I owned three computers while going to college and still used the computer labs frequently. One of the big reasons was printing. Another was software, as in they had purchased software that I was never going to buy for myself. Also, assistants are there to help with any questions. Also, sometimes it's just nice to have a place where you can go and work at another computer without getting distracted by all the things on my own computer, or without having to carry my laptop to school every day.
So, instead of actually inspecting Dyson's opinions and statements, they're attacking him for being a classic contrarian late in life? In addition, while they're absolutely correct that science doesn't work that way, when it comes right down to it science also doesn't work the way that climate change studies do either. Where's their reproducible experiments that hold all variables constant except for one? Do they have another planet whose climate is their control?
Going a step further, the discussion around climate change isn't about science anyway, because the science isn't anywhere near definitive. It's about whether or not it's worth taking action at this point, which requires input from many knowledgeable people. In that sense Dyson's fame and authority absolutely buy him special deference in this area.
Agreed, global warming could be happening anyway, but what's most profitable for those involved? People will scream until their faces turn blue that anybody who doubts global warming is doing it for money (as the OP did), but when it's pointed out that all the money right now is to be gained by verifying climate change they take it in stride. Conflicts of interest are conflicts of interest, and when it come to climate change, the reports I've seen accuse the oil companies and those with vested interests of giving hundreds of millions of dollars whereas those trying to prove climate change are spending roughly 10x that amount according to this report.
This issue is too heated for good, solid science to come out of it. The issue's too politicized for confidence and the science too uncertain to know what's going to happen anyway. Without being able to verify everything myself, I feel that doubt and skepticism are the only rational reactions to be had.
I think the valid point buried in their bullshit is that climate change is still in its infancy, and yet we're looking at drastic changes because of it. Studies still can't tell us definitively what will happen when the climate actually changes and they can't even come close. Will the increased warming trigger cooling or will it start a feedback loop where small warming triggers much larger trends? Will it cause an increase or a decrease in the rainfall across farmlands? Hell, we can't even tell if warming up to this point averted another ice age or not. IMHO, it's a valid criticism, although one used most often by people who are ignorant of most of the science anyway.
There is no good match. There isn't a company that would be willing to buy them that has also had the commitment to open source that Red Hat has. Losing Red Hat would, IMHO, be a big blow to Linux for years to come, even if it was lost to a buyout to an company like IBM.
Agreed. Scientists know a hell of a lot, but what it comes down to is that we've sat on one little spot in one galaxy and made observations and studies as best we can. We have so little to work with on the scale of the universe that it's astounding we know as much as we do, but anyone with a brain can figure out that what we know is a tiny portion of what's out there to discover. It's sad to me that the GP got so defensive about something that is, at its core, true. As a species we know very little right now and it'll be a long time before we know more.
The difference is that in the graphic novel, those things weren't taken to the excess that they were in the movie. Dr. Manhattan's penis was proportionately the same size as any other man's penis in the graphic novel, but not so in the movie. The book had 5 or so shots of the penis, the movie had much more. The book showed some truly horrific violence, the movie showed it and then some. The book had a lot of sexual situation in it, the movie had a lot of graphic sex in it.
My point isn't that movies shouldn't contain these things, it's that they tend to take it to an extreme that destroys any attempt at subtlety. By highlighting the penis and panning over it so many times, they've made it so that something which is commonplace and normal for the character is shocking and in-your-face to the audience. Sex scenes, by their nature, are titillating and arousing, which means that being too graphic with the sex scene replaces emotion with arousal in the audience's mind.
It's hard on the one hand to say that he's a completely asexual being and, therefore, doesn't give a damn about his penis, but then to also make it much larger than the average penis in spite of the fact that the comics didn't make it larger. Claiming that it has nothing to do with sex and then making it as large as it was is a little hypocritical.
By "similar taboos", I mean things that make no sense when taken in a vacuum. For instance, from an evolutionary standpoint, sharing your wife with the tribe makes no sense whatsoever, because you can't ever be sure that you have any offspring. Wanting your wife to bear your children makes sense. Why should there be any dishonor associated with that?
It seems to me that you're supporting my point, since not sharing your wife can be a completely defensible choice and, were it the cultural norm here in the US, I'm sure there would be movies portraying the hero who's willing to keep his wife from having sex with other men and people here on slashdot saying that the culture is retarded for not allowing a man the freedom for a man and wife to make sure that they only raise their own offspring.
