I'm mostly glad to see the implementation of HTML5 everywhere, but it has some problems.
People thought that you could get rid of a lot of annoyances by increasing HTML5's capabilities to become more on par with Flash. Flash could be ditched. However, all it really means is that all the nuisances that were made in Flash (animated and noisy ads, commercials, persistent cookies, etc.) will now be made in HTML.
Flash wasn't really the problem... it was just one of the vectors FOR the problem. Now, HTML5+Javascript will take Flash's place in the eyes of marketers and spammers everywhere.
I'm supposing that you have heard that Windows 8 apps maybe will be HTML5.
Right, windows 8 will be able to display HTML 8 documents and interpret javascript. You think that means they're tossing out.net and all their old APIs? That's ridiculous. This whole 'applications for win 8 will have to be done in HTML5' meme is ridiculous, and it's kind of embarrassing how many slashdotters have bought into that.
We used all the data from the old embryo destroying techniques to figure out how to use them. In essence, you are benefiting from the destruction of embryos.
And even the Bush ban on embryonic stem cells allowed research to continue with the existing strains. Just not creating new ones from new fetuses. Nobody was trying to suppress knowledge or cover over damage that had already been done. It was just an effort to avoid continuing to pay (out of public funds) for something a large percentage of the public has an ethical problem with.
There has always been a large amount of distortion around the stem-cell debate... probably inevitable, once it became a political issue. Another oft-promulgated falsehood was the idea that stem-cell research was banned. It never was, not even fetal stem-cell research. The issue was purely about government funding.
HTC is now 'needling' Google by making good on 'promises it made earlier in the year to deliver bootloader unlock tools for many of its most popular Android phones,'
I have a strong suspicion that Google will not care one single bit.
Windows dominates desktop PCs, but the era of the PC is ending, and Windows will go the way of NetWare
Flying cars, Fusion, etc.
The era of the PC is not ending... we're decades away from it ending. There are a wide array of functions that a desktop PC gives you that no mobiles devices will fill. The only change that is happening here is that the PC is no longer the ONLY general-purpose computing device available. The explosive growth of one segment does not mean a different segment needs to die. It's not a zero-sum game; the segments complement each other.
Racially-based affirmative action doesn't exist to help people born into a shitty situation unless you accept the premise that being born black is in and of itself a shitty situation.
Exactly.
Currently, there are no laws nor admissions standards that directly restrict blacks or other minorities. The problem is that black students are born into disadvantaged social and economic conditions in a much higher percentage than white students, due to historical inequities. The problem that blacks having getting into college is not because of their race, it's because of their (relative) poverty.
Affirmative action, if it's practiced at all, should be color-blind... helping those in poverty, regardless of their race. If blacks or other minority groups are disproportionately represented in that class, they will be disproportionately assisted. This can be done without the shameful practice of enshrining racism into law, as our current AA practices entail.
There's nothing wrong with big words... except when they're used to disguise a concept that would be blatantly wrong when stated simply and directly.
Being "colorblind" simply means we will maintain the status quo and inequity will continue. This is why we need to explicitly address and take race into account when making decisions around policy, opportunity and process. We need to explicitly address racial inequity in order to become an equitable society.
Being not racist means being racist. We need to be racist in order to be not racist.
If you're going to post similar comments, multiple times, in every article that references space travel or technology, the polite thing to do would be to sign on with your account so that even the most casual browsers will realize that all 'space-nuttery' claims come from a single, obsessed, individual.
How about not concerning yourself with impacting it at high speed, but simply landing on it and then activating the solar sale? Twenty-nine years of drag from that would certainly deflect it from its orbit.
If the solar sale provided enough delta-v to accelerate a ram, in less than a year, to a speed high enough to deflect the rock, it would necessarily be powerful enough to directly maneuver the rock.
As another atheist said, strong atheism is indefensible. Not even Dawkins for all his passion states "THERE IS NO GOD". There is a "probably" in his statements. It is an emotional argument viewpoint to say categorically that there is no God, no more, no less. It lacks understanding of the other side and is generally a bit silly.
It's defensible. If you have to couch your non-belief in God with 'probably', you have to couch your non-belief in ANYTHING with 'probably'. Cue comparisons with Easter Bunny, etc.
