The threat of terrorism is a lame excuse for mass surveillance. Copyright protection is a lame excuse for mass surveillance. Child porn is a lame excuse for mass surveillance.
You have some of the prerequisites for that system in place: Perpetual war on X A vast military-industrial complex to destroy the excess of human production. Choice between two indistinguishable political ideals.
However the 1984 world is also in equilibrium. Once big brother exists, he will always have existed. You're discounting the possibility of being conquered from without.
I dunno about this. The European Parliament seem hell bent on protecting human rights lately, despite a barrage of 4-letter acronym pro-censorship laws.
To which the solution is, better wood burning stoves, with a chimney to improve draft, operating temperate and efficiency, while eliminating indoor pollutants. Even a flue that's not completely air-tight is a start, because the pressure is lower than ambient, and it draws air in along its length.
The Philips wood burning stove was way cooler than these looks good on paper solar contraptions. Not that this design would be suitable for these villages, but better wood stoves should have been first on the list. http://www.research.philips.com/technologies/woodstove.html
I heat my cosy developed-world house using wood, and it's incredibly clean and efficient. And by clean I mean even "a little bit of dust" would be unacceptably dirty. The yearly chimney sweep shows that the combustion itself is very close to complete, and the fuel itself is free. Garden waste to most people.
That isn't what happened, but thanks for sharing your narrow perspective. The goal of this charity is "to heal the climate crisis though reforestation"... total hypocrisy of course, given mine and your ecological footprint.
Wahwhua = White affluent hippy with head up ass
Wahwhua: Here is a crappy solar cooker we designed. Use this instead of harvesting firewood. Villagers: This solar cooker is completely inferior to our existing wood stoves. It's not fit for purpose. Wahwhua: Ok, here is our new design. You should use this because YOU'RE damaging the planet.
IE is crap, but not for that reason. IE9 is missing some very-nice-to-have bits of HTML5 just because it was released so long ago.
As for CSS3, yes it's deficient in some areas, but there is a trick to get around many of them: SVG Unless you have to support IE8 (LOL poor you), then the users will never notice the smoke and mirrors.
With JavaScript polyfills, it's possible to take advantage of the latest and greatest in IE9 with minimal effort.
While slashdot mocks the computer industry marketing for describing computers using a single metric, you seem to be quite happy with that when it comes to browser performance.
An example: Chrome (v8 engine) has this reputation for amazing speed, but IE9 absolutely grinds Chrome into the dust when it comes to simply repositioning elements on screen; something which today's web apps spend a lot of their time doing. You can feel it too if you know what you're looking for. I don't follow IEs development as closely as Chrome or Firefox, but IE must be hardware accelerating these translations.
I fully expect Google to focus on performance cases which help their specific apps. Again, a conflict of interest, akin to Microsoft pre-caching masses of junk, so that Office can appear to start up much faster than the competition.
with time, everyone is going to consolidate their scripts under the main domain
No they won't. There simply isn't enough selection pressure to make that happen. noscript users are this tiny insignificant blip concealed in the statistical noise of web traffic.
Secondly, you're right. All the superficial problems (which I can almost never reproduce anyway) with firefox are nothing compared to having a browser I can trust, from an organization that I'm ideologically aligned with. Google building a web browser is a conflict of interests; though I'm still glad they did for browser war / political reasons.
The rate feels slower today than when I was a kid. And why did the previous generations always get the cool people. What happened to all the von Neumanns, Turings, and Freeman Dysons?
Slashdot Mirror
The going rate is around $1 per 1000 solved catchpa.
The threat of terrorism is a lame excuse for mass surveillance.
Copyright protection is a lame excuse for mass surveillance.
Child porn is a lame excuse for mass surveillance.
The Olympics!? They're not even trying any more.
The world in 1984 is a global symmetric system.
You have some of the prerequisites for that system in place:
Perpetual war on X
A vast military-industrial complex to destroy the excess of human production.
Choice between two indistinguishable political ideals.
However the 1984 world is also in equilibrium. Once big brother exists, he will always have existed.