It's not the nudity itself, it's the fact that it is taboo that makes it appealing. I'd have a hard time believing that there are cultures without similar taboos, and I have a hard time believing that these taboos would be respected by hollywood and not subsequently mocked on slashdot as being dumb.
It's true. Not only that, but the interviewer ended up with the majority of the words on the screen anyway. I don't know why the interviewer felt the need to talk so much, but I would have much preferred if the questions were shorter and the answers longer.
Resig never uses that term himself, TFA added it by himself, possibly to make it buzzword compliant.
In this instance, the tool itself is open source and it's being used to unit test an open source JS library. jQuery itself is quite a good library that's very actively developed with an active community.
I think it's more a matter of dealing with divas all day. It's pretty clear that the two sides of this issue are the side with technical people convinced that the correctness of the journaling system overcomes any difficulties with integrity, and people who think that integrity should be paramount. For most users, disk integrity IS the number one priority. It seems to me that this is a case of some people not being able to see that they're wrong.
In a corporation, it's as simple as saying, "do it our way or hit the street." With Linux development the leaders don't have that power, so they may replace it with forcefulness. Besides, the honesty is kind of refreshing. Linus lays out a clear argument and only then starts insulting the other person. He's being brutal, but he's giving them more information than a more polite person might.
One of the best pieces of advice I've ever heard is that if they ask you if you know a certain technology or language, to always say yes. A good programmer, hell, even a decent programmer will be able to pick up a language fast enough that it won't matter, but an incompetent interviewer or someone who can't program won't understand that.
Actually, if I'm remembering correctly, Charlie Miller DID say that he knew of more ways to crack into a mac. He also said that Mac was just as insecure as Windows and that Windows gets attacked mainly because of the number of people using it.
With 8 tabs open, Firefox takes more memory than the next 3 highest applications on my computer (eclipse, outlook, itunes). This is not even two hours after opening it in the morning and starting with a brand new session. Later in the day it won't be uncommon for it to be over 400 megabytes. It's better than Firefox 2, but it's still terrible.
No data, just anecdotes. I keep my firefox up to date, 3.0.7 right now, and it's a lot better than it used to be. Right now, I'm under 2 hours into my browsing, have two windows of firefox open, one with 7 tabs, one with no tabs, and it's taking up 215 megabytes of memory. If I sort by memory usage, it comes up with about 1.5x the usage of eclipse and 2.5x the usage of outlook. As I stop typing and check the task manager, I notice that it's taking between 5% and 40% of the cpu on my dual core intel machine without me doing anything on it. There's one flash animation running that's switching out one image for another.
Is browsing the web really so hard that it takes more memory and processing to do it than Eclipse and Outlook combined? It's using roughly twice what IE6 would use under the same circumstances. Like I said, anecdotal and I have no experience in programming a web browser itself, but there's got to be a way to make it so that it's not the heaviest thing running on my machine.
for the same reason it's been in the past: plugins. If you're looking for the best browser out of the box, it looks right now like Firefox may be in last place. It's bloated, has terrible memory management, and has fewer features, but plugins elevate to a level the other browsers wouldn't even want to reach.
What does the platform have to do with evil or not? 90% of the software out there only works on one platform, and surely you're not going to say they're all evil. Chrome is open source and has been from day one; if it doesn't work on another platform, do the work yourself to get it there. As it is, they're releasing for the platform that has far and away the most users and not diluting their development efforts.
I wonder how much of it is that they don't test the actual wear that comes from the way that people use batteries. My laptop battery had at least 25% more capacity when I bought it a year ago and I've been careful to make sure that I follow the recommendations. That alone could account for most of the difference I've seen.
Prior art is a nice idea, but the best way to protect yourself is to get a patent on the idea first. Instead of everyone freaking out about Red Hat getting patents, why not make them license the patents to the community, or at least to the FSF on behalf of the community? If they willingly put themselves under contract not to sue, then that'll solve the problem. Intentions and kind words are all well and good, and I personally believe that Red Hat deserves the benefit of the doubt, but they should make sure that there is no doubt. The fear of litigation could have a chilling effect on those without trust and would make sure that the patents won't get exercised if there's a change in leadership either.
You're absolutely right, and it sounds like 4e continued the downward spiral of the RP element in D&D.
