> Firefox was suppose to be the fast and light browser. Then they kept on adding crap
I can't argue with that; both of these are true. But Firefox(/Iceweasel) is the lightest, memory-usage-wise, of the full-featured browsers in my (anecdotal) testing (on my personal machines, Debian testing/9 and Mint 17.2). Chrom(ium) and Opera, the other feature-complete (full-ish ECMA/DOM support, broad plugin support, developer-friendly) browsers I tried, seem to take more memory to do the same thing, especially over time. Even Pale Moon took more memory than recent Firefox versions. Midori is super-lightweight but isn't complete (can't whitelist a site in adblock, for example). I wish there was a lightweight browser with all the features I "want", but of course more features==more memory.
> If you use more then 5 tabs open something is wrong and you should learn about bookmarks
For me, it's the "out of sight, out of mind" problem -- anything I can't see, I tend to forget about in an ADD sort of way. So I keep tabs open to remind me of what I was doing (or wanted to do later). Maybe not a great system, but losing them among my thousands of bookmarks is, imo, a worse one.
My mistake then; I believe I misunderstood what you were saying.
> judging prayer results as a basis for the existence of God is not the same as advertising.
I guess a problem I was talking about is that people judge prayer results not as a basis for the existence of God (not a good indicator, as you mention), but simply as a basis for the effectiveness of (their) prayer. There's a lot of hand-waving in this regard; I have heard often an explanation "the answers to prayer are yes, no, and wait" which basically is a restatement of "prayer not answered is answered" which is nonsense. The existence of God isn't determined by whether any certain group of people gets their wish, and while in the Bible God asks for prayer and apparently likes it (likes its smell, even), that doesn't mean that it's the equivalent of wishing on a star or other superstitious methods to "get what you want".
Bottom line, prayer and advertising aren't very much alike and it's not a good comparison. Advertising works by raising awareness; prayer works by communicating with God.
And of course it would be, then what does it matter that Job's "status" on earth was restored? Either earthly status matters or it doesn't. Either prayer was effective in "restoring Job's status" as something that mattered, or it wasn't. Can't go saying that folks dying and going to the great beyond is "just as effective" because the earthly status thing didn't matter, after you just said that it *did* matter and was a shining example of the power of prayer. Can't have it both ways.
Where this leads is: Prayer has a track record, and can be judged effective or not by that track record.
Advertising has a track record, and can be judged effective or not by that track record.
Job's convoluted story, message of faith and readiness or no, has precious little to do with either.
So, what about Job's first family; they were also imperfect--and their status wasn't exactly restored. Does that mean that prayer and advertising are equally and indisputably effective? I am not saying they aren't, just that this is a lousy argument to support the idea that they are.
>...what do they call it when you begin to blend government and business...
> I forget the name, but I do recall there were a lot of dead bodies. So, probably a mistake.
> According to Bloomberg, she only wanted to carry one phone
>> Dude, have you ever walked around with two phones? It's inconvenient.
While I understand trying to do something about getting multiple email addresses into and out of one account (gmail does this pretty easily for example), the "I carry one phone" theory is nonsense.
The mishandling of email was probably a simple, unintentional mistake that as both a lawyer and politician she is automatically lying about. *shrug* unsurprising.
>> Seeing your code work on another computer tells you nothing at all.
> To me it would tell: "your code is correct", for starters.
No, it doesn't indicate that your code is correct, only that in the differing environment of the "other" computer, you aren't running into the condition that exposes the bug. For example, GP points out that you may have coded undefined behavior that could be arbitrarily executed a number of different ways depending on the specific environment. Your program may be inadvertently opening too many file handles and the other computer has less files open or more file handles available. Your program may inadvertently run itself out of memory, but fail to do so on another computer with a different memory situation.
Lots of things could cause a bug-infested bit of code to run fine in one environment and die in another. So, if your program crashes or runs in an unexpected way, it's probably better to vet your code first before looking for other problems.
> Even birdshot is only effective at 40yds (120ft for you metric weenies
Just curious, how is 120 feet any more metric than 40 yards? The length of a meter is pretty close to the length of a yard, as shown by a metric conversion, so saying 40 yards gives a pretty good approximation of the range in meters.
> Regarding FOSS, what message(s) is/are the most vital
Asking rms about "FOSS" is likely to result in his explanation about the different focuses of the "Free Software" movement (freedom) and the "Open Source" movement (technical advantages). rms is not an open source advocate; he is a free software activist. Best to ask him about the importance of free software rather than the watered-down "FOSS". He's against the open source folks, and the middle two letters of FOSS spell out open source right there. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html, including the section "FLOSS and FOSS".
