Had to laugh though - you're using Java mainly to write static stuff ? Why not use C then ? I mean, I'm a proper C-head (no C++ for me thank you), but I can't help but wonder: if you prefer not to use objects in an OO language, why use an OO language at all ?
There's a seedy side to the internet that came along with it and it's growing, that's what. Of course it doesn't help that telco's and music execs always run with their own egoistical points to underscore the desire for certain changes, but that doesn't mean there aren't also legit and decent reasons for them. Nobody wants childporn or spam. Everybody realizes that endless copying of movies and music can't go on to its extremes. We all know that bandwidth is growing, but that it won't keep up with the growing need for bandwidth.
So people are experimenting and sorry to say, not just the egalitarians. We need a more thorough mechanism for availability, we need to be tough on certain types of content, not because they're undesirable, but because they are illegal - and it was a democracy that decided it was illegal. Conservatism, also of the kind that you seem to be promoting, never got anyone anywhere.
"We now have to remark on the elephant in the room. If Dennis Ritchie hadn't died just after Steve Jobs, there would probably have been no suggestion of a day to mark his achievements."
1) I didn't know that there was a 'Steve Jobs' day. I predict it will be rapidly forgotten.
2) Yes, a Dennis Ritchie day is more appropriate. Same as when Ronald Knuth were to die.
I agree and I'd like to add that 'repeat a - b times' is good syntax for that particular case, but the thing is; a lot of 'for ()' cases aren't that typical. You may want to have an extra iterator, or do a step by 2, or end on multiple conditions. Things that are easy using 'for ()' and impossible using 'repeat a - b times'.
By your own reasoning, 'racism' has now been reduced in this discussion to something akin to 'friendliness'. We are all assumed to know what it is, therefore it exists. But we know what 'God' is, but that doesn't make him (or her) existent. It makes 'the notion of God' existent. I'm well aware that there is an existing notion of racism in society. I just think that it is particularly ill-founded.
This is not grasping at straws - we make *laws* that deal with racism. We don't do that for friendliness or beards or God (well, we shouldn't). And with good reason; there are jobs that *require* sexist or racist hiring (casting Othello, or Virginia Woolf, for example) or, for that matter, people with beards. There are people slain because they're Catholic, or red-head, or albino. The fact that we're surrounded by irrational psychopaths, is no excuse for bad law, or stupid societal notions.
The point is that people do discriminate on a set of physical and social characteristics that they constrict as "race", which means that race exists.
Except neither those characteristics can be defined, nor the maliciousness proved. Which makes it arbitrary, and therefore rather useless. Except that there are laws for it, which makes it scary. Because arbitrary laws are scary.
Yeah, especially since it turned out that the infamous, super-dangerous, maliciously intelligent Velociraptor turned out to have the size of a turkey. In order to open doors, they'd have to jump. And they were so scary to humans, you could use them as footballs.
"Perhaps you missed the rest of my posting, the bit about social constructs being real?"
You're right. I missed that. But then, that would be your *only* point (because your biology points don't stick very well).
Well, I've got to say, it *is* a point. But my question with regards to this point is always: what consequences does the 'race as a social construct' carry ? Wherein lies what we accept ? I mean, it used to be that you couldn't say or do nasty things about or to people who weren't 'white'. But you can't make laws like that anymore - there's all these people producing all these children that are of questionable origin after all - we don't control the breeding anymore ! So, we have to be more clear, dare I say it - more *scientific* about it.
Well darn - there is no scientifically acceptable definition of 'race' !
I mean, if 'race' is a social construct, can I then 'black' on mondays only and white on the others ? It works for religion. And are redheads a race ? Is Obama white ? And if not, why not ? And if it is not about self-identification, but only about the identification of others, is it bad if I call someone who identifies as black, white ? And if it is about treatment of other people based on 'racial characteristics', then what are they ? Colour ? Size of nose ? Is there a chart for that ?
How ridiculous would it be if there were a chart for that ?
No, mules are not a subspecies; they cannot procreate - their parents have different amounts of chromosomes even. Admittedly, in biology, the differences between species and inter-species are not a hard line, but in some cases rather blurry, but my point stands: 'subspecies' and 'race' don't compare (which, I think, was your point). So don't muddle the argument with mules.
'Race' is a commercial qualifier in the industry of breeding cats, dogs and horses. 'Subspecies' has a (scientific) definition as I outlined a few posts above. 'Race' was subsequently 'promoted' to 'sound scientific' in the 19th century by various dubious people in order to promote their apartheid-agenda, but that's all that there's to that. It has since been tried and abandoned by academia (and good riddance - just like 'ethnicity').
'Race' would only apply to humans if somehow breeding were controlled (which the dubious people mentioned above, tried as best as they could to establish) - but we're just not wired like that.
