It's not the W3C's fault that browsers only follow their standards 10 years after they're released.
One, that means they don't have the power to be worth entrusting new standards to.
Two, it is their fault. They allowed Microsoft and Netscape to add to their standards, resulting in an attitude of whatever. They release overly complex standards knowing that the earlier ones aren't being adhered to. They allow themselves to be pushed around by certain companies, ensuring that other companies have a vested interest in their standards failing.
There's offline storage, javascript threads, and even in browser form validation. The awesome thing is that a bunch of these features are already implemented in various browsers.
I feel the opposite. It's a whole list of things I have to remember to turn off.
I'm hard pressed to think of a site where I like the javascript. Geolocation and offline storage: yeah more ways of being tracked. Browser form validation: that one may be useful, but I'm not sure why yet.
Even the video tag... I can turn Flash off except for youtube and hulu.
. What we need is a bytecode-based platform like Java or.NET but completely open and managed by W3C
W3C does a great job with it's standards. Why, I hear [insert your favorite browser] is so compliant it will pass the ACID3 test any day now! (Sarcasm does not apply if you use Safari, Opera or one of the several Linux browsers that actually do.)
If you accept the convenience offered by such online companies, don't be surprised when many horrible things happen to you!
What convenience? The convenience to have to use their inferior-to-my-desktop-app editor, in a browser I wouldn't normally use, with security settings I wouldn't normally use, continigent on my network connection staying up?
That sounds much better than downloading a file, running the app I decided I wanted to use and learned the quirks of, and being able to put my computer to sleep, move it to a coffee shop and resume. Oh, and allowing my OS to protect my computer like I told it to.
A good movie allows you to immerse yourself in the story, and that's a lot harder to do when things on the screen keep extruding themselves into the theater.
The 3D is exagerated, at least Avatar's was. Give it a few years, when it's no longer the newest toy, and it'll be done tastefully and add a lot. Compare the color choices of The Wizard of Oz and a modern movie where color is taken for granted.
Re:your first sentence is technically flawed
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 1
Unix wouldn't run on the original IBM PC, nor with any other cheap processor they might have instead of the Intel one.
Actually, the original IBM PC came with an optional, stripped down flavor of UNIX, called XENIX. It was only 8-bit, of course.
So, the hypothetical "what if it shipped..." is meaningless. DOS actually beat it out.
Also, back then, IBM was solely a hardware manufacturer. I doubt selling sub $200 computers was an attractive thing to get pushed.
Both of which were terrific weapons - which is why I used it as an example.
You implied that the crowbar became an iconic weapon because of the storyline. I posit it was merely the lack of a large internet community that was around when Quake was released.
Most people can make it to work and back on a bicycle
And I can and do. But then again, I also decided to live close to the office.
But for a long time, the only place I could afford was a 45 minute drive/4 hour public transit/bike commute each way. I'm all for telling people they're not entitled to a car, I just want to provide a viable alternative. Cheap mass transit and bikes work for me.
But the GP was in Sarasota. No mass transit. And I'm not sure how safe it is to bike in 100+ degree weather.
You could perhaps just *save* for those nice things
Not being homeless is a "nice thing". Being able to get to your job is a "nice thing". Certainly, if you're talking about renting instead of buying, or driving a scooter instead of a car, I agree. But you need a credit score for both of those things as well.
As for student loans, I tend to think the government should either provide them or fix high school.
No, it has to do with the fact that we don't have as much free-market as anti-free-market whiners like to tell us we do
We found when we did, that people would be born into a company town, owned by say a mining company. Since that one company owned all the land, all its employees rented from it, but more importantly, it had the only store that could be frequented. By controlling both wages (only jobs were with he company) and the sale of products (only from the "company store"), the company could force people to constantly be in debt using their job as collateral; forcing them to work. And by controlling credit, they could force the same conditions on newly minted adults before they had a chance to escape.
That's to say nothing of natural monopolies, the need to control externalities, market failures, and the tragedy of the commons/communal goods.
People who believe in religion dogmatically I understand; its unfalsifiable. But how do free market advocates keep doing it. The unregulated free market doesn't exist because it was tried and was horrible.
Or, how about this. Dubai has a completely free market system. Why don't you move there?
There's a reason why the crowbar has become a truly iconic weapon... While the nail gun has been all-but forgotten.
I disagree. My friends and I remember the nail gun fondly. I just imagine that it's because of the lack of a ubiquitous internet culture when Quake came out to popularize it.
And FPSes can clearly have a compelling story (see Halo) and unique mechanics. The ease of copying a mechanic vs. a story makes them all resemble on another again, but I would posit that there were about as many groundbreaking FPS mechanics as there are compelling RPG storylines.
