You got that right! I removed 'NoScript'. Every, and I mean every, stinking website I went to had most of their content dependent on scripts.
NoScript wouldn't be so bad if it included social whitelisting functionality. Perhaps you could propose it as a feature request. I personally would prefer to subscribe to a whitelisting server that covers most of the websites I frequently visit and leaves me the opportunity to recommend sites that should be whitelisted.
Nowadays, it might be a perfectly good marketing strategy to *almost* get your advertisement aired during Super Bowl commercial time. Then, work with your PR department to get some articles run about how your commercial was rejected. Next upload your advertisement to YouTube and your own website, and allow social media to bring people to your website.
IMO, this is a much more cost-effective strategy toward advertising during the Super Bowl. You might not be ensured that 97 million people, but your company will not have to spend as much money and the viewers will actually be interested in seeing your commercial. Many people just watch the Super Bowl for the commercials, anyway.
That should be the motto of our government. If the government sets a deadline, they should hold to it, instead of wasting time and tax dollars by pushing back the finish line. What's wrong with making a decision and sticking to it, if there is no quantified risk to continue?
Just ensure that the vouchers are getting out to the people who haven't received them already. The people can do the rest. If they procrastinate, then let them reap the benefits of procrastination.
The new hype is certainly Rich Internet Applications, but one thing not addressed in this article is whether or not the new non-AJAX technologies used in many RIA apps (Flex/Silverlight/JavaFX) could or should be used to develop a hybrid solution that leverages both the client machine's resources, as well as server resources, when necessary.
Perhaps RIA applications could first assess the capabilities of the host machine, as well as its current load and provide a distributed solution that leverages a reasonable amount of client CPU cycles. It seems to me that any of the above technologies could do this. Typically, this approach is used only for synchronizing, but I don't see why this couldn't occur in real-time.
Why not just enhance the "Connect to the Internet" wizard that is provided in Windows to include a screen to select the browser you would like to install? Short of an apt-get option, Windows could then require the typical user to use this wizard to select their preferred browser.
And if the EU is really concerned, have that new screen pull up a webpage hosted by a neutral source to provide users with the browser options.
It is easy in.NET to write an application that contains a restricted browser to serve this kind of purpose.
If you're not trolling I would be honestly interested in your explanation, because I'm totally baffled by your line of reasoning.
Actually, I'm not trolling. My line of reasoning is that schools are very strict in their policies regarding bring inappropriate material to school. When I was in high school, it was made clear that bringing nude pictures of any kind was against school policy and would result in disciplinary action. So, morals aside, I'm saying that the "clearly wrong" is the action that infringes on school policy - namely, the possession of objectionable materials. If you get caught, you get busted.
Interestingly enough, many schools can suspend students for pictures they have on websites like Facebook; for example, users posting pictures of themselves at drinking parties.
I would understand if the punishment for the girls for such activity was suspension or (with much deliberation) expulsion from the school, but criminal charges are ridiculous. The activity was clearly wrong, but the intent was not to distribute pornography to be disseminated by the public. They should only be liable for the private transmission of nude images, to be determined by the school board. It would be a different case if they had created a website or uploaded their pictures to be distributed. (I Am Not A Lawyer)
In my opinion, again, the boys should only be punished by the school board, if they were not attempting to distribute the images. I would understand law enforcement being involved if the boys were distributing the images without the consent of the girls, as, in my opinion, that would be breaching the grounds of pornography.
The solution is easy! Don't recognize marriages at all. Recognize all pairings between two people as civil unions, regardless of the genders involved.
In reality, marriage under the law and marriage in a religious institution are different things with the same name.
As a Christian, I agree with your recommendations. What's wrong with the government issuing civil unions, and churches issuing out "marriages"? So if two people wanted to get married, they would have a religious ceremony at their church and establish a "covenant before God" and then would register for a civil union by their local justice of the peace. The "marriage" wouldn't be legally binding, but rather, religiously binding. The civil union would be the item seen as legitimate by the government and under that system, unions are treated equal.
