What the hell people?!

I've spent 2 days looking at Adobe AIR, ASP.Net, Joomla, Drupal, Dot Net
Nuke, JavaFX, and so on......and it just sickens me.

What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
app and stream it to the end user's desktop.

We had activeX. It wasn't perfect for streaming apps, but it was a damned
sight better than anything on the market - and Microsoft is killing it.

What the hell, people? Why is it so damned hard to give developers a gui
development platform like Visual Basic (old school or .Net) that streams an
application to end users? Thinstall claims to do it, but I am not sure that
it does so over the internet - I think it is meant for local lans.

This web application thing is a fucking joke. What we need is a complete
break from the broken web's old tools of HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc. (which are
all simply hacks layered on top of a network created for TEXT
transmissions). We need a new platform that utilizes TCPIP networks
(internal or internet) to deliver actual, functional, kick-ass desktop
applications.

This may mean a new, open standards/source browser that hosts applications.
It may mean a new protocol for sending the apps to the new browser and
having them run there.

I don't know exactly what it will entail...but I do know this.... The web
is fucking broken when it comes to producing server hosted, no-install
desktop/webservices based applications that don't look like some 3 year old
coded them.

Give me a platform people. A REAL platform. Not some hack...some childish
looking webpages that can't hold a candle to any desktop app a 12 year old
can code in .Net.

Damn......work with me people!

jim

Re: What the hell people?!

Don't hold back -- tell us how you REALLY feel. ;-)

RobinS.
----------------------------
"jim" wrote in message
news:orVij.72800$L%6.34688@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> I've spent 2 days looking at Adobe AIR, ASP.Net, Joomla, Drupal, Dot Net
> Nuke, JavaFX, and so on......and it just sickens me.
>
> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>
> We had activeX. It wasn't perfect for streaming apps, but it was a damned
> sight better than anything on the market - and Microsoft is killing it.
>
> What the hell, people? Why is it so damned hard to give developers a gui
> development platform like Visual Basic (old school or .Net) that streams
> an application to end users? Thinstall claims to do it, but I am not sure
> that it does so over the internet - I think it is meant for local lans.
>
> This web application thing is a fucking joke. What we need is a complete
> break from the broken web's old tools of HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc. (which are
> all simply hacks layered on top of a network created for TEXT
> transmissions). We need a new platform that utilizes TCPIP networks
> (internal or internet) to deliver actual, functional, kick-ass desktop
> applications.
>
> This may mean a new, open standards/source browser that hosts
> applications. It may mean a new protocol for sending the apps to the new
> browser and having them run there.
>
> I don't know exactly what it will entail...but I do know this.... The web
> is fucking broken when it comes to producing server hosted, no-install
> desktop/webservices based applications that don't look like some 3 year
> old coded them.
>
> Give me a platform people. A REAL platform. Not some hack...some
> childish looking webpages that can't hold a candle to any desktop app a 12
> year old can code in .Net.
>
> Damn......work with me people!
>
> jim
>

Re: What the hell people?!

Don't hold back -- tell us how you REALLY feel. ;-)

RobinS.
----------------------------
"jim" wrote in message
news:orVij.72800$L%6.34688@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> I've spent 2 days looking at Adobe AIR, ASP.Net, Joomla, Drupal, Dot Net
> Nuke, JavaFX, and so on......and it just sickens me.
>
> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>
> We had activeX. It wasn't perfect for streaming apps, but it was a damned
> sight better than anything on the market - and Microsoft is killing it.
>
> What the hell, people? Why is it so damned hard to give developers a gui
> development platform like Visual Basic (old school or .Net) that streams
> an application to end users? Thinstall claims to do it, but I am not sure
> that it does so over the internet - I think it is meant for local lans.
>
> This web application thing is a fucking joke. What we need is a complete
> break from the broken web's old tools of HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc. (which are
> all simply hacks layered on top of a network created for TEXT
> transmissions). We need a new platform that utilizes TCPIP networks
> (internal or internet) to deliver actual, functional, kick-ass desktop
> applications.
>
> This may mean a new, open standards/source browser that hosts
> applications. It may mean a new protocol for sending the apps to the new
> browser and having them run there.
>
> I don't know exactly what it will entail...but I do know this.... The web
> is fucking broken when it comes to producing server hosted, no-install
> desktop/webservices based applications that don't look like some 3 year
> old coded them.
>
> Give me a platform people. A REAL platform. Not some hack...some
> childish looking webpages that can't hold a candle to any desktop app a 12
> year old can code in .Net.
>
> Damn......work with me people!
>
> jim
>

Re: What the hell people?!

> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.

Flash?

Re: What the hell people?!

> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.

Flash?

Re: What the hell people?!

Why can't you just write a winforms app and connect it to webservices?
Silverlight and Flash will both allow you to host in a browser and connect
to back end services. Even Ajax is something to think about.

