Lets see, would I rather keep the money I currently have, and give a bit of money to a private person via non-tax funds, or would I rather give away a lot more money to the government via taxes. I think the answer is clear.
With nuclear the problem isn't just the environment, it also requires a ton of people manning it. A wind farm can basically generate electricity with just a bit of maintenance. On the other hand, not only does someone have to run the nuclear power plant but you have to have guards, security, etc. With tons of initial funds. With wind energy, you only need to get some dirt cheap land, make a smaller investment and a handful of people could run a small to medium sized wind farm.
Thats because its not going to be released till 2010 so the source code is going to be available later this year because right now its an in-house project.
Either the alt text isn't descriptive enough, or it ends up being much more of an annoyance then the ad itself was. Plus, I'm not sure if Flash can have alt text in the traditional sense.
Seems to be working just fine for Firefox. I have my Firefox browser set up to ask me whenever a site wants to set a cookie. I may say yes, but at least then I'm aware of the tracking. Cookies from advertisers' sites get the middle-finger treatment.
But this I'm assuming would make that be the default (because all browsers I know of allow you to do that) which is quite annoying. Or would silently block tracking cookies.
No. Because that leads to a state-run economy. In case you haven't noticed, every single business takes advantage of the stupidity of the masses. If you don't believe me, why do you think most companies spend a fortune in marketing? If you don't want to be tracked, block the hosts who you think are trying to track you. Hosts files are available on most platforms and only take one line to redirect the tracker back to localhost. This is common information.
Now I suppose you'll tell me that since everyone should ensure that they can defend themselves, they should not create an organization of defense specialists tasked with securing the defense of the society.
Really, government was designed for this sole purpose.
These principles are: every ad should explain itself, users should be able to see data collected about them, browsers should help enforce user choices about tracking, and some information (medical and financial) is simply too sensitive to track.
This fails in many aspects. Every ad should explain itself? How are you going to do that on something that takes up 1/6th of a normal computer screen. If you click it for more info, that kinda kills the entire point of the ad to begin with. Users should be able to see the data collected about them? Oh no theres no potential for abuse for this one. Theres no way this can be used to create a very good phishing attack especially if you have physical access to the computer. As for browsers helping enforcing user choices, how do you do that? Have a box where you check "block tracking cookies?" I'm sure theres no potential for abuse for that either. Theres no way that MS or another company will "conveniently" "mislabel" legitimate cookies as tracking cookies. Plus, this can very well lead to a ton of censorship.
...But still, 14 deaths could be easily caused by one or two accidents. For example, a bus or van could have collided with a truck easily giving you 8 deaths or more. Now this may or may not be the case, but 14 of anything is too low to really say anything definite.
It depends though what you mean by "protected". For example, I consider myself "protected" when no identifiable information that can be used to contact me, save for what is needed or I put in, is available. For example, while my IP can be used to trace me, its somewhat of a necessary evil as sites need to know where to send the information I request. I really don't mind "tracking" cookies or automated targeted advertising so long as it is first-party (like Google ads on Gmail). There are a few things that I believe should not be divulged on the internet without me putting it in first (save for lookups of stuff) such as my full name, SSN, Phone Number, Credit Card numbers, etc.
...Yet why would many of the followers of Christ before that time go to their deaths believing it if it were a lie? I mean, if you helped lead a lie about a resurrection would you die because of it? Or would you simply shut up when people threatened you? Yet there is no evidence that any of them did that. Why would Paul write so strongly about the resurrection even in prison? Heck, why would Paul leave his life of luxury as a Jewish leader stoning Christians if he didn't experience something supernatural?
Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.
What major discrepancies? Yes, there have been a few changes over the years by different translators, typos, etc. But I don't think any of them could be considered major. There are many different ways to translate things from any language. And there weren't any copiers back when the first books first came out. Yes, we can't pretty much be guaranteed that Paul's letters that are in the bible differ slightly from those Paul himself wrote. However, the message is kept constant. If you question the bible with several old sources, you would have to put the same scrutiny in a lot of other historical texts to make sure they haven't been manipulated through the ages where we have a whole lot less evidence than with the bible.
With several additonal books that aren't in the current versions one has to wonder why the "words of god" Would be left out.
...Because they contain contradictions compared to the other books? And how do you mean that they have been left out? Any person who has had any type of Christian training for anything high ranking has studied the books. Just because they aren't in everyone's Wal-Mart bibles doesn't mean that they aren't studied, just that most Christians and the early church doubted that they came from God.
....Because its trivial to use a macro to gain combos on monsters? For example if all you needed to do is do the "great laser of death combo" that you need to do skill 2 then 3 seconds later press skill 1 then 5 seconds later click skill 3 and defend. While that isn't going to work for bating a live person, on monster attacks this would be trivial to do and reduce your idea of "skill" down to pressing a button, waiting and pressing another button when the monster had died.