You're discounting the possibility of being conquered from without.
I call rule 34 on rule 34
The function requires an animation loop and event handler otherwise it does nothing. After that, it's way more than 140 bytes.
Right, the American legal system would only destroy someone's life if they wrote a circumvention for a copy-right protection system.
I dunno about this.
The European Parliament seem hell bent on protecting human rights lately, despite a barrage of 4-letter acronym pro-censorship laws.
(repeal even)
Repel 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act' in the UK.
Oktoberfest?
A defeat for US e-colonialism.
To which the solution is, better wood burning stoves, with a chimney to improve draft, operating temperate and efficiency, while eliminating indoor pollutants.
Even a flue that's not completely air-tight is a start, because the pressure is lower than ambient, and it draws air in along its length.
The Philips wood burning stove was way cooler than these looks good on paper solar contraptions. Not that this design would be suitable for these villages, but better wood stoves should have been first on the list.
http://www.research.philips.com/technologies/woodstove.html
I heat my cosy developed-world house using wood, and it's incredibly clean and efficient. And by clean I mean even "a little bit of dust" would be unacceptably dirty. The yearly chimney sweep shows that the combustion itself is very close to complete, and the fuel itself is free. Garden waste to most people.
That isn't what happened, but thanks for sharing your narrow perspective. ... total hypocrisy of course, given mine and your ecological footprint.
The goal of this charity is "to heal the climate crisis though reforestation"
Wahwhua = White affluent hippy with head up ass
Wahwhua: Here is a crappy solar cooker we designed. Use this instead of harvesting firewood.
Villagers: This solar cooker is completely inferior to our existing wood stoves. It's not fit for purpose.
Wahwhua: Ok, here is our new design. You should use this because YOU'RE damaging the planet.
IE is crap, but not for that reason. IE9 is missing some very-nice-to-have bits of HTML5 just because it was released so long ago.
As for CSS3, yes it's deficient in some areas, but there is a trick to get around many of them: SVG
Unless you have to support IE8 (LOL poor you), then the users will never notice the smoke and mirrors.
With JavaScript polyfills, it's possible to take advantage of the latest and greatest in IE9 with minimal effort.
Milliseconds, (maybe not so much nanoseconds) DO matter inside an animation loop.
Oh, unless you were happy with Flash?
While slashdot mocks the computer industry marketing for describing computers using a single metric, you seem to be quite happy with that when it comes to browser performance.
An example: Chrome (v8 engine) has this reputation for amazing speed, but IE9 absolutely grinds Chrome into the dust when it comes to simply repositioning elements on screen; something which today's web apps spend a lot of their time doing. You can feel it too if you know what you're looking for. I don't follow IEs development as closely as Chrome or Firefox, but IE must be hardware accelerating these translations.
I fully expect Google to focus on performance cases which help their specific apps. Again, a conflict of interest, akin to Microsoft pre-caching masses of junk, so that Office can appear to start up much faster than the competition.
The majority of the Mozilla foundation's funding comes from a search royalties contract, currently with Google.
Problem?
Can someone explain why this is funny?
I can see how it could be funny in a different context, but here it's like the punchline for the wrong joke.
with time, everyone is going to consolidate their scripts under the main domain
No they won't. There simply isn't enough selection pressure to make that happen. noscript users are this tiny insignificant blip concealed in the statistical noise of web traffic.
Secondly, you're right. All the superficial problems (which I can almost never reproduce anyway) with firefox are nothing compared to having a browser I can trust, from an organization that I'm ideologically aligned with.
Google building a web browser is a conflict of interests; though I'm still glad they did for browser war / political reasons.
The rate feels slower today than when I was a kid.
And why did the previous generations always get the cool people. What happened to all the von Neumanns, Turings, and Freeman Dysons?
No, but it's reached the point where automated cars are better than the average human driver. A low bar to pass.
This effect is called Gresham's law.
Let's not say "some government" when it's always the US government.
Please mark .com as depreciated.
News@11