Regards

John Timney (MVP)
http://www.johntimney.com
http://www.johntimney.com/blog


"jim" wrote in message
news:orVij.72800$L%6.34688@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> I've spent 2 days looking at Adobe AIR, ASP.Net, Joomla, Drupal, Dot Net
> Nuke, JavaFX, and so on......and it just sickens me.
>
> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>
> We had activeX. It wasn't perfect for streaming apps, but it was a damned
> sight better than anything on the market - and Microsoft is killing it.
>
> What the hell, people? Why is it so damned hard to give developers a gui
> development platform like Visual Basic (old school or .Net) that streams
> an application to end users? Thinstall claims to do it, but I am not sure
> that it does so over the internet - I think it is meant for local lans.
>
> This web application thing is a fucking joke. What we need is a complete
> break from the broken web's old tools of HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc. (which are
> all simply hacks layered on top of a network created for TEXT
> transmissions). We need a new platform that utilizes TCPIP networks
> (internal or internet) to deliver actual, functional, kick-ass desktop
> applications.
>
> This may mean a new, open standards/source browser that hosts
> applications. It may mean a new protocol for sending the apps to the new
> browser and having them run there.
>
> I don't know exactly what it will entail...but I do know this.... The web
> is fucking broken when it comes to producing server hosted, no-install
> desktop/webservices based applications that don't look like some 3 year
> old coded them.
>
> Give me a platform people. A REAL platform. Not some hack...some
> childish looking webpages that can't hold a candle to any desktop app a 12
> year old can code in .Net.
>
> Damn......work with me people!
>
> jim
>

Re: What the hell people?!

Why can't you just write a winforms app and connect it to webservices?
Silverlight and Flash will both allow you to host in a browser and connect
to back end services. Even Ajax is something to think about.

Regards

John Timney (MVP)
http://www.johntimney.com
http://www.johntimney.com/blog


"jim" wrote in message
news:orVij.72800$L%6.34688@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> I've spent 2 days looking at Adobe AIR, ASP.Net, Joomla, Drupal, Dot Net
> Nuke, JavaFX, and so on......and it just sickens me.
>
> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>
> We had activeX. It wasn't perfect for streaming apps, but it was a damned
> sight better than anything on the market - and Microsoft is killing it.
>
> What the hell, people? Why is it so damned hard to give developers a gui
> development platform like Visual Basic (old school or .Net) that streams
> an application to end users? Thinstall claims to do it, but I am not sure
> that it does so over the internet - I think it is meant for local lans.
>
> This web application thing is a fucking joke. What we need is a complete
> break from the broken web's old tools of HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc. (which are
> all simply hacks layered on top of a network created for TEXT
> transmissions). We need a new platform that utilizes TCPIP networks
> (internal or internet) to deliver actual, functional, kick-ass desktop
> applications.
>
> This may mean a new, open standards/source browser that hosts
> applications. It may mean a new protocol for sending the apps to the new
> browser and having them run there.
>
> I don't know exactly what it will entail...but I do know this.... The web
> is fucking broken when it comes to producing server hosted, no-install
> desktop/webservices based applications that don't look like some 3 year
> old coded them.
>
> Give me a platform people. A REAL platform. Not some hack...some
> childish looking webpages that can't hold a candle to any desktop app a 12
> year old can code in .Net.
>
> Damn......work with me people!
>
> jim
>

Re: What the hell people?!

Because it is crippled.

Try writing an antivirus scanner in a winform and hosting it in anything.
It won't happen without the end user having to go through steps (to get
around .Net "security") that will confound most end users.

You simply can't host truly powerful .Net apps that run as simply as
installable applications.

As for Ajax......please. Ajax is a poor excuse for the functionality we
already had in ActiveX. And, again, you are limited in the apps that you
can build using it.

jim

"John Timney (MVP)" wrote in message
news:bLOdnWBPNqCCHBHanZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Why can't you just write a winforms app and connect it to webservices?
> Silverlight and Flash will both allow you to host in a browser and connect
> to back end services. Even Ajax is something to think about.
>
> Regards
>
> John Timney (MVP)
> http://www.johntimney.com
> http://www.johntimney.com/blog
>
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:orVij.72800$L%6.34688@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> I've spent 2 days looking at Adobe AIR, ASP.Net, Joomla, Drupal, Dot Net
>> Nuke, JavaFX, and so on......and it just sickens me.
>>
>> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
>> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>>
>> We had activeX. It wasn't perfect for streaming apps, but it was a
>> damned sight better than anything on the market - and Microsoft is
>> killing it.
>>
>> What the hell, people? Why is it so damned hard to give developers a gui
>> development platform like Visual Basic (old school or .Net) that streams
>> an application to end users? Thinstall claims to do it, but I am not
>> sure that it does so over the internet - I think it is meant for local
>> lans.
>>
>> This web application thing is a fucking joke. What we need is a complete
>> break from the broken web's old tools of HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc. (which
>> are all simply hacks layered on top of a network created for TEXT
>> transmissions). We need a new platform that utilizes TCPIP networks
>> (internal or internet) to deliver actual, functional, kick-ass desktop
>> applications.
>>
>> This may mean a new, open standards/source browser that hosts
>> applications. It may mean a new protocol for sending the apps to the new
>> browser and having them run there.
>>
>> I don't know exactly what it will entail...but I do know this.... The
>> web is fucking broken when it comes to producing server hosted,
>> no-install desktop/webservices based applications that don't look like
>> some 3 year old coded them.
>>
>> Give me a platform people. A REAL platform. Not some hack...some
>> childish looking webpages that can't hold a candle to any desktop app a
>> 12 year old can code in .Net.
>>
>> Damn......work with me people!
>>
>> jim
>>
>
>

Re: What the hell people?!

Because it is crippled.

Try writing an antivirus scanner in a winform and hosting it in anything.
It won't happen without the end user having to go through steps (to get
around .Net "security") that will confound most end users.

You simply can't host truly powerful .Net apps that run as simply as
installable applications.

