it started to get too much. I think most of the people who were here were around the same age, and the same maturity level. Most of those people have grown through pivotal parts of their lives and have lost interest.

I don't think it's really up to the old ones to give this forum a sense of community. We've seen all the posts before, including this one several times, and it's hard to get re-interested in things already discussed. I also just plain don't have the desire to read as much from these forums as I used to. It's not so much a lack of interest, because I still read things fairly regularly, but it's a lack of time.

I also am not really interested in meeting new people. That doesn't mean I don't like to meet people, but there have been so many people that have come and gone that it's hard for me to remember who's who (of the newer members). Now when I read a persons post, I don't remember if I like what they generally have to say or not.

The only way to rekindle that sense of community is to go to Mittens events. I know I've only been to one, but I had a blast and really felt like I connected to my fellow mitteneers.

While I may occasionally feel that the forums have changed, I had the same feeling four or five years ago, too. I think it's more of our perception than anything. In your youth you tend to look up to people who've been around longer than you. When you've grown a little longer, your respect for them might be there, but now it's there as equals (Assuming you've matured nicely). Slowly you start noticing that the people that you came in with and those before are dwindling, and you don't have anyone to look up to. The new crowd seems to have their own clicks, and you just can't relate to them anymore. It's not that any of them aren't nice, it's just their in a different stage of life then you are.

There have of course been some changes. The amount of forum members now versus way back when. The average age group is probably higher. The amount of games is increased. The one thing that hasn't seemed to change, which I think does need to be updated, is our moderators. I think our moderators have done a fine job, but I'd like to see some newer blood. And I also still can't understand why c leks is still a moderator. I haven't heard from him in over three years, it seems.

But regardless of change or perception, I still come back here and browse around. I don't always post, I don't always read everything in a thread before I post (like now). However, almost everyday I make my way here, and in a couple years I'll be looking back fondly at these years. I don't think I'll ever leave the forums completely. I've spent a nice chunk of my life here, and while I don't tend to throw the word love around often, I love this community.

-MillsJROSS 

I think if their are aliens out there, than it's possible they're either going to be completely cool with us, total dicks, or somewhere between the two. It's like pondering whether a neighbor moving next-door is going to be a good neighbor or not. We're not going to find out until it happens, and I hope we're ready if it does.

I do believe there is alien life out there, and more to the point intelligent alien life. Mostly because if you think about how big the universe is, there must be something else. Will we meet them? Not sure. Yeah, the vastness of space is big and all that, but with no idea of how alien technology works, it's almost impossible to make a hypothesis on whether or not it's possible if we conclude that aliens might have a different grasp on the universe. They could live on gas giants, and thus earth wouldn't be much a resource. They could be able to live in the openness of space. I don't know, neither do you, they have a better idea.

As to whether or not hyperspace is possible or not, it either is or not. However, to make the claim that it's not on a deep level possible is a little much. Science being built on assumptions, we can only assume that if our other assumptions are correct that it is possible or not. There is no real proof. At some base level we have to make an assumption, and if any one of those assumptions are wrong, there are many things that could go out the window, such as hyperspace.

As far as cryogenics, as of know, with our current technology, cryogenics doesn't seem very plausible. But with some gene manipulation, I can see in the future creating humans with a  natural chemical in their body that allows water to freeze without expansion.

I think one of the ways to contact life would be through, either plenty of gene manipulation, in which case 'humans' might not make contact with other aliens, but some form of ancestor would. Or we are able to perfect artificial intelligence and robot technology to at least have something contact something. One interesting thing about gene manipulation, death is pretty much preprogrammed into our genes. Now there might be other things that cause premature death, or new technologies that elongate it, but the average human live around 80 or so years, just like a cat or a dog may live fifteen (give or take), years. It's possible to change our genes so we are able to live longer, be faster, smarter, stronger.

With all that the future has to offer, I think it is quite possible to come in contact with an alien species, if we don't blow ourselves up first. I don't think it'll happen in our lifetimes, though. Frankly, I'd be just happy if we could get an international moon base, and have affordable commercial flights into space. I think our survival depends on our ability to be able to go forth and breed.

