Nah, he was overly bombastic, but correct. The confusion is solely caused by the attempts to 'sensibly revise' a perfectly sensible binary numbering scheme. It's an attempt to force a decimal hierarchy on a system that is not decimal... attempting to make reality fit bureaucratic dictates, rather than the other way around.
Please describe a 'sterilization drug' that can be administered with one shot and be effective for years. If you have that knowledge, you could be rich.
MS-DOS was very stable; I don't remember it ever crashing. It was simple and limited, sure; but not buggy. Now, it gave apps that ran on it full access to the hardware, and they would crash (including Windows), but MS-DOS itself did what it was supposed to do, very well.
If you think there is another "side" to this, I would like you to produce the science that they are doing. Scientific papers, evidence -- ANY DAMN THING that contradicts the current accepted model.
Fair enough, but do you understand that all the examples you gave are really stupid?
The mentality of people who pounce on these emails as proof that "global warming" isn't real are the same ones that used snow storms as proof. They totally miss the overall picture.
There are idiots asserting that the random weather of the week proves their point on BOTH sides. Look at the people that think that recent hurricanes are caused by global warming. I've even seen accusations in the mainstream media that climate change has caused earthquakes.
The last batch of emails did not do much damage to the science behind climate change. There were maybe some very minor errors exposed, but no smoking gun, at all. If the first batch of emails had no smoking gun, I doubt the second batch does.
But what the emails DID do was show how much the scientists involved were trying to hold the details close to their chest. Not that their conclusions were wrong, but how they really didn't want to show, in detail, how their conclusions followed from their data. They weren't open, and that's a bad thing in science. Hopefully THAT attitude will change, because that's worth criticizing them for.
You're correct, but I'd value $1,000,000 as less then 1,000,000 x $1. I'd even say that the first $250,000 is as valuable to me as the next $750,000, in terms of the effect it would have on my life.
However, this value needs to be set by each person, so I'm not really disagreeing with you.
Is it that outlandish to think that somebody who has lived twice as long, experienced twice as much, met twice the people, seen twice the history, would have slightly more understanding of the world? It certainly isn't always the case, but it would seem to make sense.
There's no reason bytecode would be any less secure than running javascript or any other interpreter. Bytecode is just a language with a simple syntax, optimized for fast interpretation. I'd think the simplicity would make it more secure.
Water will hydrate you, by the definition of 'hydrate'. Companies should be banned from putting lies or false information on their products, not banned from putting correct information that doesn't quite put across the message the government wants.
You're really revealing your obsession, here. There's no serous scientist or engineer that thinks we couldn't build a mars colony. It is expensive, but not as expensive as the last few wars. The physics and engineering aren't a problem; just the political will.
If you are talking about using space to put ALL our excess population, on the order of a billion people every decade or two, that is impossible; but nobody is saying that.
When you say things like this, you aren't being pro-science. You're distorting science to use to forward your own, emotionally-fueled, biases. It's clear that sixty years ago, you would have been claiming that moon landings were only thought possible by anti -science 'space nutters'.
By the way, although you use the term 'space nutters' on slashdot every chance you get, it won't catch on. It's not a meme; you won't make it so. It just makes you sound more desperate.
I disagree. We have evolved to this point because we are super predators and because we are inherently greedy and self-serving.
Good way to put it. Attempting to scale down and live quietly, without conflict and constant stimulation and revolution, won't work for humanity. That would just kill us. We need to USE our strengths, and keep exploring, growing, and conquering.
Re:Glad I read this, I learned a few things
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
I much prefer the syntax and clarity of AS3 when I do OOP.
Absolutely. HTML5 would be much improved if AS3 had been accepted as the next version of Javascript. It's a nice little language. I don't think Javascript is THAT bad, though. I think it's hated because of it's function as the main scripting language used on the web, and is inevitably used by shoddy programmers for irritating purposes.
That's one reason people will come to hate HTML5 in a few years, once they realize that the primary use of the canvas and audio tags will be to serve up poorly programmed advertisements.
The 1% to be held more responsible/accountable for their actions,
What does that mean?
Are you talking about ones that committed crimes? Absolutely, they should be punished.
Are you talking about ones that did nothing illegal, but acted unethically? Name and shame them.