Subspecies is a biological discriminant for different populations of a species that could mate, but in practice, don't. Mating, in many species, is a process that involves exactly the right place, colours, odours, rituals and whatnot. This is a condition that humans don't suffer: we stick it in anything that moves. Your argument would hold up if there were no Lenny Kravitzes or, for that matter, me. Hence, race does not exist.
"Unless there are thousands of website developers, catering to tablets, that are begging for this feature, it seems like another mistake from Opera."
Point is, there are. It is the first thing that happens when you get together with a graphic designer who only ever 'did paper' until then: they ask you how you can make sure that the thing scales, how you can put things in the lower right corner - all so that they can get their aesthetics across. Basically all of those things that only flash could solve until recently.
And I get it, I really do. But time and again I have to explain to them: this is not how the web and html works. It was conceived as a flow from top-left to bottom-right. No pages. And yes, Tim Berners-Lee had a lot of ideas about usability and readability, but (being a proper computer-person) he just didn't consider 'prettiness' to be part of that concept. Even though it is.
So, while I'm not advocating to create a paginated web for the sake of better advertising, there are a lot of things that have, until now, been purposely left in the dark by those in control of html. Things that have made web-developers and -designers run screaming for flash and pdf. That's *also* an unwanted situation.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about what happens when the money runs out. Exchange harsh words, create nice pictures, have a few of the sheep kill a few other sheep and the money starts flowing again. From the US, and from Saudi, respectively.
Hence 'race' doesn't exist. Well, only in the mind of the beholder. You could be stepping on some unknown sore bit of mine and I could call you racist. Or I could be clear and tell you not to do that specific thing.
"4) Create a complex system of regulations. If someone were to try to invent the iPad in 2011, it should be required to pass draconian FCC, FDA, AMA, DNR, OSHA, KGB, DHS and various other three and four letter bureaucracy reviews at the federal, state and local level and would probably be considered a terrorist weapon."
Or, how I know that you're trolling. For all practical intents and purposes, the iPad *was* invented in 2011. To pretend otherwise, is whining.
Slashdot Mirror
Payback is a bitch.
Had to laugh though - you're using Java mainly to write static stuff ? Why not use C then ? I mean, I'm a proper C-head (no C++ for me thank you), but I can't help but wonder: if you prefer not to use objects in an OO language, why use an OO language at all ?
You can play a wicked game of Space Invaders on it !
You just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you ?
There's a seedy side to the internet that came along with it and it's growing, that's what. Of course it doesn't help that telco's and music execs always run with their own egoistical points to underscore the desire for certain changes, but that doesn't mean there aren't also legit and decent reasons for them. Nobody wants childporn or spam. Everybody realizes that endless copying of movies and music can't go on to its extremes. We all know that bandwidth is growing, but that it won't keep up with the growing need for bandwidth.
So people are experimenting and sorry to say, not just the egalitarians. We need a more thorough mechanism for availability, we need to be tough on certain types of content, not because they're undesirable, but because they are illegal - and it was a democracy that decided it was illegal. Conservatism, also of the kind that you seem to be promoting, never got anyone anywhere.
Stopped reading your post after I saw the "fiat" was in quotes. Hint: it shows off your I-want-the-gold-standard-back total-nutter credentials.
Eh no. Sorry, I'm not *that* paranoid. There *is* a difference between Western countries and the rest.
"We now have to remark on the elephant in the room. If Dennis Ritchie hadn't died just after Steve Jobs, there would probably have been no suggestion of a day to mark his achievements."
1) I didn't know that there was a 'Steve Jobs' day. I predict it will be rapidly forgotten.
2) Yes, a Dennis Ritchie day is more appropriate. Same as when Ronald Knuth were to die.
I agree and I'd like to add that 'repeat a - b times' is good syntax for that particular case, but the thing is; a lot of 'for ()' cases aren't that typical. You may want to have an extra iterator, or do a step by 2, or end on multiple conditions. Things that are easy using 'for ()' and impossible using 'repeat a - b times'.
Shhh. Go easy on him. He's in 1984-land. So repeat after me: the iPhone *always* had an AppStore. And iTunes is the greatest application known to man.
Well, you could ROT13 all the tag- and attribute names - that would be XML-encryption, no ?
You haven't actually *read* the article, have you ?
By your own reasoning, 'racism' has now been reduced in this discussion to something akin to 'friendliness'. We are all assumed to know what it is, therefore it exists. But we know what 'God' is, but that doesn't make him (or her) existent. It makes 'the notion of God' existent. I'm well aware that there is an existing notion of racism in society. I just think that it is particularly ill-founded.
This is not grasping at straws - we make *laws* that deal with racism. We don't do that for friendliness or beards or God (well, we shouldn't). And with good reason; there are jobs that *require* sexist or racist hiring (casting Othello, or Virginia Woolf, for example) or, for that matter, people with beards. There are people slain because they're Catholic, or red-head, or albino. The fact that we're surrounded by irrational psychopaths, is no excuse for bad law, or stupid societal notions.
