I can't help but think the whole global warming/emissions issue is really not that significant. After reading about the concerns of cow emissions, a completly natural animal that's been around for thousands of years, producing more emissions than cars, and bushfires (also 100% natural) producing all these harmful greenhouse gases, I can't help but think that our jet-fuels, cars, planes, things designed and built over the past 100 years or so, aren't making as much of an impact as we are led to believe.
Don't be dense.
The carbon emitted by cows and brush fires was already 'in circulation' in the biosphere. Cows fart, cows die and decompose, and carbon enters the atmosphere. But that carbon was extracted from the atmosphere by the plants the cows ate in the first place.
Similarly for brush and forest fires, forests develop, locking away carbon in trees and other plants, then burn, releasing carbon back to the atmosphere which is then taken up by other plants.
In neither case does the overall amount of carbon in the system that consists of the biosphere and atmosphere actually change.
This is very, very different from spending decades pumping additional carbon (all the carbon in all that coal, oil and gas has been present in the biosphere or atmosphere for many millions of years) into the atmosphere as fast as we can dream up new ways to do it.
There are two quotations following this paragraph. What part of the first quote do you think is different from the second?
The CIA world factbook describes the US as "Constitution-based federal republic" with a "strong democratic tradition".
...the US republic is a democracy.
"Democratic" is an adjective, "democracy" is a noun. When used to refer to a state, they mean precisely the same thing: namely that, in the state referred to, most or all of the citizens have a voice in the government of that state. Again, the CIA quote you've used above (implicitly) makes the same point as I do: the form of government known as a republic need not be democratic, but the United States republic IS.
I live in the United States, a country that was NEVER intended to be a democracy.
No, you live in the United States, a country which, if it is to survive, must do something to improve its public education system.
The fact that it's possible to find Americans in places like Slashdot loudly and repeatedly trumpeting the supposed 'fact' that the USA is not or was never intended to be a democracy is, quite frankly, bizarre and not a little disturbing.
I assume that, like others of your ilk, you would like to say "it's a republic, not a democracy," but even if that wasn't what you were thinking, you're still quite wrong about the US.
Democracy is a word that indicates a wide degree of citizen participation in either the selection of government officials, or in the direct governance of the state itself. But knowing that a state is a democracy is not the same as knowing how that state's government works.
I suspect that the distinction you really wished to make was between a direct democracy and a representative democracy and you may well be right that the United States has adopted more of the features of a direct democracy than its founders intended, but it's ridiculous to deny that it is and always has been democratically governed.
Interestingly, I came upon a stub article (for the term Republican Democracy) on Wikipedia while assembling links for this post. It's rather weakly written and seems to exist to bolster these weirdly popular claims that the US is not a democracy (I find this Wikipedia entry a little chilling; is somebody astroturfing the idea that the US isn't a democracy?):
However, there are distinctions between the terms "republic" and "democracy," as the latter retains many of the same qualities of a republic, yet adheres to no distinct political order or set of laws. Therefore by its original understanding, "democracy" could be qualified as anything from representative governance to individual and mob rule. And in this sense the word "democracy" is often used too lightly and erroneously to mean "republic."
But it makes the same mistake that is usually made by those claiming that the US is not a democracy; that is, it appears to confuse a form of government (e.g. a republic) with a means of selecting such a government's officials (i.e. via democratic institutions). A republic need not be a democracy, and a democracy need not be a republic, but the US republic is a democracy.
I do like the current regs for one simple reason, it keeps people without tickets out of the terminal/gate areas.
Seriously? This was common practice (I don't know if it was universal) in Canadian airports at least twenty years ago. The first time I flew as an "Unaccompanied Minor," they wouldn't permit my father to wait with me at the gate.
It was a lot cheaper and easier than trying to get an 's' carved into a block.
Again, this is a bit nonsensical. Do you really think the complexity of letterforms caused printers to modify their shapes? If so, how do you account for "a" or "g" or--even worse--the ampersand?
I fought and appealed for about a month to show that/. was wayyy above the typical forum that slandered, flamed, and he-said-she-saided
So you fought for a month to show that Slashdot isn't Slashdot?
Seriously, I know there are occasionally posts here that are genuinely informative, interesting and so on, but surely you've noticed that for the most part this place is one gigantic, permanent, variable-topic flamewar?
Maybe the "born agains" will shut up now we can re-create these experiences.
It'd be nice if they did, but unfortunately, they're probably astute enough to (correctly) realize that being able to induce sensations in the brain says absolutely nothing about the reality of the thing 'sensed'--it only shows that the sensation can be induced this way, not that nothing else can induce it.