FTFA:
"[W]e decided to make the WorldWide Telescope available under an open source license to allow any individual or organization to adapt and extend the functionality to meet any research or educational need.
We believe that extensions and improvements to the software will continuously enhance formal and informal learning and astronomical research. Making the code available will also help ensure that the data, protocols and techniques used are also available for others to inspect, use, adapt and improve upon in their own applications. Ultimately, open sourcing WorldWide Telescope will also allow the wider community to guide and participate future in future development efforts such that it evolves to meet the needs of future users.
I would like to say thank you to the folks at Microsoft who are affirming here the basic software freedoms RMS is always talking about (even if they do say "open source" instead of "free software"). Well done and good job.
It's one thing to misrepresent a trademark. The folks at Dow Chemical Company go nuts when people call something Styrofoam that isn't actually made out of said substance. But here, something was simply compared to Imax in a simile, "a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid" (Google). Absolutely no misrepresentation. Completely proper use.
> Audio and video calls are not supported on your OS
I was surprised and nonplussed to get this message also, a few days ago. (Linux Mint 17.1). I couldn't help but wonder, what has the OS to do with something running within the browser? Other web sites can use my camera and microphone just fine (eg. Google Hangouts).
What technical reason would there be for Linux to be frozen out?
I respectfully disagree. I think it's pretty interesting that a spacecraft has gotten itself going via solar power and is communicating with base. That's about as "news for nerds" as it gets. Watching for further updates is also a pretty nerdnewsworthy practice. Spaceships are cool.
> I'm waiting for life size 3D holograms to be projected into the middle of the room.
Wow, we might wait a long time... Even R2D2 was only shooting about a 10cm hologram of Leia saying "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." And that was a long time ago, far far away from here, where they had (will have had?) technology arguably greater than ours...
Slashdot Mirror
> Open YouTube. Search for "Flat Earth". Wonder how some people can breathe without aid.
I suspect that I could have gone the rest of my life without learning that these people-a LOT of them-exist. *shudder*
My feelings on this align with a certain activist's:
https://gnu.org/education/educ...
> Firefox was suppose to be the fast and light browser. Then they kept on adding crap
I can't argue with that; both of these are true. But Firefox(/Iceweasel) is the lightest, memory-usage-wise, of the full-featured browsers in my (anecdotal) testing (on my personal machines, Debian testing/9 and Mint 17.2). Chrom(ium) and Opera, the other feature-complete (full-ish ECMA/DOM support, broad plugin support, developer-friendly) browsers I tried, seem to take more memory to do the same thing, especially over time. Even Pale Moon took more memory than recent Firefox versions. Midori is super-lightweight but isn't complete (can't whitelist a site in adblock, for example). I wish there was a lightweight browser with all the features I "want", but of course more features==more memory.
> If you use more then 5 tabs open something is wrong and you should learn about bookmarks
For me, it's the "out of sight, out of mind" problem -- anything I can't see, I tend to forget about in an ADD sort of way. So I keep tabs open to remind me of what I was doing (or wanted to do later). Maybe not a great system, but losing them among my thousands of bookmarks is, imo, a worse one.
My mistake then; I believe I misunderstood what you were saying.
> judging prayer results as a basis for the existence of God is not the same as advertising.
I guess a problem I was talking about is that people judge prayer results not as a basis for the existence of God (not a good indicator, as you mention), but simply as a basis for the effectiveness of (their) prayer. There's a lot of hand-waving in this regard; I have heard often an explanation "the answers to prayer are yes, no, and wait" which basically is a restatement of "prayer not answered is answered" which is nonsense. The existence of God isn't determined by whether any certain group of people gets their wish, and while in the Bible God asks for prayer and apparently likes it (likes its smell, even), that doesn't mean that it's the equivalent of wishing on a star or other superstitious methods to "get what you want".
Bottom line, prayer and advertising aren't very much alike and it's not a good comparison. Advertising works by raising awareness; prayer works by communicating with God.
Peace.
All right. Given that
> paradise was better than their life on Earth
And of course it would be, then what does it matter that Job's "status" on earth was restored? Either earthly status matters or it doesn't. Either prayer was effective in "restoring Job's status" as something that mattered, or it wasn't. Can't go saying that folks dying and going to the great beyond is "just as effective" because the earthly status thing didn't matter, after you just said that it *did* matter and was a shining example of the power of prayer. Can't have it both ways.
Where this leads is: Prayer has a track record, and can be judged effective or not by that track record.
Advertising has a track record, and can be judged effective or not by that track record.
Job's convoluted story, message of faith and readiness or no, has precious little to do with either.
Very mooooving tribute to the scene.
> In the end, God restores Job's status.