As for Ajax......please. Ajax is a poor excuse for the functionality we
already had in ActiveX. And, again, you are limited in the apps that you
can build using it.

jim

"John Timney (MVP)" wrote in message
news:bLOdnWBPNqCCHBHanZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Why can't you just write a winforms app and connect it to webservices?
> Silverlight and Flash will both allow you to host in a browser and connect
> to back end services. Even Ajax is something to think about.
>
> Regards
>
> John Timney (MVP)
> http://www.johntimney.com
> http://www.johntimney.com/blog
>
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:orVij.72800$L%6.34688@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> I've spent 2 days looking at Adobe AIR, ASP.Net, Joomla, Drupal, Dot Net
>> Nuke, JavaFX, and so on......and it just sickens me.
>>
>> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
>> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>>
>> We had activeX. It wasn't perfect for streaming apps, but it was a
>> damned sight better than anything on the market - and Microsoft is
>> killing it.
>>
>> What the hell, people? Why is it so damned hard to give developers a gui
>> development platform like Visual Basic (old school or .Net) that streams
>> an application to end users? Thinstall claims to do it, but I am not
>> sure that it does so over the internet - I think it is meant for local
>> lans.
>>
>> This web application thing is a fucking joke. What we need is a complete
>> break from the broken web's old tools of HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc. (which
>> are all simply hacks layered on top of a network created for TEXT
>> transmissions). We need a new platform that utilizes TCPIP networks
>> (internal or internet) to deliver actual, functional, kick-ass desktop
>> applications.
>>
>> This may mean a new, open standards/source browser that hosts
>> applications. It may mean a new protocol for sending the apps to the new
>> browser and having them run there.
>>
>> I don't know exactly what it will entail...but I do know this.... The
>> web is fucking broken when it comes to producing server hosted,
>> no-install desktop/webservices based applications that don't look like
>> some 3 year old coded them.
>>
>> Give me a platform people. A REAL platform. Not some hack...some
>> childish looking webpages that can't hold a candle to any desktop app a
>> 12 year old can code in .Net.
>>
>> Damn......work with me people!
>>
>> jim
>>
>
>

Re: What the hell people?!

Flash?

It's just another layer on top of HTML.

My gold standard is...."can you write an antivirus scanner with it?" You
can't write an antivirus scanner with Flash alone.

Flash is just another way (although better than most) to show fancy
pamphlets on the screen. You can't really use it for graphics manipulation
or large scale data entry (as in a user using a Flash application to enter
insurance forms at an insurance company - NOT as in a single person filling
out a single app). You can't really use it for useful stuff like running
apps similar to Word or Outlook - you know, the stuff we use to get real
work done everyday.

Flash looks cool. But, good looks only get you in the door.....then you
have to perform and Flash can't at the level I am talking about.

jim


"Aidy" wrote in message
news:IvWdndsr_93M5xHanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
>> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>
> Flash?
>

Re: What the hell people?!

Flash?

It's just another layer on top of HTML.

My gold standard is...."can you write an antivirus scanner with it?" You
can't write an antivirus scanner with Flash alone.

Flash is just another way (although better than most) to show fancy
pamphlets on the screen. You can't really use it for graphics manipulation
or large scale data entry (as in a user using a Flash application to enter
insurance forms at an insurance company - NOT as in a single person filling
out a single app). You can't really use it for useful stuff like running
apps similar to Word or Outlook - you know, the stuff we use to get real
work done everyday.

Flash looks cool. But, good looks only get you in the door.....then you
have to perform and Flash can't at the level I am talking about.

jim


"Aidy" wrote in message
news:IvWdndsr_93M5xHanZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a desktop/webservices
>> app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>
> Flash?
>

Re: What the hell people?!

Why don't you just write in C or C++ then. You chose the most appropriate
technology for the job at hand and theres nothing stopping you creating an
activeX using something like the standard widget toolkit in eclipse if you
have the technical skill.

Regards

John Timney (MVP)
http://www.johntimney.com
http://www.johntimney.com/blog


"jim" wrote in message
news:iQ4jj.51215$Mu4.15205@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Because it is crippled.
>
> Try writing an antivirus scanner in a winform and hosting it in anything.
> It won't happen without the end user having to go through steps (to get
> around .Net "security") that will confound most end users.
>
> You simply can't host truly powerful .Net apps that run as simply as
> installable applications.
>
> As for Ajax......please. Ajax is a poor excuse for the functionality we
> already had in ActiveX. And, again, you are limited in the apps that you
> can build using it.
>
> jim
>
> "John Timney (MVP)" wrote in message
> news:bLOdnWBPNqCCHBHanZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>> Why can't you just write a winforms app and connect it to webservices?
>> Silverlight and Flash will both allow you to host in a browser and
>> connect to back end services. Even Ajax is something to think about.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John Timney (MVP)
>> http://www.johntimney.com
>> http://www.johntimney.com/blog
>>
>>
>> "jim" wrote in message
>> news:orVij.72800$L%6.34688@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> I've spent 2 days looking at Adobe AIR, ASP.Net, Joomla, Drupal, Dot Net
>>> Nuke, JavaFX, and so on......and it just sickens me.
>>>
>>> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a
>>> desktop/webservices app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>>>
>>> We had activeX. It wasn't perfect for streaming apps, but it was a
>>> damned sight better than anything on the market - and Microsoft is
>>> killing it.
>>>
>>> What the hell, people? Why is it so damned hard to give developers a
>>> gui development platform like Visual Basic (old school or .Net) that
>>> streams an application to end users? Thinstall claims to do it, but I
>>> am not sure that it does so over the internet - I think it is meant for
>>> local lans.
>>>
>>> This web application thing is a fucking joke. What we need is a
>>> complete break from the broken web's old tools of HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc.
>>> (which are all simply hacks layered on top of a network created for TEXT
>>> transmissions). We need a new platform that utilizes TCPIP networks
>>> (internal or internet) to deliver actual, functional, kick-ass desktop
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> This may mean a new, open standards/source browser that hosts
>>> applications. It may mean a new protocol for sending the apps to the new
>>> browser and having them run there.
>>>
>>> I don't know exactly what it will entail...but I do know this.... The
>>> web is fucking broken when it comes to producing server hosted,
>>> no-install desktop/webservices based applications that don't look like
>>> some 3 year old coded them.
>>>
>>> Give me a platform people. A REAL platform. Not some hack...some
>>> childish looking webpages that can't hold a candle to any desktop app a
>>> 12 year old can code in .Net.
>>>
>>> Damn......work with me people!
>>>
>>> jim
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: What the hell people?!