Yes Tim.
Ha ! The value of *my* copy of 'C' can only go up !
Keep telling it to Mr TSA agent.
The point is that people do discriminate on a set of physical and social characteristics that they constrict as "race", which means that race exists.
Except neither those characteristics can be defined, nor the maliciousness proved. Which makes it arbitrary, and therefore rather useless. Except that there are laws for it, which makes it scary. Because arbitrary laws are scary.
Yeah, especially since it turned out that the infamous, super-dangerous, maliciously intelligent Velociraptor turned out to have the size of a turkey. In order to open doors, they'd have to jump. And they were so scary to humans, you could use them as footballs.
"Perhaps you missed the rest of my posting, the bit about social constructs being real?"
You're right. I missed that. But then, that would be your *only* point (because your biology points don't stick very well).
Well, I've got to say, it *is* a point. But my question with regards to this point is always: what consequences does the 'race as a social construct' carry ? Wherein lies what we accept ? I mean, it used to be that you couldn't say or do nasty things about or to people who weren't 'white'. But you can't make laws like that anymore - there's all these people producing all these children that are of questionable origin after all - we don't control the breeding anymore ! So, we have to be more clear, dare I say it - more *scientific* about it.
Well darn - there is no scientifically acceptable definition of 'race' !
I mean, if 'race' is a social construct, can I then 'black' on mondays only and white on the others ? It works for religion. And are redheads a race ? Is Obama white ? And if not, why not ? And if it is not about self-identification, but only about the identification of others, is it bad if I call someone who identifies as black, white ? And if it is about treatment of other people based on 'racial characteristics', then what are they ? Colour ? Size of nose ? Is there a chart for that ?
How ridiculous would it be if there were a chart for that ?
No, mules are not a subspecies; they cannot procreate - their parents have different amounts of chromosomes even. Admittedly, in biology, the differences between species and inter-species are not a hard line, but in some cases rather blurry, but my point stands: 'subspecies' and 'race' don't compare (which, I think, was your point). So don't muddle the argument with mules.
'Race' is a commercial qualifier in the industry of breeding cats, dogs and horses. 'Subspecies' has a (scientific) definition as I outlined a few posts above. 'Race' was subsequently 'promoted' to 'sound scientific' in the 19th century by various dubious people in order to promote their apartheid-agenda, but that's all that there's to that. It has since been tried and abandoned by academia (and good riddance - just like 'ethnicity').
'Race' would only apply to humans if somehow breeding were controlled (which the dubious people mentioned above, tried as best as they could to establish) - but we're just not wired like that.
Subspecies is a biological discriminant for different populations of a species that could mate, but in practice, don't. Mating, in many species, is a process that involves exactly the right place, colours, odours, rituals and whatnot. This is a condition that humans don't suffer: we stick it in anything that moves. Your argument would hold up if there were no Lenny Kravitzes or, for that matter, me. Hence, race does not exist.
"Unless there are thousands of website developers, catering to tablets, that are begging for this feature, it seems like another mistake from Opera."
Point is, there are. It is the first thing that happens when you get together with a graphic designer who only ever 'did paper' until then: they ask you how you can make sure that the thing scales, how you can put things in the lower right corner - all so that they can get their aesthetics across. Basically all of those things that only flash could solve until recently.
And I get it, I really do. But time and again I have to explain to them: this is not how the web and html works. It was conceived as a flow from top-left to bottom-right. No pages. And yes, Tim Berners-Lee had a lot of ideas about usability and readability, but (being a proper computer-person) he just didn't consider 'prettiness' to be part of that concept. Even though it is.
So, while I'm not advocating to create a paginated web for the sake of better advertising, there are a lot of things that have, until now, been purposely left in the dark by those in control of html. Things that have made web-developers and -designers run screaming for flash and pdf. That's *also* an unwanted situation.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about what happens when the money runs out. Exchange harsh words, create nice pictures, have a few of the sheep kill a few other sheep and the money starts flowing again. From the US, and from Saudi, respectively.
Hence 'race' doesn't exist. Well, only in the mind of the beholder. You could be stepping on some unknown sore bit of mine and I could call you racist. Or I could be clear and tell you not to do that specific thing.
"4) Create a complex system of regulations. If someone were to try to invent the iPad in 2011, it should be required to pass draconian FCC, FDA, AMA, DNR, OSHA, KGB, DHS and various other three and four letter bureaucracy reviews at the federal, state and local level and would probably be considered a terrorist weapon."
Or, how I know that you're trolling. For all practical intents and purposes, the iPad *was* invented in 2011. To pretend otherwise, is whining.