Not necessarily though, there are a lot of people who understand (American) football. However, not everyone is going to make it to the NFL. I'm sure there are some people who simply can't play football well even though they know everything about the game, perhaps even more than the actual players, yet simply is not good at football.
The goal of MMORPGs are to make money. Because of that they need to reward those who have kept paying their fees and keep buying the expansion packs. As long as the subscription and expansion pack models stick around, you will see that the only methods that get used are those that reward play time with the best characters. Really, Blizzard wants you to have a better character if you are a person terrible at WoW but have been playing for the past 3 years, then the person who is amazing at RPGs and has only been playing for ~3 months.
Thats really a small number though that could depend on multiple variables. How do we know that the same amount of cars passed through it? For all we know there could have been a road that was under construction that people use now. Also did the road get any more improvements? What about weather? There would be a big difference if last year there were lots of storms. Etc. Plus, for all we know, most of those 14 deaths could have happened with one or two cars. Its really too small of an amount of deaths to say with any certainty if they are working.
The problem is, there are two different definitions of "stable" one is, the application doesn't crash or have lots of downtime, the other is the application doesn't change. Gmail was stable by the first and most common definition, however I don't think Google imagined Gmail was stable by the second definition. However, a few years later, it became clear that Gmail was more or less stable by both definitions.
The desktop application market never vanished even after web apps became popular, so why assume that plugins and applets will not be worth fighting for?
...Because desktop applications have some real strengths where Flash/Silverlight have none? For example, I can't exactly work on a web application when the internet is down. On the other hand, Flash seems to be enjoying hogging CPU cycles and crashing browsers, plus ActionScript isn't much easier to use than JavaScript/HTML/CSS. About the only "strength" Flash has is that it is visually based (its easy for an artist to pick up). There is not a single advantage that Flash or Silverlight really have if HTML, JavaScript and CSS can make application-like things in the browser? Flash and Silverlight aren't any faster, easier, more accessible, etc.
Tell me of this mythical device that has A) a captive touchscreen B) A decent mobile browser good enough for light-medium browsing C) Thousands of free apps D) A decent enough camera E) is GSM F) Has wi-fi G) Has a large selection of decent games H) costs under $300 under contract I) Is avalible now in the USA and J) has a provider with decent enough 3G coverage.
The only GSM carrier in the US with decent enough 3G coverage would be AT&T and I don't see them having any Android handsets. And even then the Android marketplace is lacking compared to Apples especially in the games category.
Re:Don't need to jailbreak for wallpaper/ring tone
on
iPhone 3GS Finally Hacked
·
· Score: 4, Informative
How? Yes, you can set your wallpaper for the "Slide to unlock" screen, but for the screen where your apps are? No, I know of no way to change that short of jailbreaking.
And Shakespeare didn't sell a single book in his lifetime. Shakespeare's main work was simply writing plays, and really, the vast majority of them were simply adaptations of older or popular works into play form. And really, Shakespeare wasn't anything special, the only reason why we have his works is because the Queen really liked his works. Really Shakespeare was nothing more than Stephanie Meyer (author of the Twilight series) of the late 1500s, early 1600s.
A) It costs a couple of hundred dollars more than the competition.
Back in 2001? I don't think so. There were no commonly available 5 GB devices in the iPods form factor back in 2001. Today, yes, 2001? No.
B) It ripped off the UI from the competition with the exception of the buttons on the case
Not really, the entire UI was basically based off the click wheel which wasn't really used on anything else back in 2001. If you have evidence feel free to show me, but I can't remember (and a quick Google search turned up no results) of any other player having a similar UI back in 2001.
C) The iPod never had as many features as the competition did, you're probably thinking of attachments. D) The competition wasn't crap, I've used the competition for years, and I've never had to send it back for a costly battery replacement.
About the only other digital audio player that came close back in 2001 to the iPod would be the Personal Jukebox and even then it used a larger HD making the entire device itself larger.
...No, the iPod became dominant because it was A) affordable B) had a decent enough UI once you got used to it C) had enough features and D) the competition was crap. Sure, today you can find better MP3 players than the iPod if all you want to do is listen to music, but back when the first iPod came out, it was the smallest player with the highest capacity and attractive design. And now the iPod continues its dominance via the applications on the iPod touch/iPhone plus all the DRM'd music others have bought and don't want to spend $100 reconverting it and prefer to instead pay $75 more to upgrade their player to the latest iPod.