Maybe then the people that want to get "married" would take it more seriously and quit considering divorce as an option. Nonreligious people would simply opt not to get "married" because they are not placing vows in front of God.
Because the residents don't necessarily do all of their driving in Oregon.
Even if this is the case, I fail to see how this can be implemented via GPS if Oregon is the only state adopting this practice. Assuming that only Oregon residents are taxed only based on their driving within the state, the government would be missing out on taxing non-residents. The only way for this system to be fair would be for all states to adopt this program. Then again, would any other forms of taxation be fair?
Personally, I think the only cost-effective ways to recuperate their taxes would be to raise the gas tax, increase toll booth prices, or add additional toll booths. At least with the gas tax, the government provides the environmental incentive to be more fuel efficient.
So you are saying that you accept the scientific conclusion that all life on Earth has a common ancestor that can be traced back some three billion years ago with no deity involved?
So why follow a religion?
Without going into too much detail, since this is getting off-topic, persons of this camp would say something to the tune of: "There is an ultimate creator, but the exact description of the methodology of how it came into place is beyond the scope of the creation story in Genesis." The intention of the creation poem would then be to explain, using literary elements of allegory and metaphor that, for example:
there is a higher power that created things,
there is order to the world, because the creator called it "good"
(3) the creator cares about the creation, which is evidenced through the personification of God
At the same time, by admitting that the creation story is a poem, we would not discredit much of evolutionary theory. Seven days of creation would then not be taken literally, but rather, would be interpreted as 7 being a number that signifies completeness to the poem's audience and a "day" being a span of time that has a start and a finish.
There is not one single science paper stating that this happens. Nobody says "Fish become horses". This is a typical creationist (read: Christian) misstatement and misunderstanding. It shows you really don't know what evolution means or says.
Please don't pidgeonhole all Christians under the Creationist camp. There are many Christians that are not diametrically opposed to evolutionary theory. Rather, we see the creation story in Genesis to be allegorical and poetic, instead of trying to place it under textbook scrutiny.
And then will come the dating ads that have infiltrated MySpace and MSN. Nothing will help a teenage geek work harder on a test than an airbrushed model that's out of his league.
When I studied Neural Networks in my undergrad program, we read Neural Network Design by Hagan, Bemuth, and Deale (ISBN 0971732108). At that time, we had several Physics students in the class as well, with minimal CS backgrounds. The Physics students did a great job of keeping up to speed with the concepts, since they had all of the mathematical background behind the theory.
If you want to go much further in some of the more recent theory behind pattern recognition, I could recommend Kernel Methods for Pattern Analysis by Shawe-Taylor and Christianini (ISBN 0521813972). This book is very challenging, but greatly describes the theory.
Sounds remarkably similar to the Infinite Monkey Theorem. In that scenario, we would have a multiverse that would consist of an uncountably infinite number of universes that do not support life and a (countably?) infinite number of universes that do. At any rate, it would be remarkably impressive to find only one other universe that supports life.
Your claim about vouchers makes several assumptions. Here's a few.
Parents know what school is best for their children.
Parents spend the time to research a school's credibility.
Parents can afford transportation to take their children wherever they want.
If these were always the case, then great. Students might have a shot at getting a good education. However, what if an irrational number of parents want to fit their child into an already overcrowded school that's 25 miles away, because that school in particular specializes in special needs, honors classes, amazing sports programs, and a top notch band program, when there's a reasonably decent school around the corner? Would they be placed on a waiting list? How would the students be transported to school? What if the parents can't afford the gasoline required to take the student there? What if they can't even afford to pack the kid's lunch?
Welcome to the inner city scene. Most families are unable to afford the basic needs for their children that we take for granted. Many live in subsidized housing and rely on welfare to sustain their families. Many parents have enough difficulty figuring out how to file their taxes (which is hard enough for middle class citizens), let alone figure out everything involved in a voucher program. Where's the quality education for their children, if parents are unable to provide the opportunities to them?