Why don't you just write in C or C++ then. You chose the most appropriate
technology for the job at hand and theres nothing stopping you creating an
activeX using something like the standard widget toolkit in eclipse if you
have the technical skill.

Regards

John Timney (MVP)
http://www.johntimney.com
http://www.johntimney.com/blog


"jim" wrote in message
news:iQ4jj.51215$Mu4.15205@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Because it is crippled.
>
> Try writing an antivirus scanner in a winform and hosting it in anything.
> It won't happen without the end user having to go through steps (to get
> around .Net "security") that will confound most end users.
>
> You simply can't host truly powerful .Net apps that run as simply as
> installable applications.
>
> As for Ajax......please. Ajax is a poor excuse for the functionality we
> already had in ActiveX. And, again, you are limited in the apps that you
> can build using it.
>
> jim
>
> "John Timney (MVP)" wrote in message
> news:bLOdnWBPNqCCHBHanZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>> Why can't you just write a winforms app and connect it to webservices?
>> Silverlight and Flash will both allow you to host in a browser and
>> connect to back end services. Even Ajax is something to think about.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John Timney (MVP)
>> http://www.johntimney.com
>> http://www.johntimney.com/blog
>>
>>
>> "jim" wrote in message
>> news:orVij.72800$L%6.34688@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> I've spent 2 days looking at Adobe AIR, ASP.Net, Joomla, Drupal, Dot Net
>>> Nuke, JavaFX, and so on......and it just sickens me.
>>>
>>> What's the problem here? All I want to do is write a
>>> desktop/webservices app and stream it to the end user's desktop.
>>>
>>> We had activeX. It wasn't perfect for streaming apps, but it was a
>>> damned sight better than anything on the market - and Microsoft is
>>> killing it.
>>>
>>> What the hell, people? Why is it so damned hard to give developers a
>>> gui development platform like Visual Basic (old school or .Net) that
>>> streams an application to end users? Thinstall claims to do it, but I
>>> am not sure that it does so over the internet - I think it is meant for
>>> local lans.
>>>
>>> This web application thing is a fucking joke. What we need is a
>>> complete break from the broken web's old tools of HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc.
>>> (which are all simply hacks layered on top of a network created for TEXT
>>> transmissions). We need a new platform that utilizes TCPIP networks
>>> (internal or internet) to deliver actual, functional, kick-ass desktop
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> This may mean a new, open standards/source browser that hosts
>>> applications. It may mean a new protocol for sending the apps to the new
>>> browser and having them run there.
>>>
>>> I don't know exactly what it will entail...but I do know this.... The
>>> web is fucking broken when it comes to producing server hosted,
>>> no-install desktop/webservices based applications that don't look like
>>> some 3 year old coded them.
>>>
>>> Give me a platform people. A REAL platform. Not some hack...some
>>> childish looking webpages that can't hold a candle to any desktop app a
>>> 12 year old can code in .Net.
>>>
>>> Damn......work with me people!
>>>
>>> jim
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: What the hell people?!

and
wickedness of her heart. This came upon her, as she expressed it, as a
flash of lightning, and struck her into an exceeding terror. Upon which
she left off reading the Bible, in course, as she had begun; and turned
to the New Testament, to see if she could not find some relief there for
her distressed soul.

Her great terror, she said, was, that she had sinned against God: her
distress grew more and more for three days; until she saw nothing but
blackness of darkness before her, and her very flesh trembled for fear
of God's wrath: she wondered and was astonished at herself, that she had
been so concerned for her body, and had applied so often to physicians
to heal that, and had neglected her soul. Her sinfulness appeared with a
very awful aspect to her, especially in three things; viz. her original
sin, and her sin in murmuring at God's providence-in the weakness and
afflictions she had been under-and in want of duty to parents, though
others had looked upon her to excel in dutifulness. On Saturday, she was
so earnestly engaged in reading the Bible and other books, that she
continued in it, searching for something to relieve her, till her eyes
were so dim that she could not know the letters. While she was thus
engaged in reading, prayer, and other religious exercises, she thought
of those words of Christ, wherein He warns us not to be as the heathen,
that think they shall be heard for their much speaking; which, she said,
led her to see that she had trusted to her own prayers and religious
performances, and now she was put to a nonplus, and knew not which way
to turn herself, or where to seek relief.

While her mind was in this posture, her heart, she said, seemed

Re: What the hell people?!

and
wickedness of her heart. This came upon her, as she expressed it, as a
flash of lightning, and struck her into an exceeding terror. Upon which
she left off reading the Bible, in course, as she had begun; and turned
to the New Testament, to see if she could not find some relief there for
her distressed soul.