But I'm not particularly interested in the genre pissing war, I just wanted to defend my nailgun (and super-nailgun!)
That said, I realize not all students can pull off an A in calculus, so there has to be some balance so as to avoid sidelining the "dumb" students instead.
Why not sideline the "dumb" students? That's truly where the anti-geek culture thrives. If everyone can succeed to some degree, how special are the smart students?
I couldn't play football; that's fine. But why should we assume everyone gets academic accolades?
Basically, you can sue someone for libel/slander once they open their mouth and say whatever they want, but you cannot get a court order or law telling them to shut up, or stop saying it...
Sure you can. Most well-written NDAs have a clause explicitly to allow the judge to issue a gag order, escalating the infraction from civil to criminal.
If the world governments all join up to save the world from the greenhouse gases, once the smoke clears we're left with a single world government. AKA, a global monopoly. The telco monopoly gave us telcos that didn't care about their customers,
Interesting that you don't think that the federal government (of country X) is a monopoly, but the telco companies, which were isolated by nations, are. You could have gotten away from Ma Bell by moving to China or Australia.
I find the documentation is adequate 80% of the time, inadequate filler 10% of the time, and obsolete/incorrect 10% of the time. This includes things like writing out what the mathematical operations will do, looking at the results, and reverse engineering the mistakes in the documentation. Equivalent to, but far more complex then, documentation says func1 ( x, y) returns X+Y. func1 ( 2, 2 ) returns 4 as expected. Someday, someone changes the way it is used so now it is called with ( 3, 1). Suddenly a small error in what appeared to be working crops up, because it returned 3, because it really returns X*Y. That's a good deal of documentation.
I do agree reading skills are important. But I put logic/math above reading. That said, I wouldn't work with anyone (well, any programmer) who lacked either.
Are you stating you think the rules for head coverings are the same for Jewish people as Sikhs and athiests?
Yes. Any of the three can wear head coverings that they believe a deity (or deities in the case of the Sikh) tells them they have to. Just like an dry cleaners can get out of regulations by not using chemicals. Or just like the same rules apply to a dry cleaners that happens to bake. It's stupid to talk about an atheist wearing a religious artifact because they believe one or more deities commanded it to the exact same extent it's also stupid to talk about bakeries that use dry cleaning chemicals or dry cleaners that happen to bake.
And I've explained the difference... intentions matter. The intention to wear a hat is inappropriate in occasions when the intention is to follow your faith. Marines remove their hats when they go indoors as a matter of it being proper protocol, but that protocol also allows religious headcoverings to stay on. Why, because that protocol codifies etiquette. And etiquette is anything but consistent.
It is unequal protection under the law if one student wearing some "artifact" gets to wear it, when the next day, another student in the same class, otherwise identical other than religion, were to wear the exact same "artifact" is told he can't wear it.
And one day someone can shoot someone in the head and be okay, just because he thought that the other person was pointing a gun at him. But the next day, someone who shoots someone in the head, whose only difference is his better eyesight allows him to determine that it's a soda can, gets in trouble. Unequal protection!
Are you really unaware that in the real world, not some highly idealized utopia you think you live in, intentions matter?
Considering that Y = restricting freedom of expression, I would say that X has to be pretty darn big...
Not an important way to express yourself though. If it was limiting the right to speak or assemble, I'd agree. Freedom of expression in clothes at school doesn't seem like an important one. Bring on the uniforms.
However, freedom of religion seems far more important.
BTW, correct about HTML eating the <. Y < X < Z
Key words - in "some" cultures. Why are some cultures permitted and others aren't. (Or to put another way, why is one hat "OK" and one isn't?)
I think I was misinterpreted. In some cultures, it is rude to wear a hat indoors. Presuming that the school is in one of those cultures, it has a right to restrict hats. Such cultures do not consider it rude to wear religious hats indoors. This has to do with the origins of the custom, and if illogical, is still a valid cultural more.
If you want to say "we should change culture" that seems outside something society can consciously do.
There are a billion ways to cheat in school, and the solution to all of them is the same - teacher attentiveness.
I see no reason to have only one solution. Parental attentiveness is important to control consumption of (insert favorite bugaboo) on TV, but the V-Chip to help automate the process is a great benefit.
I think I've seen those - different hats have different emblems and colors, people argue over which representative group is better than the other... yeah, "baseball teams".
And some schools banned hats after fistfights broke out over wearing the hat of a hated (to the local team) rival.
