Dude, you lost me... what's an "embedded S-W?" Can the internet really go insane?
Yes, specialization is good and necessary, as noted in many other replies here, but there should at least be some reasonable baseline understanding, shouldn't there? I try at least to gain a decent layman's understanding of the hings that affects me directly (power grid, water distribution, food production, fuel production, communications, nutrition, rudimentary psychology, small-scale finance, house construction, linguistics, auto care if applicable and maintenance/diagnosis/repair of the common household gadget) and the things I vote on (politics, macroeconomics, health care, education, municipal infrastructure). Then I've got special interests that I wouldn't expect anyone with a different job/hobby/psychosis to know much about.
The thing I find disturbing is that so much of that baseline seems to be missing for some folks.
Does whoever asked that question know absolutely nothing about how "beaming" works?
Yep. They also know nothing about routers, packets, fiber or anything that would explain how those videos get from YouTube to their iphones. My wife tells me that most people are living in a world where all sorts of neat stuff happens magically, and when it stops happening the only real solution is to call some company (or, if they're lucky, a sufficiently tech-savvy friend) that can make that magic start working again.
Depends on the page. The web's a funky mix of documents (shouldn't intercept anything, presentation separate from content, blah blah...), applications (all your browser are belong to us!) and documents that should have been applications, or vice versa. And things that aren't really either. "Usability" only has meaning in context.
Thalidomide is the logical result of consumer apathy (which itself was a consequence of unreasonable trust in government), not anarcho-capitalism.
If you don't want a flipper-baby, pay attention to what the doctor tells you and do your homework. If that's too much for you, if you really want someone to make sure that you can wander through life and pay no attention and still get "acceptable" results - be prepared to pay and pay and pay some more for that. And no, you can't use my money (or at least, you should be ashamed of trying).
So, um, how exactly do you decide whether a phenomenon is supernatural, so you don't waste any time investigating it?
I'm all for eliminating bias in scientific investigations, but we humans just aren't wired up right to pull it off.
That's without even getting into the part where, for a sizable minority (I hope it's a minority) of the species, anything more complex than a wheeled cart might as well work by magic and their lives wouldn't be any different if it did.
No, no, you can't use negative connotations anymore, either. You'll have to go either technical (Anti-Closure Insurgents) or give up entirely and call them HTML Freedom Fighters.
Interesting... I learned it pretty much the other way around - that LBG's were acting strange by (more or less) choice, but T's were actually crosswired. Given a clear pathology, transgenderism was a bit easier to understand and thus accept. These days, I actually don't care at all what what anyone else is doing unless they try to do it to me.
But, speaking to your original point:
Now it appears that there are many (at least 25, probably more, sorry can't find my source) sets of biological/neural characteristics that are "usually" determined by gender. Due to genetic noise or other determinants we don't understand, any number of these can end up being "mismatched" with the others in a given individual. Such combinations are rare enough that the folks on the obvious ends of the spectrum (such as L's, G's, B's, or T's) become an identifiable subgroup of "didn't get the normal gender programming". As usual, it appears that the labels are broad and sloppy simplifications of pretty complex interactions of groups of traits.
At least, that's the latest theory I've heard, and it makes more sense to me than any of the others.
First, this has nothing to do with natural selection.
Actually you even show a clear ignorance for natural selection because you want to kill the ones that actually adapt and have become better hunters and can thus provide more food. I.e. the basis for evolution under the 'natural selection'... What you are doing is simply cutting down the healthy ones and leaving the rest. While naturally speaking you should be hunting the sick, weak and old (like their natural predators do).
The GP was specifically talking about artificial selection for a specific desired result - basically, de-facto breeding of shy crocs. This is interesting, though likely illegal and unworkable.
You, on the other hand, having staked out the intellectual high ground by leveling accusations of ignorance, proceed with an only vaguely coherent rant about emulating the natural circumstances under which crocs get killed, add some sweeping statements and bold (even foolhardy) assertions about the mechanics of "natural" selection - in a world where we have taken over the top slot in pretty much every food chain, and are working on creating some new ones from scratch. This, after having completely missed the point of the post you are replying to.
Yeah. Right. Java. Except that every single goddamned handset on the market has different bugs in the class library. Some of them even break the semantics for Applet. Not to mention the ones (Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, etc...) that require you to link in their own "special" classes to get access to sounds that don't suck or the camera or the vibration function.