If already overpopulated schools are going to receive an influx of students that want their programs, they'll be too crowded to be effective. Other schools will be too sparse to provide quality education and a suite of possibilities for the students to choose from. It might work in the private sector, but I don't see it playing nicely in the public sector, especially amongst the lower income families.
I'm concerned that a voucher system will increase the socioeconomic gap we already face. At any rate, NCLB needs to be amended, because it's not providing a quality education for anyone.
This is why it is important to vote in the first place. Yes, the Electoral College needs to be amended to better represent our voters, but one of our greatest problems is voter turnout altogether. Our nationwide percentage of voter turnout is a disgrace. While some might think that we're just filtering out uneducated people, or people who don't know anything about politics, these issues still impact them - greatly. Had voter participation been greater in the 2000 election, for example, the results might have been different.
It's actually a wide-spanning issue, with lots of arguments by environmental scientists. Farming has its pluses and minuses -- for example deforestation and the modification of a geological area to make it suitable for farming.
I'll take address this question from one angle: energy conversion. The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically states that energy cannot be completely transferred from one source to another. In the food chain world, this has an impact on how much energy we consume.
Producers (organisms that exist at the most basic level of the food chain, such as corn), yield the most efficient form of energy. First-order consumers, such as cattle, are less energy efficient. They consume grains and plants, but also expend a lot of energy through respiration. Based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when we eat cattle, we are consuming more to receive the same amount of energy as if we directly consumed producers. Cattle waste a lot of energy, just by sitting there and breathing.
This article, about energy flow through ecosystems, explains things a lot better than I am. (It's been several years since I studied this topic.)
Slashdot Mirror
You got that right! I removed 'NoScript'. Every, and I mean every, stinking website I went to had most of their content dependent on scripts.
NoScript wouldn't be so bad if it included social whitelisting functionality. Perhaps you could propose it as a feature request. I personally would prefer to subscribe to a whitelisting server that covers most of the websites I frequently visit and leaves me the opportunity to recommend sites that should be whitelisted.
Nowadays, it might be a perfectly good marketing strategy to *almost* get your advertisement aired during Super Bowl commercial time. Then, work with your PR department to get some articles run about how your commercial was rejected. Next upload your advertisement to YouTube and your own website, and allow social media to bring people to your website.
IMO, this is a much more cost-effective strategy toward advertising during the Super Bowl. You might not be ensured that 97 million people, but your company will not have to spend as much money and the viewers will actually be interested in seeing your commercial. Many people just watch the Super Bowl for the commercials, anyway.
Sorry, doesn't look like /. supports the LaTeX plugin.
Yes, pat your selves on the back. America (9,161,923 SQ KM) has over taken Germany (357,021 SQ KM). Good work.
Exactly. We're #1!
US: .00273 MW/m^2;]
[;\frac{25000MW}{9161923m^2} \approx
Germany: .06722 MW/m^2;]
[;\frac{24000MW}{357021m^2} \approx
(Just wanted to test out my TeX FireFox plugin on /.)
That should be the motto of our government. If the government sets a deadline, they should hold to it, instead of wasting time and tax dollars by pushing back the finish line. What's wrong with making a decision and sticking to it, if there is no quantified risk to continue?
Just ensure that the vouchers are getting out to the people who haven't received them already. The people can do the rest. If they procrastinate, then let them reap the benefits of procrastination.
Apologies if I sound troll.
The new hype is certainly Rich Internet Applications, but one thing not addressed in this article is whether or not the new non-AJAX technologies used in many RIA apps (Flex/Silverlight/JavaFX) could or should be used to develop a hybrid solution that leverages both the client machine's resources, as well as server resources, when necessary.
Perhaps RIA applications could first assess the capabilities of the host machine, as well as its current load and provide a distributed solution that leverages a reasonable amount of client CPU cycles. It seems to me that any of the above technologies could do this. Typically, this approach is used only for synchronizing, but I don't see why this couldn't occur in real-time.
I don't need some scientists to tell me that. I watched all of the Rocky movies.
Sounds like the public game server should be doing some hash-checking on client installations.