I think you're underestimating today's youth - do you think they all said "gee, we can't wear our hats. Guess we'll have to quit our gangs and become insurance salesmen."?
I find your statement sadly ironic. I think being in a gang is bad.
No, I don't think it helps too much, but it makes it slightly harder. There's always an edge case. I would say if it kept X gang members from attending school, leading to Y kids not being convinced to join a gang, there is some value for Y that banning hats is worthwhile.
So it's still a rule that serves no purpose (other than inventing ways for innocent people to get in trouble.)
If people were nice and rational, there would be no need for most rules. They aren't, so most rules make little sense because one asshole ruins it for everyone. They describe what used to happen, and must be prevented.
Russel's Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are all laughing at you.
Russell's Teapot fails as an analogy; it's a physical item so its only value is via physical interaction.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just a different physical imagining of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being. You know what, that's a distinction without a difference.
you have no problem regulating it when it's particularly bad. It's only under certain circumstances where you think it's reasonable to bow to someone's belief -- and again, it seems weird that you'd be that specific.
Each law has some worth, and some costs it forces on people. In this case, religious people bear such a high cost that if all people bore that cost, the law would not exist. So an exception is granted. In the case of human sacrifice, the worth of the law still outweighs the costs.
It's not hard to find a non-religious analog - philosophical pacifists were allowed exemptions from the draft.
you don't mind it because it's a small amount with adult supervision. While it'd be hard to come up with a law, it seems you wouldn't have a problem with a small amount, with adult supervision, regardless of the religious (or nonreligious) setting.
Given infinite time and precision in drafting the law, and infinite resources to enforce it, sure. However, I don't want week long jury trials wrangling over the definition of "small amount", I don't want lobbists trying to tweak the levels (Equal alcohol, no shots are more intense, no tequila is worse for young people), and I don't want to refine that law at the cost of say, banking regulations.
Take the turban -- it's a hat.
It's a religious artifact in the shape of a hat.
I specifically said "deluded" -- in particular, this is encouraging people to have unreasonable faith in things so that they can apply these things as pressure to get what they want...
By definition, if you rationally choose to have a belief, it's not unreasonable faith. You have to filter people who do believe it from those who don't.
A quick counter to utilitarianism: Say I cheat on my hypothetical wife, she never finds out, and I don't feel guilty. Was it still wrong?
Quick retorts:
I never said utilitarianism was a good moral framework, merely that it was a good legislative framework.
The utility of her knowing it is wrong may outweigh the benefits of the affair.
Utilitarian actions don't become good or bad depending on what happens, they are based on what you know at the time. You're never going to be sure that she won't find out.
I could go on, but basically, I'm not a naive utilitarian. I tend to identify more with Rawls. But under Rawlsian or Kantian analysis, the cost/benefit calculation still remain.
Have you ever been around someone who actually is having paranoid delusions? There's really very little you can do to prove to them that they're wrong
To prove to them sure. But you can prove to the rest of the world the KGB doesn't vacuum their home every night.
I'd be interested to know if you heard me say I'm a strong atheist.
Not explicitly. I deduced it. Heck, statements like what I'll reply to next demonstrate it.
There are certain god-claims which are logically impossible
Really? What's logically impossible.
You go on to claim to be a theist, that there are some claims you agree with. But the claims probably relate to the omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent triumvirate. Those three define a philosophical god.
My favorite counter to Pascal is this: Imagine instead a god which, having endowed us with logic and reaso
Yes. How else will you get those responses? Keep in mind, if the government gets no response, they are obligated to send someone to physically knock on the door.
Maybe because they deny twice as many claims
That would actually make the overhead claims higher. Overhead is the amount of money that doesn't go towards filling claims.
I don't follow your distinction. A student going into a school can not wear a hat, but can wear a religious artifact that looks like a hat. A Sikh cannot wear a baseball cap, for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, and me without mod points.
One, that means they don't have the power to be worth entrusting new standards to.
Two, it is their fault. They allowed Microsoft and Netscape to add to their standards, resulting in an attitude of whatever. They release overly complex standards knowing that the earlier ones aren't being adhered to. They allow themselves to be pushed around by certain companies, ensuring that other companies have a vested interest in their standards failing.
I feel the opposite. It's a whole list of things I have to remember to turn off.
I'm hard pressed to think of a site where I like the javascript. Geolocation and offline storage: yeah more ways of being tracked. Browser form validation: that one may be useful, but I'm not sure why yet.
Even the video tag... I can turn Flash off except for youtube and hulu.
W3C does a great job with it's standards. Why, I hear [insert your favorite browser] is so compliant it will pass the ACID3 test any day now! (Sarcasm does not apply if you use Safari, Opera or one of the several Linux browsers that actually do.)
