I had a similar experience (also circa 2003), and have to agree. Minor UI quibbles notwithstanding, back then OS X seemed to do exactly what desktop Linux should have been doing. OS X might be starting to show its age a little now, but it still holds up.
That said, I was a big fan of Window Maker and Afterstep, which later endeared me to OS X.
Granted, people could always trip over your cable without any fault of your own, but at that rate, anyone could always come over and spill stuff on your laptop as well. Moot point.
By that logic, why bother with a seat belt when someone could always shoot me in the face?
That's just not realistic. In addition to the reasons given in the other replies, there is a long-standing Firefox bug which swaps the contents of iframes under some circumstances. It happens with iframed ads frequently.
Actually, it's not necessarily using document.write() which is causing the problem. The problem is that most browsers will not move on until the script has been loaded and run, because of things like document.write(). My point is that not using document.write() won't fix the problem.
Using javascript to create script nodes can get around this problem, but only if the script you're loading doesn't have (for example) document.write(). So it's useless for ads as they are currently done.
I've actually tried overriding document.write(), and got it working fairly smoothly in FF. Not in IE, of course.
Listen, science can't answer any of the important questions, life the universe and everything, WHY? etc. By definition it can't probe beyond the big bang, as far as science is conserned, beyond here be dragons is as good an answer any.
That doesn't mean that religion does correctly answer those questions, whether it tries to or not. Regardless, science certainly can inform the question of "why", as well as inform ethical dilemmas. The "what" and "how" are arguably essential for understanding "why". Just because it can't give 100% solid answers to certain questions doesn't mean that it isn't immensely useful and informative.
... sorta like including Final Fantasy VII, which, I think, most of us agree shouldn't be anywhere near that list.
Wow, no, I couldn't disagree more.
While arguments can be made over what the best FF game is, FF VII was, as far as I know, the first console RPG to become popular with the non-indoor kids.* The first FF game I played was FF II/IV, and I've played pretty much every one since, but calling FF VII unimportant is silly.
Now, if you're arguing that no FF game should be on this top-ten list, I might agree.
* Sorry -- bad "Wet Hot American Summer" reference.
More to the point, I'm not sure people realize just how easy it is to contract HPV. Not only that, but there really aren't any tests for males. It usually shows no symptoms, though I think that certain types result in genital warts.
Sex isn't even necessary to contract it. A large chunk of the adult population has it and doesn't know it. I could have it, for all I know. But it causes cervical cancer.
No, the TOS does *not* say that you can't use "ad blocking software".
Not sure...
You agree to NOT use the Service to:
...
17. Employ tactics and/or technologies to prevent the full and complete delivery or display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Making journal style changes, customizations, or overrides that effectively block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on a Sponsored+ account's Content or other pages within the Service.
b. Employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages.
What about b? By the letter, it seems to deny at least some people the use of ad-blocking software. Or maybe it just says that users can't "use the service to employ" ad-blocking. What's that mean? You can't link to it? Talk about it?
The first one (a) seems reasonable to me. B should at least be made more clear.
Shouldn't these cafes just place somewhat generous limits on how many hours per day a person can spend in them? 6 hours seems like more than enough. Besides, I imagine that after a day or so, the body odor would drive some customers away.
As for these places being dark and poorly ventilated, wouldn't it make sense to at least ventilate the place? All that smoke and crappy air must surely cut into the life span of the computers. And oh yeah, into the life spans of the customers, too.
No person would ever naturally reach for the phrase "begs the question" when "brings up" or "raises" or "implies" or "gives rise to" - or hell, "makes you wonder" - are all more natural turns of phrase.
Really. That is exactly the point. Any time someone pulls the "you're being a snob about the language" argument, this is the best and most reasonable answer.
The real meaning of the term is obscure, but that is no excuse for allowing people to misuse the term while trying to talk fancy.
Ok, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't eat chicken mcnuggets.;)
That aside, while I see the validity and importance of most of your points, I think you're setting up a bit of a strawman argument here. Nuclear weapons programs are often implemented to ensure that other nations can't intimidate them with their nuclear arsenals. It's unpleasant, but at this time there are not many other options. I believe that's part of the reason for the so-called "Star Wars" program(s), as much as I question their usefulness.
More importantly, you question the ethics of the opposition to this research. You're brushing off their concerns by saying, "give them legal rights and a social security card". The concern is that when you start to muddy up the distinctions between human and animal, it's less clear what sort of things are ethical. One wouldn't remove a healthy human's heart without their consent. If a sheep is part or mostly human, is it ok to remove their heart for transplant? That is an ethical question. Once it becomes ok to remove a quasi-human sheep's heart, how far a leap is it to remove a human's heart?
That's totally disregarding the question of whether we're justified in doing these sorts of things to non-human animals capable of suffering anyway.
I agree with some of your sentiment overall, and I think this sort of research can benefit humanity tremendously, but I just wanted to point these things out. I think it's unfair to characterize objections as being due to just "grossout factor(s)".
Slashdot Mirror
I had a similar experience (also circa 2003), and have to agree. Minor UI quibbles notwithstanding, back then OS X seemed to do exactly what desktop Linux should have been doing. OS X might be starting to show its age a little now, but it still holds up. That said, I was a big fan of Window Maker and Afterstep, which later endeared me to OS X.
Granted, people could always trip over your cable without any fault of your own, but at that rate, anyone could always come over and spill stuff on your laptop as well. Moot point.