Why not just enhance the "Connect to the Internet" wizard that is provided in Windows to include a screen to select the browser you would like to install? Short of an apt-get option, Windows could then require the typical user to use this wizard to select their preferred browser.
And if the EU is really concerned, have that new screen pull up a webpage hosted by a neutral source to provide users with the browser options.
It is easy in .NET to write an application that contains a restricted browser to serve this kind of purpose.
If you're not trolling I would be honestly interested in your explanation, because I'm totally baffled by your line of reasoning.
Actually, I'm not trolling. My line of reasoning is that schools are very strict in their policies regarding bring inappropriate material to school. When I was in high school, it was made clear that bringing nude pictures of any kind was against school policy and would result in disciplinary action. So, morals aside, I'm saying that the "clearly wrong" is the action that infringes on school policy - namely, the possession of objectionable materials. If you get caught, you get busted.
Interestingly enough, many schools can suspend students for pictures they have on websites like Facebook; for example, users posting pictures of themselves at drinking parties.
I would understand if the punishment for the girls for such activity was suspension or (with much deliberation) expulsion from the school, but criminal charges are ridiculous. The activity was clearly wrong, but the intent was not to distribute pornography to be disseminated by the public. They should only be liable for the private transmission of nude images, to be determined by the school board. It would be a different case if they had created a website or uploaded their pictures to be distributed. (I Am Not A Lawyer)
In my opinion, again, the boys should only be punished by the school board, if they were not attempting to distribute the images. I would understand law enforcement being involved if the boys were distributing the images without the consent of the girls, as, in my opinion, that would be breaching the grounds of pornography.
The solution is easy! Don't recognize marriages at all. Recognize all pairings between two people as civil unions, regardless of the genders involved.
In reality, marriage under the law and marriage in a religious institution are different things with the same name.
As a Christian, I agree with your recommendations. What's wrong with the government issuing civil unions, and churches issuing out "marriages"? So if two people wanted to get married, they would have a religious ceremony at their church and establish a "covenant before God" and then would register for a civil union by their local justice of the peace. The "marriage" wouldn't be legally binding, but rather, religiously binding. The civil union would be the item seen as legitimate by the government and under that system, unions are treated equal.
Maybe then the people that want to get "married" would take it more seriously and quit considering divorce as an option. Nonreligious people would simply opt not to get "married" because they are not placing vows in front of God.
Because the residents don't necessarily do all of their driving in Oregon.
Even if this is the case, I fail to see how this can be implemented via GPS if Oregon is the only state adopting this practice. Assuming that only Oregon residents are taxed only based on their driving within the state, the government would be missing out on taxing non-residents. The only way for this system to be fair would be for all states to adopt this program. Then again, would any other forms of taxation be fair?
Personally, I think the only cost-effective ways to recuperate their taxes would be to raise the gas tax, increase toll booth prices, or add additional toll booths. At least with the gas tax, the government provides the environmental incentive to be more fuel efficient.
So you are saying that you accept the scientific conclusion that all life on Earth has a common ancestor that can be traced back some three billion years ago with no deity involved?
So why follow a religion?
Without going into too much detail, since this is getting off-topic, persons of this camp would say something to the tune of: "There is an ultimate creator, but the exact description of the methodology of how it came into place is beyond the scope of the creation story in Genesis." The intention of the creation poem would then be to explain, using literary elements of allegory and metaphor that, for example:
At the same time, by admitting that the creation story is a poem, we would not discredit much of evolutionary theory. Seven days of creation would then not be taken literally, but rather, would be interpreted as 7 being a number that signifies completeness to the poem's audience and a "day" being a span of time that has a start and a finish.
There is not one single science paper stating that this happens. Nobody says "Fish become horses". This is a typical creationist (read: Christian) misstatement and misunderstanding. It shows you really don't know what evolution means or says.
Please don't pidgeonhole all Christians under the Creationist camp. There are many Christians that are not diametrically opposed to evolutionary theory. Rather, we see the creation story in Genesis to be allegorical and poetic, instead of trying to place it under textbook scrutiny.