In fact, I'd say religious fundamentalists will probably adopt the same strategy you have, and illegitimately claim this finding supports their view of the world.
You look at Dick and the neo-Cons but you never look at actualREAL conservatives.
So, Cheney is president of the Senate, and Bush (along with being Chief Executive and Head of State etc) is the leader of the Republican party, and you're telling us to ignore them and concentrate instead on a group of people who utterly failed to reign in or even challenge the extreme elements of their party?
Here in Canada, the police can arrest you for refusing to identify yourself. A driver's license does that, but any other way would work. You must have a similar law down there, too. It sounds like the guy was being a jerk, and the cop used that excuse.
I live in Canada and this is completely false. Having to show ID equals police state. This is getting scary when Canadians citizen believe that they must show their ID if asked for it and that they post such misinformation on/.
You may want to double-check that.
One of the specific reasons given for the recent establishment of Vancouver's Transit police force was that the existing security force could not demand identification, but police officers could.
What's missing from this discussion (with respect to the slightly off-topic Canadian context) is information about the circumstances under which it is or is not permissible for police officers to compel identification.
To believe that NO sales is lost from music industry would be putting blinders on.
Wrong again.
It is entirely possible that the effect of p2p downloading is a net increase in sales/profits for the industry or that there is no significant positive or negative effect whatsoever. Your anecdotal experiences and mine cannot legitimately be extended to the record-buying population as a whole.
The actual point here is that--again, as far as I know--the record industry has not presented data that demonstrates a loss of sales due to p2p activity. In the absence of such data, any calculation whatsoever of 'losses' is essentially fiction.
What do they think that every American should be buying a CD every time they fill up a tank of gas in their car?
Brilliant! We can convert CDs to oil and use them to solve the west's dependence on middle-eastern oil! The record industry profits, we avoid oil-related military misadventures abroad, and we don't have to listen to the crappy CDs anymore...
Basically, take the income of those who download and multiply it with the average fraction of income spent on music by those who don't. That would be a good indicator of how much potential market is lost.
Wrong.
Unless the industry can demonstrate that sales/income/market are actually being lost due to p2p. There's no point in trying to calculate the amount of money you're losing due to a particular phenomenon when you don't know that that phenomenon is costing you money in the first place. Indeed, there is some reason to think that those who download music often buy the same music.
As far as I've ever been able to tell, the music industry just relies on the fallacy alluded to in the summary to, um, 'calculate' their 'losses'. The claim that every unpaid download represents a financial loss to the music industry equivalent to the retail cost of the downloaded music is so obviously false that I can't believe we're still discussing it...
If the music industry can demonstrate--or already has demonstrated without my having noticed--that p2p downloading definitely costs them sales/income/market, then your proposal is at least better than the method of so-called 'calculation' in TFA...
Don't be dense. If they're incompetent enough to be building parts of their website with a tool like MS Word, it doesn't seem tremendously far-fetched to me to think that their abilities in other areas--security for example--may be less than stellar.
This article briefly analyzes the exploited vulnerability and the technology used on the server, both quite surprising to find in such a high profile site.
Maybe it's not such a surprise, considering that
they've used MS Word to make their 'down for maintenance' page
the code (not including the image) for that one sentence page is > 11k...
Someone who believes the universe is a divine monarchy can never honestly embrace secular democracy.
You should cite your sources. This is something Alan Watts said many times in many ways. You also might want to provide one of the full quotations, since they're directly relevant to this discussion. For example, in 1968 he said that
Citizens of the United States believe, or are supposed to believe, that a republic is the best form of government. Yet vast confusion arises from trying to be republican in politics and monarchist in religion. How can a republic be the best form of government if the universe, heaven, and hell are a monarchy? Thus, despite the theory of government by consent, based upon mutual trust, the peoples of the United States retain, from the authoritarian backgrounds of their religions or national origins, an utterly naive faith in law as some sort of supernatural and paternalistic power. "There ought to be a law against it!" Our law-enforcement officers are therefore confused, hindered, and bewildered--not to mention corrupted--by being asked to enforce sumptuary laws, often of ecclesiastical origin, that vast numbers of people have no intention of obeying and that, in any case, are immensely difficult or simply impossible to enforce--for example, the barring of anything so undetectable as LSD-25 from international and interstate commerce. [Emphasis added]
As for the process, I write the markup, then write the CSS with frequent tests in a compliant browser (I use Firefox, but Opera or Safari would work equally well--even IE7 is not too bad for this--along with occasional adjustments to the html and a few trips to the validator just to catch any typos. The last step is browser testing, but this is usually just a matter of fixing one or two IE float/haslayout bugs and fixing the box model problems in IE 5.x Win.