The implementations are all over the map. I'd *much* rather have everyone running on C++ - at least there the entire toolchain understands that I'm using a preprocessor to compile things a bit differently for each of the 100-odd handsets. Java just gives up and gets impossible to use once that write-once, run-anywhere model is blown.
scumbag == lawyer that uses broken legislation to extort money from businesses, or businesses that employ said lawyers and tactics.
A good example of this is this guy who's forced some small businesses in California to shut down completely because they can't afford to make their buildings wheelchair accessible. It's big money because CA law allows punitive and compensatory damages to be tacked on to the injunctive relief.
In my previous example, the scumbag is the guy who figures out that he can use the ADA to terminate the authors' right to be compensated for any non-universally-accessible form of their work and simultaneously extract huge damages from Amazon because they don't give free speech-enabled Kindles to anyone who clicks the "blind" box at checkout.
I'm sure some scumbag will figure out how the ADA applies to this. That is, if it hasn't been done already and is just waiting for someone with deep enough pockets to trip over it.
Why should anyone except the people getting married, and in a religious context the person performing the marriage, care what sex the participants are?
Arguments over "morality" and folks that want to impose their world-view on others aside, the American government decided a long time ago to subsidize behavior that is believed to lead to a more stable, successful society. So marriage (among many other things like home ownership and entrepreneurial activity) gets a few different kinds of tax break - income, inheritance, automatic legal standing, etc.
Nothing prevents gays from getting married (religiously) in any state in the union right now. But the government won't give any of the associated tax breaks because (a) there was no provision for it originally and (b) apparently, nobody has successfully demonstrated that gay marriage provides enough additional stability or growth potential to the society that it is worthwhile for your (and my) taxes to subsidize the practice.
This is an economic issue with moral dimensions, not the other way 'round.
I wouldn't be too sure. This is just the latest in a long string of research findings that point toward an astounding degree of neural plasticity in adults. At this point, if I had to guess, I'd say that wiring one sensory nerve from the general area back to a single neuron would end up restoring a noticeable degree of "feeling".
'Cause you know, neurons that fire together wire together.
Not so fast. There are exceptions to the use of exceptions.
It depends on what you're programming for. While this discussion seems to be BigCorp app-centric, there are other coding situations where exceptions are not available. Like, say, anything in a.DLL or.so that might be called by something other than C++.
Or when writing for next-gen game systems, where your code is running on three different architectures and the tech lead tells you that exceptions are going to be disabled for one of 'em.
The parent's assertions, "maybe not Free Software," "properties of a EULA" and "you can't modify it as you see fit" contribute to an environment of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
The AGPL3 may well not be suited to anything other than vanilla distribution in a for-profit corporate environment, but that would have more to do with your not wanting to fix things because others might profit from your fixes, rather than your inability to fix things because the license legally prevents you from coming within 100 yards of the source code.
I think you missed my counterpoint. The GP stated, in part:
but if Texas was forced to remove the major party candidates from the ballot, it would be like saying that any state, at a whim, could determine a national nomination deadline by setting a ballot deadline.
Last I heard, political parties were required to adhere to state law. He's arguing, instead, that states should be required to conform to convention schedules - implying that the "major parties" are actually the font from which election law springs. While this is true in practice, it's not yet enshrined in our Constitution.
What possible legal grounds could a political party - a private organization - have for forcing a state to do anything? Political parties have no constitutional standing; they're just clubs. Clubs of people who have very effectively fooled you, at least, into thinking that somehow the country would fall apart if they weren't around to tell you how to think.
States can do whatever they like to choose their electors, and put whatever constraints they feel like on the process, SO LONG AS those constraints are clear and unprejudicial. If every private club that wants their candidate on the ballot has to meet the same vaguely reasonable criteria, you don't have a damned thing to say about it unless you live in that state.
At least, that's how it is now. I'll bet just about anything that if Barr did somehow prevail here, the ultimate result would actually be another small death for states' rights, one way or another.
So with this, I could get even more spam alongside my search results. I've got the feeling that "Ext3nd your pinis at foobar.com" would be a pretty ubiquitous comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. And, of course, someone else said exactly what I was trying to say without all the irrelevancies.
Dude, you lost me... what's an "embedded S-W?" Can the internet really go insane?