I also agree that class based systems will tend to make people RP less because the character's not different enough. I thought the Firefly system did a decent of helping RP, and I think Palladium does a decent job as well simply because there's just so much detail to the world that it makes players want to incorporate their character into it.
However, IMHO, the best system for RP is GURPS. I've never seen a mechanic encourage RP more than the disadvantage system. Most players who do strong characterization in the other systems do it by giving their characters disadvantages anyway, it's just not incorporated into the system. It's easy to make a characters that's good at things, it's what every player does naturally. But when you incorporate the other aspects of the character into the game, character will gain more dimensions naturally and be a lot more fun to play.
However, many of my friends disagree with me on that (sometimes violently), so YMMV.
f I say the sky is red, and grass is purple, because I was honestly raised to believe these things, does that mean that a debate over whether clear daytime sky on Earth is blue or red is merely a difference of opinion?
So you're going to claim that something which happened millions of years ago is anywhere near as provable as something that is clearly seen by every human eye on the planet and every instrument we can point at the sky today?
The rough periods in which dinosaurs and humans lived are so far apart and clearly established, that the only way to have them live together would be if we had a deity who interceded in direct physical ways constantly. And if you accept that, then the scientific method is just as worthless as if you regularly deny the visual evidence of 6 billion people the world over when it comes to the color of the grass and the sky.
I can't speak for all religious beliefs, but the people that I deal with believe for the most part that God interceded in a direct, physical way in a way that He never will again while creating the earth and that, now, He let's the universe go along according to natural laws with very little direct intercession. Your logic breaks down at the point where you assume their belief, ie "the only way to have them live together would be if we had a deity who interceded in direct physical ways constantly". It would be absurd for them to think that the world doesn't act according to natural laws.
It'd be like me claiming that you don't understand the world and science because you're claiming that a belief in creation precludes an ability to do science while it's very obvious that people like Newton were able to do just that. You are making a claim that can't be (ethically) proven experimentally, and you're making that claim without any attempt to provide evidence. Since you believe something for which there is evidence to the contrary, by your logic you have no scientific understanding. How is that any less fallacious than your argument?
Slashdot Mirror
I owned three computers while going to college and still used the computer labs frequently. One of the big reasons was printing. Another was software, as in they had purchased software that I was never going to buy for myself. Also, assistants are there to help with any questions. Also, sometimes it's just nice to have a place where you can go and work at another computer without getting distracted by all the things on my own computer, or without having to carry my laptop to school every day.
So, instead of actually inspecting Dyson's opinions and statements, they're attacking him for being a classic contrarian late in life? In addition, while they're absolutely correct that science doesn't work that way, when it comes right down to it science also doesn't work the way that climate change studies do either. Where's their reproducible experiments that hold all variables constant except for one? Do they have another planet whose climate is their control?
Going a step further, the discussion around climate change isn't about science anyway, because the science isn't anywhere near definitive. It's about whether or not it's worth taking action at this point, which requires input from many knowledgeable people. In that sense Dyson's fame and authority absolutely buy him special deference in this area.
Agreed, global warming could be happening anyway, but what's most profitable for those involved? People will scream until their faces turn blue that anybody who doubts global warming is doing it for money (as the OP did), but when it's pointed out that all the money right now is to be gained by verifying climate change they take it in stride. Conflicts of interest are conflicts of interest, and when it come to climate change, the reports I've seen accuse the oil companies and those with vested interests of giving hundreds of millions of dollars whereas those trying to prove climate change are spending roughly 10x that amount according to this report.
This issue is too heated for good, solid science to come out of it. The issue's too politicized for confidence and the science too uncertain to know what's going to happen anyway. Without being able to verify everything myself, I feel that doubt and skepticism are the only rational reactions to be had.
I think the valid point buried in their bullshit is that climate change is still in its infancy, and yet we're looking at drastic changes because of it. Studies still can't tell us definitively what will happen when the climate actually changes and they can't even come close. Will the increased warming trigger cooling or will it start a feedback loop where small warming triggers much larger trends? Will it cause an increase or a decrease in the rainfall across farmlands? Hell, we can't even tell if warming up to this point averted another ice age or not. IMHO, it's a valid criticism, although one used most often by people who are ignorant of most of the science anyway.