Her great terror, she said, was, that she had sinned against God: her
distress grew more and more for three days; until she saw nothing but
blackness of darkness before her, and her very flesh trembled for fear
of God's wrath: she wondered and was astonished at herself, that she had
been so concerned for her body, and had applied so often to physicians
to heal that, and had neglected her soul. Her sinfulness appeared with a
very awful aspect to her, especially in three things; viz. her original
sin, and her sin in murmuring at God's providence-in the weakness and
afflictions she had been under-and in want of duty to parents, though
others had looked upon her to excel in dutifulness. On Saturday, she was
so earnestly engaged in reading the Bible and other books, that she
continued in it, searching for something to relieve her, till her eyes
were so dim that she could not know the letters. While she was thus
engaged in reading, prayer, and other religious exercises, she thought
of those words of Christ, wherein He warns us not to be as the heathen,
that think they shall be heard for their much speaking; which, she said,
led her to see that she had trusted to her own prayers and religious
performances, and now she was put to a nonplus, and knew not which way
to turn herself, or where to seek relief.

While her mind was in this posture, her heart, she said, seemed

Re: What the hell people?!

God; and to
them He grants by grace sufficient light, that they may return to Him, if
they desire to seek and follow Him; and also that they may be punished, if
they refuse to seek or follow Him.

585. That God has willed to hide Himself.--If there were only one religion,
God would indeed be manifest. The same would be the case if there were no
martyrs but in our religion.

God being thus hidden, every religion which does not affirm that God is
hidden is not true; and every religion which does not give the reason of it
is not instructive. Our religion does all this: Vere tu es Deus
absconditus.[102]

586. If there were no obscurity, man would not be sensible of his
corruption; if there were no light, man would not hope for a remedy. Thus,
it is not only fair, but advantageous to us, that God be partly hidden and
partly revealed; since it is equally dangerous to man to know God without
knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his own wretchedness without
knowing God.

587. This religion, so great in miracles, saints, blameless Fathers, learned
and great witnesses, martyrs, established kings as David, and Isaiah, a
prince of the blood, and so great in science, after having displayed all her
miracles and all her wisdom, rejects all this, and declares that she has
neither wisdom nor signs, but only the cross and foolishness.

For those, who, by these signs and that wisdom, have deserved your belief,
and who have proved to you their character, declare to you that nothing of
all this can change you, and render you capable of knowing and loving God,
but the power of the foolishness of the cross without wisdom and signs, and
not the signs without this power. Thus our religi

Re: What the hell people?!

God; and to
them He grants by grace sufficient light, that they may return to Him, if
they desire to seek and follow Him; and also that they may be punished, if
they refuse to seek or follow Him.

585. That God has willed to hide Himself.--If there were only one religion,
God would indeed be manifest. The same would be the case if there were no
martyrs but in our religion.

God being thus hidden, every religion which does not affirm that God is
hidden is not true; and every religion which does not give the reason of it
is not instructive. Our religion does all this: Vere tu es Deus
absconditus.[102]

586. If there were no obscurity, man would not be sensible of his
corruption; if there were no light, man would not hope for a remedy. Thus,
it is not only fair, but advantageous to us, that God be partly hidden and
partly revealed; since it is equally dangerous to man to know God without
knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his own wretchedness without
knowing God.

587. This religion, so great in miracles, saints, blameless Fathers, learned
and great witnesses, martyrs, established kings as David, and Isaiah, a
prince of the blood, and so great in science, after having displayed all her
miracles and all her wisdom, rejects all this, and declares that she has
neither wisdom nor signs, but only the cross and foolishness.

For those, who, by these signs and that wisdom, have deserved your belief,
and who have proved to you their character, declare to you that nothing of
all this can change you, and render you capable of knowing and loving God,
but the power of the foolishness of the cross without wisdom and signs, and
not the signs without this power. Thus our religi

Re: What the hell people?!

rashly introduced. He who would follow reason only would be
deemed foolish by the generality of men. We must judge by the opinion of the
majority of mankind. Because it has pleased them, we must work all day for
pleasures seen to be imaginary; and, after sleep has refreshed our tired
reason, we must forthwith start up and rush after phantoms, and suffer the
impressions of this mistress of the world. This is one of the sources of
error, but it is not the only one.

Our magistrates have known well this mystery. Their red robes, the ermine in
which they wrap themselves like furry cats, the courts in which they
administer justice, the fleurs-de-lis, and all such august apparel were
necessary; if the physicians had not their cassocks and their mules, if the
doctors had not their square caps and their robes four times too wide, they
would never have duped the world, which cannot resist so original an
appearance. If magistrates had true justice, and if physicians had the true
art of healing, they would have no occasion for square caps; the majesty of
these sciences would of itself be venerable enough. But having only
imaginary knowledge, they must employ those silly tools that strike the
imagination with which they have to deal; and thereby, in fact, they inspire
respect. Soldiers alone are not disguised in this manner, because indeed
their part is the most essential; they establish themselves by force, the
others by show.

Therefore our kings seek out no disguises. They do not mask themselves in
extraordinary costumes to ap

Re: What the hell people?!

rashly introduced. He who would follow reason only would be
deemed foolish by the generality of men. We must judge by the opinion of the
majority of mankind. Because it has pleased them, we must work all day for
pleasures seen to be imaginary; and, after sleep has refreshed our tired
reason, we must forthwith start up and rush after phantoms, and suffer the
impressions of this mistress of the world. This is one of the sources of
error, but it is not the only one.

