The name "Google" has itself been verbed in a way that has never really happened to the names Apple and Microsoft (although some Apple and Microsoft products have been verbed).
Having a powerful brand directly means you are able to sell ads for higher prices. Time magazine surely sells ad space more easily than [brand new vaguely french-woman name magazine]. The brand power is probably more important to Google than it is to Apple or Microsoft (but of course it's important to all of them).
Well...I'm afraid that's just wrong (and a very US-centric way of looking at the world).
The "classic" 7 continents model (and the less-common-in-the-anglosphere models with fewer than 7 continents) doesn't include Central America, which can be part of the confusion, but Central America is pretty well accepted to mean all the mainland between Mexico and Colombia. The 7 continents model generally splits North and South America at Panama (either in the country or on one of its borders), thus most or all of Central America is actually the southern tip of North America, with possibly a little bit being the northern tip of South America.
There is basically no disagreement that the US is part of North America. Or even Mexico.
Central America is definitely not a synonym for America. America is a synonym for the US*, and it is also also a term for the combination of North and South America, but not at the same time.
* in English; this is somewhat disputed in part on the basis that it's confusing, in part on the basis that some consider it an insulting synecdoche that erases most of the continent, and in part because nerds like to deconstruct words and figure out what they "should" mean etymologically rather than what they do mean; but it's hard to dispute that it's used as a synonym and that it has historical precedent.
You see if you can actually notice a difference in resolution from a standard use position.
Are you half-blind? This isn't even difficult to see. The Macbook Air had a low resolution even by last decade's standards.
"1366 x 768 ought to be enough for anybody" (for a 13" device held at a little less than arm's length, as necessitated by the keyboard). Wow. Any product that markets that as the peak of human vision is one I don't want to buy.
For a fraction of the cost of the SWAT teams and weaponry, we could give every single American citizen minimum wage, even if they do nothing at all but watch Springer re-runs. That is about $22,000 a year.
This doesn't sound true. American citizens are about 300 million people. Giving them all $22k per year means about 6.6 trillion dollars. Let's me generous and say the "fraction" you allude to is 1/2, then we need 13.2 trillion dollars spent on swat. From what I've read, the total US police expenditure is closer to $100 billion, which is orders of magnitude less.
You *may* be able to "top up" the very poorest US citizens with that kind of budget (though I'm skeptical), and maybe we decide that children don't count or something, but you couldn't give every single American citizen minimum wage.
I think the US could afford to consider doing it, but it would be more than the cost of SWAT teams and weaponry.
If we dropped human drivers, speed limits could be increased in many cases (sometimes the design of the road itself is the limiting factor, and new roads would assume driverless conditions).
I am not the original AC. I'd say no for your analogy, but I think your analogy has some fundamental flaws.
1. Brandon Eich didn't just happen to work for Mozilla, he was the CEO. It's literally his job to represent the company. 2. Both the company he worked for (Mozilla), and the cause that he supported (preventing gay marriage), were directly related to the operations of the company that was making the Internet campaign (OKCupid, a browser-based service for connecting people into relationships, often for the purpose of marriage).
In your atheist analogy, the atheist isn't really harmed except in the opportunity cost of putting something other than monuments to Jesus on the property, and indirectly from the promotion of Christianity as the state religion implicitly marginalizing atheists among others. You'd need it to be more like posting scripture that says (and here I'm going to be hypothetical instead of quoting actual scriptures) that only Christians should ever be found innocent in any court proceeding, because only they have been cleansed of Original Sin (again, hypothetical, not saying anybody literally says this).
And John Smith needs to be the CEO of, say, a law firm, which is itself not religiously oriented and has Christian, atheist, and other employees, and among whose many legal services is the ability to file disputes based on religious discrimination. Then an organisation that's dedicated to universal religious freedom including freedom to not be religious would have every reason to suggest that religious freedom lawsuits should avoid going through this one law firm, since the hypothetical CEO of this hypothetical law firm is hypothetically opposed to non-Christians ever winning, even if he promises not to let that personal belief affect his work in the law firm.
(Also, not being able to be CEO isn't the same as being fired)
I remain extremely skeptical of the idea that DRM does literally nothing. It'l like saying door locks don't work because they can be kicked down or picked, or somebody can go through the window. Imperfect security *can* be better than no security, depending on the circumstance.
