Of course, but these aren't crackpots screaming that modern physics is wrong. They're getting puzzling results, even after doublechecking, so they're asking others to verify. This is the by-the-book scientific process.
You know, Yahoo email is about the only decent product Yahoo has left, and I know a lot of people that still use it. I have a Yahoo and a Gmail email account, and neither is really better than the other. Yahoo is easier if I need to set up a secondary email account for some reason.
But what if I get on a jury and then there's an election? Do I not vote because we've already passed that step? Or do I say I can't serve on the jury because there's an election? I have to use them "in order"...
Sadly, I think you've gotten stuck on the soap-box step.
HTML 5 offers better performance, better security, and better privacy controls (at least in theory).
The others, maybe... but better performance? All current implementation must be pretty far off of their theoretical performance, then, because HTML5 is nowhere near flash right now in terms of speed.
a lot of the javascript/css proponents i've spoken to were quite happy using actionscript 2 but found it difficult making the transition to as3.
Actionscript 3 is a FAR better language than actionscript 2. I wish that AS3 had become the standard version of Javascript for all browsers. I think a lot of the difficulty old flash programmers are finding with AS3 is that it is a 'real', full-featured language.
For the record, what can Flash do that HTML5 + JavaScript cannot, other than 1. efficient vector animation and 2. camera and mic access?
First, efficient vector animation is VERY important.
Secondly, HTML5 can't provide you (as far as I understand it) with DRM and unskippable ads. That's very important in the minds of many content providers.
I think HTML5 will slowly nudge Flash aside, but it will be a long process. Many years.
I lose count of the number of business that, unsatisfied with 'flat' or slow growth, took extreme measures to drastically increase their profit and promptly destroyed themselves.
He paid 35%+ tax on his salary, which is a higher percentage than his secretary. The profit off the money he's invested is taxed an additional 15%, a capital gains tax. If his secretary invested money, it would be taxed at the same or lower rate. This business of 'the buffet tax' is just a math trick done by averaging apples and oranges together.
A feature they're trying to eliminate from Firefox. They want to remove the version numbers from the about dialog so as to not confuse users, or some such crap.
In other words, you're afraid if you set your foot down on even a minor issue, she will stop giving you access to her vagina. Admit it.
What on EARTH makes you think that you should be able to dictate what browser your wife is allowed to use? That's no more reasonable than allowing her to dictate such things to you. You have a severely broken idea of adult human interaction. 'Setting your foot down' over other people's choices is what children do.
Wow. I don't have anything against a company trying to turn a profit on that, but that idea for an application has occurred to nearly every web developer over the last ten or more years (and specifically for facebook since the moment facebook was created). If they can pull it off profitably, great, but it's hard to imagine such a no-brainer idea being 'most disruptive'.
Yeah, inflation rates are highly deceptive, and manipulated almost to the point of uselessness. The fact that most economists use the official inflation rate statistic as a basis for their analyses should be a clue as to how disconnected from reality those analyses are.
No. If you base class on money, then class has no meaning other than as a synonym. For the concept 'class' to have any validity, there needs to be something else involved in the definition. Some societies have laws or hereditary privileges based on class, for instance. America does not have those. We are not class-based.
Regardless of whether I make more or less money than you, I am not in a different class than you. In America, the poorest inner city kid, Bill Gates, and ME are all in the same class: Citizen.
So don't listen to what Libertarians say, listen to what you say that they really mean? That's fair.
Libertarians are generally anti-corporate, because corporations as they exist today are not an evolution of the free market. They are a construct of law, and have a massive body of laws granting them both undue restrictions and massive benefits. Corporations could exist in a free economy, but they would be nothing like corporations are now. Shareholders would simply be part owners of the company, with all the natural rights and responsibilities that implies.
propaganda will never work against intelligent people.
You say that even as you mention Hitler? There were no shortage of intellectuals and academics that embraced Nazi propaganda. Another example of gullible intelligentsia would be Communism in the early and mid 20th century.
There was a study, and I don't recall enough info about it to cite, that found that belief in ridiculous crap (UFO's, spiritualism, etc.) was MORE common as education levels and intelligence rose... although it dropped off again at the very high end of both.
Remember when the next Ice Age was the big concern?
No I don't.
I do, and so do many others. You don't, but... that's ok. It was overly-sensationalized then, even if there were legitimate reasons for concern. Much like AGW today.
Are you being ironic? Otherwise, you're an example supporting his point. He didn't say the science was wrong; just that it was picked up, popularized, and exaggerated by those whose political agenda it benefited. That part really isn't disputable.
The same works the other way; there are rational skeptics of AGW, but the big force behind the 'deniers' are groups whose political agenda it harms. Both big groups and their lobbying organizations and PR campaigns need to be ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, but these aren't crackpots screaming that modern physics is wrong. They're getting puzzling results, even after doublechecking, so they're asking others to verify. This is the by-the-book scientific process.
Can you offer some PROOF of Microsoft planning on killing .net? Any proof whatsoever?
He can't. It's just something he posts over and over, despite being unable to support it. He's been called out on it many times.
