If someone wants to know where I am, they can call me and ask "Where are you?" That way I don't have to worry about privacy. If I don't want them knowing, I won't answer the phone or just won't tell them.
If you REALLY "got it" you would not be in that line of work. Or, at least, not promoting products in a way that makes them out to be more than they are. I'm not saying you personally lie about things, but I've seen too many wild (and misleading) claims made for the purpose of advertising.
> Marketing types are a driving force of innovation
That's a problem. The people who actually make products should be driving the innovation. When marketing does it, it turns into bent truth, or flat out lies about a product.
> why not instead ask someone from our industry why that decision may have been made
The only ones who know that are the ones who made the decision. And since they chose what they did, they "do not get it."
In UNIX it's/etc/hosts On Windows 2000 it is C:\WINNT\system32\drivers\etc\hosts or something similar.
When you want to block a site, add a line like these to the end: 127.0.0.1 domain.com 127.0.0.1 site.domain.com
127.0.0.1 is your own PC, so when that site is accessed, it looks on your own computer for it. Since that site is not on your computer, it will not return anything -- but it will do it quickly, since it doesn't have to send the request through the 'Net.
> Why is slashdot forcing all these nasty little graphics up at the top of the page
Duh, they aren't forced. They are easy to block, if you want to. The point of this "new" (yeah right) idea is that you aren't supposed to be able to block it.
Well, I guess there is the difference in viewpoint. I mant my site to be taken as a whole. There is no difference between content and presentation, each page is an individual entity - a work of art, if you will. Even if some info (common links, logos, etc) is common between them, they are separate. This distinction is completely lost when you go to formats such as slashdot, where the information has to be presented dynamically (or else it would take weeks for a post to go up).
Basically, I still think the guy's a tool, because as SunBug pointed out, it is not for every site. The dude said that EVERY page should use CSS. I don't want my online man files, usenet stuff, whatever to be CSSed. It's overkill, and can cause problems with older, admittedly obsolete, browsers.
Yeah, CSS is great for a lot (probably most) of applications, but not all.
> This page uses CSS for all styling, like every page should.
What an arrogant cock to say or even think that every page on the WWW should use CSS. I think no page should use anything past HTML & JavaScript. Previously, not even JS. CSS may look nice, but it's hardly a step up from HTML other than simple flash (not the animation).
> What if a GloFish is released into a fishing pond?
Then it is a matter for the EPA, not Food Safety. And yes, I know other fish will eat them. Those fish will eat and/or be affected by just about anything thrown into the pond. That's EPA, why isn't this?
No doubt it's not the best choice for surviving natural selection, I agree. If Bass like shiny metal spinners, imagine how much they'd like an entire glowing fish.
> I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.
That's fine and I even agree, to a point. Maybe I should have been more clear: my problem is not that someone is bringing up a perfectly valid fear, but that it is some organization on "food safety." No one (AFAIK) is suggesting these should be eaten. Just because something lives, it is not food -- have they made lawsuits about the dangers of eating rare sea urchins? There are more of those than GloFish, but this one just happens to be "man-made" (well, man-spliced).
Seriously, Good & "not-so-good" are just interpretations made by people: there is nothing that is inherently good or bad.
Glowing fish may be useful for some underwater something-or-other. Or maybe you want your aquarium occupants to light your room, saving electricity. Of course, the cost of purchasing them may more than make up for any savings.
> the ones who cause more problems are the ones wh
D'oh... Are the ones who drive considerably slower than the speed limit and think they are safe just because of that... then don't use turn signals, chat on their friggin' phone (hell, pull over on a highway to answer calls if they are that important), etc.
> The government has the right and the responsibility to protect it's citzens.
No, governments SAY they have the right to do anything. I never gave them the right to treat me differently than other animals. Most mammals have the right to do basically whatever they want, except humans. _I_ say that government is a crock of shit.
> When you slam into someone at 100+ mph it doesn't just affect you
Today, class, we are going to learn a bit of logic. Can anyone tell me what a "Straw Man Argument" is?