So, what about Job's first family; they were also imperfect--and their status wasn't exactly restored. Does that mean that prayer and advertising are equally and indisputably effective? I am not saying they aren't, just that this is a lousy argument to support the idea that they are.
> They've never learned that in the real world nobody
> else knows how to do their job, nobody provides
> you all the information...
But stack overflow often has a pretty good idea...
> ...what do they call it when you begin to blend government and business...
> I forget the name, but I do recall there were a lot of dead bodies. So, probably a mistake.
I think the answer is here somewhere...
I should probably have said "Any mishandling" instead of "The mishandling."
> According to Bloomberg, she only wanted to carry one phone
>> Dude, have you ever walked around with two phones? It's inconvenient.
While I understand trying to do something about getting multiple email addresses into and out of one account (gmail does this pretty easily for example), the "I carry one phone" theory is nonsense.
Hillary points out that she carried two phones at the state department [Advisory: Contains video] [Advisory: Originally posted by a vast right wing conspiracy]
The mishandling of email was probably a simple, unintentional mistake that as both a lawyer and politician she is automatically lying about. *shrug* unsurprising.
>> Seeing your code work on another computer tells you nothing at all.
> To me it would tell: "your code is correct", for starters.
No, it doesn't indicate that your code is correct, only that in the differing environment of the "other" computer, you aren't running into the condition that exposes the bug. For example, GP points out that you may have coded undefined behavior that could be arbitrarily executed a number of different ways depending on the specific environment. Your program may be inadvertently opening too many file handles and the other computer has less files open or more file handles available. Your program may inadvertently run itself out of memory, but fail to do so on another computer with a different memory situation.
Lots of things could cause a bug-infested bit of code to run fine in one environment and die in another. So, if your program crashes or runs in an unexpected way, it's probably better to vet your code first before looking for other problems.
> Even birdshot is only effective at 40yds (120ft for you metric weenies
Just curious, how is 120 feet any more metric than 40 yards? The length of a meter is pretty close to the length of a yard, as shown by a metric conversion, so saying 40 yards gives a pretty good approximation of the range in meters.
> Regarding FOSS, what message(s) is/are the most vital
Asking rms about "FOSS" is likely to result in his explanation about the different focuses of the "Free Software" movement (freedom) and the "Open Source" movement (technical advantages). rms is not an open source advocate; he is a free software activist. Best to ask him about the importance of free software rather than the watered-down "FOSS". He's against the open source folks, and the middle two letters of FOSS spell out open source right there. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html, including the section "FLOSS and FOSS".
> This is \.
This is backslash dot?
FTFA: "[W]e decided to make the WorldWide Telescope available under an open source license to allow any individual or organization to adapt and extend the functionality to meet any research or educational need.
We believe that extensions and improvements to the software will continuously enhance formal and informal learning and astronomical research. Making the code available will also help ensure that the data, protocols and techniques used are also available for others to inspect, use, adapt and improve upon in their own applications. Ultimately, open sourcing WorldWide Telescope will also allow the wider community to guide and participate future in future development efforts such that it evolves to meet the needs of future users.
I would like to say thank you to the folks at Microsoft who are affirming here the basic software freedoms RMS is always talking about (even if they do say "open source" instead of "free software"). Well done and good job.
I am curious about the bitrates and running times of the 33 HD films in question.
> Not shocked Slashdot is only posting the story now and not even mentioning the retraction.
The retraction was added to the summary less than a half-hour after the ars story mentioning it.
If you're trolling, you're very, very good.
It's one thing to misrepresent a trademark. The folks at Dow Chemical Company go nuts when people call something Styrofoam that isn't actually made out of said substance. But here, something was simply compared to Imax in a simile, "a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid" (Google). Absolutely no misrepresentation. Completely proper use.
> those aren't even animated on Linux
Skype -> Options -> IM -> Show Animated Emoticons
> Audio and video calls are not supported on your OS
I was surprised and nonplussed to get this message also, a few days ago. (Linux Mint 17.1). I couldn't help but wonder, what has the OS to do with something running within the browser? Other web sites can use my camera and microphone just fine (eg. Google Hangouts). What technical reason would there be for Linux to be frozen out?
I respectfully disagree. I think it's pretty interesting that a spacecraft has gotten itself going via solar power and is communicating with base. That's about as "news for nerds" as it gets. Watching for further updates is also a pretty nerdnewsworthy practice. Spaceships are cool.
> space elevator, what's the current progress
I think the current hold-up is the difficulty of getting together a large enough quantity of unobtainium.
> I'm waiting for life size 3D holograms to be projected into the middle of the room.
Wow, we might wait a long time... Even R2D2 was only shooting about a 10cm hologram of Leia saying "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." And that was a long time ago, far far away from here, where they had (will have had?) technology arguably greater than ours...