Just because people are running a bunch of simulations on climate change doesn't mean the results are useful. If people were running a bunch of simulations on the existence of dragons and fairies, I would hardly expect reasoning people to use that as evidence that they're real.
Jobs, from factory jobs to computer jobs are automated out of existence. Jobs also disappear when profit rates fall and capital investment falls (that's cyclical though). Supposedly jobs automated out of existence magically reappear as new jobs paying the same or higher wage. Keynes didn't think so, and despite the rhetoric, the US government and "business community" doesn't think so either.
If these jobs don't reappear, then why has unemployment stayed basically the same throughout the entire industrial revolution? I would guess that 90% of the jobs that were done in 1800 have been automated out of existence, so why isn't 90% of the workforce unemployed?
Never in US history has a president tried to limit the rights of people. But in came GW Bush.
Did you miss class the day they talked about how Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus? What about the internment of people with Japanese ancestry by Roosevelt? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples as well.
It would seem to be a bit presumptuous to tell someone else that they don't understand their religion. Their religion is just that: their religion. They do not misunderstand it: they define it.
Militant creationists call themselves "Christian", even though the basic tenets of Christianity are faith in God (not proof) and tolerance. There are plenty of non-militant creationists, and I have no problem with them, but the militant ones are wrong in their affiliation, naming, or whatever.
Additionally, there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong.
I never said they weren't wrong, just that there's no point. From a scientist's point of view, you are simply arguing science against someone's fantasies. Why would you work so hard to dispel someone's fantasy land just because it's wrong?
Personally, I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set by those who feel that nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming.
Even the ones that need proof so badly are acting on faith, and you can't disprove someone's faith. If you're trying to get them to change their minds, this is the wrong approach.
Both sides in this Evolution v Creationism flamefest have it totally wrong.
The creationists are wrong because they misunderstand their own religion. The key factor in religion is faith. It is not necessary to prove that God exists. In fact, that's missing the entire point. A true religious person will take the existence of God on faith, and will neither need nor desire to prove His existence.
The evolutionists are wrong because there is no reason to try to prove that creationists are wrong. Doing all of this work just to show that somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life seems a bit strange.
I'm an expat in France and I just voted absentee for the first time in this election. (It's the first time because I was in the US for the last one.) I got what appeared to be exactly the same ballot as everybody else gets, which had the election for president, house and senate seats, state legislature seats, various positions for the city, and even a referendum. It's possible they won't count the others, but none of the material they sent indicated this, so I doubt it. This is in Wisconsin, and other states may be different.
Because slashdot is filled with idiots who think they know everything about programming, even though the largest project they've ever done is a 100-line perl script to scrape porn off the web.
Every Java app I've used looks like a bad port from Windows, so I don't know what you're talking about. Do you have an example of a Java app that looks native and is using Java APIs (i.e. not Cocoa-Java)?
The number of users is going to be at least N times lower too. Apps written using cross-platform APIs suck. On the Mac, cross-platform apps look like crappy ports from Windows (which they basically are), and people hate using them. Normally, it's worth the effort to specialize for each platform if you want a significant number of users.
The authentication dialog only appears if it's explicitly requested by an application. If an application tries to access a resource that it doesn't have permission for, it fails just like on any other UNIX. The application can then, if it desires, ask the OS to pop up this authentication dialog. It's actually fairly limited; the process doesn't get changed permissions at all, but it is allowed to run a subprocess as root. Of course there is nothing that prevents a spyware author from making this dialog appear, other than the fact that the API is incredibly convoluted and weird, and using that to gain control of the system.
All in all, I think that this mechanism is a useful mechanism that keeps things fairly secure, although I fear that Mac users are getting too used to simply typing their password into the box whenever it appears without thinking about what's making it show up.
Right underneath that part, in invisible ink, it's written "The above shall not apply to speech that threatens the security of the Homeland." At least, that's the only explanation I can think of.
That is, compare paper ballots with electronic ones, and then those to exit polls. If those Diabolical... err Diebold voting machines differ from normal ballots by more than a few fractions of a percent, wouldn't that indicate some sort of foul play?
Not really. It's entirely possible that the people who are most likely to vote electronically tend to be Xians, and those who vote absentee tend to be Yians, so the percentages would differ without any foul play.
iTMS only allows you to download a purchased song once. After that, you are responsible for keeping that file safe. You don't purchase the right to re-download on demand, and nothing you try will change that. Your stuff is gone.