-MillsJROSS

I don't really want to touch the subject of drugs (alcohol included) or dancing. Not that they might not play a part in your so called asocial behavior, but I like to think of people belonging into (very) general two groups. Those who live in the moment, and those who observe the moment.

Those who live in the moment, have a more carefree way of living. They're more social, and can talk to just about anyone. With or without other stimulus, their able to make several friends. These people in a large group of strangers are comfortable with themselves.

Those who observe the moment, are constantly aware of themselves. They're not as social, and have to reach a certain comfort zone with those around them before they can engage in a more carefree attitude. They, generally, have a few solid friends, and everyone else is a shade of friend to acquaintance. These people in a large group of strangers, aren't comfortable, but generally bored. They prefer smaller gatherings with people they know. What you may call shy, they tend to think their on the rim of social circles. Ironically, they can esteem themselves very well.

Now, this grouping is by no way definitive, and most people (if not everyone) can switch from one to another. It's just that, generally, people are mostly living in the moment, or mostly observing the moment.  I consider myself to be an observer of the moment. Whether or not this is a true grouping of people, or just a perceived grouping, I know I can see people act a certain way, and be mystified by it. Just as I'm sure some people might not understand the joy I get from curling up to a good book on a Friday night, and not drinking every weekend (or weekday). In either group, just find things you like to do, and people you enjoy, and life will be sweet.

The reason I didn't touch on drugs/dancing, is because I don't think your drug use has much of a bearing on which group you fall in. Dancing might, but I'm not prepared to argue it either way.

-MillsJROSS

You admit that I acknowledge the "reasons" but you don't understand that I don't agree with them and consider them to be "lame-ass" excuses?  What else am I supposed to do about this?  Flip-flop and go along just so the "righteous" don't get upset 'cause I refuse to buy CDs?  That doesn't make any sense at all.  As I consider all other people's opinions as their opinions, I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to mine.  Regardless of who does or doesn't agree with it.

I'd perhaps want some validation as to why you think they're "lame-ass." I've never stated that you're not entitled to your opinion. I'm not even sure I said you're opinion didn't count. It's just very difficult for me to argue against "lame-ass" without calling you a "doodie head."

I know it's not my product to manufacture, distribute, etc and I don't get to determine the cost of the product.  However, it is my money and I decide what I will spend it on.  They don't seem to grasp this concept.

I believe they perfectly grasp your concept. It's simple economics, and I'm sure they have several Ivy League College employees there to explain things for them. The truth is, they rely on the people who do decide to spend their money on CDs. They set prices to them.

First, you just did say it.  Second, I would say that to agree with somebody's statement that accuses me of saying something, but not being willing to re-read my posts to back it up when I refute it is a horrible way to have a discussion.  Just my opinion which, apprently, I'm not entitled to 'cause I download mp3 ** sob sob **

You're entitled to that opinion. I'm sorry I'm not able to oblige you by reading the ten or more posts you made AGAIN. That's a rather tall order to make. However, I didn't say you were discussing things in a ridiculous way. I said I didn't. A ridiculous way would imply that you had no logical ground to stand on, and I'd be laughing at your statements. This isn't the case. I meant you were being logical in an unpleasant way. This doesn't mean I'm dismissing your opinions, though.

To those holy-crusaders of the mp3 debate.  I assure you you're wasting your time getting upset over this.  It's not going to stop.  But by all means keep on with the [lost cause, hopeless, pointless, go nowhere] quest!  Just like the incapable-of-forward-thinking record companies you have the right to continue wasting energy on a battle you'll never win!!

I'm not upset about this. I think it's wrong, but as I said, I don't think any less of anyone who lives by their own set of principles. To be perfectly honest, though, this argument is a little out of my element. I don't really listen to music, I prefer the upbeat voice of NPR. So I don't buy CDs, or have much an interest in attaining music legally or illegally. I just don't believe in stealing.

I'd also like to extend the olive branch of peace, if you've been offended by anything I've posted. Something that generally goes without saying, but I sense a little heat to this back and forth, and just want to clear the air. The hard part of this internet thing is it's hard to grasp a tone of voice, and I rarely, if ever, intend to offend.

-MillsJROSS

EDIT-- Nikolas,
I have indeed downloaded music before. So, no, I'm no saint. But I stopped once I realized it would be hypocritical of me to want to sell software and expect people not to get it illegally, if I was doing the same. That was five years ago. I have also been to tv-links, but more on a try before buy principle. It's why I bought Venture Bros.