Yes, specialization is good and necessary, as noted in many other replies here, but there should at least be some reasonable baseline understanding, shouldn't there? I try at least to gain a decent layman's understanding of the hings that affects me directly (power grid, water distribution, food production, fuel production, communications, nutrition, rudimentary psychology, small-scale finance, house construction, linguistics, auto care if applicable and maintenance/diagnosis/repair of the common household gadget) and the things I vote on (politics, macroeconomics, health care, education, municipal infrastructure). Then I've got special interests that I wouldn't expect anyone with a different job/hobby/psychosis to know much about.
The thing I find disturbing is that so much of that baseline seems to be missing for some folks.
Does whoever asked that question know absolutely nothing about how "beaming" works?
Yep. They also know nothing about routers, packets, fiber or anything that would explain how those videos get from YouTube to their iphones. My wife tells me that most people are living in a world where all sorts of neat stuff happens magically, and when it stops happening the only real solution is to call some company (or, if they're lucky, a sufficiently tech-savvy friend) that can make that magic start working again.
This is fairly disturbing.
I keep getting 404's. Am I doing something wrong?
Depends on the page. The web's a funky mix of documents (shouldn't intercept anything, presentation separate from content, blah blah...), applications (all your browser are belong to us!) and documents that should have been applications, or vice versa. And things that aren't really either. "Usability" only has meaning in context.
Thalidomide is the logical result of consumer apathy (which itself was a consequence of unreasonable trust in government), not anarcho-capitalism.
If you don't want a flipper-baby, pay attention to what the doctor tells you and do your homework. If that's too much for you, if you really want someone to make sure that you can wander through life and pay no attention and still get "acceptable" results - be prepared to pay and pay and pay some more for that. And no, you can't use my money (or at least, you should be ashamed of trying).
So, um, how exactly do you decide whether a phenomenon is supernatural, so you don't waste any time investigating it?
I'm all for eliminating bias in scientific investigations, but we humans just aren't wired up right to pull it off.
That's without even getting into the part where, for a sizable minority (I hope it's a minority) of the species, anything more complex than a wheeled cart might as well work by magic and their lives wouldn't be any different if it did.
No, no, you can't use negative connotations anymore, either. You'll have to go either technical (Anti-Closure Insurgents) or give up entirely and call them HTML Freedom Fighters.
when T is much more socially unacceptable
Interesting... I learned it pretty much the other way around - that LBG's were acting strange by (more or less) choice, but T's were actually crosswired. Given a clear pathology, transgenderism was a bit easier to understand and thus accept. These days, I actually don't care at all what what anyone else is doing unless they try to do it to me.
But, speaking to your original point:
Now it appears that there are many (at least 25, probably more, sorry can't find my source) sets of biological/neural characteristics that are "usually" determined by gender. Due to genetic noise or other determinants we don't understand, any number of these can end up being "mismatched" with the others in a given individual. Such combinations are rare enough that the folks on the obvious ends of the spectrum (such as L's, G's, B's, or T's) become an identifiable subgroup of "didn't get the normal gender programming". As usual, it appears that the labels are broad and sloppy simplifications of pretty complex interactions of groups of traits.
At least, that's the latest theory I've heard, and it makes more sense to me than any of the others.
...and his robe and wizard hat...
First, this has nothing to do with natural selection.
Actually you even show a clear ignorance for natural selection because you want to kill the ones that actually adapt and have become better hunters and can thus provide more food. ... What you are doing is simply cutting down the healthy ones and leaving the rest.
I.e. the basis for evolution under the 'natural selection'
While naturally speaking you should be hunting the sick, weak and old (like their natural predators do).
The GP was specifically talking about artificial selection for a specific desired result - basically, de-facto breeding of shy crocs. This is interesting, though likely illegal and unworkable.
You, on the other hand, having staked out the intellectual high ground by leveling accusations of ignorance, proceed with an only vaguely coherent rant about emulating the natural circumstances under which crocs get killed, add some sweeping statements and bold (even foolhardy) assertions about the mechanics of "natural" selection - in a world where we have taken over the top slot in pretty much every food chain, and are working on creating some new ones from scratch. This, after having completely missed the point of the post you are replying to.
Meh.
Yeah. Right. Java. Except that every single goddamned handset on the market has different bugs in the class library. Some of them even break the semantics for Applet. Not to mention the ones (Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, etc...) that require you to link in their own "special" classes to get access to sounds that don't suck or the camera or the vibration function.