The key as I see it to successful HTML/CSS development in applications is to develop the markup and CSS as much as possible separately from the logic, and to always use the simplest possible markup with meaningful classes and ids but with absolutely no presentational attributes in the HTML for application output. I've spent more hours trying to fix scripts and code that thought it'd be a great idea to hardcode shit like "<td background="#ffcc00">Foo</td>" than it ever took me to learn to use CSS in the first place.
A modular approach works well; you can design the 'page' markup and CSS as one item, and then design each of the different sorts of output as individual components, copy them into the page to make sure you haven't borked your layout accidentally, then build the logic that outputs the HTML you designed (or pass the code off to whoever's going to be doing that job).
I suggest designing the HTML separately as a means of helping to bugfix the back end stuff--if the HTML on its own was ok, any later problems must be in the application logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be dense.
The carbon emitted by cows and brush fires was already 'in circulation' in the biosphere. Cows fart, cows die and decompose, and carbon enters the atmosphere. But that carbon was extracted from the atmosphere by the plants the cows ate in the first place.
Similarly for brush and forest fires, forests develop, locking away carbon in trees and other plants, then burn, releasing carbon back to the atmosphere which is then taken up by other plants.
In neither case does the overall amount of carbon in the system that consists of the biosphere and atmosphere actually change.
This is very, very different from spending decades pumping additional carbon (all the carbon in all that coal, oil and gas has been present in the biosphere or atmosphere for many millions of years) into the atmosphere as fast as we can dream up new ways to do it.
There are two quotations following this paragraph. What part of the first quote do you think is different from the second?
"Democratic" is an adjective, "democracy" is a noun. When used to refer to a state, they mean precisely the same thing: namely that, in the state referred to, most or all of the citizens have a voice in the government of that state. Again, the CIA quote you've used above (implicitly) makes the same point as I do: the form of government known as a republic need not be democratic, but the United States republic IS.
No, you live in the United States, a country which, if it is to survive, must do something to improve its public education system.
The fact that it's possible to find Americans in places like Slashdot loudly and repeatedly trumpeting the supposed 'fact' that the USA is not or was never intended to be a democracy is, quite frankly, bizarre and not a little disturbing.
I assume that, like others of your ilk, you would like to say "it's a republic, not a democracy," but even if that wasn't what you were thinking, you're still quite wrong about the US.
Democracy is a word that indicates a wide degree of citizen participation in either the selection of government officials, or in the direct governance of the state itself. But knowing that a state is a democracy is not the same as knowing how that state's government works.
The United States' peculiar flavour of republic, for example (with its Electoral College), is quite different from e.g. Canada's Constitutional Monarchy, but both are indisputably representative democracies.
I suspect that the distinction you really wished to make was between a direct democracy and a representative democracy and you may well be right that the United States has adopted more of the features of a direct democracy than its founders intended, but it's ridiculous to deny that it is and always has been democratically governed.
Interestingly, I came upon a stub article (for the term Republican Democracy) on Wikipedia while assembling links for this post. It's rather weakly written and seems to exist to bolster these weirdly popular claims that the US is not a democracy (I find this Wikipedia entry a little chilling; is somebody astroturfing the idea that the US isn't a democracy?):
But it makes the same mistake that is usually made by those claiming that the US is not a democracy; that is, it appears to confuse a form of government (e.g. a republic) with a means of selecting such a government's officials (i.e. via democratic institutions). A republic need not be a democracy, and a democracy need not be a republic, but the US republic is a democracy.
Seriously? This was common practice (I don't know if it was universal) in Canadian airports at least twenty years ago. The first time I flew as an "Unaccompanied Minor," they wouldn't permit my father to wait with me at the gate.
No it wasn't.
Again, this is a bit nonsensical. Do you really think the complexity of letterforms caused printers to modify their shapes? If so, how do you account for "a" or "g" or--even worse--the ampersand?
So you fought for a month to show that Slashdot isn't Slashdot?
Seriously, I know there are occasionally posts here that are genuinely informative, interesting and so on, but surely you've noticed that for the most part this place is one gigantic, permanent, variable-topic flamewar?
It'd be nice if they did, but unfortunately, they're probably astute enough to (correctly) realize that being able to induce sensations in the brain says absolutely nothing about the reality of the thing 'sensed'--it only shows that the sensation can be induced this way, not that nothing else can induce it.