Are you talking about finding rich scapegoats and tearing them down, because you're miserable and want somebody to pay? Too bad, grow up.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
No need to blame intelligence agencies and counter-propaganda. The Occupy movement self-destructed on their own. They pandered to the fringe, instead of to the concerns the mainstream had. Bailing out the banks? We all hate that. Corruption in Wall Street? We all hate that. If Occupy could have focused on those issues, instead of getting distracted with various extreme socialist and anti-capitalist issues, they could have made a profound impact.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
Right. HTML5 is nice, and an excellent increase in browser abilities, but it does not replace Flash. It gives you a slower, more laborious method of replicating much of Flash. Now, that may be worth it; I'm rewriting some stuff to use HTML5 instead of Flash... but Flash can't be completely dumped yet. Ever tried to work much with HTML5's audio?
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
The notion notion that American business and culture will act quickly to commodify anything new is no longer news, but still pathetic.
It's not pathetic. It's efficient.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
This is a win. Make no mistake about it.
No, there IS bad publicity. People are making fun of it. That doesn't increase sympathy for the 'cause'. They're making the Tea Party seem calm and rational by comparison.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The Occupy movement jumped the shark about two days in. The first reports were promising; Wall Street is rife with corruption, the bailout was cronyism at it's worst. The American public had, potentially, a lot of sympathy with those causes.
It turned out, though, that the Occupy movement was just the same old agitators, with a little more substantial marketing campaign behind them. The occupy movement is now, clearly, a leftist subset of the democrat party, with the same old, tired, socialist screeds. If they had kept it as a protest movement against corruption and granting political favors, I would have supported them. When one of the primary components became losers whining about their student loans, they had obviously taken their eyes off the target.
No. Government is invariably corruptable. A strong corrupt government is worse than a weak corrupt government.
The key would be to make it impossible for the government to favor one business over another. Nobody is giving me millions of dollars to prevent a competitor from starting up; if congress was as impotent at granting favors as I am, there would be no bribery.
They modded it down because, despite any informative content, the poster was an ass and his tone that of an insulting troll. If he had said the same thing, but in a grown-up fashion, he would have that +5.
How you communicate is part of what you're communicating.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, he was overly bombastic, but correct. The confusion is solely caused by the attempts to 'sensibly revise' a perfectly sensible binary numbering scheme. It's an attempt to force a decimal hierarchy on a system that is not decimal... attempting to make reality fit bureaucratic dictates, rather than the other way around.
Please describe a 'sterilization drug' that can be administered with one shot and be effective for years. If you have that knowledge, you could be rich.
MS-DOS was very stable; I don't remember it ever crashing. It was simple and limited, sure; but not buggy. Now, it gave apps that ran on it full access to the hardware, and they would crash (including Windows), but MS-DOS itself did what it was supposed to do, very well.
If you think there is another "side" to this, I would like you to produce the science that they are doing. Scientific papers, evidence -- ANY DAMN THING that contradicts the current accepted model.
Fair enough, but do you understand that all the examples you gave are really stupid?
First off,
The mentality of people who pounce on these emails as proof that "global warming" isn't real are the same ones that used snow storms as proof. They totally miss the overall picture.
There are idiots asserting that the random weather of the week proves their point on BOTH sides. Look at the people that think that recent hurricanes are caused by global warming. I've even seen accusations in the mainstream media that climate change has caused earthquakes.
The last batch of emails did not do much damage to the science behind climate change. There were maybe some very minor errors exposed, but no smoking gun, at all. If the first batch of emails had no smoking gun, I doubt the second batch does.
But what the emails DID do was show how much the scientists involved were trying to hold the details close to their chest. Not that their conclusions were wrong, but how they really didn't want to show, in detail, how their conclusions followed from their data. They weren't open, and that's a bad thing in science. Hopefully THAT attitude will change, because that's worth criticizing them for.
You're correct, but I'd value $1,000,000 as less then 1,000,000 x $1. I'd even say that the first $250,000 is as valuable to me as the next $750,000, in terms of the effect it would have on my life.
However, this value needs to be set by each person, so I'm not really disagreeing with you.
Is it that outlandish to think that somebody who has lived twice as long, experienced twice as much, met twice the people, seen twice the history, would have slightly more understanding of the world? It certainly isn't always the case, but it would seem to make sense.
There's no reason bytecode would be any less secure than running javascript or any other interpreter. Bytecode is just a language with a simple syntax, optimized for fast interpretation. I'd think the simplicity would make it more secure.
The problem isn't security, it's standardization.
You can't have all the cookies you want without a tummyache either, but WTF does this have to do with the topic?
