Javascript execution is a good and worthy improvement. I just wish I could get the faster javascript in a UI that was similar to... six versions ago? Seven?
It is. But one's driving skill might not be the primary factor. The greatest factor may well be random chance... that, of course, will be mistaken for impressive driving skill by anybody who hasn't yet had the bad luck to get into a bad accident.
This must, I hope, be sarcasm. It's hard to tell; whenever driving is mentioned in slashdot, there are numerous posts by many slashdotters who are evidently the most gifted drivers in the world.
"States rights" is is nice way to say "I want to remove peoples rights, one state at a time".
No it's not. It's just portrayed that way by people who are in favor of centralized federal power. It's their working strategy to claim that wanting to limit the unconstitutional growth of the federal government is tantamount to supporting Jim Crow laws.
No, anon was right. Your words simply aren't sensible. You don't fully understand what you are saying, or you may just not be saying correctly what you do understand. Either way, anon wasn't a fool.
There's really no need. When somebody makes a post like that, it's obviously a cut-and-paste by a religious advocate. Those sorts of posts actually work against the poster. Nobody takes bonch seriously because of stuff like this; it's self-correcting.
By some accounts, OOo now holds over 20% of desktops.
That's so contrary to my experience I have to ask where you got that. In the US, I'd be shocked if OO was on even 1% of desktops. I like OO, have it on all my machines, but it's not making significant inroads against Office. Google apps isn't, really, either, but at least it's a potential threat that MS was forced to respond to.
And I disagree with you about the future of operating systems. You're not going to write papers and run spreadsheets on a phone or tablet. Portable devices simply a different niche than desktop PCs. They're not a replacement.
I think you're being more charitable than she deserves, honestly. I think the usual interpretation of 'never before in the history of the planet' is as I and the GP read it: That the scientist was confident this had never happened before on Earth. Since we almost certainly have no clue whether it has happened before or not, it's false confidence.
Although, now that I think about it... if the scientist is Russian, her statement may have been slightly changed in translation, or she might not be 100% fluent in English.
It's like saying McDonald's shouldn't improve its food because it's the most popular restaurant
McDonald's SHOULD try to improve their food; they should be trying to make it more uniform, consistent, and inexpensive. That's their niche, and it would be disastrous to try to improve the taste of their food while destroying its other values.
It's a great niche, and very important. A superb gourmet restaurant may have better tasting food, but their food isn't nearly as good as McDonalds' in other aspects. Those other aspects matter.
Even the very existence of variable screen resolutions completely screws up the ability to have a single, unified, cohesive interface across multiple phones.
That's why we are only allowed 640x480 resolutions on our PC, of course.
DVDs still outsell BluRays. DVD rentals outnumber BluRay rentals. I'm not surprised that Wii streaming is perfectly acceptable to most people. And that's not even considering that even on the PS3, streaming netflix is not really high definition.
Criticize away. Just don't pretend they aren't fully within their rights, and don't claim they're doing anything illegal or disallowed.
If you call them out for making a terrible and shortsighted deal, I'll agree with you. If you say they aren't allowed to do what they did, I'll point out that they are allowed. If you argue that they shouldn't be allowed to do it, I'll give you my reason why it's a bad idea to control speech like that. Forced speech is as bad as censorship.
I don't give a fuck if it is a "private service", there are certain obligations that they have put forth when they offered the service, and this was not one of them.
Do you think Slashdot shouldn't have the right to delete your posts? Do you think you shouldn't have the right to delete stuff off your own website? Think through your position, man. It's incoherent.
So google has the right to remove anything they want but we don't have the right to complain about how they act? The right to free speech doesn't exist in your eyes?
Of course we should complain. But we shouldn't argue that they don't have the right to do so, and a lot of people in this thread don't understand that. We should argue that they shouldn't remove posts, not that they can't. We should argue the truth, not a wish.
So, would you argue that this deal means that UMG can takedown Democratic/Republican propaganda for any reason even if it doesn't step on their copyrights?
Yep. Not just yep, that seems an obvious yep.
If you have a post promoting a particular political candidate on your website, is it legal for me to ask you to take it down? Is it legal for you to agree to? Of course it is.
It may not be wise or smart, but it's a matter of freedom. You have the freedom of speech, which means you're not forced to put out any message you don't want to. You also are allowed to not have your property used to put out any message you don't want to.
You think you can find a free hosting service where the hosting party commits to never deleting your files? It's their server, and it's free. Of COURSE they can delete it. They don't even need to say so in the EULA... that's more a courtesy and a CYA move.
...if a website is doing something for me for free, they have the right to stop doing that thing whenever they want. Are there really people who don't think that?
Yes, and apparently they've returned to posting on slashdot now that the police have shut down most occupy rallies.
There is absolutely no way that this can be supported.
That's simply wrong. I own a website. I can delete comments off the forum if I want. It's not unsupportable; it's actually pretty easily supported, since denying it results in nonsensical results.
Actually, you cannot have any concept of free will without God.
You shouldn't have used the term 'actually' before writing a bunch of freewheeling speculation. Interesting, and possibly true, but 'actually' should be used correcting somebody by presenting a fact.
Good: "Actually, the sun is about 93,000,000 miles away."
Bad: "Actually, Shakespeare did not write any plays."
Slashdot Mirror
Javascript execution is a good and worthy improvement. I just wish I could get the faster javascript in a UI that was similar to... six versions ago? Seven?
It is. But one's driving skill might not be the primary factor. The greatest factor may well be random chance... that, of course, will be mistaken for impressive driving skill by anybody who hasn't yet had the bad luck to get into a bad accident.