Second: I clearly (on several occasions) stated that I know there is more to it than just the CD.  I, also clearly (and several times), stated that I disagree with these lame-ass excuses for ripping us off.  How is this, pray-tell, not "taking into account more than just the CD"?

Yes, it seems you're willing to concede that there are additional costs to CDs, but any cost you don't agree with becomes lame ass. While you may not be dismissing other costs, besides the CD, your posts do give the impression that you're not even willing to consider those arguments as discussion points. Regardless of your opinion on whether or not there should be any money spent on advertising and marketing, it's something the company DOES spend money on, and therefore SHOULD be factored into the cost of a CD.

I'm not in anyway condoning what the Industry is doing, or for that matter saying it's wrong, I'm simply saying that there is something they spent money on, and they need to get their money back.

Regardless of whether or not you think they charge too much for CDs, it's their right to charge whatever they want. They could add 2 dollars to every CD so that they can buy a herd of donkeys to ride around in their offices. It's their product, they are free to set the prices. Not everyone will be able to afford the prices. Just because it's charged a price we don't believe in, doesn't mean we're entitled to get it for free through other means.

I'm not going to reread all your posts to find any proof of what you said or what you didn't say. I had read your posts, and that's the impression I got, I apologize, if I mistook your previous posts. But, I did not think MrColossals comparison was "ridiculous." I, however, do think that dismissing excuses and calling them "lame-ass" is a horrible way to have a discussion. But I'd never say it was a ridiculous way to have a discussion.

-MillsJROSS

It seems to me that the business model set by the industry is still working for the artist. You can argue all you want that not all your money is going to an artist, but most musicians the industry is backing and pimping, are filthy rich. If you're a good internet band, how much money do you think they're making. Even if there are a few who get by. I'm not saying we should measure an artists success by how much money they're making, but it just seems that we're arguing that this model isn't working, but it seems the artists are surviving.

Even if most of their money comes from tours, who do you think sets those tours up and advertises for them. Yes, not all of your money is going to the artists, it's going to a plethora of people who helped contributed. Yes, some of your money is going to be funneled into someone's pocket, who probably has almost nothing to do with the artist or music. The model is working for that guy, too.

I'm not arguing the system is perfect. I think if you can pay your bills and just be in a local band, you're doing well. I wouldn't steal from either business model, is all.

Of course, you're not going to stop downloading of free content. Arguably, the internet has just made this easy, it's not like it created a black market. Industry's have been dealing with stealing for as long as they've been selling products. You might as well argue that we shouldn't arrest people, because someone else will be doing the same crime in the future.

Frankly, the only thing I'm concerned about when I purchase music is whether or not I like the music. Now, if the industry was clubbing baby seals for every CD sold, I might refrain, but I've never felt that the industry was an evil entity. It's an entity run on the basis of making profit, and it's product is Music. It's like any industry, you're not going to get the greatest item in the world, but it will be dependable, and it will be consistently good. If I buy a Mrs. Smith's apple pie, I don't expect it to taste better than a homemade local pie shop's pie, but I know it will taste good.

I in no way think worse of people who download music, or watch tv shows online. It's just something I won't do. I do understand the logic behind stealing, to some degree. I just think it's flawed. I don't believe we are entitled to have something for free just because we don't agree with how that something is being produced or we don't like the person(s) producing it.

That's a rediculous comparison to make.  Please re-read my posts before accusing me of "arbitrarily" this or "not taking into account" that ... as clearly, I'm doing neither.

That's what I understood you to mean when I re-read your post. I thought his comment was rather correct. Of course, I don't much like reality sandwiches, so what do I know.

-MillsJROSS

These production companies should come to the [brain numbingly obvious] realization that the internet isn't going away.  No matter what they do/try they will never stop people downloading stuff from the 'net for free.  This is a no-brainer.

They shouldn't lower their prices because piracy is keeping their sales down.  They should lower their prices because their too-high prices are causing people to get it for free so as to not pay the too-high prices.  Sure, as you said:

First off, I completely disagree that CDs are too expensive. I'd say the average CD is about $15 - $25. I've easily drop more than that on a meal and not even think about it. I also think these companies are smart enough to realize the internet is a factor, which is why people can download music on-line for money.