It's quite relevant, because it means that Kerry's Yea vote contains no information. It says nothing about Kerry as a person, because it does nothing to distinguish him from anybody else in the Senate.
That contains plenty of information. The fact that everybody in the Senate voted for the DMCA (and almost everybody voted for Patriot) leads us to the obvious conclusion that most of the Senate consists of a bunch of shitheads. Since Kerry voted "yes", we can conclude that he is also a shithead.
"He's no worse than all the other Senators" is damning with incredibly faint praise.
On Mac OS X, dynamic memory has a granularity of 16 bytes. That means that if your linked list node is only 8 bytes (4 bytes data, 4 bytes pointer) then it will get a 16-byte allocation anyway, and you'll waste the extra space. Using 16 bytes per node won't hurt at all. Allocation overhead makes the standard linked list a fairly wasteful way to store data anyway.
Re:The whole one-button mouse thing has to go...
on
Jef Raskin On The Mac
·
· Score: 2, Informative
what about the overwhelming majority of users who have no trouble at all using more than one button?
We tend to have lots of cheap USB mice with multiple buttons lying around the house, so not including one in the box is not a big deal.
Most of the effort in getting into space is not in getting up, but in getting enough speed. You have to be going several km/sec to stay in low earth orbit. The Earth spins pretty fast, about 0.4km/sec at the equator, and getting less and less as you get farther away, finally resulting in zero speed at the poles. Every bit of speed you gain from the Earth's spin is a bit of speed you don't have to provide with your rocket. This means you need less fuel, can carry greater payloads, etc.
Whats crazy is that how the MPEG4 standards work is open and understood, yet implementations are patent encumbered.
Why is this "crazy"? The entire point of the patent system is that you are required to disclose your methods in exchange for a limited monopoly on their use. A patented standard is necessarily going to be open for all to see, simply not for all to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Which MiG is it that can reach an altitude of over 100km, again?
Playing devil's advocate:
Just because people are running a bunch of simulations on climate change doesn't mean the results are useful. If people were running a bunch of simulations on the existence of dragons and fairies, I would hardly expect reasoning people to use that as evidence that they're real.
Jobs, from factory jobs to computer jobs are automated out of existence. Jobs also disappear when profit rates fall and capital investment falls (that's cyclical though). Supposedly jobs automated out of existence magically reappear as new jobs paying the same or higher wage. Keynes didn't think so, and despite the rhetoric, the US government and "business community" doesn't think so either.
If these jobs don't reappear, then why has unemployment stayed basically the same throughout the entire industrial revolution? I would guess that 90% of the jobs that were done in 1800 have been automated out of existence, so why isn't 90% of the workforce unemployed?
Just because it worked for 100 years does not necessarily mean it will work for 200.
But in this case it has worked for 6000 years. Given that, it seems that 6100 years is not a huge stretch.
Why vote for a lesser evil?
Never in US history has a president tried to limit the rights of people. But in came GW Bush.
Did you miss class the day they talked about how Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus? What about the internment of people with Japanese ancestry by Roosevelt? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples as well.
It would seem to be a bit presumptuous to tell someone else that they don't understand their religion. Their religion is just that: their religion. They do not misunderstand it: they define it.
Militant creationists call themselves "Christian", even though the basic tenets of Christianity are faith in God (not proof) and tolerance. There are plenty of non-militant creationists, and I have no problem with them, but the militant ones are wrong in their affiliation, naming, or whatever.
Additionally, there is a reason to show that creationists are wrong: they are wrong.
I never said they weren't wrong, just that there's no point. From a scientist's point of view, you are simply arguing science against someone's fantasies. Why would you work so hard to dispel someone's fantasy land just because it's wrong?
Personally, I don't feel comfortable in allowing national policy to be set by those who feel that nature exists solely for the exploitation of humans and should be used up before the imminent second coming.
Even the ones that need proof so badly are acting on faith, and you can't disprove someone's faith. If you're trying to get them to change their minds, this is the wrong approach.
Both sides in this Evolution v Creationism flamefest have it totally wrong.
The creationists are wrong because they misunderstand their own religion. The key factor in religion is faith. It is not necessary to prove that God exists. In fact, that's missing the entire point. A true religious person will take the existence of God on faith, and will neither need nor desire to prove His existence.
The evolutionists are wrong because there is no reason to try to prove that creationists are wrong. Doing all of this work just to show that somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life seems a bit strange.