This must, I hope, be sarcasm. It's hard to tell; whenever driving is mentioned in slashdot, there are numerous posts by many slashdotters who are evidently the most gifted drivers in the world.
Where in North America do they not ticket for those offenses? They do here.
"States rights" is is nice way to say "I want to remove peoples rights, one state at a time".
No it's not. It's just portrayed that way by people who are in favor of centralized federal power. It's their working strategy to claim that wanting to limit the unconstitutional growth of the federal government is tantamount to supporting Jim Crow laws.
No, anon was right. Your words simply aren't sensible. You don't fully understand what you are saying, or you may just not be saying correctly what you do understand. Either way, anon wasn't a fool.
There's really no need. When somebody makes a post like that, it's obviously a cut-and-paste by a religious advocate. Those sorts of posts actually work against the poster. Nobody takes bonch seriously because of stuff like this; it's self-correcting.
Are we preprogrammed robots, or do we actually have a choice in how we behave?
Yes.
(Free will is mainly a problem of fuzzy definitions. Before we ask whether we have it, we need to define what it is without using mystical terms.)
I think you like the idea that one isn't responsible for one's own faults. I understand why.
Bull. You imagine what they're like, and you're wrong. Be less insulated.
You have some funny ideas about what the average college student does.
Right. They twitter and check facebook. They wouldn't ever need to write papers or crunch numbers. That's for working stiffs.
By some accounts, OOo now holds over 20% of desktops.
That's so contrary to my experience I have to ask where you got that. In the US, I'd be shocked if OO was on even 1% of desktops. I like OO, have it on all my machines, but it's not making significant inroads against Office. Google apps isn't, really, either, but at least it's a potential threat that MS was forced to respond to.
And I disagree with you about the future of operating systems. You're not going to write papers and run spreadsheets on a phone or tablet. Portable devices simply a different niche than desktop PCs. They're not a replacement.
I think you're being more charitable than she deserves, honestly. I think the usual interpretation of 'never before in the history of the planet' is as I and the GP read it: That the scientist was confident this had never happened before on Earth. Since we almost certainly have no clue whether it has happened before or not, it's false confidence.
Although, now that I think about it... if the scientist is Russian, her statement may have been slightly changed in translation, or she might not be 100% fluent in English.
It's like saying McDonald's shouldn't improve its food because it's the most popular restaurant
McDonald's SHOULD try to improve their food; they should be trying to make it more uniform, consistent, and inexpensive. That's their niche, and it would be disastrous to try to improve the taste of their food while destroying its other values.
It's a great niche, and very important. A superb gourmet restaurant may have better tasting food, but their food isn't nearly as good as McDonalds' in other aspects. Those other aspects matter.
Even the very existence of variable screen resolutions completely screws up the ability to have a single, unified, cohesive interface across multiple phones.
That's why we are only allowed 640x480 resolutions on our PC, of course.
DVDs still outsell BluRays. DVD rentals outnumber BluRay rentals. I'm not surprised that Wii streaming is perfectly acceptable to most people. And that's not even considering that even on the PS3, streaming netflix is not really high definition.
Right. Nearly everything I play is at least several years old. A good portion of my computer gaming time is still playing SNES and Genesis games.
This inability of some people to consider older games as viable is as silly as refusing to watch any movie made prior to the 90's.
Criticize away. Just don't pretend they aren't fully within their rights, and don't claim they're doing anything illegal or disallowed.
If you call them out for making a terrible and shortsighted deal, I'll agree with you. If you say they aren't allowed to do what they did, I'll point out that they are allowed. If you argue that they shouldn't be allowed to do it, I'll give you my reason why it's a bad idea to control speech like that. Forced speech is as bad as censorship.
I don't give a fuck if it is a "private service", there are certain obligations that they have put forth when they offered the service, and this was not one of them.
Do you think Slashdot shouldn't have the right to delete your posts? Do you think you shouldn't have the right to delete stuff off your own website? Think through your position, man. It's incoherent.
So google has the right to remove anything they want but we don't have the right to complain about how they act? The right to free speech doesn't exist in your eyes?
Of course we should complain. But we shouldn't argue that they don't have the right to do so, and a lot of people in this thread don't understand that. We should argue that they shouldn't remove posts, not that they can't. We should argue the truth, not a wish.
So, would you argue that this deal means that UMG can takedown Democratic/Republican propaganda for any reason even if it doesn't step on their copyrights?
Yep. Not just yep, that seems an obvious yep.
If you have a post promoting a particular political candidate on your website, is it legal for me to ask you to take it down? Is it legal for you to agree to? Of course it is.
It may not be wise or smart, but it's a matter of freedom. You have the freedom of speech, which means you're not forced to put out any message you don't want to. You also are allowed to not have your property used to put out any message you don't want to.
You think you can find a free hosting service where the hosting party commits to never deleting your files? It's their server, and it's free. Of COURSE they can delete it. They don't even need to say so in the EULA... that's more a courtesy and a CYA move.
...if a website is doing something for me for free, they have the right to stop doing that thing whenever they want. Are there really people who don't think that?
Yes, and apparently they've returned to posting on slashdot now that the police have shut down most occupy rallies.
There is absolutely no way that this can be supported.
That's simply wrong. I own a website. I can delete comments off the forum if I want. It's not unsupportable; it's actually pretty easily supported, since denying it results in nonsensical results.
Actually, you cannot have any concept of free will without God.
You shouldn't have used the term 'actually' before writing a bunch of freewheeling speculation. Interesting, and possibly true, but 'actually' should be used correcting somebody by presenting a fact.
Good: "Actually, the sun is about 93,000,000 miles away."
Bad: "Actually, Shakespeare did not write any plays."