Our magistrates have known well this mystery. Their red robes, the ermine in
which they wrap themselves like furry cats, the courts in which they
administer justice, the fleurs-de-lis, and all such august apparel were
necessary; if the physicians had not their cassocks and their mules, if the
doctors had not their square caps and their robes four times too wide, they
would never have duped the world, which cannot resist so original an
appearance. If magistrates had true justice, and if physicians had the true
art of healing, they would have no occasion for square caps; the majesty of
these sciences would of itself be venerable enough. But having only
imaginary knowledge, they must employ those silly tools that strike the
imagination with which they have to deal; and thereby, in fact, they inspire
respect. Soldiers alone are not disguised in this manner, because indeed
their part is the most essential; they establish themselves by force, the
others by show.

Therefore our kings seek out no disguises. They do not mask themselves in
extraordinary costumes to ap

Re: What the hell people?!

her death-bed, an exceeding longing, both for persons
in a natural state, that they might be converted, and for the godly,
that they might see and know more of God. And when those who looked on
themselves as in a Christless state came to see her, she would be
greatly moved with compassionate affection. One in particular, who
seemed to be in great distress about the state of her soul, and had come
to see her from time to time, she desired her sister to persuade not to
come any more, because the sight of her so wrought on her compassions,
that it overcame her nature. The same week that she died, when she was
in distressing circumstances as to her body, some of her neighbors who
came to see her, asked if she was willing to die! She replied, that she
was quite willing either to live or die; she was willing to be in pain;
she was willing to be so always as she was then, if that was the will of
God. She willed what God willed. They asked her whether she was willing
to die that night. She answered, Yes, if it be God's will. And seemed to
speak all with that perfect composure of spirit, and with such a
cheerful and pleasant countenance, that it filled them with admiration.

She was very weak a considerable time before she died, having pined away
with famine and thirst, so that her flesh seemed to be dried upon her
bones; and therefore could say but little, and manifested her mind very
much by signs. She said she had matter enough to fill up all her time
with talk, if she had but strength. A few days before her death, some
asked her, Whether she held her integrity still? Whether she was not
afraid of death? She answered to this purpose, that she had not the
least degree of fear of death. They asked her why she would be so
confident? She answered, If I should say otherwise, I should speak
contrary to what I know. There is, said she, indeed, a dark entry, that
looks something dark, but on the other side there appears such a bright
shining light, that I c

Re: What the hell people?!

her death-bed, an exceeding longing, both for persons
in a natural state, that they might be converted, and for the godly,
that they might see and know more of God. And when those who looked on
themselves as in a Christless state came to see her, she would be
greatly moved with compassionate affection. One in particular, who
seemed to be in great distress about the state of her soul, and had come
to see her from time to time, she desired her sister to persuade not to
come any more, because the sight of her so wrought on her compassions,
that it overcame her nature. The same week that she died, when she was
in distressing circumstances as to her body, some of her neighbors who
came to see her, asked if she was willing to die! She replied, that she
was quite willing either to live or die; she was willing to be in pain;
she was willing to be so always as she was then, if that was the will of
God. She willed what God willed. They asked her whether she was willing
to die that night. She answered, Yes, if it be God's will. And seemed to
speak all with that perfect composure of spirit, and with such a
cheerful and pleasant countenance, that it filled them with admiration.

She was very weak a considerable time before she died, having pined away
with famine and thirst, so that her flesh seemed to be dried upon her
bones; and therefore could say but little, and manifested her mind very
much by signs. She said she had matter enough to fill up all her time
with talk, if she had but strength. A few days before her death, some
asked her, Whether she held her integrity still? Whether she was not
afraid of death? She answered to this purpose, that she had not the
least degree of fear of death. They asked her why she would be so
confident? She answered, If I should say otherwise, I should speak
contrary to what I know. There is, said she, indeed, a dark entry, that
looks something dark, but on the other side there appears such a bright
shining light, that I c

Re: What the hell people?!

only a
subject full of error, natural and ineffaceable, without grace. Nothing
shows him the truth. Everything deceives him. These two sources of truth,
reason and the senses, besides being both wanting in sincerity, deceive each
other in turn. The senses mislead the Reason with false appearances, and
receive from Reason in their turn the same trickery which they apply to her;
Reason has her revenge. The passions of the soul trouble the senses, and
make false impressions upon them. They rival each other in falsehood and
deception.

But besides those errors which arise accidentally and through lack of
intelligence, with these heterogeneous faculties...

84. The imagination enlarges little objects so as to fill our souls with a
fantastic estimate; and, with rash insolence, it belittles the great to its
own measure, as when talking of God.

85. Things which have most hold on us, as the concealment of our few
possessions, are often a mere nothing. It is a nothing which our imagination
magnifies into a mountain. Another turn of the imagination would make us
discover this without difficulty.

86. My fancy makes me hate a croaker, and one who pants when eating. Fancy
has great weight. Shall we profit by it? Shall we yield to this weight
because it is natural? No, but by resisting it...

87. Nae iste magno conatu magnas nugas dixerit.[14]

583.[15] Quasi quidquam infelicius sit homini cui sua figmenta
dominantur.[16]

88. Children who are frightened at the face they have blackened are but
children. But how shall one who is so weak in his childhood become really
strong when he grows older? We only change our fancies. All that is made
perfect by progress perishes also by progress. All that has been weak can
never become absolutely strong. We say in vain, "He has grown, he has
changed"; he is also the same.