I'm not coming out pro-DRM, just...this argument doesn't make sense. I know for a fact my parents could never be bothered to learn how to use bittorrent. They just went and bought it instead when I moved out. Which implies that it does work to at least some degree. Not necessarily that the benefit exceeds the cost, but I don't think it's fundamentally honest to say that DRM has no benefit for anybody.
The consequences of DRM are not at all similar to any part of the holocaust, therefore "collaborating" with DRM is not at all similar to collaborating with Nazis.
Even in fantasy analogy land, you cannot remove that critical element of the analogy. The holocaust wasn't just a matter of people accepting an abstract something as unchangeable.
but that people will inevitably misinterpret you,
Look at what he said:
Those of you that live and work in the real world enabled the holocaust. You accept incarceration, torture and murder of innocents under the banner "fight against terrorism" as collateral damage for your version of "real world".
There's no misinterpretation here. He is literally saying that people who accept DRM in Firefox would allow the holocaust to happen and are also accepting the "fight against terrorism" line.
Netscape Navigator cost $49. Look at this article from 1996: http://www.fastcompany.com/277.... Back when Netscape had as dominant a marketshare as IE later had. Note how the author seemed to just assume that a browser than didn't cost any money couldn't be any good.
Nowadays, Netscape Navigator has been forked a couple times and the surviving branch is called Firefox, and at $0 its price went down significantly.
The original IE did not come bundled with the OS, it was a free add-on. There was a version for Windows and a version for Mac at this point.
Fast forward to 1998: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001.... January 1998, you will note. Windows 98, which was the first Windows that bundled IE in it, wouldn't be released until May 1998. So it would be difficult to argue that bundling had anything to do with it.
Later, Opera would follow suit, going from a price of $39 to also offering an ad-supported version in 2000: http://archive.today/201205291.... It only went ad-free 5 years later. At this time, people were getting sick of IE6, since it once was a decent browser (seriously!) but it had been stagnant far too long. However Firefox was starting to rise and it was taking all the people Opera could have gotten.
This tells us that getting a sensor is repeatable. There are high-level design details of eyes that are divergent across species. The "blind spot" is a flaw in the eye design that is shared by all vertebrates, but cephalopods don't have it. Either it's very hard to mutate our way out of the flaw, or the flaw is by itself not important enough for the extraordinarily rare mutants who evolve their way past it to gain any ground on non-mutant populations.
It's easy to think of that as an accident of fate, and eventually such accidents are bound to build up into going a different direction in response to strong selection pressures.
I think sharks and dolphins is better than sharks and whales. That demonstrates convergent evolution -- but note that dolphins still have lungs, and sharks still have gills. They got to similar body plans but they are not fundamentally the same.
There are H1-Bs given to cancer researchers; some cancer research corps are actually on the "exempt list" meaning they aren't subject to the cap on the number of H1-Bs.
This said -- does the US actually have a lot of open cancer research jobs to give to foreigners? I expect not, given how infamously out-of-whack researcher salaries are compared to the expected education level. You can think it's important, but it doesn't do any good to have a million visa slots available if you can only use them to fill a half-dozen jobs.
Your problem is that you're thinking that coding is an end unto itself.
That's a possible use of education, but this discussion is about programming as a tool to be used in math and science classes. And I have news for you -- it already is. In University science classes, you need to code, right from the first year. Maybe you use Matlab rather than a "serious, production-quality" language, but Matlab is still coding.
Even in high school, it was often most effective to use a spreadsheet, and that's what we were encouraged to do even back in 2000 -- that's not exactly coding but it's not exactly unrelated either.
For math it's even more stark -- a computer is basically a souped-up calculator. For analytic courses, you don't need either (though at the University level, Maple or Mathematica are quite useful for analytics...). For numerical courses, if you deny the use of at least a simple calculator once you're beyond teaching simple long division, then you're a bit of a dinosaur.
So why is there a startling disconnected between first year University and final year high school in terms of programming? One of those things has to be wrong. I suggest that it's the high school that's wrong. If you don't teach kids to code, then there is a world of exploration and experimentation that is either unavailable to students or put behind arbitrary barriers, and it also doesn't give a realistic insight into how science is done in the modern age.
As for it being a fad -- where I grew up, I learned to code with logo in elementary school. Can't remember the exact age I was but I think I was 8 when it was introduced, which would have been 1992. Things like Hyperstudio etc. encouraged us to seek out computers and make simple programs of them on our own time. The first "real programming" was when it got optional, and started at age 15 with C. I'm kind of stunned at how people expect so much less than I got in a rural middle-of-nowhere town, even now in 2014.