...Then chances are you aren't a decent enough writer and you will just add to the pile of crap which are most books. Seriously, unless you are writing a technical manual of some sort (then usually you have a company paying you and give up all rights to the book in the first place) and won't write for any other reason other than to make a profit, your book will be crap. I don't know of a single really good author who writes primarily for profit. Sure, there are some really good authors who write and make a profit, but most have some other drive to write, especially for fiction writers. If you won't publish it, fine. I'm sure the world will be better off.
It depends though. For some things, yes, there is no point in me playing my 360 games on my laptop rather than on my console if I'm just in a different room. However, if I can use a netbook (rather than a $2000 15 pound gaming notebook) paired with in-flight wi-fi and play my 360 games on the airplane, it might be worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets see, would I rather keep the money I currently have, and give a bit of money to a private person via non-tax funds, or would I rather give away a lot more money to the government via taxes. I think the answer is clear.
With nuclear the problem isn't just the environment, it also requires a ton of people manning it. A wind farm can basically generate electricity with just a bit of maintenance. On the other hand, not only does someone have to run the nuclear power plant but you have to have guards, security, etc. With tons of initial funds. With wind energy, you only need to get some dirt cheap land, make a smaller investment and a handful of people could run a small to medium sized wind farm.
I'm sure he was banking on a bit of taxpayer funds and cutting deals with the electric company to get that done. My guess is they voted him down.
Thats because its not going to be released till 2010 so the source code is going to be available later this year because right now its an in-house project.
Alt text?
Either the alt text isn't descriptive enough, or it ends up being much more of an annoyance then the ad itself was. Plus, I'm not sure if Flash can have alt text in the traditional sense.
Seems to be working just fine for Firefox. I have my Firefox browser set up to ask me whenever a site wants to set a cookie. I may say yes, but at least then I'm aware of the tracking. Cookies from advertisers' sites get the middle-finger treatment.
But this I'm assuming would make that be the default (because all browsers I know of allow you to do that) which is quite annoying. Or would silently block tracking cookies.
Now I suppose you'll tell me that since everyone should ensure that they can defend themselves, they should not create an organization of defense specialists tasked with securing the defense of the society.
Really, government was designed for this sole purpose.
These principles are: every ad should explain itself, users should be able to see data collected about them, browsers should help enforce user choices about tracking, and some information (medical and financial) is simply too sensitive to track.
This fails in many aspects. Every ad should explain itself? How are you going to do that on something that takes up 1/6th of a normal computer screen. If you click it for more info, that kinda kills the entire point of the ad to begin with. Users should be able to see the data collected about them? Oh no theres no potential for abuse for this one. Theres no way this can be used to create a very good phishing attack especially if you have physical access to the computer. As for browsers helping enforcing user choices, how do you do that? Have a box where you check "block tracking cookies?" I'm sure theres no potential for abuse for that either. Theres no way that MS or another company will "conveniently" "mislabel" legitimate cookies as tracking cookies. Plus, this can very well lead to a ton of censorship.
...But still, 14 deaths could be easily caused by one or two accidents. For example, a bus or van could have collided with a truck easily giving you 8 deaths or more. Now this may or may not be the case, but 14 of anything is too low to really say anything definite.
It depends though what you mean by "protected". For example, I consider myself "protected" when no identifiable information that can be used to contact me, save for what is needed or I put in, is available. For example, while my IP can be used to trace me, its somewhat of a necessary evil as sites need to know where to send the information I request. I really don't mind "tracking" cookies or automated targeted advertising so long as it is first-party (like Google ads on Gmail). There are a few things that I believe should not be divulged on the internet without me putting it in first (save for lookups of stuff) such as my full name, SSN, Phone Number, Credit Card numbers, etc.
...Yet why would many of the followers of Christ before that time go to their deaths believing it if it were a lie? I mean, if you helped lead a lie about a resurrection would you die because of it? Or would you simply shut up when people threatened you? Yet there is no evidence that any of them did that. Why would Paul write so strongly about the resurrection even in prison? Heck, why would Paul leave his life of luxury as a Jewish leader stoning Christians if he didn't experience something supernatural?
Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.
What major discrepancies? Yes, there have been a few changes over the years by different translators, typos, etc. But I don't think any of them could be considered major. There are many different ways to translate things from any language. And there weren't any copiers back when the first books first came out. Yes, we can't pretty much be guaranteed that Paul's letters that are in the bible differ slightly from those Paul himself wrote. However, the message is kept constant. If you question the bible with several old sources, you would have to put the same scrutiny in a lot of other historical texts to make sure they haven't been manipulated through the ages where we have a whole lot less evidence than with the bible.
With several additonal books that aren't in the current versions one has to wonder why the "words of god" Would be left out.
....Because its trivial to use a macro to gain combos on monsters? For example if all you needed to do is do the "great laser of death combo" that you need to do skill 2 then 3 seconds later press skill 1 then 5 seconds later click skill 3 and defend. While that isn't going to work for bating a live person, on monster attacks this would be trivial to do and reduce your idea of "skill" down to pressing a button, waiting and pressing another button when the monster had died.