That renders the idea of non-belief meaningless. More honest to say that 'there's no God', than there is to say 'there's probably no God, but there is a slim chance, just like there is a slim chance there's a teakettle floating halfway between here and Mars.'
And you're using the "That Particular Scotsman*" fallacy, where you take one stupid thing that one stupid individual said, and assuming that it is indicative of the entire group.
*My own creation, just now. If it starts being repeated anywhere else, add it to wikipedia and point to this post as the origin.
Far from it, although they're closer than typical Republicans and Democrats. They have the problem of allowing religious and social issues into their platforms, which really clouds their purpose, and drives away many actual libertarians . Their founding purpose was purely economic, and when they focus on that, they're much more effective.
Laws prevent you boss from having you shot for daring to strike. Laws prevent your boss from deciding to arbitrarily pay you less than you agreed to work for.
And libertarians are all for laws against murder and fraud. You're arguing against an imaginary opponent.
A lot of corporate law is very anti-libertarian. They have all sorts of special privileges written into law. The standard libertarian ideal would be that a corporation has no rights or privileges other than those that any group of individuals would have... be it a social group, union, religious organization, etc. They're all just people, and have the same laws applied to them.
A lot of our corporate law is anti-libertarian, anti-capitalist, anti-free market. It's because we have a legal system that allows our government to tinker in the economy, to grant favors and pay back bribes.
They shouldn't be. Unions should be an organization of workers. They should have no special privileges enshrined into law, any more than they should have laws restricting their ability to associate and organize.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. An anime fan.
Hey, I like it too, but real women have their advantages.
I'm mostly glad to see the implementation of HTML5 everywhere, but it has some problems.
People thought that you could get rid of a lot of annoyances by increasing HTML5's capabilities to become more on par with Flash. Flash could be ditched. However, all it really means is that all the nuisances that were made in Flash (animated and noisy ads, commercials, persistent cookies, etc.) will now be made in HTML.
Flash wasn't really the problem... it was just one of the vectors FOR the problem. Now, HTML5+Javascript will take Flash's place in the eyes of marketers and spammers everywhere.
I'm supposing that you have heard that Windows 8 apps maybe will be HTML5.
.net and all their old APIs? That's ridiculous. This whole 'applications for win 8 will have to be done in HTML5' meme is ridiculous, and it's kind of embarrassing how many slashdotters have bought into that.
Right, windows 8 will be able to display HTML 8 documents and interpret javascript. You think that means they're tossing out
Every conservative I encounter assumes stem cells = dead babies, so apparently they don't even know what they're against.
Except for every conservative you've encountered in this thread. Now that your statement is no longer true, please don't repeat it anywhere.
We used all the data from the old embryo destroying techniques to figure out how to use them. In essence, you are benefiting from the destruction of embryos.
And even the Bush ban on embryonic stem cells allowed research to continue with the existing strains. Just not creating new ones from new fetuses. Nobody was trying to suppress knowledge or cover over damage that had already been done. It was just an effort to avoid continuing to pay (out of public funds) for something a large percentage of the public has an ethical problem with.
But there is a large group of extremist conservative republicans that have zero science education that think all stem cell research is evil.
Really, have you ever met any? I do not know of any.
The idea that liberals are less apt to unreasonable faith than conservatives is an unreasonable faith that many liberals hold.
There has always been a large amount of distortion around the stem-cell debate... probably inevitable, once it became a political issue. Another oft-promulgated falsehood was the idea that stem-cell research was banned. It never was, not even fetal stem-cell research. The issue was purely about government funding.
HTC is now 'needling' Google by making good on 'promises it made earlier in the year to deliver bootloader unlock tools for many of its most popular Android phones,'
I have a strong suspicion that Google will not care one single bit.
Windows dominates desktop PCs, but the era of the PC is ending, and Windows will go the way of NetWare
Flying cars, Fusion, etc.
The era of the PC is not ending... we're decades away from it ending. There are a wide array of functions that a desktop PC gives you that no mobiles devices will fill. The only change that is happening here is that the PC is no longer the ONLY general-purpose computing device available. The explosive growth of one segment does not mean a different segment needs to die. It's not a zero-sum game; the segments complement each other.