89. Custom is our nature. He

Re: What the hell people?!

only a
subject full of error, natural and ineffaceable, without grace. Nothing
shows him the truth. Everything deceives him. These two sources of truth,
reason and the senses, besides being both wanting in sincerity, deceive each
other in turn. The senses mislead the Reason with false appearances, and
receive from Reason in their turn the same trickery which they apply to her;
Reason has her revenge. The passions of the soul trouble the senses, and
make false impressions upon them. They rival each other in falsehood and
deception.

But besides those errors which arise accidentally and through lack of
intelligence, with these heterogeneous faculties...

84. The imagination enlarges little objects so as to fill our souls with a
fantastic estimate; and, with rash insolence, it belittles the great to its
own measure, as when talking of God.

85. Things which have most hold on us, as the concealment of our few
possessions, are often a mere nothing. It is a nothing which our imagination
magnifies into a mountain. Another turn of the imagination would make us
discover this without difficulty.

86. My fancy makes me hate a croaker, and one who pants when eating. Fancy
has great weight. Shall we profit by it? Shall we yield to this weight
because it is natural? No, but by resisting it...

87. Nae iste magno conatu magnas nugas dixerit.[14]

583.[15] Quasi quidquam infelicius sit homini cui sua figmenta
dominantur.[16]

88. Children who are frightened at the face they have blackened are but
children. But how shall one who is so weak in his childhood become really
strong when he grows older? We only change our fancies. All that is made
perfect by progress perishes also by progress. All that has been weak can
never become absolutely strong. We say in vain, "He has grown, he has
changed"; he is also the same.

89. Custom is our nature. He

Re: What the hell people?!

are grieved at seeing themselves surrounded and overwhelmed with such
enemies, take comfort. I proclaim to them happy news. There exists a
Redeemer for them. I shall show Him to them. I shall show that there is a
God for them. I shall not show Him to others. I shall make them see that a
Messiah has been promised, who should deliver them from their enemies, and
that One has come to free them from their iniquities, but not from their
enemies.

When David foretold that the Messiah would deliver His people from their
enemies, one can believe that in the flesh these would be the Egyptians; and
then I cannot show that the prophecy was fulfilled. But one can well believe
also that the enemies would be their sins; for indeed the Egyptians were not
their enemies, but their sins were so. This word enemies is, therefore,
ambiguous. But if he says elsewhere, as he does, that He will deliver His
people from their sins, as indeed do Isaiah and others, the ambiguity is
removed, and the double meaning of e

Re: What the hell people?!

are grieved at seeing themselves surrounded and overwhelmed with such
enemies, take comfort. I proclaim to them happy news. There exists a
Redeemer for them. I shall show Him to them. I shall show that there is a
God for them. I shall not show Him to others. I shall make them see that a
Messiah has been promised, who should deliver them from their enemies, and
that One has come to free them from their iniquities, but not from their
enemies.

When David foretold that the Messiah would deliver His people from their
enemies, one can believe that in the flesh these would be the Egyptians; and
then I cannot show that the prophecy was fulfilled. But one can well believe
also that the enemies would be their sins; for indeed the Egyptians were not
their enemies, but their sins were so. This word enemies is, therefore,
ambiguous. But if he says elsewhere, as he does, that He will deliver His
people from their sins, as indeed do Isaiah and others, the ambiguity is
removed, and the double meaning of e

Re: What the hell people?!

secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the Nothing from
which he was made, and the Infinite in which he is swallowed up.

What will he do then, but perceive the appearance of the middle of things,
in an eternal despair of knowing either their beginning or their end. All
things proceed from the Nothing, and are borne towards the Infinite. Who
will follow these marvellous processes? The Author of these wonders
understands them. None other can do so.

Through failure to contemplate these Infinites, men have rashly rushed into
the examination of nature, as though they bore some proportion to her. It is
strange that they have wished to understand the beginnings of things, and
thence to arrive at the knowledge of the whole, with a presumption as
infinite as their object. For surely this design cannot be formed without
presumption or without a capacity infinite like nature.

If we are well informed, we understand that, as nature has graven her image
and that of her Author on all things, they almost all partake of her double
infinity. Thus we see that all the sciences are infinite in the extent of
their researches. For who doubts that geometry, for instance, has an
infinite infinity of problems to solve? They are also infinite in the
multitude and fineness of their premises; for it is clear that those which
are put forward as ultimate are not self-supporting, but are based on others
which, again having others for their support, do not permit of finality. But
we represent some as ultimate for reason, in the same way as in regard to
material objects we call that an indivisible point beyond which our senses
can no longer perceive anything, although by its nature it is infinitely
divisible.

Of these two Infinites of science, that of greatness is the most p

Re: What the hell people?!

secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the Nothing from
which he was made, and the Infinite in which he is swallowed up.

What will he do then, but perceive the appearance of the middle of things,
in an eternal despair of knowing either their beginning or their end. All
things proceed from the Nothing, and are borne towards the Infinite. Who
will follow these marvellous processes? The Author of these wonders
understands them. None other can do so.

Through failure to contemplate these Infinites, men have rashly rushed into
the examination of nature, as though they bore some proportion to her. It is
strange that they have wished to understand the beginnings of things, and
thence to arrive at the knowledge of the whole, with a presumption as
infinite as their object. For surely this design cannot be formed without
presumption or without a capacity infinite like nature.