What convenience? The convenience to have to use their inferior-to-my-desktop-app editor, in a browser I wouldn't normally use, with security settings I wouldn't normally use, continigent on my network connection staying up?
That sounds much better than downloading a file, running the app I decided I wanted to use and learned the quirks of, and being able to put my computer to sleep, move it to a coffee shop and resume. Oh, and allowing my OS to protect my computer like I told it to.
The 3D is exagerated, at least Avatar's was. Give it a few years, when it's no longer the newest toy, and it'll be done tastefully and add a lot. Compare the color choices of The Wizard of Oz and a modern movie where color is taken for granted.
Actually, the original IBM PC came with an optional, stripped down flavor of UNIX, called XENIX. It was only 8-bit, of course.
So, the hypothetical "what if it shipped..." is meaningless. DOS actually beat it out.
Also, back then, IBM was solely a hardware manufacturer. I doubt selling sub $200 computers was an attractive thing to get pushed.
You implied that the crowbar became an iconic weapon because of the storyline. I posit it was merely the lack of a large internet community that was around when Quake was released.
And I can and do. But then again, I also decided to live close to the office.
But for a long time, the only place I could afford was a 45 minute drive/4 hour public transit/bike commute each way. I'm all for telling people they're not entitled to a car, I just want to provide a viable alternative. Cheap mass transit and bikes work for me.
But the GP was in Sarasota. No mass transit. And I'm not sure how safe it is to bike in 100+ degree weather.
Weeks, sure. Days, maybe. But hours? You cannot wait hours?
Not being homeless is a "nice thing". Being able to get to your job is a "nice thing". Certainly, if you're talking about renting instead of buying, or driving a scooter instead of a car, I agree. But you need a credit score for both of those things as well.
As for student loans, I tend to think the government should either provide them or fix high school.
Terrible compared to how the system would have evolved with tighter regulation.
We found when we did, that people would be born into a company town, owned by say a mining company. Since that one company owned all the land, all its employees rented from it, but more importantly, it had the only store that could be frequented. By controlling both wages (only jobs were with he company) and the sale of products (only from the "company store"), the company could force people to constantly be in debt using their job as collateral; forcing them to work. And by controlling credit, they could force the same conditions on newly minted adults before they had a chance to escape.
That's to say nothing of natural monopolies, the need to control externalities, market failures, and the tragedy of the commons/communal goods.
People who believe in religion dogmatically I understand; its unfalsifiable. But how do free market advocates keep doing it. The unregulated free market doesn't exist because it was tried and was horrible.
Or, how about this. Dubai has a completely free market system. Why don't you move there?
I disagree. My friends and I remember the nail gun fondly. I just imagine that it's because of the lack of a ubiquitous internet culture when Quake came out to popularize it.
And FPSes can clearly have a compelling story (see Halo) and unique mechanics. The ease of copying a mechanic vs. a story makes them all resemble on another again, but I would posit that there were about as many groundbreaking FPS mechanics as there are compelling RPG storylines.
But I'm not particularly interested in the genre pissing war, I just wanted to defend my nailgun (and super-nailgun!)
Why not sideline the "dumb" students? That's truly where the anti-geek culture thrives. If everyone can succeed to some degree, how special are the smart students?
I couldn't play football; that's fine. But why should we assume everyone gets academic accolades?
Free useful work, sure. But write a short class? Esp during the interview process?
Of course, make sure it's totally outside the realm of being used.
Sure you can. Most well-written NDAs have a clause explicitly to allow the judge to issue a gag order, escalating the infraction from civil to criminal.
I have a ton of things open, and can still play low-res Flash videos on a fairly old system (pre-Core2 Duo). I call BS.
Interesting that you don't think that the federal government (of country X) is a monopoly, but the telco companies, which were isolated by nations, are. You could have gotten away from Ma Bell by moving to China or Australia.
What libraries do you use?
I find the documentation is adequate 80% of the time, inadequate filler 10% of the time, and obsolete/incorrect 10% of the time. This includes things like writing out what the mathematical operations will do, looking at the results, and reverse engineering the mistakes in the documentation. Equivalent to, but far more complex then, documentation says func1 ( x, y) returns X+Y. func1 ( 2, 2 ) returns 4 as expected. Someday, someone changes the way it is used so now it is called with ( 3, 1). Suddenly a small error in what appeared to be working crops up, because it returned 3, because it really returns X*Y. That's a good deal of documentation.
I do agree reading skills are important. But I put logic/math above reading. That said, I wouldn't work with anyone (well, any programmer) who lacked either.