Additionally, the system could cache the shipping rates for previously entered zip codes and used the cached rates as a fail-safe mechanism.
And then will come the dating ads that have infiltrated MySpace and MSN. Nothing will help a teenage geek work harder on a test than an airbrushed model that's out of his league.
When I studied Neural Networks in my undergrad program, we read Neural Network Design by Hagan, Bemuth, and Deale (ISBN 0971732108). At that time, we had several Physics students in the class as well, with minimal CS backgrounds. The Physics students did a great job of keeping up to speed with the concepts, since they had all of the mathematical background behind the theory.
If you want to go much further in some of the more recent theory behind pattern recognition, I could recommend Kernel Methods for Pattern Analysis by Shawe-Taylor and Christianini (ISBN 0521813972). This book is very challenging, but greatly describes the theory.
Oprah, it is for now on.
Sounds remarkably similar to the Infinite Monkey Theorem. In that scenario, we would have a multiverse that would consist of an uncountably infinite number of universes that do not support life and a (countably?) infinite number of universes that do. At any rate, it would be remarkably impressive to find only one other universe that supports life.
Hear hear. I own a pet Cockapoo. I've seen everything from a Yorkipoo, a Golden Doodle, and a Jackipoo. Why not a t-rexipoo.
Better yet, we could create a jackalope.
I was thinking more along the lines of the state of our industry after this economic crisis. We'll all be reduced to po'grammers.
Excuse me, sir, but do you have a coin for this po'grammer? All I've got is these rags and 255 lines of bytecode.
Your claim about vouchers makes several assumptions. Here's a few.
If these were always the case, then great. Students might have a shot at getting a good education. However, what if an irrational number of parents want to fit their child into an already overcrowded school that's 25 miles away, because that school in particular specializes in special needs, honors classes, amazing sports programs, and a top notch band program, when there's a reasonably decent school around the corner? Would they be placed on a waiting list? How would the students be transported to school? What if the parents can't afford the gasoline required to take the student there? What if they can't even afford to pack the kid's lunch?
Welcome to the inner city scene. Most families are unable to afford the basic needs for their children that we take for granted. Many live in subsidized housing and rely on welfare to sustain their families. Many parents have enough difficulty figuring out how to file their taxes (which is hard enough for middle class citizens), let alone figure out everything involved in a voucher program. Where's the quality education for their children, if parents are unable to provide the opportunities to them?
If already overpopulated schools are going to receive an influx of students that want their programs, they'll be too crowded to be effective. Other schools will be too sparse to provide quality education and a suite of possibilities for the students to choose from. It might work in the private sector, but I don't see it playing nicely in the public sector, especially amongst the lower income families.
I'm concerned that a voucher system will increase the socioeconomic gap we already face. At any rate, NCLB needs to be amended, because it's not providing a quality education for anyone.
This is why it is important to vote in the first place. Yes, the Electoral College needs to be amended to better represent our voters, but one of our greatest problems is voter turnout altogether. Our nationwide percentage of voter turnout is a disgrace. While some might think that we're just filtering out uneducated people, or people who don't know anything about politics, these issues still impact them - greatly. Had voter participation been greater in the 2000 election, for example, the results might have been different.
It's actually a wide-spanning issue, with lots of arguments by environmental scientists. Farming has its pluses and minuses -- for example deforestation and the modification of a geological area to make it suitable for farming.
I'll take address this question from one angle: energy conversion. The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically states that energy cannot be completely transferred from one source to another. In the food chain world, this has an impact on how much energy we consume.
Producers (organisms that exist at the most basic level of the food chain, such as corn), yield the most efficient form of energy. First-order consumers, such as cattle, are less energy efficient. They consume grains and plants, but also expend a lot of energy through respiration. Based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when we eat cattle, we are consuming more to receive the same amount of energy as if we directly consumed producers. Cattle waste a lot of energy, just by sitting there and breathing.
This article, about energy flow through ecosystems, explains things a lot better than I am. (It's been several years since I studied this topic.)