By that logic, why bother with a seat belt when someone could always shoot me in the face?
http://www.timesunion.com/multimedia/video/TUvideo.asp?title=Preserving+history&vidid=96943677001&bccapt=Freeing+Thomas+Edison's+voice.+(Paul+Grondahl+%2F+Times+Union)
That's just not realistic. In addition to the reasons given in the other replies, there is a long-standing Firefox bug which swaps the contents of iframes under some circumstances. It happens with iframed ads frequently.
You can -- it's just inconvenient.
Actually, it's not necessarily using document.write() which is causing the problem. The problem is that most browsers will not move on until the script has been loaded and run, because of things like document.write(). My point is that not using document.write() won't fix the problem.
Using javascript to create script nodes can get around this problem, but only if the script you're loading doesn't have (for example) document.write(). So it's useless for ads as they are currently done.
I've actually tried overriding document.write(), and got it working fairly smoothly in FF. Not in IE, of course.
Or, if you're going to go the route of ringtones, make them really annoying ringtones, like I do.
Achy Breaky Heart. Hold On. Islands in the Stream.
I could go on.
if we take the reverse case, particles being incapable of free will would seem to imply that we oursleves don't have free will.
A gas tank is incapable of getting you down the street, therefore your car is incapable of getting you down the street?
Fallacy of Composition
An arbitrary minimum age is probably unfair, but it's much less prone to abuse than an I.Q. test (or something similar).
That doesn't mean that religion does correctly answer those questions, whether it tries to or not. Regardless, science certainly can inform the question of "why", as well as inform ethical dilemmas. The "what" and "how" are arguably essential for understanding "why". Just because it can't give 100% solid answers to certain questions doesn't mean that it isn't immensely useful and informative.
Wow, no, I couldn't disagree more.
While arguments can be made over what the best FF game is, FF VII was, as far as I know, the first console RPG to become popular with the non-indoor kids.* The first FF game I played was FF II/IV, and I've played pretty much every one since, but calling FF VII unimportant is silly.
Now, if you're arguing that no FF game should be on this top-ten list, I might agree.
* Sorry -- bad "Wet Hot American Summer" reference.
More to the point, I'm not sure people realize just how easy it is to contract HPV. Not only that, but there really aren't any tests for males. It usually shows no symptoms, though I think that certain types result in genital warts.
Sex isn't even necessary to contract it. A large chunk of the adult population has it and doesn't know it. I could have it, for all I know. But it causes cervical cancer.
Not sure...
What about b? By the letter, it seems to deny at least some people the use of ad-blocking software. Or maybe it just says that users can't "use the service to employ" ad-blocking. What's that mean? You can't link to it? Talk about it?
The first one (a) seems reasonable to me. B should at least be made more clear.
Wow, kids. Maybe I've been out of the Linux game too long.
What?
I ran Debian for years until way back when (2002? 2003?) and I only worried about compiling my own programs.
Either this is totally nuts or I completely missed something. Don't mind me.
I fear my reaction -- "Of course they could only analyze white wines." makes me a snob.
Not that I drink much wine anyway. That there is the crazy sauce.
Shouldn't these cafes just place somewhat generous limits on how many hours per day a person can spend in them? 6 hours seems like more than enough. Besides, I imagine that after a day or so, the body odor would drive some customers away. As for these places being dark and poorly ventilated, wouldn't it make sense to at least ventilate the place? All that smoke and crappy air must surely cut into the life span of the computers. And oh yeah, into the life spans of the customers, too.
Really. That is exactly the point. Any time someone pulls the "you're being a snob about the language" argument, this is the best and most reasonable answer.
The real meaning of the term is obscure, but that is no excuse for allowing people to misuse the term while trying to talk fancy.
Ok, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't eat chicken mcnuggets. ;)
That aside, while I see the validity and importance of most of your points, I think you're setting up a bit of a strawman argument here. Nuclear weapons programs are often implemented to ensure that other nations can't intimidate them with their nuclear arsenals. It's unpleasant, but at this time there are not many other options. I believe that's part of the reason for the so-called "Star Wars" program(s), as much as I question their usefulness.
More importantly, you question the ethics of the opposition to this research. You're brushing off their concerns by saying, "give them legal rights and a social security card". The concern is that when you start to muddy up the distinctions between human and animal, it's less clear what sort of things are ethical. One wouldn't remove a healthy human's heart without their consent. If a sheep is part or mostly human, is it ok to remove their heart for transplant? That is an ethical question. Once it becomes ok to remove a quasi-human sheep's heart, how far a leap is it to remove a human's heart?
That's totally disregarding the question of whether we're justified in doing these sorts of things to non-human animals capable of suffering anyway.
I agree with some of your sentiment overall, and I think this sort of research can benefit humanity tremendously, but I just wanted to point these things out. I think it's unfair to characterize objections as being due to just "grossout factor(s)".
I'm guessing that they offered some sort of service or something that sort of made up for their basic HTML.
Kids.
The second rule of Fat Club is that you DON'T TALK ABOUT FAT CLUB.
Good job. Yay math.
I know I laughed. You should have been modded funny.
And the second rule? ... (wait for it) ...
Ah. You're right. Forgot about that. Thanks for clearing that up.
Wait. You want them to license their browser under the GPL and have the default page be a major competitor?
You're being silly. Seriously.