His comment presupposes no such thing. It simply asks a question without any reference whatsoever to pedantry. You just assumed the reference from context.
Here's a variation on that theme which works for insurance but doesn't work for the best-protected-car scenario:
Swerve to hit the guy with less insurance, and charge the balance of the insurance payment after the shitty-insurance runs out to the car that was deliberately *not* hit in this scenario (this is assuming there wasn't a clear "fault" with one of the cars involved that would mean that guy gets the full charge).
Thus the safety-conscious car is strictly in a safer situation, and the monetary difficulty is no worse than a version that deliberately crashed into high-insurance cars and may be as little as nothing. In effect, instead of paying a lump sum to be made whole after an accident, the insurance pays a lump sum to avoid getting into an accident in the first place.
I don't understand the question. Those things are all annoying. Are you implying we have to pick one?
Personally, I would say that they are more annoying than popups and popunders, because popups and popunders are conveniently encapsulated and marked as bullshit by virtue of being in their own unsolicited window. But less annoying than those autoplay audio ads for sure, which are a blight far beyond any advertising the Internet had ever seen before.
Oh wait, I can't read. Yes, even the summary was incorrect. It said they were both less in pain and less stressed. But the article said they were less in pain and MORE stressed, and figured that the latter causes the former.
I'll agree with these others. I have absolutely never felt pain in a dream. I've never even thought about feeling pain in a dream. In general, my dreams aren't very tactile in the first place.
I don't understand. If the interface was public, then by definition its details were shared. If there were details that were not shared, then those details were never part of the public interface contract, again by definition.
Is the problem that they didn't share the public interfaces with them with appropriate timing, or that they *thought* it should be a public interface when it wasn't, or something else I'm not getting?
Slashdot Mirror
The name "Google" has itself been verbed in a way that has never really happened to the names Apple and Microsoft (although some Apple and Microsoft products have been verbed).
Having a powerful brand directly means you are able to sell ads for higher prices. Time magazine surely sells ad space more easily than [brand new vaguely french-woman name magazine]. The brand power is probably more important to Google than it is to Apple or Microsoft (but of course it's important to all of them).
Well that's unusual. Math is what I had in my classes.
Well...I'm afraid that's just wrong (and a very US-centric way of looking at the world).
The "classic" 7 continents model (and the less-common-in-the-anglosphere models with fewer than 7 continents) doesn't include Central America, which can be part of the confusion, but Central America is pretty well accepted to mean all the mainland between Mexico and Colombia. The 7 continents model generally splits North and South America at Panama (either in the country or on one of its borders), thus most or all of Central America is actually the southern tip of North America, with possibly a little bit being the northern tip of South America.
There is basically no disagreement that the US is part of North America. Or even Mexico.
Central America is definitely not a synonym for America. America is a synonym for the US*, and it is also also a term for the combination of North and South America, but not at the same time.
* in English; this is somewhat disputed in part on the basis that it's confusing, in part on the basis that some consider it an insulting synecdoche that erases most of the continent, and in part because nerds like to deconstruct words and figure out what they "should" mean etymologically rather than what they do mean; but it's hard to dispute that it's used as a synonym and that it has historical precedent.
You see if you can actually notice a difference in resolution from a standard use position.
Are you half-blind? This isn't even difficult to see. The Macbook Air had a low resolution even by last decade's standards.
"1366 x 768 ought to be enough for anybody" (for a 13" device held at a little less than arm's length, as necessitated by the keyboard). Wow. Any product that markets that as the peak of human vision is one I don't want to buy.
For a fraction of the cost of the SWAT teams and weaponry, we could give every single American citizen minimum wage, even if they do nothing at all but watch Springer re-runs. That is about $22,000 a year.
This doesn't sound true. American citizens are about 300 million people. Giving them all $22k per year means about 6.6 trillion dollars. Let's me generous and say the "fraction" you allude to is 1/2, then we need 13.2 trillion dollars spent on swat. From what I've read, the total US police expenditure is closer to $100 billion, which is orders of magnitude less.
You *may* be able to "top up" the very poorest US citizens with that kind of budget (though I'm skeptical), and maybe we decide that children don't count or something, but you couldn't give every single American citizen minimum wage.
I think the US could afford to consider doing it, but it would be more than the cost of SWAT teams and weaponry.
If we dropped human drivers, speed limits could be increased in many cases (sometimes the design of the road itself is the limiting factor, and new roads would assume driverless conditions).
Not really. Nothing about what he says implies to me that China is innocent.