Regardless of what speed you "slam into someone," you am liable in exactly the same manner. When you slam into someone at 65mph it doesn't just affect you it affects the person you hit. Or 5mph. The arbitrary number they meant it to mean has no actual affect on reality (except in human reactions to that mostly-arbitrary number).
If someone is a bad driver, they will cause accidents regardless of the speed. Not to mention that you take a certain amount of personal risk when you put your frail body into a small metal box and go really fast next to other fast-moving, small and large metal boxes. Of course, that is not to say you should expect some truck driver to mow you down, but you know it's a possibility as soon as you leave your house.
BTW, I have been in only one accident while moving and it was because I was rear-ended. While the REALLY fast drivers piss me off, the ones who cause more problems are the ones wh
> The full edition of Oxford English Dictionary lists that spelling as a correct Old English spelling
Yes, but we are not speaking Ye Olde Englishe, we are speaking contemporary English. If "tyme" is correct, I could just say "What heure is it" and claim it is correct because "heure" is just another word for time. Or "Cuando is it?" Sure, you may have to speak French or Spanish to understand (even then it might be unclear), but I don't speak Old English.
Slashdot Mirror
> Your dumb.
His dumb what? You are (you're) just dumb.
If someone wants to know where I am, they can call me and ask "Where are you?" That way I don't have to worry about privacy. If I don't want them knowing, I won't answer the phone or just won't tell them.
> Yes, we DO get it.
If you REALLY "got it" you would not be in that line of work. Or, at least, not promoting products in a way that makes them out to be more than they are. I'm not saying you personally lie about things, but I've seen too many wild (and misleading) claims made for the purpose of advertising.
> Marketing types are a driving force of innovation
That's a problem. The people who actually make products should be driving the innovation. When marketing does it, it turns into bent truth, or flat out lies about a product.
> why not instead ask someone from our industry why that decision may have been made
The only ones who know that are the ones who made the decision. And since they chose what they did, they "do not get it."
> When the Net comes to me for free, like TV,
My TV doesn't come to me for free, except one very fuzzy over-air broadcast channel.
In UNIX it's /etc/hosts
On Windows 2000 it is C:\WINNT\system32\drivers\etc\hosts or something similar.
When you want to block a site, add a line like these to the end:
127.0.0.1 domain.com
127.0.0.1 site.domain.com
127.0.0.1 is your own PC, so when that site is accessed, it looks on your own computer for it. Since that site is not on your computer, it will not return anything -- but it will do it quickly, since it doesn't have to send the request through the 'Net.
> Why is slashdot forcing all these nasty little graphics up at the top of the page
Duh, they aren't forced. They are easy to block, if you want to. The point of this "new" (yeah right) idea is that you aren't supposed to be able to block it.
> He should take whatever cash is being offered (if any).
10$ wos MS's offer, although it was only a ploy to get him to misstep & become sue-worthy. Is being bullied out of your rights worth ten dollars?
> Interesting. Could have fooled me.
> FWIW, you are whack. Not good.
Evidently, I fooled you without trying. I am whack? I had no idea. Thanks! "Not good" as in "I'm Baaaaad?"
Look, get over it. It was about as good as any place to say what I said, big effin' deal.
> separate your content and presentation. always.
Well, I guess there is the difference in viewpoint. I mant my site to be taken as a whole. There is no difference between content and presentation, each page is an individual entity - a work of art, if you will. Even if some info (common links, logos, etc) is common between them, they are separate. This distinction is completely lost when you go to formats such as slashdot, where the information has to be presented dynamically (or else it would take weeks for a post to go up).
Basically, I still think the guy's a tool, because as SunBug pointed out, it is not for every site. The dude said that EVERY page should use CSS. I don't want my online man files, usenet stuff, whatever to be CSSed. It's overkill, and can cause problems with older, admittedly obsolete, browsers.
Yeah, CSS is great for a lot (probably most) of applications, but not all.
> This page uses CSS for all styling, like every page should.
What an arrogant cock to say or even think that every page on the WWW should use CSS. I think no page should use anything past HTML & JavaScript. Previously, not even JS. CSS may look nice, but it's hardly a step up from HTML other than simple flash (not the animation).
> who's stopping by the pet store on the way home to pick up dinner?