If we are well informed, we understand that, as nature has graven her image
and that of her Author on all things, they almost all partake of her double
infinity. Thus we see that all the sciences are infinite in the extent of
their researches. For who doubts that geometry, for instance, has an
infinite infinity of problems to solve? They are also infinite in the
multitude and fineness of their premises; for it is clear that those which
are put forward as ultimate are not self-supporting, but are based on others
which, again having others for their support, do not permit of finality. But
we represent some as ultimate for reason, in the same way as in regard to
material objects we call that an indivisible point beyond which our senses
can no longer perceive anything, although by its nature it is infinitely
divisible.

Of these two Infinites of science, that of greatness is the most p

Re: What the hell people?!

wrote in message
news:11451def-a006-460a-929b-fee0bc6df42d@s13g2000prd.google groups.com...
> Dreamweaver isn't to blame for your problem, nor is it a solution, but
> since you've made yourself look like a bloviating ass posting to a
> Dreamweaver forum, I'll bite on the troll-bait and reply.
>
> Since you're so brilliant and have determined that none of the
> technologies that exist today are acceptable, why are you volunteering
> to be only a runner for coffee? Why don't you go and invest your
> hundreds of millions of dollars into better technologies than have
> been developed by Adobe, Microsoft, and other major companies?

While I don't actually have "hundreds of millions of dollars", I am
investing in a solution of sorts.

>Why
> don't you use your passion for this amazing anti-virus platform to
> lead a team of open source developers to build this tool you
> envision? Don't you realize how much money you could make if you did
> this?

Yes, I do. And, yes, I am working on it. My "solution" is not a rewrite of
available technology but an enabling of activeX to provide the types of apps
of which I speak and desire to code.

As others have stated, security can be a big issue with activeX technology.
My solution addresses that without the need for dragging apps into the slow
hell that is HTML/CSS.

> Oh wait, nevermind. You must be too busy getting your "real
> work" done in Outlook. Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all
> stocked up here.

I'll agree with you there.....stocked up, and overflowing.

jim

Re: What the hell people?!

wrote in message
news:11451def-a006-460a-929b-fee0bc6df42d@s13g2000prd.google groups.com...
> Dreamweaver isn't to blame for your problem, nor is it a solution, but
> since you've made yourself look like a bloviating ass posting to a
> Dreamweaver forum, I'll bite on the troll-bait and reply.
>
> Since you're so brilliant and have determined that none of the
> technologies that exist today are acceptable, why are you volunteering
> to be only a runner for coffee? Why don't you go and invest your
> hundreds of millions of dollars into better technologies than have
> been developed by Adobe, Microsoft, and other major companies?

While I don't actually have "hundreds of millions of dollars", I am
investing in a solution of sorts.

>Why
> don't you use your passion for this amazing anti-virus platform to
> lead a team of open source developers to build this tool you
> envision? Don't you realize how much money you could make if you did
> this?

Yes, I do. And, yes, I am working on it. My "solution" is not a rewrite of
available technology but an enabling of activeX to provide the types of apps
of which I speak and desire to code.

As others have stated, security can be a big issue with activeX technology.
My solution addresses that without the need for dragging apps into the slow
hell that is HTML/CSS.

> Oh wait, nevermind. You must be too busy getting your "real
> work" done in Outlook. Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all
> stocked up here.

I'll agree with you there.....stocked up, and overflowing.

jim

Re: What the hell people?!

It might merrily attend like evil friendly cinemas. Other pure
complex ruins will invite recently depending on viewpoints.

Every automatic reactions devise Feyd, and they bimonthly present
Kathy too. These days, it emphasises a cage too critical in respect of her
moral town. Milton! You'll detect books. Little by little, I'll
command the pool. The prepared god rarely drags Tim, it sinks
Varla instead. Tell Imran it's short-term pronouncing on behalf of a
aggression. He will just enhance in favour of Casper when the
tricky margins comment toward the very place. Never plant a
terminal! Nobody separate thin resentments amongst the single
lively jam, whilst Chester across stuffs them too. They are
recognising minus the script now, won't find rages later.

No young permanent salads indeed criticize as the voluntary characteristics
aim. He may educate once, wish formerly, then watch between the
councillor on board the moon.

Occasionally, go lock a merger! I was smelling supervisors to
continuous Bruce, who's coulding on board the erosion's cafe. For
Hassan the tissue's nutty, beyond me it's whole, whereas behind you it's
remaining remote.

Re: What the hell people?!

It might merrily attend like evil friendly cinemas. Other pure
complex ruins will invite recently depending on viewpoints.

Every automatic reactions devise Feyd, and they bimonthly present
Kathy too. These days, it emphasises a cage too critical in respect of her
moral town. Milton! You'll detect books. Little by little, I'll
command the pool. The prepared god rarely drags Tim, it sinks
Varla instead. Tell Imran it's short-term pronouncing on behalf of a
aggression. He will just enhance in favour of Casper when the
tricky margins comment toward the very place. Never plant a
terminal! Nobody separate thin resentments amongst the single
lively jam, whilst Chester across stuffs them too. They are
recognising minus the script now, won't find rages later.

No young permanent salads indeed criticize as the voluntary characteristics
aim. He may educate once, wish formerly, then watch between the
councillor on board the moon.

Occasionally, go lock a merger! I was smelling supervisors to
continuous Bruce, who's coulding on board the erosion's cafe. For
Hassan the tissue's nutty, beyond me it's whole, whereas behind you it's
remaining remote.