I am not the original AC. I'd say no for your analogy, but I think your analogy has some fundamental flaws.
1. Brandon Eich didn't just happen to work for Mozilla, he was the CEO. It's literally his job to represent the company.
2. Both the company he worked for (Mozilla), and the cause that he supported (preventing gay marriage), were directly related to the operations of the company that was making the Internet campaign (OKCupid, a browser-based service for connecting people into relationships, often for the purpose of marriage).
In your atheist analogy, the atheist isn't really harmed except in the opportunity cost of putting something other than monuments to Jesus on the property, and indirectly from the promotion of Christianity as the state religion implicitly marginalizing atheists among others. You'd need it to be more like posting scripture that says (and here I'm going to be hypothetical instead of quoting actual scriptures) that only Christians should ever be found innocent in any court proceeding, because only they have been cleansed of Original Sin (again, hypothetical, not saying anybody literally says this).
And John Smith needs to be the CEO of, say, a law firm, which is itself not religiously oriented and has Christian, atheist, and other employees, and among whose many legal services is the ability to file disputes based on religious discrimination. Then an organisation that's dedicated to universal religious freedom including freedom to not be religious would have every reason to suggest that religious freedom lawsuits should avoid going through this one law firm, since the hypothetical CEO of this hypothetical law firm is hypothetically opposed to non-Christians ever winning, even if he promises not to let that personal belief affect his work in the law firm.
(Also, not being able to be CEO isn't the same as being fired)
I remain extremely skeptical of the idea that DRM does literally nothing. It'l like saying door locks don't work because they can be kicked down or picked, or somebody can go through the window. Imperfect security *can* be better than no security, depending on the circumstance.
I'm not coming out pro-DRM, just...this argument doesn't make sense. I know for a fact my parents could never be bothered to learn how to use bittorrent. They just went and bought it instead when I moved out. Which implies that it does work to at least some degree. Not necessarily that the benefit exceeds the cost, but I don't think it's fundamentally honest to say that DRM has no benefit for anybody.
The consequences of DRM are not at all similar to any part of the holocaust, therefore "collaborating" with DRM is not at all similar to collaborating with Nazis.
Even in fantasy analogy land, you cannot remove that critical element of the analogy. The holocaust wasn't just a matter of people accepting an abstract something as unchangeable.
but that people will inevitably misinterpret you,
Look at what he said:
Those of you that live and work in the real world enabled the holocaust. You accept incarceration, torture and murder of innocents under the banner "fight against terrorism" as collateral damage for your version of "real world".
There's no misinterpretation here. He is literally saying that people who accept DRM in Firefox would allow the holocaust to happen and are also accepting the "fight against terrorism" line.
Netscape Navigator cost $49. Look at this article from 1996: http://www.fastcompany.com/277.... Back when Netscape had as dominant a marketshare as IE later had. Note how the author seemed to just assume that a browser than didn't cost any money couldn't be any good.
Nowadays, Netscape Navigator has been forked a couple times and the surviving branch is called Firefox, and at $0 its price went down significantly.
The original IE did not come bundled with the OS, it was a free add-on. There was a version for Windows and a version for Mac at this point.
Fast forward to 1998: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001.... January 1998, you will note. Windows 98, which was the first Windows that bundled IE in it, wouldn't be released until May 1998. So it would be difficult to argue that bundling had anything to do with it.
Later, Opera would follow suit, going from a price of $39 to also offering an ad-supported version in 2000: http://archive.today/201205291.... It only went ad-free 5 years later. At this time, people were getting sick of IE6, since it once was a decent browser (seriously!) but it had been stagnant far too long. However Firefox was starting to rise and it was taking all the people Opera could have gotten.
This tells us that getting a sensor is repeatable. There are high-level design details of eyes that are divergent across species. The "blind spot" is a flaw in the eye design that is shared by all vertebrates, but cephalopods don't have it. Either it's very hard to mutate our way out of the flaw, or the flaw is by itself not important enough for the extraordinarily rare mutants who evolve their way past it to gain any ground on non-mutant populations.
It's easy to think of that as an accident of fate, and eventually such accidents are bound to build up into going a different direction in response to strong selection pressures.
I think sharks and dolphins is better than sharks and whales. That demonstrates convergent evolution -- but note that dolphins still have lungs, and sharks still have gills. They got to similar body plans but they are not fundamentally the same.
There are H1-Bs given to cancer researchers; some cancer research corps are actually on the "exempt list" meaning they aren't subject to the cap on the number of H1-Bs.