[Insert obligatory and possibly inflammatory Thai restaurant joke here]
> Do this on the walls of most hotels
:)
I have never thought of that. And I wish to never think of it again, thanks.
> and by regulate, you mean make money off of, right?
Come on, would the government ever do anything that didn't make them or their friends more money? Or more power?
> What if a GloFish is released into a fishing pond?
Then it is a matter for the EPA, not Food Safety. And yes, I know other fish will eat them. Those fish will eat and/or be affected by just about anything thrown into the pond. That's EPA, why isn't this?
> unfortunately, YHBT
Excuse my ass-itude, but "no shit."
I realize no one with anything to say would post something that simple. I'm just being stupid (I haven't got much choice in that).
> them glowing would lead to rapid predation.
No doubt it's not the best choice for surviving natural selection, I agree. If Bass like shiny metal spinners, imagine how much they'd like an entire glowing fish.
> What do you think would happen if somebody actually ate one of these and got really really sick?
:)
So they are bringing a lawsuit to make sure no one sues the company? Okay, tattoo a warning label on all GloFish saying "not for human consumption."
> I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.
That's fine and I even agree, to a point. Maybe I should have been more clear: my problem is not that someone is bringing up a perfectly valid fear, but that it is some organization on "food safety." No one (AFAIK) is suggesting these should be eaten. Just because something lives, it is not food -- have they made lawsuits about the dangers of eating rare sea urchins? There are more of those than GloFish, but this one just happens to be "man-made" (well, man-spliced).
> Is this good or is this not so good?
Yes.
Seriously, Good & "not-so-good" are just interpretations made by people: there is nothing that is inherently good or bad.
Glowing fish may be useful for some underwater something-or-other. Or maybe you want your aquarium occupants to light your room, saving electricity. Of course, the cost of purchasing them may more than make up for any savings.
> > fish will mutate into a super fish and do things like file patent lawsuits?
> You obviously haven't been to many drunken parties in your life.
I've been to drunken parties, but no amount of alcohol has made me want to file a patent. *shudder*
> the ability to scoop the litterbox in the dark
Well, use a UV light. Feline urine is UV reactive. I wonher if dried cat pee is too? This is assuming your cat never "poos"...
Who the heck is eating any fish that glows? So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?
> the ones who cause more problems are the ones wh
D'oh... Are the ones who drive considerably slower than the speed limit and think they are safe just because of that... then don't use turn signals, chat on their friggin' phone (hell, pull over on a highway to answer calls if they are that important), etc.
> The government has the right and the responsibility to protect it's citzens.
No, governments SAY they have the right to do anything. I never gave them the right to treat me differently than other animals. Most mammals have the right to do basically whatever they want, except humans. _I_ say that government is a crock of shit.
> When you slam into someone at 100+ mph it doesn't just affect you
Today, class, we are going to learn a bit of logic. Can anyone tell me what a "Straw Man Argument" is?
Regardless of what speed you "slam into someone," you am liable in exactly the same manner. When you slam into someone at 65mph it doesn't just affect you it affects the person you hit. Or 5mph. The arbitrary number they meant it to mean has no actual affect on reality (except in human reactions to that mostly-arbitrary number).
If someone is a bad driver, they will cause accidents regardless of the speed. Not to mention that you take a certain amount of personal risk when you put your frail body into a small metal box and go really fast next to other fast-moving, small and large metal boxes. Of course, that is not to say you should expect some truck driver to mow you down, but you know it's a possibility as soon as you leave your house.
BTW, I have been in only one accident while moving and it was because I was rear-ended. While the REALLY fast drivers piss me off, the ones who cause more problems are the ones wh
> My spelling of time as "tyme" is correct
Sure, but you are spelling the wrong word.
> The full edition of Oxford English Dictionary lists that spelling as a correct Old English spelling
Yes, but we are not speaking Ye Olde Englishe, we are speaking contemporary English. If "tyme" is correct, I could just say "What heure is it" and claim it is correct because "heure" is just another word for time. Or "Cuando is it?" Sure, you may have to speak French or Spanish to understand (even then it might be unclear), but I don't speak Old English.