The implementations are all over the map. I'd *much* rather have everyone running on C++ - at least there the entire toolchain understands that I'm using a preprocessor to compile things a bit differently for each of the 100-odd handsets. Java just gives up and gets impossible to use once that write-once, run-anywhere model is blown.
scumbag == lawyer that uses broken legislation to extort money from businesses, or businesses that employ said lawyers and tactics.
A good example of this is this guy who's forced some small businesses in California to shut down completely because they can't afford to make their buildings wheelchair accessible. It's big money because CA law allows punitive and compensatory damages to be tacked on to the injunctive relief.
In my previous example, the scumbag is the guy who figures out that he can use the ADA to terminate the authors' right to be compensated for any non-universally-accessible form of their work and simultaneously extract huge damages from Amazon because they don't give free speech-enabled Kindles to anyone who clicks the "blind" box at checkout.
I'm sure some scumbag will figure out how the ADA applies to this. That is, if it hasn't been done already and is just waiting for someone with deep enough pockets to trip over it.
But who gets to define "directly targeted?" The offended party, the offending party, or the magic objectivity fairy?
Why should anyone except the people getting married, and in a religious context the person performing the marriage, care what sex the participants are?
Arguments over "morality" and folks that want to impose their world-view on others aside, the American government decided a long time ago to subsidize behavior that is believed to lead to a more stable, successful society. So marriage (among many other things like home ownership and entrepreneurial activity) gets a few different kinds of tax break - income, inheritance, automatic legal standing, etc.
Nothing prevents gays from getting married (religiously) in any state in the union right now. But the government won't give any of the associated tax breaks because (a) there was no provision for it originally and (b) apparently, nobody has successfully demonstrated that gay marriage provides enough additional stability or growth potential to the society that it is worthwhile for your (and my) taxes to subsidize the practice.
This is an economic issue with moral dimensions, not the other way 'round.
I wouldn't be too sure. This is just the latest in a long string of research findings that point toward an astounding degree of neural plasticity in adults. At this point, if I had to guess, I'd say that wiring one sensory nerve from the general area back to a single neuron would end up restoring a noticeable degree of "feeling".
'Cause you know, neurons that fire together wire together.
Pipes. Lots and lots of pipes. Kind of like the internet (except those ones are called tubes IIRC).
Not so fast. There are exceptions to the use of exceptions.
It depends on what you're programming for. While this discussion seems to be BigCorp app-centric, there are other coding situations where exceptions are not available. Like, say, anything in a .DLL or .so that might be called by something other than C++.
Or when writing for next-gen game systems, where your code is running on three different architectures and the tech lead tells you that exceptions are going to be disabled for one of 'em.
Lots of informative stuff
Oooo! FUD kryptonite!
The parent's assertions, "maybe not Free Software," "properties of a EULA" and "you can't modify it as you see fit" contribute to an environment of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
The AGPL3 may well not be suited to anything other than vanilla distribution in a for-profit corporate environment, but that would have more to do with your not wanting to fix things because others might profit from your fixes, rather than your inability to fix things because the license legally prevents you from coming within 100 yards of the source code.
Hey, look! FUD!
I think you missed my counterpoint. The GP stated, in part:
but if Texas was forced to remove the major party candidates from the ballot, it would be like saying that any state, at a whim, could determine a national nomination deadline by setting a ballot deadline.
Last I heard, political parties were required to adhere to state law. He's arguing, instead, that states should be required to conform to convention schedules - implying that the "major parties" are actually the font from which election law springs. While this is true in practice, it's not yet enshrined in our Constitution.
What possible legal grounds could a political party - a private organization - have for forcing a state to do anything? Political parties have no constitutional standing; they're just clubs. Clubs of people who have very effectively fooled you, at least, into thinking that somehow the country would fall apart if they weren't around to tell you how to think.
States can do whatever they like to choose their electors, and put whatever constraints they feel like on the process, SO LONG AS those constraints are clear and unprejudicial. If every private club that wants their candidate on the ballot has to meet the same vaguely reasonable criteria, you don't have a damned thing to say about it unless you live in that state.
At least, that's how it is now. I'll bet just about anything that if Barr did somehow prevail here, the ultimate result would actually be another small death for states' rights, one way or another.
So with this, I could get even more spam alongside my search results. I've got the feeling that "Ext3nd your pinis at foobar.com" would be a pretty ubiquitous comment.