There is no good match. There isn't a company that would be willing to buy them that has also had the commitment to open source that Red Hat has. Losing Red Hat would, IMHO, be a big blow to Linux for years to come, even if it was lost to a buyout to an company like IBM.
Agreed. Scientists know a hell of a lot, but what it comes down to is that we've sat on one little spot in one galaxy and made observations and studies as best we can. We have so little to work with on the scale of the universe that it's astounding we know as much as we do, but anyone with a brain can figure out that what we know is a tiny portion of what's out there to discover. It's sad to me that the GP got so defensive about something that is, at its core, true. As a species we know very little right now and it'll be a long time before we know more.
The difference is that in the graphic novel, those things weren't taken to the excess that they were in the movie. Dr. Manhattan's penis was proportionately the same size as any other man's penis in the graphic novel, but not so in the movie. The book had 5 or so shots of the penis, the movie had much more. The book showed some truly horrific violence, the movie showed it and then some. The book had a lot of sexual situation in it, the movie had a lot of graphic sex in it.
My point isn't that movies shouldn't contain these things, it's that they tend to take it to an extreme that destroys any attempt at subtlety. By highlighting the penis and panning over it so many times, they've made it so that something which is commonplace and normal for the character is shocking and in-your-face to the audience. Sex scenes, by their nature, are titillating and arousing, which means that being too graphic with the sex scene replaces emotion with arousal in the audience's mind.
It's hard on the one hand to say that he's a completely asexual being and, therefore, doesn't give a damn about his penis, but then to also make it much larger than the average penis in spite of the fact that the comics didn't make it larger. Claiming that it has nothing to do with sex and then making it as large as it was is a little hypocritical.
By "similar taboos", I mean things that make no sense when taken in a vacuum. For instance, from an evolutionary standpoint, sharing your wife with the tribe makes no sense whatsoever, because you can't ever be sure that you have any offspring. Wanting your wife to bear your children makes sense. Why should there be any dishonor associated with that?
It seems to me that you're supporting my point, since not sharing your wife can be a completely defensible choice and, were it the cultural norm here in the US, I'm sure there would be movies portraying the hero who's willing to keep his wife from having sex with other men and people here on slashdot saying that the culture is retarded for not allowing a man the freedom for a man and wife to make sure that they only raise their own offspring.
It's not the nudity itself, it's the fact that it is taboo that makes it appealing. I'd have a hard time believing that there are cultures without similar taboos, and I have a hard time believing that these taboos would be respected by hollywood and not subsequently mocked on slashdot as being dumb.
It's true. Not only that, but the interviewer ended up with the majority of the words on the screen anyway. I don't know why the interviewer felt the need to talk so much, but I would have much preferred if the questions were shorter and the answers longer.
Resig never uses that term himself, TFA added it by himself, possibly to make it buzzword compliant.
In this instance, the tool itself is open source and it's being used to unit test an open source JS library. jQuery itself is quite a good library that's very actively developed with an active community.
I think it's more a matter of dealing with divas all day. It's pretty clear that the two sides of this issue are the side with technical people convinced that the correctness of the journaling system overcomes any difficulties with integrity, and people who think that integrity should be paramount. For most users, disk integrity IS the number one priority. It seems to me that this is a case of some people not being able to see that they're wrong.
In a corporation, it's as simple as saying, "do it our way or hit the street." With Linux development the leaders don't have that power, so they may replace it with forcefulness. Besides, the honesty is kind of refreshing. Linus lays out a clear argument and only then starts insulting the other person. He's being brutal, but he's giving them more information than a more polite person might.
That's what she said!
:'(
Unfortunately
One of the best pieces of advice I've ever heard is that if they ask you if you know a certain technology or language, to always say yes. A good programmer, hell, even a decent programmer will be able to pick up a language fast enough that it won't matter, but an incompetent interviewer or someone who can't program won't understand that.
Actually, if I'm remembering correctly, Charlie Miller DID say that he knew of more ways to crack into a mac. He also said that Mac was just as insecure as Windows and that Windows gets attacked mainly because of the number of people using it.
With 8 tabs open, Firefox takes more memory than the next 3 highest applications on my computer (eclipse, outlook, itunes). This is not even two hours after opening it in the morning and starting with a brand new session. Later in the day it won't be uncommon for it to be over 400 megabytes. It's better than Firefox 2, but it's still terrible.