Racially-based affirmative action doesn't exist to help people born into a shitty situation unless you accept the premise that being born black is in and of itself a shitty situation.
Exactly.
Currently, there are no laws nor admissions standards that directly restrict blacks or other minorities. The problem is that black students are born into disadvantaged social and economic conditions in a much higher percentage than white students, due to historical inequities. The problem that blacks having getting into college is not because of their race, it's because of their (relative) poverty.
Affirmative action, if it's practiced at all, should be color-blind... helping those in poverty, regardless of their race. If blacks or other minority groups are disproportionately represented in that class, they will be disproportionately assisted. This can be done without the shameful practice of enshrining racism into law, as our current AA practices entail.
There's nothing wrong with big words... except when they're used to disguise a concept that would be blatantly wrong when stated simply and directly.
Being "colorblind" simply means we will maintain the status quo and inequity will continue. This is why we need to explicitly address and take race into account when making decisions around policy, opportunity and process. We need to explicitly address racial inequity in order to become an equitable society.
Being not racist means being racist. We need to be racist in order to be not racist.
You're wrong. Kid's right. Read the article.
If a six year old figures out that the circumference always seems to be three times the diameter, we should not praise him for his discovery,
Yes we should. OF COURSE we should.
If you're going to post similar comments, multiple times, in every article that references space travel or technology, the polite thing to do would be to sign on with your account so that even the most casual browsers will realize that all 'space-nuttery' claims come from a single, obsessed, individual.
How about not concerning yourself with impacting it at high speed, but simply landing on it and then activating the solar sale? Twenty-nine years of drag from that would certainly deflect it from its orbit.
If the solar sale provided enough delta-v to accelerate a ram, in less than a year, to a speed high enough to deflect the rock, it would necessarily be powerful enough to directly maneuver the rock.
"I stand on the shoulders of giants.".. who were funded by government programs.
Which, in turn, were funded by private industry.
As another atheist said, strong atheism is indefensible. Not even Dawkins for all his passion states "THERE IS NO GOD". There is a "probably" in his statements. It is an emotional argument viewpoint to say categorically that there is no God, no more, no less. It lacks understanding of the other side and is generally a bit silly.
It's defensible. If you have to couch your non-belief in God with 'probably', you have to couch your non-belief in ANYTHING with 'probably'. Cue comparisons with Easter Bunny, etc.
That renders the idea of non-belief meaningless. More honest to say that 'there's no God', than there is to say 'there's probably no God, but there is a slim chance, just like there is a slim chance there's a teakettle floating halfway between here and Mars.'
My niece was so freaked out that she wouldn't let my wife and I go...
That's an interesting family dynamic...
console gamers whine and cry, pc gamers vote with their money,
Unintentional self-parody.
Google is not in the hardware business. They are in the advertising business.
Your statement is no longer true.
And you're using the "That Particular Scotsman*" fallacy, where you take one stupid thing that one stupid individual said, and assuming that it is indicative of the entire group.
*My own creation, just now. If it starts being repeated anywhere else, add it to wikipedia and point to this post as the origin.
And BTW, the Tea Party is not Libertarian.
Far from it, although they're closer than typical Republicans and Democrats. They have the problem of allowing religious and social issues into their platforms, which really clouds their purpose, and drives away many actual libertarians . Their founding purpose was purely economic, and when they focus on that, they're much more effective.
Laws prevent you boss from having you shot for daring to strike. Laws prevent your boss from deciding to arbitrarily pay you less than you agreed to work for.
And libertarians are all for laws against murder and fraud. You're arguing against an imaginary opponent.
A lot of corporate law is very anti-libertarian. They have all sorts of special privileges written into law. The standard libertarian ideal would be that a corporation has no rights or privileges other than those that any group of individuals would have... be it a social group, union, religious organization, etc. They're all just people, and have the same laws applied to them.
A lot of our corporate law is anti-libertarian, anti-capitalist, anti-free market. It's because we have a legal system that allows our government to tinker in the economy, to grant favors and pay back bribes.
Unions are a construct of LAW.
They shouldn't be. Unions should be an organization of workers. They should have no special privileges enshrined into law, any more than they should have laws restricting their ability to associate and organize.