I can't believe you don't understand this.
Water will hydrate you, by the definition of 'hydrate'. Companies should be banned from putting lies or false information on their products, not banned from putting correct information that doesn't quite put across the message the government wants.
You're really revealing your obsession, here. There's no serous scientist or engineer that thinks we couldn't build a mars colony. It is expensive, but not as expensive as the last few wars. The physics and engineering aren't a problem; just the political will.
If you are talking about using space to put ALL our excess population, on the order of a billion people every decade or two, that is impossible; but nobody is saying that.
When you say things like this, you aren't being pro-science. You're distorting science to use to forward your own, emotionally-fueled, biases. It's clear that sixty years ago, you would have been claiming that moon landings were only thought possible by anti -science 'space nutters'. By the way, although you use the term 'space nutters' on slashdot every chance you get, it won't catch on. It's not a meme; you won't make it so. It just makes you sound more desperate.
I disagree. We have evolved to this point because we are super predators and because we are inherently greedy and self-serving.
Good way to put it. Attempting to scale down and live quietly, without conflict and constant stimulation and revolution, won't work for humanity. That would just kill us. We need to USE our strengths, and keep exploring, growing, and conquering.
Can we bounce a laser off a satellite?
I much prefer the syntax and clarity of AS3 when I do OOP.
Absolutely. HTML5 would be much improved if AS3 had been accepted as the next version of Javascript. It's a nice little language. I don't think Javascript is THAT bad, though. I think it's hated because of it's function as the main scripting language used on the web, and is inevitably used by shoddy programmers for irritating purposes.
That's one reason people will come to hate HTML5 in a few years, once they realize that the primary use of the canvas and audio tags will be to serve up poorly programmed advertisements.
The 1% to be held more responsible/accountable for their actions,
What does that mean?
Are you talking about ones that committed crimes? Absolutely, they should be punished.
Are you talking about ones that did nothing illegal, but acted unethically? Name and shame them.
Are you talking about finding rich scapegoats and tearing them down, because you're miserable and want somebody to pay? Too bad, grow up.
No need to blame intelligence agencies and counter-propaganda. The Occupy movement self-destructed on their own. They pandered to the fringe, instead of to the concerns the mainstream had. Bailing out the banks? We all hate that. Corruption in Wall Street? We all hate that. If Occupy could have focused on those issues, instead of getting distracted with various extreme socialist and anti-capitalist issues, they could have made a profound impact.
Right. HTML5 is nice, and an excellent increase in browser abilities, but it does not replace Flash. It gives you a slower, more laborious method of replicating much of Flash. Now, that may be worth it; I'm rewriting some stuff to use HTML5 instead of Flash... but Flash can't be completely dumped yet. Ever tried to work much with HTML5's audio?
The notion notion that American business and culture will act quickly to commodify anything new is no longer news, but still pathetic.
It's not pathetic. It's efficient.
This is a win. Make no mistake about it.
No, there IS bad publicity. People are making fun of it. That doesn't increase sympathy for the 'cause'. They're making the Tea Party seem calm and rational by comparison.
The Occupy movement jumped the shark about two days in. The first reports were promising; Wall Street is rife with corruption, the bailout was cronyism at it's worst. The American public had, potentially, a lot of sympathy with those causes.
It turned out, though, that the Occupy movement was just the same old agitators, with a little more substantial marketing campaign behind them. The occupy movement is now, clearly, a leftist subset of the democrat party, with the same old, tired, socialist screeds. If they had kept it as a protest movement against corruption and granting political favors, I would have supported them. When one of the primary components became losers whining about their student loans, they had obviously taken their eyes off the target.
That could be simplified down; your second criteria would be caught by your third.
Why shouldn't he? It's his forum. Anybody posting is there at his pleasure, and none of the posters have in any sense a right to post.
Getting mad at being banned from a forum is like getting mad that somebody didn't give you a gift.
You're really a Republican, posting to make the Democrats look worse, right?
No. Government is invariably corruptable. A strong corrupt government is worse than a weak corrupt government.
The key would be to make it impossible for the government to favor one business over another. Nobody is giving me millions of dollars to prevent a competitor from starting up; if congress was as impotent at granting favors as I am, there would be no bribery.
They modded it down because, despite any informative content, the poster was an ass and his tone that of an insulting troll. If he had said the same thing, but in a grown-up fashion, he would have that +5.
How you communicate is part of what you're communicating.