No data, just anecdotes. I keep my firefox up to date, 3.0.7 right now, and it's a lot better than it used to be. Right now, I'm under 2 hours into my browsing, have two windows of firefox open, one with 7 tabs, one with no tabs, and it's taking up 215 megabytes of memory. If I sort by memory usage, it comes up with about 1.5x the usage of eclipse and 2.5x the usage of outlook. As I stop typing and check the task manager, I notice that it's taking between 5% and 40% of the cpu on my dual core intel machine without me doing anything on it. There's one flash animation running that's switching out one image for another.
Is browsing the web really so hard that it takes more memory and processing to do it than Eclipse and Outlook combined? It's using roughly twice what IE6 would use under the same circumstances. Like I said, anecdotal and I have no experience in programming a web browser itself, but there's got to be a way to make it so that it's not the heaviest thing running on my machine.
for the same reason it's been in the past: plugins. If you're looking for the best browser out of the box, it looks right now like Firefox may be in last place. It's bloated, has terrible memory management, and has fewer features, but plugins elevate to a level the other browsers wouldn't even want to reach.
What does the platform have to do with evil or not? 90% of the software out there only works on one platform, and surely you're not going to say they're all evil. Chrome is open source and has been from day one; if it doesn't work on another platform, do the work yourself to get it there. As it is, they're releasing for the platform that has far and away the most users and not diluting their development efforts.
I wonder how much of it is that they don't test the actual wear that comes from the way that people use batteries. My laptop battery had at least 25% more capacity when I bought it a year ago and I've been careful to make sure that I follow the recommendations. That alone could account for most of the difference I've seen.
This bill has been worked on for a while, starting well before he was disbarred.
Prior art is a nice idea, but the best way to protect yourself is to get a patent on the idea first. Instead of everyone freaking out about Red Hat getting patents, why not make them license the patents to the community, or at least to the FSF on behalf of the community? If they willingly put themselves under contract not to sue, then that'll solve the problem. Intentions and kind words are all well and good, and I personally believe that Red Hat deserves the benefit of the doubt, but they should make sure that there is no doubt. The fear of litigation could have a chilling effect on those without trust and would make sure that the patents won't get exercised if there's a change in leadership either.
You're absolutely right, and it sounds like 4e continued the downward spiral of the RP element in D&D.
I also agree that class based systems will tend to make people RP less because the character's not different enough. I thought the Firefly system did a decent of helping RP, and I think Palladium does a decent job as well simply because there's just so much detail to the world that it makes players want to incorporate their character into it.
However, IMHO, the best system for RP is GURPS. I've never seen a mechanic encourage RP more than the disadvantage system. Most players who do strong characterization in the other systems do it by giving their characters disadvantages anyway, it's just not incorporated into the system. It's easy to make a characters that's good at things, it's what every player does naturally. But when you incorporate the other aspects of the character into the game, character will gain more dimensions naturally and be a lot more fun to play.
However, many of my friends disagree with me on that (sometimes violently), so YMMV.
f I say the sky is red, and grass is purple, because I was honestly raised to believe these things, does that mean that a debate over whether clear daytime sky on Earth is blue or red is merely a difference of opinion?
So you're going to claim that something which happened millions of years ago is anywhere near as provable as something that is clearly seen by every human eye on the planet and every instrument we can point at the sky today?
The rough periods in which dinosaurs and humans lived are so far apart and clearly established, that the only way to have them live together would be if we had a deity who interceded in direct physical ways constantly. And if you accept that, then the scientific method is just as worthless as if you regularly deny the visual evidence of 6 billion people the world over when it comes to the color of the grass and the sky.
I can't speak for all religious beliefs, but the people that I deal with believe for the most part that God interceded in a direct, physical way in a way that He never will again while creating the earth and that, now, He let's the universe go along according to natural laws with very little direct intercession. Your logic breaks down at the point where you assume their belief, ie "the only way to have them live together would be if we had a deity who interceded in direct physical ways constantly". It would be absurd for them to think that the world doesn't act according to natural laws.
It'd be like me claiming that you don't understand the world and science because you're claiming that a belief in creation precludes an ability to do science while it's very obvious that people like Newton were able to do just that. You are making a claim that can't be (ethically) proven experimentally, and you're making that claim without any attempt to provide evidence. Since you believe something for which there is evidence to the contrary, by your logic you have no scientific understanding. How is that any less fallacious than your argument?