Windows 8 tablets can't run the Flash plug-in at all. The only way they run Flash is as a dedicated Metro style app built with an AIR container.
ARM tablets. x86 based tablets can run flash (they'll have the full desktop).
You know, Yahoo email is about the only decent product Yahoo has left, and I know a lot of people that still use it. I have a Yahoo and a Gmail email account, and neither is really better than the other. Yahoo is easier if I need to set up a secondary email account for some reason.
I'm glad when somebody gets rich, even if it's not me.
I'm different than you, that way.
But what if I get on a jury and then there's an election? Do I not vote because we've already passed that step? Or do I say I can't serve on the jury because there's an election? I have to use them "in order"...
Sadly, I think you've gotten stuck on the soap-box step.
HTML 5 offers better performance, better security, and better privacy controls (at least in theory) .
The others, maybe... but better performance? All current implementation must be pretty far off of their theoretical performance, then, because HTML5 is nowhere near flash right now in terms of speed.
a lot of the javascript/css proponents i've spoken to were quite happy using actionscript 2 but found it difficult making the transition to as3.
Actionscript 3 is a FAR better language than actionscript 2. I wish that AS3 had become the standard version of Javascript for all browsers. I think a lot of the difficulty old flash programmers are finding with AS3 is that it is a 'real', full-featured language.
For the record, what can Flash do that HTML5 + JavaScript cannot, other than 1. efficient vector animation and 2. camera and mic access?
First, efficient vector animation is VERY important.
Secondly, HTML5 can't provide you (as far as I understand it) with DRM and unskippable ads. That's very important in the minds of many content providers.
I think HTML5 will slowly nudge Flash aside, but it will be a long process. Many years.
I lose count of the number of business that, unsatisfied with 'flat' or slow growth, took extreme measures to drastically increase their profit and promptly destroyed themselves.
He paid 35%+ tax on his salary, which is a higher percentage than his secretary. The profit off the money he's invested is taxed an additional 15%, a capital gains tax. If his secretary invested money, it would be taxed at the same or lower rate. This business of 'the buffet tax' is just a math trick done by averaging apples and oranges together.
Anyone who ever opens the about dialog box?
A feature they're trying to eliminate from Firefox. They want to remove the version numbers from the about dialog so as to not confuse users, or some such crap.
In other words, you're afraid if you set your foot down on even a minor issue, she will stop giving you access to her vagina. Admit it.
What on EARTH makes you think that you should be able to dictate what browser your wife is allowed to use? That's no more reasonable than allowing her to dictate such things to you. You have a severely broken idea of adult human interaction. 'Setting your foot down' over other people's choices is what children do.
Wow. I don't have anything against a company trying to turn a profit on that, but that idea for an application has occurred to nearly every web developer over the last ten or more years (and specifically for facebook since the moment facebook was created). If they can pull it off profitably, great, but it's hard to imagine such a no-brainer idea being 'most disruptive'.
Yeah, inflation rates are highly deceptive, and manipulated almost to the point of uselessness. The fact that most economists use the official inflation rate statistic as a basis for their analyses should be a clue as to how disconnected from reality those analyses are.
It wasn't a myth; it very much happened, many times. It was, presumably, a bug, and it sounds like it has been fixed.
No. If you base class on money, then class has no meaning other than as a synonym. For the concept 'class' to have any validity, there needs to be something else involved in the definition. Some societies have laws or hereditary privileges based on class, for instance. America does not have those. We are not class-based.
Regardless of whether I make more or less money than you, I am not in a different class than you. In America, the poorest inner city kid, Bill Gates, and ME are all in the same class: Citizen.
Hm. Seems I made fewer decrees than you did.
Hmm? What?
What a terrible argument you have.
So don't listen to what Libertarians say, listen to what you say that they really mean? That's fair.
Libertarians are generally anti-corporate, because corporations as they exist today are not an evolution of the free market. They are a construct of law, and have a massive body of laws granting them both undue restrictions and massive benefits. Corporations could exist in a free economy, but they would be nothing like corporations are now. Shareholders would simply be part owners of the company, with all the natural rights and responsibilities that implies.
propaganda will never work against intelligent people.
You say that even as you mention Hitler? There were no shortage of intellectuals and academics that embraced Nazi propaganda. Another example of gullible intelligentsia would be Communism in the early and mid 20th century.
There was a study, and I don't recall enough info about it to cite, that found that belief in ridiculous crap (UFO's, spiritualism, etc.) was MORE common as education levels and intelligence rose... although it dropped off again at the very high end of both.
Why didn't you list any of the good things that will happen if the globe warms?
Remember when the next Ice Age was the big concern?
No I don't.
I do, and so do many others. You don't, but... that's ok. It was overly-sensationalized then, even if there were legitimate reasons for concern. Much like AGW today.
Are you being ironic? Otherwise, you're an example supporting his point. He didn't say the science was wrong; just that it was picked up, popularized, and exaggerated by those whose political agenda it benefited. That part really isn't disputable.
The same works the other way; there are rational skeptics of AGW, but the big force behind the 'deniers' are groups whose political agenda it harms. Both big groups and their lobbying organizations and PR campaigns need to be ignored.