Now I don't honestly care about anyone else's perspective on this issue, in that, I live my life by my code, and you're free to live your life by yours. I'm just not going to cry over something being closed down, that I don't agree with.

I can afford DVDs and CDs, and I don't think their unreasonably priced (for the most part). As a programmer, I firmly don't like the idea of someone spreading around something I created to eek out a living, just because they can't afford to pay prices that are set by my rent, my car, and other things I need to survive.

I think the real issues with the tv-links website are whether or not linking to "illegal" material is wrong. Of course, if you think you should be able to get that material for free anyway, you won't really care. If, however, you honestly like a show (especially a current running show), isn't it far better to buy the DVDs and hopefully, tell the big wigs that the show should run for another season? Yes there are gray area's where there are shows that aren't being released to DVD, or just aren't accessible in your area. If you think hosting the sites is wrong than I can't see how linking the sites could be right.

-MillsJROSS

Personally, I don't condone the use of websites that host, or point to hosted copyrighted material. The only thing I will let go, is if it posts to material that is no longer being supported by the holder of the copyrighted material. In the case of tv-links, this isn't the case.

I love the excuse that because it's expensive, people will obviously take it for free, and that somehow, big corporations will see that they aren't getting the money they should be, and lower their prices. That's based on the assumption that everyone is going to steal. In reality, there are plenty of honest people who won't steal, and so corporations will raise the prices, and it's those people who pay the new price hike. Even if the corporation lowered their prices, most of the people who steal would still steal if it was freely available, anyway.

-MillsJROSS

Ben Jordan Goes To Washington?

Me thinks you just can't think of a title.

-MillsJROSS

Perhaps if you want to release a chapter like version of a game, and make it so it can be played in sequence, or separately.

Perhaps you want to release a collection in one mega-pack where the games where created separately. I don't think this is a bad command, just a command that will rarely be used.

-MillsJROSS

It all sounds so glorious, but I am of the opinion, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. If I used my personal computer for something mildly important, I'd consider it. But frankly, I check my e-mail. I check this website. I play old games. I program.

This, along with the scientific fact that Service Packs don't noticeably destroy system performance

I've noticed a difference. I've reinstalled my OS several times, I've updated my system with SP2, several times. I use the same software, I do the same things. My PC seems slower. Now, perhaps, it's not SP2, but something entirely different. Perhaps, its all mental. The only thing I've noticed is that I haven't had any problems running my PC without the service pack.

That said, I intend to get a new system soon, and use this one for games, or programming, and taking it off line. So, security issues don't really bother me so much. I have no desire to argue that SP2 isn't a good thing, and that everyone should get it, they  should. I won't, on this PC, though.

-MillsJROSS

There's a lot more to teaching then just knowing the material your learning. The ability to teach is a difficult one. You have to know how to manage an age group and a mind set that you may no longer understand. It doesn't make it easy that a teacher, generally, has to deal with new people and new situations every year. As an IT person I deal with the "Same Shit Different Day" type of work. My job isn't likely to change drastically (not that it can't or won't, it's just not as regular). I know that I would have no talent for being able to teach a classroom. Knowledge, yes...ability, no.

That said, I do completely respect teachers. But I completely respect my profession too. So why can't teachers make as much money? It's because as a whole there are a lot of people who are willing to work for those wages. Unfortunately, if you value yourself at a higher level of pay, it's difficult to find someone who's willing to pay your salary. There's a much larger number of people willing to take teaching positions at the lower salary with similar skill sets. Should teachers be paid more? Probably...but until most of them start valuing themselves above that pay scale, the salary will stay.

It's a lot easier for me to say, I will work for you, but this is what I want to be paid. Simply because there are less people who are capable of doing my job well. At the same time, though, my job isn't as secure as yours. The teaching industry will always grow with the population, but the IT industry is more susceptible to grow and shrink. I think, though, ultimately, it's up to you to make sure your salary is what you think it needs to be, or bite the bullet and say 'money isn't everything, and I love teaching.'

In general, though, most people probably don't think their earning what their worth, or feel undervalued in their jobs. That's something that is across the board in almost every field.

-MillsJROSS