Not necessarily though, there are a lot of people who understand (American) football. However, not everyone is going to make it to the NFL. I'm sure there are some people who simply can't play football well even though they know everything about the game, perhaps even more than the actual players, yet simply is not good at football.
The goal of MMORPGs are to make money. Because of that they need to reward those who have kept paying their fees and keep buying the expansion packs. As long as the subscription and expansion pack models stick around, you will see that the only methods that get used are those that reward play time with the best characters. Really, Blizzard wants you to have a better character if you are a person terrible at WoW but have been playing for the past 3 years, then the person who is amazing at RPGs and has only been playing for ~3 months.
Thats really a small number though that could depend on multiple variables. How do we know that the same amount of cars passed through it? For all we know there could have been a road that was under construction that people use now. Also did the road get any more improvements? What about weather? There would be a big difference if last year there were lots of storms. Etc. Plus, for all we know, most of those 14 deaths could have happened with one or two cars. Its really too small of an amount of deaths to say with any certainty if they are working.
The problem is, there are two different definitions of "stable" one is, the application doesn't crash or have lots of downtime, the other is the application doesn't change. Gmail was stable by the first and most common definition, however I don't think Google imagined Gmail was stable by the second definition. However, a few years later, it became clear that Gmail was more or less stable by both definitions.
The desktop application market never vanished even after web apps became popular, so why assume that plugins and applets will not be worth fighting for?
Tell me of this mythical device that has A) a captive touchscreen B) A decent mobile browser good enough for light-medium browsing C) Thousands of free apps D) A decent enough camera E) is GSM F) Has wi-fi G) Has a large selection of decent games H) costs under $300 under contract I) Is avalible now in the USA and J) has a provider with decent enough 3G coverage.
The only GSM carrier in the US with decent enough 3G coverage would be AT&T and I don't see them having any Android handsets. And even then the Android marketplace is lacking compared to Apples especially in the games category.
How? Yes, you can set your wallpaper for the "Slide to unlock" screen, but for the screen where your apps are? No, I know of no way to change that short of jailbreaking.
In case you didn't know, the Nomad was huge. About the size of a portable CD player, a far cry from the (at the time) tiny iPod.
And Shakespeare didn't sell a single book in his lifetime. Shakespeare's main work was simply writing plays, and really, the vast majority of them were simply adaptations of older or popular works into play form. And really, Shakespeare wasn't anything special, the only reason why we have his works is because the Queen really liked his works. Really Shakespeare was nothing more than Stephanie Meyer (author of the Twilight series) of the late 1500s, early 1600s.
A) It costs a couple of hundred dollars more than the competition.
Back in 2001? I don't think so. There were no commonly available 5 GB devices in the iPods form factor back in 2001. Today, yes, 2001? No.
B) It ripped off the UI from the competition with the exception of the buttons on the case
Not really, the entire UI was basically based off the click wheel which wasn't really used on anything else back in 2001. If you have evidence feel free to show me, but I can't remember (and a quick Google search turned up no results) of any other player having a similar UI back in 2001.
C) The iPod never had as many features as the competition did, you're probably thinking of attachments. D) The competition wasn't crap, I've used the competition for years, and I've never had to send it back for a costly battery replacement.
About the only other digital audio player that came close back in 2001 to the iPod would be the Personal Jukebox and even then it used a larger HD making the entire device itself larger.
...No, the iPod became dominant because it was A) affordable B) had a decent enough UI once you got used to it C) had enough features and D) the competition was crap. Sure, today you can find better MP3 players than the iPod if all you want to do is listen to music, but back when the first iPod came out, it was the smallest player with the highest capacity and attractive design. And now the iPod continues its dominance via the applications on the iPod touch/iPhone plus all the DRM'd music others have bought and don't want to spend $100 reconverting it and prefer to instead pay $75 more to upgrade their player to the latest iPod.
...Then chances are you aren't a decent enough writer and you will just add to the pile of crap which are most books. Seriously, unless you are writing a technical manual of some sort (then usually you have a company paying you and give up all rights to the book in the first place) and won't write for any other reason other than to make a profit, your book will be crap. I don't know of a single really good author who writes primarily for profit. Sure, there are some really good authors who write and make a profit, but most have some other drive to write, especially for fiction writers. If you won't publish it, fine. I'm sure the world will be better off.
It depends though. For some things, yes, there is no point in me playing my 360 games on my laptop rather than on my console if I'm just in a different room. However, if I can use a netbook (rather than a $2000 15 pound gaming notebook) paired with in-flight wi-fi and play my 360 games on the airplane, it might be worth it.