Yes. Any of the three can wear head coverings that they believe a deity (or deities in the case of the Sikh) tells them they have to. Just like an dry cleaners can get out of regulations by not using chemicals. Or just like the same rules apply to a dry cleaners that happens to bake. It's stupid to talk about an atheist wearing a religious artifact because they believe one or more deities commanded it to the exact same extent it's also stupid to talk about bakeries that use dry cleaning chemicals or dry cleaners that happen to bake.
And I've explained the difference... intentions matter. The intention to wear a hat is inappropriate in occasions when the intention is to follow your faith. Marines remove their hats when they go indoors as a matter of it being proper protocol, but that protocol also allows religious headcoverings to stay on. Why, because that protocol codifies etiquette. And etiquette is anything but consistent.
And one day someone can shoot someone in the head and be okay, just because he thought that the other person was pointing a gun at him. But the next day, someone who shoots someone in the head, whose only difference is his better eyesight allows him to determine that it's a soda can, gets in trouble. Unequal protection!
Are you really unaware that in the real world, not some highly idealized utopia you think you live in, intentions matter?
Not an important way to express yourself though. If it was limiting the right to speak or assemble, I'd agree. Freedom of expression in clothes at school doesn't seem like an important one. Bring on the uniforms.
However, freedom of religion seems far more important.
BTW, correct about HTML eating the <. Y < X < Z
I think I was misinterpreted. In some cultures, it is rude to wear a hat indoors. Presuming that the school is in one of those cultures, it has a right to restrict hats. Such cultures do not consider it rude to wear religious hats indoors. This has to do with the origins of the custom, and if illogical, is still a valid cultural more.
If you want to say "we should change culture" that seems outside something society can consciously do.
I see no reason to have only one solution. Parental attentiveness is important to control consumption of (insert favorite bugaboo) on TV, but the V-Chip to help automate the process is a great benefit.
And some schools banned hats after fistfights broke out over wearing the hat of a hated (to the local team) rival.
I find your statement sadly ironic. I think being in a gang is bad.
No, I don't think it helps too much, but it makes it slightly harder. There's always an edge case. I would say if it kept X gang members from attending school, leading to Y kids not being convinced to join a gang, there is some value for Y that banning hats is worthwhile.
If people were nice and rational, there would be no need for most rules. They aren't, so most rules make little sense because one asshole ruins it for everyone. They describe what used to happen, and must be prevented.
Russell's Teapot fails as an analogy; it's a physical item so its only value is via physical interaction.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just a different physical imagining of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being. You know what, that's a distinction without a difference.
Each law has some worth, and some costs it forces on people. In this case, religious people bear such a high cost that if all people bore that cost, the law would not exist. So an exception is granted. In the case of human sacrifice, the worth of the law still outweighs the costs.
It's not hard to find a non-religious analog - philosophical pacifists were allowed exemptions from the draft.
Given infinite time and precision in drafting the law, and infinite resources to enforce it, sure. However, I don't want week long jury trials wrangling over the definition of "small amount", I don't want lobbists trying to tweak the levels (Equal alcohol, no shots are more intense, no tequila is worse for young people), and I don't want to refine that law at the cost of say, banking regulations.
It's a religious artifact in the shape of a hat.
By definition, if you rationally choose to have a belief, it's not unreasonable faith. You have to filter people who do believe it from those who don't.
Quick retorts:
I never said utilitarianism was a good moral framework, merely that it was a good legislative framework.
The utility of her knowing it is wrong may outweigh the benefits of the affair.
Utilitarian actions don't become good or bad depending on what happens, they are based on what you know at the time. You're never going to be sure that she won't find out.
I could go on, but basically, I'm not a naive utilitarian. I tend to identify more with Rawls. But under Rawlsian or Kantian analysis, the cost/benefit calculation still remain.
To prove to them sure. But you can prove to the rest of the world the KGB doesn't vacuum their home every night.
Not explicitly. I deduced it. Heck, statements like what I'll reply to next demonstrate it.
Really? What's logically impossible.
You go on to claim to be a theist, that there are some claims you agree with. But the claims probably relate to the omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent triumvirate. Those three define a philosophical god.
Yes. How else will you get those responses? Keep in mind, if the government gets no response, they are obligated to send someone to physically knock on the door.
That would actually make the overhead claims higher. Overhead is the amount of money that doesn't go towards filling claims.
Also, do you have a citation?
I don't follow your distinction. A student going into a school can not wear a hat, but can wear a religious artifact that looks like a hat. A Sikh cannot wear a baseball cap, for instance.