I'm an expat in France and I just voted absentee for the first time in this election. (It's the first time because I was in the US for the last one.) I got what appeared to be exactly the same ballot as everybody else gets, which had the election for president, house and senate seats, state legislature seats, various positions for the city, and even a referendum. It's possible they won't count the others, but none of the material they sent indicated this, so I doubt it. This is in Wisconsin, and other states may be different.
Let me guess: your largest project was a 100-line perl script for scraping porn off the web?
Because slashdot is filled with idiots who think they know everything about programming, even though the largest project they've ever done is a 100-line perl script to scrape porn off the web.
Every Java app I've used looks like a bad port from Windows, so I don't know what you're talking about. Do you have an example of a Java app that looks native and is using Java APIs (i.e. not Cocoa-Java)?
The number of users is going to be at least N times lower too. Apps written using cross-platform APIs suck. On the Mac, cross-platform apps look like crappy ports from Windows (which they basically are), and people hate using them. Normally, it's worth the effort to specialize for each platform if you want a significant number of users.
Please explain how a stateful firewall could block BitTorrent-over-SSL while allowing HTTP-over-SSL to continue normally.
It's not quite as initially described.
The authentication dialog only appears if it's explicitly requested by an application. If an application tries to access a resource that it doesn't have permission for, it fails just like on any other UNIX. The application can then, if it desires, ask the OS to pop up this authentication dialog. It's actually fairly limited; the process doesn't get changed permissions at all, but it is allowed to run a subprocess as root. Of course there is nothing that prevents a spyware author from making this dialog appear, other than the fact that the API is incredibly convoluted and weird, and using that to gain control of the system.
All in all, I think that this mechanism is a useful mechanism that keeps things fairly secure, although I fear that Mac users are getting too used to simply typing their password into the box whenever it appears without thinking about what's making it show up.
Right underneath that part, in invisible ink, it's written "The above shall not apply to speech that threatens the security of the Homeland." At least, that's the only explanation I can think of.
That is, compare paper ballots with electronic ones, and then those to exit polls. If those Diabolical... err Diebold voting machines differ from normal ballots by more than a few fractions of a percent, wouldn't that indicate some sort of foul play?
Not really. It's entirely possible that the people who are most likely to vote electronically tend to be Xians, and those who vote absentee tend to be Yians, so the percentages would differ without any foul play.
"It's not a bug, it's a feature."
iTMS only allows you to download a purchased song once. After that, you are responsible for keeping that file safe. You don't purchase the right to re-download on demand, and nothing you try will change that. Your stuff is gone.
It's quite relevant, because it means that Kerry's Yea vote contains no information. It says nothing about Kerry as a person, because it does nothing to distinguish him from anybody else in the Senate.
That contains plenty of information. The fact that everybody in the Senate voted for the DMCA (and almost everybody voted for Patriot) leads us to the obvious conclusion that most of the Senate consists of a bunch of shitheads. Since Kerry voted "yes", we can conclude that he is also a shithead.
"He's no worse than all the other Senators" is damning with incredibly faint praise.
Yes. Go watch Fight Club.
On Mac OS X, dynamic memory has a granularity of 16 bytes. That means that if your linked list node is only 8 bytes (4 bytes data, 4 bytes pointer) then it will get a 16-byte allocation anyway, and you'll waste the extra space. Using 16 bytes per node won't hurt at all. Allocation overhead makes the standard linked list a fairly wasteful way to store data anyway.
what about the overwhelming majority of users who have no trouble at all using more than one button?
We tend to have lots of cheap USB mice with multiple buttons lying around the house, so not including one in the box is not a big deal.
Most of the effort in getting into space is not in getting up, but in getting enough speed. You have to be going several km/sec to stay in low earth orbit. The Earth spins pretty fast, about 0.4km/sec at the equator, and getting less and less as you get farther away, finally resulting in zero speed at the poles. Every bit of speed you gain from the Earth's spin is a bit of speed you don't have to provide with your rocket. This means you need less fuel, can carry greater payloads, etc.
Whats crazy is that how the MPEG4 standards work is open and understood, yet implementations are patent encumbered.
Why is this "crazy"? The entire point of the patent system is that you are required to disclose your methods in exchange for a limited monopoly on their use. A patented standard is necessarily going to be open for all to see, simply not for all to use.
Go watch Fight Club.