This said -- does the US actually have a lot of open cancer research jobs to give to foreigners? I expect not, given how infamously out-of-whack researcher salaries are compared to the expected education level. You can think it's important, but it doesn't do any good to have a million visa slots available if you can only use them to fill a half-dozen jobs.
Your problem is that you're thinking that coding is an end unto itself.
That's a possible use of education, but this discussion is about programming as a tool to be used in math and science classes. And I have news for you -- it already is. In University science classes, you need to code, right from the first year. Maybe you use Matlab rather than a "serious, production-quality" language, but Matlab is still coding.
Even in high school, it was often most effective to use a spreadsheet, and that's what we were encouraged to do even back in 2000 -- that's not exactly coding but it's not exactly unrelated either.
For math it's even more stark -- a computer is basically a souped-up calculator. For analytic courses, you don't need either (though at the University level, Maple or Mathematica are quite useful for analytics...). For numerical courses, if you deny the use of at least a simple calculator once you're beyond teaching simple long division, then you're a bit of a dinosaur.
So why is there a startling disconnected between first year University and final year high school in terms of programming? One of those things has to be wrong. I suggest that it's the high school that's wrong. If you don't teach kids to code, then there is a world of exploration and experimentation that is either unavailable to students or put behind arbitrary barriers, and it also doesn't give a realistic insight into how science is done in the modern age.
As for it being a fad -- where I grew up, I learned to code with logo in elementary school. Can't remember the exact age I was but I think I was 8 when it was introduced, which would have been 1992. Things like Hyperstudio etc. encouraged us to seek out computers and make simple programs of them on our own time. The first "real programming" was when it got optional, and started at age 15 with C. I'm kind of stunned at how people expect so much less than I got in a rural middle-of-nowhere town, even now in 2014.
His comment presupposes no such thing. It simply asks a question without any reference whatsoever to pedantry. You just assumed the reference from context.
(I can haz Ph.D. naow?)
Here's a variation on that theme which works for insurance but doesn't work for the best-protected-car scenario:
Swerve to hit the guy with less insurance, and charge the balance of the insurance payment after the shitty-insurance runs out to the car that was deliberately *not* hit in this scenario (this is assuming there wasn't a clear "fault" with one of the cars involved that would mean that guy gets the full charge).
Thus the safety-conscious car is strictly in a safer situation, and the monetary difficulty is no worse than a version that deliberately crashed into high-insurance cars and may be as little as nothing. In effect, instead of paying a lump sum to be made whole after an accident, the insurance pays a lump sum to avoid getting into an accident in the first place.
I don't understand the question. Those things are all annoying. Are you implying we have to pick one?
Personally, I would say that they are more annoying than popups and popunders, because popups and popunders are conveniently encapsulated and marked as bullshit by virtue of being in their own unsolicited window. But less annoying than those autoplay audio ads for sure, which are a blight far beyond any advertising the Internet had ever seen before.
And if you teach chemistry, they'll learn to build bombs.
Teach physics, and they'll learn sabotage.
Teach economics, and they'll learn exploitation.
Teach music, and they'll keep the neighbours awake practicing.
Teach phys-ed, and they'll mug people.
Teach sex ed, and they'll all get pregnant / society collapses / the gays?
Teach art, and there's a rise in forgeries.
Teach math, and cryptography will no longer be secure.
Teach persuasive writing/speaking, and then there will be a surge in suicide-cult leaders.
I think it falls squarely between prequel 1 and 3, and far in advance of prequel 2.
Thank you.
Oh wait, I can't read. Yes, even the summary was incorrect. It said they were both less in pain and less stressed. But the article said they were less in pain and MORE stressed, and figured that the latter causes the former.
I'll agree with these others. I have absolutely never felt pain in a dream. I've never even thought about feeling pain in a dream. In general, my dreams aren't very tactile in the first place.
He was quoting:
My naturally musky smell will make everyone feel more at ease.
Stress is the opposite of at ease.
I agree that the summary was not really incorrect though, though I think it could have included the sentence you quoted.
I don't understand. If the interface was public, then by definition its details were shared. If there were details that were not shared, then those details were never part of the public interface contract, again by definition.
Is the problem that they didn't share the public interfaces with them with appropriate timing, or that they *thought* it should be a public interface when it wasn't, or something else I'm not getting?
This isn't Spiderman. You don't gain "death" by being bitten by mosquitoes with a "death gene".