In fact, I'd say religious fundamentalists will probably adopt the same strategy you have, and illegitimately claim this finding supports their view of the world.
In Soviet Russia, boobs imagine a beowulf cluster of YOU!
Oops. I'm sorry, that just slipped out...
Geez, give them a break, will you? It's just a display bug...
:-)
Imagine a beowulf cluster of those... :-o
Wait--more than $500 is affordable?!
So, Cheney is president of the Senate, and Bush (along with being Chief Executive and Head of State etc) is the leader of the Republican party, and you're telling us to ignore them and concentrate instead on a group of people who utterly failed to reign in or even challenge the extreme elements of their party?
Apparently I do not understand US politics.
You may want to double-check that.
One of the specific reasons given for the recent establishment of Vancouver's Transit police force was that the existing security force could not demand identification, but police officers could.
What's missing from this discussion (with respect to the slightly off-topic Canadian context) is information about the circumstances under which it is or is not permissible for police officers to compel identification.
Wrong again.
It is entirely possible that the effect of p2p downloading is a net increase in sales/profits for the industry or that there is no significant positive or negative effect whatsoever. Your anecdotal experiences and mine cannot legitimately be extended to the record-buying population as a whole.
The actual point here is that--again, as far as I know--the record industry has not presented data that demonstrates a loss of sales due to p2p activity. In the absence of such data, any calculation whatsoever of 'losses' is essentially fiction.
Brilliant! We can convert CDs to oil and use them to solve the west's dependence on middle-eastern oil! The record industry profits, we avoid oil-related military misadventures abroad, and we don't have to listen to the crappy CDs anymore...
Wrong.
Unless the industry can demonstrate that sales/income/market are actually being lost due to p2p. There's no point in trying to calculate the amount of money you're losing due to a particular phenomenon when you don't know that that phenomenon is costing you money in the first place. Indeed, there is some reason to think that those who download music often buy the same music .
As far as I've ever been able to tell, the music industry just relies on the fallacy alluded to in the summary to, um, 'calculate' their 'losses'. The claim that every unpaid download represents a financial loss to the music industry equivalent to the retail cost of the downloaded music is so obviously false that I can't believe we're still discussing it...
If the music industry can demonstrate--or already has demonstrated without my having noticed--that p2p downloading definitely costs them sales/income/market, then your proposal is at least better than the method of so-called 'calculation' in TFA...
...welcome our woman-beatable, arm-breaking mechanical overlords...
If memory serves, it was some version of Appleworks whose spell-checker would suggest "headgear" when it encountered the word "Heidegger"...
Don't be dense. If they're incompetent enough to be building parts of their website with a tool like MS Word, it doesn't seem tremendously far-fetched to me to think that their abilities in other areas--security for example--may be less than stellar.
Maybe it's not such a surprise, considering that
You should cite your sources. This is something Alan Watts said many times in many ways. You also might want to provide one of the full quotations, since they're directly relevant to this discussion. For example, in 1968 he said that
Source
Mod parent up: "+1 unintentionally insightful" for accidentally proving the ACLU's point...
Still and all, I think I might like to work in your datacenter...
Err...there is at least one other country that's done this...
It's a heavily modified form of this layout.
Pretty low-tech really--
Tools:
As for the process, I write the markup, then write the CSS with frequent tests in a compliant browser (I use Firefox, but Opera or Safari would work equally well--even IE7 is not too bad for this--along with occasional adjustments to the html and a few trips to the validator just to catch any typos. The last step is browser testing, but this is usually just a matter of fixing one or two IE float/haslayout bugs and fixing the box model problems in IE 5.x Win.
The key as I see it to successful HTML/CSS development in applications is to develop the markup and CSS as much as possible separately from the logic, and to always use the simplest possible markup with meaningful classes and ids but with absolutely no presentational attributes in the HTML for application output. I've spent more hours trying to fix scripts and code that thought it'd be a great idea to hardcode shit like "<td background="#ffcc00">Foo</td>" than it ever took me to learn to use CSS in the first place.
A modular approach works well; you can design the 'page' markup and CSS as one item, and then design each of the different sorts of output as individual components, copy them into the page to make sure you haven't borked your layout accidentally, then build the logic that outputs the HTML you designed (or pass the code off to whoever's going to be doing that job).
I suggest designing the HTML separately as a means of helping to bugfix the back end stuff--if the HTML on its own was ok, any later problems must be in the application logic.